If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination, would you hope she wins the general election?

[Sparkly]

Poll question: If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination, would you hope she wins the general election?

[ruggerson]

1. God help the people who vote no

I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror.

[Odin2005]

4. The rules say they are supposed to be banned. n/t

[Purveyor]

11. That's why these polls are being conducted, to compile 'the list'...

Yes indeed your votes in these polls are reviewed and evaluated.

[Sparkly]

They are?

Can mods see who voted which way?

[Purveyor]

44. Judge for yourself. See this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1907550

[Sparkly]

51. Wha?

What's that got to do with tallying how people voted in a poll? :shrug:

[Kahuna]

72. Well. I've been waiting a long time to see the admins rein in some

of the crazy crap that's posted here that reflects poorly on this sight. Bravo. :applause:

[niceypoo]

87. Who here would wish for a GOP victory? FREEPERS thats who

Ban em all.

[nvme]

97. poll

the poll is indicative of what can and may happen if Hill gets the nomination. Even in liberal democrat DU she shows up with a heavy drain on democratic voters. She is a well package product. Bright shiney, new and improved, ultra-hip, super-fresh example of what The DLC hopes to sell us. Even in this forum it is almost a foregone conclusion that this is hillary clinton's race to win. Fortunately she has not locked anything yet. 3 months ago it was Obama with his fundraising. I am not a good little German I guess.

[sufrommich]

16. Huh?

[Bicoastal]

12. Ditto, my friend.

Those people would rather spend the next 4-8 years bitching about living under a "Republican Regime" than elect a Democratic President whose views don't coincide with theirs 100% of the time.

Losers.

[Clintonista2]

19. Nono see, Hillary IS a Republican!

:sarcasm:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3609564&mesg_id=3609661

[emilyg]

63. Amen.

[Odin2005]

2. Yes, of fucking course.

Hillary is better then any Puke.

[Sparkly]

7. "of fucking course."

:rofl:

I better make sure Husb doesn't see that phrase -- he'll adopt it.

[trotsky]

3. Absofuckinglutely.

I don't care what your beef is with Hillary, she's 100x better than any 'Puke candidate.

[MadHound]

5. You're making the assumption that people who don't want Hillary

Automatically want a Republican for President. That's not necessarily so.

[Sparkly]

9. Do you mean someone might think a third party could win?

They'd want her to lose, thinking the third party candidate could win?

[MadHound]

23. Well, considering that the majority of people like neither of the parties' potential candidates

There might just be a shot at it. Even though I'm liberal and would stack my Dem creds up against anybody's around here, frankly the only candidate that I feel like voting for is Kucinich. Frankly I think we are in desperate need of a political shake up in this country, a change from the two party/same corporate master system of government.

Remember, the Whigs went the way of the dinosaurs within a four year time span, and that upstart, formerly third party, the Republicans, had their man in office the first time that they ran. You just never know.

[sufrommich]

31. The majority of the people

will vote for either a Democrat or a republican in the general election.I doubt that's going away anytime soon. If there is a strong 3rd party candidate this time around, I pray it's the wacky Dobson/religious right that makes a go of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. The majority like neither party for very different reasons

And so I wouldn't consider that a sign that the rise of a third party is near.

A third party will eventually get major party status one day but it is not going to be any of the current third parties. Also, one of the two major parties will have to collapse and there are no signs of that happening anytime soon.

Also, voters haven't really given Democrats a chance to govern for any significant period of time with a non-hostile congress since Lyndon Johnson was President. I think they're going to have to give them a chance in the post Reagan era before they decide that they are fed up with the two parties.

[Skinner]

33. Except for the fact that here in the real world...

...the only actual alternative to the Democratic candidate with any chance of winning is the Republican candidate.

(Unless we have another Ross Perot-style billionaire third-party candidate with hundreds of millions of dollars of his or her own money to spend on the campaign. Cough, cough, Bloomberg.)

[Sparkly]

39. Oh, perish the thought!!!

:wow:

[MadHound]

41. True that, it's not going to happen in one election cycle

However even the threat of a substantial third party turn out could very well pull the Democratic party to the left. FDR was facing a substantial challenge from the Socialist party during his first re-election bid, so he went out and nicked two planks from their platform, good thing too, otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security or Unemployment insurance.

In addition, party responsiveness to anybody with little money has become non-existent, thus it comes down to the the last thing that people can still use to make their wishes heard, their vote. There is a feeling of disgust and despair in this country over the choice and quality of our candidates, and quite frankly the most popular is none of the above. The 'Pugs all swear they'll keep the war going, and the leading Dems won't promise to bring it to an end. Is that not a sad situation?

As long as the Democrats keep moving to the right, more and more people are either going to stay home or go third party. It is the last protest of an unrepresented group.

[Skinner]

46. That may be so...

...but that's not the poll question. The poll question is whether you would want Hillary Clinton to lose if she were the nominee in 2008.

[MadHound]

49. I wasn't addressing the poll question,

I'm making a prediction of what will happen in our political system if one party or the other doesn't get off the schide and start addressing what the citizens of this country want rather than what corporate America wants. Frankly I would be worried about this if I was in either party, given that Bush's ratings are in the mid twenties, and the Democratically dominated Congress is even lower in the mid teens. Sooner or later somebody's going to take a look at those sorts of numbers and come along and eat both major parties for lunch, and the way the war and this country's going, it will be sooner rather than later. How much patience do you expect people to have when none of the top candidates on either side are able to promise to withdraw from Iraq by 20 frikken' 13?

[RFKJrNews]

68. Exactly

What MadHound said.

[AndyTiedye]

66. Doesn't Work That Way Anymore

However even the threat of a substantial third party turn out could very well pull the Democratic party to the left.

A third party on the left would cause the Democratic party to write off the progressive voters and lurch even further to the right.

[Odin2005]

53. Oh god, Skinner, don't give me nightmares!

3rd party Bloomberg run = We are fucked!

[TreasonousBastard]

67. But Perot didn't win, or...

even come close, did he?

Nader was never more than a boil on the electoral ass, about the same as John Anderson (who I admit I voted for that year, not knowing anything good about Carter at the time) and Henry Wallace, George Wallace, Teddy Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette and others in the past who actually had a chance of winning never managed to cut it.

In addition to TR, Millard Fillmore and Martin van Buren ran on third party tickets after two terms as a major party President. They all lost, but van Buren swung the election to Zachary Taylor.

Nope, third parties just ain't gonna cut it-- they don't have the boots on the ground or the fundraising to mount a serious Presidential cmapaign.

Here's a list of historic third party luminaries, some of whom I really would have liked to see get the job:

http://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html

(and there's some there we're damn lucky didn't get it)

[sufrommich]

73. And none of them had any effect on political platforms

of the respective parties they were supposedly trying to influence. The whole argument that 3rd party runs "send a message" that will magically change a party from the outside is weak. Parties are changed from the inside.

[TwilightZone]

78. Someone on another thread had an interesting point.

The poster noted that many of the people who are claiming that they won't vote for Hillary should she win the nomination are in "safe" states, states that are either solidly red or solidly blue. In that case, the naysayers believe that they can "afford" to not support Hillary, simply because they consider their votes meaningless in the big picture.

Interesting concept, actually, and one I probably wouldn't have thought of. Curiously, after I read that thread, I noted a couple of people who were admitting to that very concept. It was basically, "My vote doesn't matter anyway, so I'm free to do what I want."

There are problems with that, of course. First, the election isn't just about the presidency. We need to make gains at all levels of government, if possible, and staying home and/or actively railing against our nominee aren't going to accomplish that. Second, what exactly is a "safe" state anymore? Prior results can't be trusted to indicate '08 possibilities.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. I live in a state that likely won't go blue but I consider mandates to be important as well

It's not guaranteed that a President who wins with 55% of the popular vote will be better able to govern than one who wins with 51% or even less of the popular vote, but it certainly can help.

Clinton was seen as weak coming into office because he only won a plurality.

So I consider it important to vote Democratic even in safe states to give the new Democratic president more of a mandate or the new Republican President less of a mandate.

[Dawgs]

75. Exactly. If the OP wanted clearer results they would have added...

'No. I hope Hillary AND the Republican both lose in the general.'

[MadMaddie]

6. Ummm....as a Democratic party....as divided as we are

I hope that common sense prevails among everyone....here....If you decide that you want a third party candidate....(Especially if the forecasts are correct....it's up the Democratic party to lose the General election) you will hand the election over the the Neocons again....and this time folks...it's for real...America as we know it will be a thing of History.....we will be the laughing stock of the world...not that we already aren't.

If you are not going to support the person wins the Demoratic nomination....then why are you here at Democratic Underground?
:shrug: :grr:

I will tell you I am in the middle of the road at this point....but when it comes to election day I will vote for our nominee and I will work to pursuade all others to do so.

[tularetom]

8. That's a silly question to ask on Democratric Underground

I'm not the biggest HRC fan in the world but does anybody want four more years of this shit?

Hillary is a bit too corporate for my taste at least the dick will no longer be in charge and things will be one hell of a lot more transparent.

[Sparkly]

14. I know it is.

But I just wanted to see whether "won't support" might extend all the way to "hope she loses." :shrug:

[Purveyor]

15. Thats why it is fun to vote for the most 'outrageous answer' on these worthless polls... eom

[Jim Sagle]

10. Shitcan those sumbitches who voted no.

[...of J.Temperance]

22. Yeah they could at least have the guts to name themselves

Instead of hiding like cowards.

[nevergiveup]

13. She is my least favorite candidate

but if she wins the nomination I would vote for her several times if I could.

[...of J.Temperance]

17. Yes

Of course, 100%.

It's amazing that your question EVEN has to be asked though *sigh*

[IndianaGreen]

18. We can't afford four more years of fascist tyranny

I hope the next President of the United States will take the Presidential Oath of Office seriously and restores the Constitution and the Republic.

Our freedoms are more important than any political ideology or party affiliation.

Published on Sunday, October 14, 2007 by The San Francisco Chronicle

Groups on Left, Right Ask Candidates to Reject Bush’s Wider Powers

by Bob Egelko

President Bush’s drive to expand executive power over surveillance, detention, interrogation and the meaning of new laws has drawn largely ineffectual protests from Congress. But a group of liberals and a handful of prominent conservatives are pressing would-be successors to renounce those powers before they take office.

Both the liberal American Freedom Campaign and the conservative American Freedom Agenda have adopted platforms complaining of administration muscle-flexing on issues ranging from the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Justice Department’s threats to prosecute reporters for espionage.

The liberal group also has asked all presidential candidates to sign a pledge of limited executive authority, reading, “We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and e-mails without court order, and above all we do not give any president unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any president.”

None of the nine Republican candidates has responded. The pledge has been signed by five Democratic hopefuls: Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Sen. Mike Gravel.

The other three Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden and former Sen. John Edwards, have not signed, but issued promises covering roughly the same ground. Letters from all three included renunciations of torture, wiretapping of U.S. citizens without court approval and imprisonment without judicial review.

The conservative campaign has asked candidates of both parties to endorse its detailed 10-point platform. Only one, Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican with libertarian leanings, has signed it, although Edwards has posted the document on one of his campaign Web sites.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/14/4534/

[mikehiggins]

20. I have the same enthusiasm for Hilary as I did for Kerry

that is, not much.

I am, was and always will be, a Clarkista and I consider a Hilary candidacy just another major mistake in the history of our party. This time we might be able to pull out a win, considering how ineffectual and, frankly, stupid the GOPuke candidates are. Hilary, at least, won't wait for the GOPukes to launch an attack before she goes into counter-attack mode. I don't think the puke's will know what hit them.

Its what happens after the election that concerns me. If things don't turn around drastically, what will the point have been? EVERYTHING Bushco has done has to be rolled back. Anything less than that is a blatent sell-out, and everyone on DU knows it.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. I don't see the point

of all these hypothetical Clinton threads, other than to sow dissension.

[ruggerson]

24. I think the people sowing the dissension

are those saying they won't support our eventual nominee. (whomever that may be)

[IndianaGreen]

25. The problem is that not a single vote has been cast in either a caucus or a primary state

I think these polls and threads have the unintended consequences of pissing off people that are supporting other candidates.

As to what happens in November 2008, no one in their right mind would want to see another Republican in the White House. Ron Paul is a libertarian and he ain't gonna win the GOP nomination!

[MonkeyFunk]

29. The nonsense is coming from all sides....

and it's just pointless.

[Sparkly]

34. "no one in their right mind"

and yet...? Look at the poll results. :shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

40. Sometimes people will give an erroneous answer on a poll to skew results

or, as it is probably the case here, because they are fed up with these endless polls.

Speaking of polls in the real world, has anyone in here been polled on their candidate preferences? I haven't, and neither has anyone I know.

Telephone polls don't reach cell phone users (thank GAWD for that), and people with land lines that have Caller ID won't respond to calls from 1-800 numbers or anything that looks like soliciting.

[Sparkly]

42. Hm. Well that doesn't seem right.

Anyway, no I haven't been polled. But if some states are more important and poll-worthy than others, mine isn't that significant.

[IndianaGreen]

47. There are polls about local races in next month's elections

and I haven't been polled.

[Sparkly]

50. I'm sure they only poll a small sample.

Odds are you probably wouldn't.

[Sparkly]

32. Sorry -- really wasn't trying to sow dissention.

Wanted to measure it in a different way.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. I know

not directed at you specifically, just at the many, many posts here recently that try to force people into taking a position now for something they'll decide a year from now.

I fully expect that many here who now say they can't or won't support Clinton in the GE will, in fact, do so if she gets the nomination. These "let's figure out who gets banned now" threads just strike me as unhelpful.

[Skinner]

26. To put it bluntly:

If you consider yourself a progressive and you honestly think Hillary Clinton would make a worse president than any of the Republican contenders, then either you aren't paying attention or you aren't very smart. Or both.

[ruggerson]

27. yep

gracias, senor. :)

[Sparkly]

35. That about sums it up. nt

[Cameron27]

92. Exactly

:toast:

[bigwillq]

28. Yes, she would be the lesser of two evils

I think. I hope. :scared:

[illinoisprogressive]

30. I laugh at these silly threads. I refuse to be bullied. i will not vote for Hillary ever so,

bully away but, i will not cave into such tactics. it will only make me dig in harder. If that means being banned, fine.

[Sparkly]

36. Sure didn't mean to "bully" you...

Wow, I'm 5'3 and weigh 112 lbs -- never thought of myself as a big bully before!

But NO -- I seriously was not trying to bully anybody. (Guess I just don't know my own strength -- heh.)

Edit: You said you won't vote for her, but does that mean you hope she loses? Those are two different questions.

[msongs]

37. as you said so eloquently......

if you can't get what you want you'll take your ball and go home :-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3609564&mesg_id=3609661

Msongs

[LoZoccolo]

43. It is the splinterists who are doing the bullying, not the loyalists.

We might threaten to put you down, but you threaten to drown us, get our utilities cut off, get a bunch of us killed in another war, take away our job, or anything else the Republicans would do to people. And you know it's a threat, otherwise you wouldn't post it.

[...of J.Temperance]

48. Agreed

After the past seven years, I literally cannot believe that this crowd STILL have learned nothing.

WTF? It's so simple, the choice is Hillary if she becomes the party nominee OR the Republican nominee....only ONE of them can win, and I know which one I want to win.

As ever, Third Party spoilers suck ass....if you're a Democrat, you either vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee OR you really shouldn't be calling yourself a Democrat.

[MadHound]

52. And you say this with a straight face?

You who just got a post calling for pre-emptive banning locked? You're calling others bullies:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Do you even recognize the hilarious irony of that?

[LoZoccolo]

80. It wasn't calling for pre-emptive banning.

It was calling for just banning; it is already against the rules to advocate for third-party votes.

[...of J.Temperance]

45. So you'll be HAPPY with ANOTHER Republican President for four years then?

This thread isn't silly, it's YOU that's silly, totally idiotic actually and brazenly SELFISH as well I might add.

Are you actually a Democrat, do you identify as a Democrat? If so, then WHY would you REFUSE to vote for who the Democratic Presidential nominee is?

[CitizenLeft]

71. why does no one ever answer that question?

"So you'll be HAPPY with ANOTHER Republican President for four years then?"

Seriously.

[...of J.Temperance]

77. That's a good question....Yes why don't they answer it?

The facts are quite simple to understand aren't they?

Whoever the Democratic nominee is, and that INCLUDES Hillary, they're going to need every vote they can get and it's preferable for them to win big or win with a healthy margin....as opposed to having another very close election.

So, they'll need every vote and as many votes as possible, and as they say, every vote counts.

If it's Hillary v Guiliani or Hillary v whoever the GOP candidate is....and it comes down to between 2%-3% of the vote that separates them....then yeah, those who militantly say that they're not under ANY circumstances going to vote for Hillary....those people WILL be RESPONSIBLE for helping to put another Republican in the White House for another four years.

They can and WILL deny it, but logical and sensible people KNOW what the truth is and we KNOW what the facts are.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[LoZoccolo]

79. And if their action wouldn't result in that, wouldn't they be willing to explain that too? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

54. Holy shit. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.

You do know that the general election is over a fucking year away? And you want to stir this shit pot now?

[Sparkly]

55. I honestly didn't think it was "stirring a shit pot."

:(

[Goblinmonger]

56. The whole HRC

deal is getting out of control in GDP.

[Sparkly]

57. What's the "HRC deal?"

I thought this question was a no-brainer. :shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

58. Normally I would agree

but the "if you don't support HRC now you should be banned" bullshit is crazy. Maybe you accidently stepped into it, but I find that hard to believe.

[Sparkly]

59. It's not up to me who gets banned.

And I don't care who does or doesn't support her (or anyone else) right NOW.

But I guess "if you don't hope HRC wins if she's the nominee, you're delusional" might work for me.

[Goblinmonger]

61. I'm with you

She is not who I am going to vote for in my primary. But if she wins the nomination, I'm doing all I can to get her elected because she is a shitload better than whomever the assholes put up.

[zulchzulu]

60. I hope I win the lottery too

“In all things, it is better to hope than to despair.”
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

62. i'm torn - though no makes a lot of sense in many ways

namely to stop a corporatist james carville crew take over of the party and the installation of some other mcaulliffe type money man at the dnc. all gains made by the grassroots in '06 are out the window if that happens. look for more harold fords and less jim webbs

on the other hand, giuliani for emperor is pretty damn scary

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. FOR GOODNESS SAKES!!! Let's not lose sight of what a Guiliani or other GOP Presidency would mean!!!

If the election of a genuine progressive in 2012 could repair all the damage done by four more years or a Republican presidency, I could tend to see the point of some. But the defeat of Sen. Clinton would hardly assure that anyway. And the harm done by four more years of a right-wing presidency would not be undone -- no matter who wins in 2012.

However awful some of Sen. Clinton's positions and some of Sen. Clinton's votes have been on Middle East issues it still pales in comparison to the blind Neocons ideologues and shameless war profiteers of a likely Republican presidency. It is terrible that Sen. Clinton voted for Kye/Lieberman. Some of her other votes on Middle East issues are equally awful. But who would be far more likely to actually launch a new catastrophic war in the Middle East? President Clinton or President Giuliani? One of the most credible complaints from across the political spectrum about Sen. Clinton is that she is so political, so slick and so calculated in everything she does. I cannot imagine any calculated politician who thinks five minutes ahead actually launching a trumped up war against Iran. She is just too sophisticated and too political to over look the long term consequences -- This is distinctly a different mindset than the blind racist ideologues like Dan Pipes and Norman Podhoretz who are Giuliani's brains when it comes to Middle East issues. If they cause the mess they openly advocate causing in the Middle East -- the damage will last a thousand years. And this is no exageration.

When it comes to Supreme Court and other federal court appointments. I don't think there can be any doubt but what four more years of hardliner right wing ideologue lifetime appointments will have devastating consequences for us all for generations to come.

When it comes to Sen. Clinton's position on other purely domestic issues. Well she's not Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, but her record really is not all that bad and certainly far more progressive than any Republican. Somewhat better than average for a Democratic Senator.

link: http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=74&y=12

---------

Obviously I am not a supporter of Sen. Clinton's presidential bid. And I will not be an apologist for some of her policies. But let's be realistic.

I don't think anyone can claim that Sen. Clinton would be worse than Bush/Cheney.

a Giuliani Presidency would be far, far, far more dangerous than Bush/Cheney. And the catastrophe caused by four years of a Giuliani Presidency will be permanent and irreparable damage. Make no mistake about it. Imagine the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts after four more years of hardliner right-wing appointments. Imagine even more catastrophic war in the Middle East. Granted Sen. Clinton does not hold the best positions on these issues either. But is it likely that a President Clinton would be anything in the league of a President Giuliani? I don't think so.

Admittedly it is hard to imagine a presidency that could be more disastrous for the world than Bush/Cheney. But Rudy Giuliani leads all other Republicans by significant margins. And in polling of possible general election match-ups he is well within striking distance.

To put some context on just how extreme Giuliani actually is..he just appointed Daniel Pipes -- a racist extremist nut just as far out in his extremism as David Duke is in his particular brand of fanaticism.

some links:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/05/we_420_01.html

From Harpers: Pipes Joins Up With Giuliani by Ken Silverstein

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90001048

"I think it’s fair to say that Pipes is even further out ideologically than Norman Podhoretz, another Giuliani adviser. Readers unfamiliar with Pipes can check out his profile at Wikipedia."

------------

This Article from Huffington Post by Stephen Schlesinger

Giuliani: Worse Than Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/giuliani-worse-than-bush_b_61412.html

"The Republican presidential front runner, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, has just written his foreign policy credo for Foreign Affairs magazine. It is a truly unnerving pronouncement -- even worse than Bush-ism. Not unexpectedly, Mr. Giuliani backs all of the most brazen features of the Bush administration's global agenda. But he tosses in several deeply scary initiatives of his own that George W. never touched."

"He promises to pursue Bush's strategy in Iraq relentlessly to "eliminate the export of terror," and warns that, as in Vietnam, any withdrawal would be a sign of weakness and "an invitation for more war." He does not conceive of, admit to, or even mention the possibility of a region-wide political settlement which even now the Bush Administration is apparently contemplating. In addition, he would "press ahead" with an anti-ballistic missile system -- regardless of its outsized costs or ineffectiveness. And he would, as he says, "pursue the gains made by the USA Patriot Act and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation." Sounds a lot like an embrace of unrestricted presidential power and possibly torture.

For Israel, he now opposes the "creation of another state" in Palestine -- a repudiation of Bush's own stance. On Iran, "should all else fail," he would destroy that nation's nuclear infrastructure -- a mini-Cheney on steroids. More broadly, though, he would ratchet up our public diplomacy, expand the old Cold War radio stations, ditto with Internet networks, and insist that our US ambassadors "clearly advocate for US policies" -- a kind of in-your-face proselytizing of the sort the former mayor practiced so fervently when he ran New York City.

But Mr. Giuliani's most peculiar innovations are with the United Nations and NATO. Predictably, he is anti-UN -- as he was as mayor of NYC. But he goes further and argues that the UN has "proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last fifty years." This is a breathtaking display of incomprehension. Just a reminder: the UN stopped the invasion of South Korea; settled the Suez crisis of 1956; assisted in the ending of the Cuban missile crisis of 1963; ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. It brought peace to conflicts in Guatemala, Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador, Cambodia and helps keep the peace in Cyprus. More recently, it aided Haiti in holding an election and ending violence, pushed the Syrians out of Lebanon, enforced a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon and presently supports a dozen or so other peacekeeping missions.

Now we come to the ex-mayor's most bizarre suggestion -- that NATO be encouraged to act "globally," be reconfigured to confront "significant threats to the international system," and "we should open the organization's membership to any state" -- though it is a European-based body. Is Mr. Giuliani thus proposing that NATO replace the UN as the world's arbiter? And why not? Since the US dominates NATO, this would give Washington a direct means to extend its security purvey over the entire planet. This is a vision consistent with the authoritarian instincts with which Mr. Giuliani governed NYC. Still his retro-policies appear to be out of kilter with the times. He will have a lot of explaining to the American electorate about his foreign policy weltanschauung. It should be an illuminating exercise that may actually remind voters of why the only elected post he has ever risen to is mayor."

-------------

Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars" by Glenn Greenwald

link (by paid subscription but a free 24 hour pass is available):

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/21/giuliani_israel/index.html?source=newsletter

"Plainly, the last thing most Americans want is for the U.S. to expand its involvement in Middle East wars, particularly when doing so is on behalf of the interests not of the U.S., but of another country. Yet here is Giuliani advocating that we do exactly that -- embrace an obviously radical strategy opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans, likely vehemently opposed -- and the silence is deafening."

-------------------

A Giuliani presidency would actually be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney debacle; much more dangerous. What is scary is that many Americans mistakenly believe that Giuliani is a moderate because of his position on some social issues. But make no mistake about it -- a transition from Bush/Cheney to Giuliani would be a transition from out of the frying pan and into the fire. A Giuliani presidency would mean a dark and sinister future for those who strive for peace.

And it could happen ...just check a cross section of polls..he is leading all other Republicans by significant margins..and his chance of winning if nominated cannot be dismissed:

Republican Primary Polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

General Election Polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

It would not be an exaggeration at all to say that electing Giuliani would be like electing David Duke with better p.r. cosmetics:

DNC Condemns Rep. King (top Giuliani adviser) for saying there are too many Mosques in the U.S.

Rep. King is Rudy Giuliani's Homeland Security Adviser

CBS News
DNC Condemns King's Mosque Comments
By Daniel W. Reilly

Sep 19, 2007

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3279950.shtml

"(The Politico) Not long after Politico released its interview with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) , the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, the Democratic National Committee attacked King's comment that "there are too many mosques in this country."

"Congressman King's comments are deplorable and he should apologize immediately," said DNC press secretary Stacie Paxton. "This type of bigoted language has no place in public discourse."

The DNC went one step further, calling on GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani to dump King as his campaign's homeland security adviser."

[CitizenLeft]

70. okay, waaaaaaaay too logical a post...

...to get any attention.

:thumbsup:

What's frightens me more than Hillary Clinton is people who think she'd be worse than Giuliani. Or Witless Romney. That kind of thinking, in my own party, scares the hell out of me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. well I'm hoping (and I suspect it really is the case) that people who say such things

are just emoting out loud. And I certainly can understand that. Yet,hopefully - come a General Election - common senses and common decency will prevail.

[HughBeaumont]

82. The simple solution is

nominate a candidate that's going to UNITE our side, not one that you know is going to DIVIDE it.

That's really all there is to it.

I don't see why everyone is so willing to be led hook, line and sinker into the MSM-fueled "inevitability".

After all, are there any Edwards, Gore, Obama or Kucinich "loyalty oath" posts?

[DemBones DemBones]

85. Ding! Ding! Ding!

I don't want HRC to be the nominee for several reasons, not least of which is that I think she will LOSE.

Republicans went along with the "inevitability" of G.W. Bush.

Democrats aren't so easily herded, don't like being told any candidate is "inevitably" going to be the nominee.

[Douglas Carpenter]

94. I definitely don't want her to be the nominee either. But I think there is a fairly strong

possibility she will be. It's certainly not inevitable. But very, very possible - right or wrong -- good or bad.

Its important to remember the price that would be paid by the whole world if there is four more years of right-wing Republican rule is a far, far dearer price than the price of Sen. Clinton becoming President.

[calteacherguy]

65. 25% say no, don't care, or not sure. That speaks volumes. DU DOES NOT represent most Democrats. nt

[sniffa]

88. yet you think you know what the "majority" thinks?

:rofl:

i'm so gLad i took you off ignore. this is fun. :bounce:

[BenDavid]

69. I did not cast a vote in this silly poll....

for one thing your premise is wrong....Hillary Clinton will win the nomination...Not were to win.....

[sniffa]

74. i Love having at Least one of these poLLs a day

more so because of the screeching reactions above. :rofl:

[yellowcanine]

81. Being a Democrat is not the equivalent of supporting Hillary in the general election.

I say that as a Democrat and as someone who will vote for her if she is nominated. Still, the premise of the OP is flawed.

[joe_sixpack]

86. Clinton and Clark...

Now why would no one support that team? It's virtually unbeatable.

[JoePhilly]

89. The people who won't support her as the nominee ...

are the reason we get stuck with some one like George Bush.

Any Democrat would be better than any of the Republicans running.

And yet some in DU would ignore REALITY and not support her over IDEOLOGY.

Would she have vetoed the stem cell bill? Would she veto SCHIP?

How they'll be able to sleep if Rudy, Mitt, or Fred becomes President is beyond me. If it happens, they will have helped to make it so.

[jonnyblitz]

90. people vote "no" to get the loyalty oath DUers that post these

STUPID polls all wound up. It is such a fucking HOOT to see all of you SCREECHING hysterically!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[fujiyama]

91. Hmmm...I can believe some would want her to lose out of spite

but personally, even though she's my last choice for the nomination, the thought of a Giulliani or Romney presidency make me sick.

This election is bigger than ego. I seriously don't believe she can win. But frankly, this is not really one of those times I want to be proven right.

The people that want her to lose even if she is the nominee need to reassess their own values and sense of priority. But I'm sick of lecturing on that point. Those that haven't learned by now are unlikely to ever do so.

[Up2Late]

93. Yes. Duh.

:silly:

[TimBean]

95. Depends on who the republican candidate was

I would say Ron Paul is better than Hillary. But I'd rather Hillary than any other Republican.

[eridani]

96. It would mean we wouldn't have to fight Washington on birth control,

--stem cell research and basic scientific integrity, leaving us free to fight her administration over war, health care and outsourcing. The differences between her and Repubs really do count, regardless of whether or not they are large or small.

[jzodda]

98. Hell yeah!

Whats the alternative? I don't have to agree 100% with my party's nominee but I sure agree with her more then any republican that they can put up there.