General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Guess what? [View all]Martin Eden
(12,868 posts)I pay attention. I've been at DU since 2002, and a voter since 1976.
In a Democratic primary I cannot in good conscience support any candidate who voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. In unequivocal terms, a YES vote for the IWR in October 2002 was inexcusable and unforgivable. I don't trust Hillary Clinton in matters of war and peace.
Hillary is good on social issues, but that is an increasingly safe position these days. Her 1993 health care plan was far from what's needed, though ambitious for the time. Its failure was evidence of a political learning curve for the Clintons in national politics. She's ahead of the curve now but behind the leading edge of meaningful change, especially on economic issues. The Clinton presidency is synonymous with the DLC & Third Way and, if anything, Hillary has become more co-opted by the Powers That Be (read: Wall Street).
She is also orders of magnitude better than any prospective Republican opponent in the general election, and I will vote for the Democratic nominee. But I expect no meaningful change if it is Hillary Clinton.
All of which is besides the point concerning my response to your OP, to wit:
It makes no sense to support a candidate on the basis of being aggravated by those who voice opposition to that candidate.