There is one space on all of DU

where members are allowed to post positively about Hillary Clinton, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, without being subject to a continual barrage of attacks. Yet evidently the fact one small corner exists where people talk about exercising their democratic rights to support a Democratic candidate is unacceptable to some, who cannot resist entering this room and violating the SOP that makes this a safe space for Clinton supporters. Democratic choice--the idea that we as America citizens have a right to vote as we choose. Each American gets one vote and one vote only, and we all have the right to exercise that vote as we see fit. Our votes are not subject to approval by our employers or members of a website. They are our votes, our basic rights as citizens.

Some would seem to find the independent exercise of democratic choice threatening. It bothers them so much that someone might harbor positive views of one Democratic candidate, they insist on violating the SOP of a safe haven group. A few appear to be so angry that they do not control our votes that they have systematically alerted on and succeeded in hiding multiple posts in here.

There appears to be some sort of conflation of DU and the country at large. It would seem that a few seem to think if they can shout down the handful of Clinton supporters who dare to express their views on this forum, if they can get their posts hidden, that will help defeat Hillary Clinton. I have to wonder if one's notion of democracy depends on silencing others, on driving them from a website, or refusing to allow them to have a conversation without their surveillance and scrutiny, can they really consider themselves Democrats, democratic, or anything other than standing in opposition to the basic rights of their fellow citizens? If people are so threatened by the independent exercise of the franchise, I have to wonder what kind of reform of society they would usher in that would justify such contempt for democratic choice and political speech?

Many reasons

First to some of your claims. Clinton's top donors are not banks. That is a blatantly false allegation, oft repeated. Corporations are not allowed to make contributions to candidates. Full stop. They do donate to PACS, but the open secrets site that claims banks as her top donors reveals internally contradictory data. Under the tab for top industries supporting her, they list lawyers first, educators and women's groups, with finance down the list. Why then are those industries not indicated under top donors? Clearly data has been selected in ways that communicate a certain distorted view.

I care about the issue of money in politics. That issue is not about one individual vs. another. It is systemic and pervades throughout all of politics. Clinton wants to overturn Citizens United, just as Sanders does. Sanders says he won't take money from super pacs, yet Bet on Bernie 2016 is a super pac formed to promote him. A Pac run by one of his key campaign managers failed to submit the legal paperwork for the deadline two weeks ago. He is not pure on the issue, but of course no one is because the system is rotten to the core. To pretend that is all about Clinton deliberately eschews the issue. And the fact is campaign finance law is in the hands of SCOTUS, not an individual president.

Where was Clinton's state department rated the least transparent? By whom? You make allegation after allegation with no evidence. Just because you repeat stuff posted on the internet by the GOP doesn't make it true.
In regard to transparency, she has argued we need to do away with the role of dark money in politics.

Here are some reasons I support Clinton: Competence and ability. You want a president who agrees with you on issues and seem to pay absolutely not attention to how those views would be translated into policy or law. I don't go to the voting booth looking for a mirror to reflect myself. I vote based on who I think is best qualified for the position. Clinton's experience as a senator where she worked across the isle--something that disqualifies her in the minds of people who prefer government not function--and her experience as SOS make her well qualified. She has tangled with Republicans more than most and knows how to deal with them.

For all his views, Sanders has no legislative accomplishments to show for decades in congress. He got two post offices named. I don't care about post offices being named. That doesn't do anything for me. Nor am I looking for a president to validate my anger rather than enact policy that has real impact on people's lives.

Marriage equality is already the law of the land. What does it matter who came out first for it? It isn't even a future policy issue. This again speaks to the idea that you are looking for someone who reflects your views more than the capacity to implement policies. I don't expect politicians to reflect my views, and I have never seen one that does. Moreover, views mean nothing without the capacity to turn them into actual policy, law. Nothing in Sanders background indicates he has that ability. Clinton also enjoys considerable support from the LGBT community. If most of them are cool with her, why should I object?


On the issues I care about most, Clinton is strongest: gun control, women's rights, and racial equality.

Sanders is bad on gun control. He voted for legal immunity for gun corporations, and he continues to defend that vote as right, even though it put the profits of gun companies over the lives of Americans killed from gun violence. I find that unacceptable.

Clinton has promoted women's rights, reproductive rights and campaigns against violence against women, throughout her entire career in public life. As SOS, she directed attention to human trafficking, modern day-slavery. She also listens to voters, to key Democratic constituencies.

Sanders has a economic message that has merit, but it is not comprehensive, though he and his supporters believe it to be universal. It is most relevant to the white upper-middle and middle class. He speaks to the frustration they feel from seeing a recent decline in their economic standing. Many of us never enjoyed the economic security in America of old. We have always been marginalized. I don't like the fact that he tells firefighters we can "agree to disagree" on reproductive rights--my basic civil rights--but what really matters is their children's education. I don't dispute the importance of their children's education, but I will not support someone who treats my rights as an after thought. If Clinton has the courage to stand up for women's reproductive freedom before GOP Senators, Sanders should be able to stand up for women's civil rights before a group of firefighters.

Sanders also thinks his economic message should be enough to address the concerns of African Americans, as he said in a recent statement published in conjunction with a comment about a potential apology for slavery. Racism is not simply about poverty. It has a dynamic all it's own that cannot be solved through economic means, though that is not to say that economic opportunity is not crucially important. It absolutely is. It isn't, however, everything. All Americans lives are not the same, and to treat them as they are shows a fundamental misunderstanding of American society. I think his worldview is shaped by his age and having lived so long in VT, which is far more homogeneous than most of the country. He hasn't had to speak to diverse constituencies and doesn't seem to want to. This again gets to the issue of listening. Clinton has been meeting with small groups of voters to LISTEN to their concerns, to learn what people care about and want from government. Sanders tells us what we should want and need. That has resonance for many on this site, but not for me.

Also the fact Sanders hasn't been and isn't a Democrat is a concern for me because it shows an unwillingness to engage in the kind of compromise necessary to govern. I understand many here see compromise as a bad thing, but a president's responsibility is to represent the US as a whole, not just a small subset of voters. That requires being able to work with their elected representatives of different parties. Not only has Sanders not worked with the GOP in passing major legislation, he hasn't even wanted to join the Democratic Party.

Then there is the fact I don't like the elitist politics of exclusion that has emerged among Sanders supporters. I've addressed this already in an OP and won't do it again. That, however, dovetails with another point. You don't need to understand why liberals/leftist/progressives/Democrats/or anyone else votes differently from you. You get one vote as a citizen, the same as mine. What you think about how I or anyone else votes is inconsequential. My vote isn't subject to your approval, no more than yours is subject to mine.

Are these Marshalls PNAC signatories too?