I actually get a kick out of all the posts stating that "I won't vote for Clinton"

[cali]

if she's the nominee. I don't believe you represent a statistically significant number of dems, and I don't really care what the reasons are. If you think it's important, fine, though it escapes me what you think you're actually accomplishing. Yeah, I think it's stupid, but I support your right to do what you want with your vote.

[Beelzebud]

1. Gee thanks. I was hoping you would give us permission to vote for who we want..

[cali]

4. LOL! There's one self-righteous post after another announcing

that *I* won't vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, and you object to my post saying I don't think it matters?

[Renew Deal]

2. If no ones vote is statistically significant, why should anyone vote?

I hope people don't cross this road. I hope the Democratic party doesn't present America with such an undesirable candidate again (Kerry and now Hillary). Why can't we have a candidate that is actually likable and actually has a chance to win? Hillary is neither of those.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. And

"Why can't we have a candidate that is actually likable and actually has a chance to win? Hillary is neither of those."


And what is this based on other than your opinion? She's doing rather well in the polls:


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


And she's doing rather well when people are asked to put their money where their proverbial mouths are:



http://www.intrade.com/

[Inspired]

22. Forget 'likable'. How about a real progressive Democrat?

Why not just nominate Joe Lieberman? He could get some Republican men to vote for him.

[cali]

27. Look, dems will nominate who they nominate

And you'll either vote for that person or not. It's that simple.

[mondo joe]

32. Democrats select the nominee - not just progressive Democrats.

And Hillary's record is not significantly less progressive overall than other Dem contenders.

[Inspired]

84. 2 words. Kyl. Lieberman.

[Renew Deal]

71. 44% Unfavorable a year before the election.

That's extremely high. She is unlikable and unliked.

The polls you site are "better of the two evils" polls. Why should we have to make that decision again? Why can't we have a candidate that we genuinely like. Someone with 44% unfavorable ratings a year before a general election is unelectable.

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

Compare that to:

Edwards 30%
http://www.pollingreport.com/E-F.htm

Obama 24%
http://www.pollingreport.com/l-o.htm#Obama

Gore 27%
http://www.pollingreport.com/G.htm#Favorability

Guiliani 27%
http://www.pollingreport.com/G.htm#Giuliani

Romney 22%
http://www.pollingreport.com/R.htm#Romney

[unpossibles]

20. Kerry got more votes than any Democrat in history

and Rove cheated, if nothing else by finding various ways to deny people the right to vote and/or to have their vote counted fairly. Kerry could have been stronger, but if you ignored the media BS and actually looked at his record and listend to him speak, you would not be able to say that he was weak. Kerry was not my favorite last time, but he was not a weak candidate either.

[Faux pas]

75. I agree with you on being stuck with an undesirable candidate

(again). I voted with the party for Kerry. It chapped my hide that he was 'the best' the party could come up with. When he folded like a cheap suit and conceded before all the votes were counted, my original doubts were confirmed. I don't want to be put in that position again.

[LakeSamish706]

3. I think that when Push comes to Shove if Hillary wins in the Primaries...

true Dems will support a Democratic candidate. I like many will hold my nose when I enter that voting booth though....

[cali]

5. I'll be doing the same thing

I just don't think it's particularly noble or meaningful to say you'll sit it out.

[katsy]

46. You're right.

People should think about this before making a decision not to vote:

The Supreme Court


Want to allow repugs to nominate Supreme Court Justices?


Hold your nose, if so inclined, but Vote (D)!

[Oldenuff]

97. No offense to you intended

but that seems to be the prevailing attitude,and it's a sad statement isn't it?It seems to me that we are selling out our principles when we hold our nose and vote for the least offensive candidate.I can't bring myself to do it,it's far too important.The more that we are willing to accept the lesser candidate,the more "lesser candidates" we get.

[Ninga]

6. Oh grow up and deal with it. Many more than not, have said they would support her in the GE.

What do you want?

Unfortunately, the candidate does not have control over supporters......I would bet that Hillary does not want her supporters to be crying about the GE, when work needs to be done NOW, in the primary.

After I have read your post for a second time I finally have it figured out.....you just need a bit of attention and nurturing.

[cali]

10. No.

I'm just responding to all the self-important announcements that have been popping up about not voting for her. I figure they deserve a little poke. Do you think that all the "I won't vote for Clinton" OPs are just seeking attention and nurturing?

[Ninga]

33. I exactly do. I think people love to hear themselves talk, it is self promoting and they get a kick

about all of the flames that come their way.

If people are short sighted, we must ignore their flame bating ways.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. No Dem Gets Every "Democratic Vote"

Gore, Kerry, Clinton all lost 10% or so of the Democratic vote to Repugs and third parties...Some candidates like Mondale, Dukakis, MocGovern, Jimmy Carter in his re-election campaign did a lot worse...

I suspect at the end of the day HRC or any of our candidates will get 90% of the Democratic vote...

It is what it is...

[Javaman]

8. I'm more amused by people who feel the need to state their

apparent ego driven desires to the rest of us. (not meaning you)

[mmonk]

9. I don't like many who are connected to her campaign.

That is a problem for me. Can't say what I will do if faced with her as the nominee. I can only assure I won't vote for republicans or third party. It will mean another sucky situation for me since I only vote for democrats.

[LakeSamish706]

11. I actually feel sorry for the Dem that does win the White House...

They will have one friggin mess to try and sort out after 8 long years of Monster Administration.

[cali]

12. man, is that ever the truth! n/t

[BattyDem]

74. What's worse is ...

the media and the GOP are going to be SCREAMING about him/her from day one!

"Why hasn't the president done this? Why hasn't the president fixed that? He/she has been in office for two whole months and they've done absolutely nothing! This president is totally incompetent and we need to start talking about impeachment!"

Don't laugh ... you know it's true. :-(

[Skidmore]

13. Lord, cali,

are we allowed to disagree about Hillary at all? I profoundly disagree with Hillary on the war, as I do with all other people who cynically find reasons to rationalize the bloodbath in the ME and its perpetuation into the mists of the future. I profoundly disagree with her over the role of corporations in governance of the nation. I intensely disagree with the notion that to have sound governance and elect the best people, we need the status quo and to put up and shut up with the rules of a corrupt system. Hillary does not rise to the top of my list of people to support in this election. AND I get queasy over the idea that we are somehow obliged to genuflect to two different families to fill the highest office in the land--and "by marriage" does not count in my book. She is solidly ensconced at the bottom of my list with those of the Republican party, and running neck and neck with Nader, if he rears his self-serving head. I think you will be very surprised and how much of a statistically significant portion of the Democratic party we are once the Rs. who are suddently enthalled with her have jumped off the Hillary ship after the primaries are over.

[cali]

18. for cripes sake

I wrote a long critical OP of her yesterday. I often criticize her.
My OP says nothing whatsoever about refraining from criticizing her. But hey, read into it what you will.

[rodeodance]

14. I think it is sad to toss your vote away or to a Repug. This is the Democratic

Underground board.

[mmonk]

17. It's sad when people are forced to even think about it.

[Virginia Dare]

89. People think about it every Presidential election cycle..

ancient history I know, but a lot of people were shall we say "less than thrilled" about Al Gore. I know, I was one of them. Lots of Deaniacs couldn't stand Kerry. It's just more of the same old crap.

[mmonk]

95. We've entered a new phase. We still had a working democracy

before. This is much more serious now. We really need to be more sure who and what we are voting for and who will come along for the ride.

[napi21]

16. I don't get too excited over anyone who says "I won't vote for XXXX

under sany circumstances." I said the same thing about Kerry during the last primary, but guess what? I voted for him because I detested Shrub! I suspect most of the anti Hillary people would do the same...even though they might grimble while doing so.

[BlueJac]

19. Thank you

[Mike03]

21. They want to teach us a lesson by subjecting us to four to eight

more years of an incompetent, Guliani-sponsored Living Hell.

Seriously, I hope a lot of this indignation is bluster or bluffing. There is just a lot of frustration here right now. My favorite candidates NEVER win the primaries. But I'm not masochistic (or sadistic, for that matter) enough to vote for a Republican under any circumstances whatsoever. Period.

[mondo joe]

25. They think we didn't learn our 2000 lesson that Bush is no different from Gore.

[frylock]

85. or is it the people content with the status quo that want to teach progressives a lesson?

Why is it that the progressives are constantly being asked to compromise and just vote for whoever is being shoved down our throats? When are the people who give us crappy candidates going to be held to account?

[peace13]

23. With all of the problems in our world

I don't see why this as one that needs to be solved today. Why don't we just work to get the best candidate for November and go from there?

[cali]

26. It's simply a response to all the posts announcing how

the poster will never ever vote for her in the general. Do you tell those folks that they shouldn't be focusing on that?

[peace13]

40. Pretty much. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

24. Yeah but if you so much as tell one negative thing about Obama

they shit their pants. They don't believe in fairness, that's why I think most of them are republicans who have sneaked on the list trying to cause contention. I am starting to just skip their mostly sexist and flaming posts.

[H2O Man]

28. I respectfully disagree.

First, I do not like to see the degree of hostility that there is between the pro- and anti-Clinton camps on DU. Although I recognize there is a possibility of some clowns coming on DU to stir the pot, I think that the vast majority of each group consists of sincere, concerned democrats. And it seems that the level of acrimony that we witness daily on DU is a serious issue.

I would hope that people feel free to support their candidate, and to raise concerns about anyone in the running, including Senator Clinton. Though she is the front-runner, she is not assured the party's nomination. People should not make decisions that are based on her definitely being the candidate.

More, there have been a few very close elections. JFK won a close one in 1960, and Gore's margin of victory was small enough that it was stolen from him in 2000. Even a few hundred votes can be significant in 2008. More, the top of the ticket can influence other elections.

The democratic party needs to keep loyal progressive/liberal voters with traditional democratic values.

[cali]

31. Democrats will nominate who they will

and people will or won't vote for that candidate, but as DSB says, judging from the past, 90% of dems will vote for the nominee. I don't agree with you that a small minority of people will make the difference.

[H2O Man]

35. You couldn't either

agree or disagree with me on that, because it is not what I said. What I did say is that a small number of voters can make a difference, and listed two examples. Unless you take the position that neither the 1960 or 2000 election took place -- a conspiracy theory beyond any I expect you would be invested in -- it would be difficult to disagree with that.

Perhaps the single largest risk that democrats face in 2008, including in congress and for the presidency, is overconfidence. That risk is compounded when one dismisses the voices of any group of democrats.

[cali]

38. Let me suggest that it's equally possible that Clinton

will pull in more people by her centrist stance, then she'll lose. And no dem candidate can afford to dismiss the independents any more than they can afford to dismiss the voices of any group of democrats. But how do you suggest that Clinton or any dem, appeal to both centrists and liberal/progressives? Furthermore, most liberals and progressives will, I believe vote for her if she's the nom. If she's not the nom, and it's Edwards, for example, expect him to shift to the center for the general. History teaches us that.

[H2O Man]

43. Right.

As I've noted several times, Senator Clinton won her last election by a huge margin -- winning counties in the republican upstate area that others who held that seat (RFK and Moynihan) never came close in.

And, as I noted, the party needs to allow for all voices -- I did not say one group to the exlusion of others. I'm not sure if you are advocating, however, that Senator Clinton should be seeking the support of republicans at the expense of democrats. Is that what you think?

[cali]

45. no. I thought I was clear when I wrote independents

Independents make up an increasing number of the electorate, and they are not, by and large, liberals or progressives. You stressed that Clinton should take particular care not to lose progressives and liberals; I agree with that, but noted that most progressives and liberals will vote for her, and many already support her evidently. Here in Vermont, our progressive Speaker of the Vermont House just endorsed her.

[H2O Man]

51. Okay.

One issue that seems to frequently come up in our discussions is that we have very different definitions for words like progressives and liberals. I think that Senator Clinton does well with liberals, but less well with progressives.

I assume that things could spin out of control in terms of the administration's agenda in the Middle East, and that ever the people I identify as progressive may recognize the importance of electing the democratic nominee, no matter who it may be. If, for example, the Cheney attempts to push the neoconservative agenda against Iran plays out, it is possible that the democratic nominee will find it beneficial to appeal to the progressives (my definition) than the centrists.

[cali]

56. perhaps you would like to actually know what my definition

is. I think of progressives as being people interested in economic justice and in reining in the power of corporations. I also think most liberals are interested in that. In fact, I see a huge overlap between the two.

[mmonk]

54. A wash. Get some new in and old out.

Doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems. Her negatives I'm willing to bet are a deficit with independents.

[robcon]

29. I think the "I won't vote for Clinton" sentiment is fine.

I'll vote for any Democratic candidate except Kucinich, so I think it's ok for a few DUers to say they won't vote for Clinton if she is nominated.

People should vote their conscience.

[NavyDavy]

36. yeah and they deserve the repuke they get

[Tesha]

66. Even if her name is Clinton? (NT)

[TwilightZone]

30. It's little more than an attention-seeking device.

It's a guaranteed trip to the Greatest Page, so I suspect we'll see them increase as the primary season continues.

[bonito]

34. Maybe you should look into Clinton's

Relationship with the neocons and there agenda the two are one and the same.

Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty … Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).”

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

[cali]

41. I know all of that. And I'll still vote for her if she's the nom

I don't think it figures as large in reality as you do. And all I have to do is think about Rudy or Mitt, and I'm more convinced than ever, that she's the better option, should that be the match up.

[bonito]

49. I won't vote for any neocon organisation

The PPI and the PNAC are inline with each other.

[cali]

50. As I said, that's your choice, obviously. Just as it's mine

to vote for whoever the dem nom is, and to think it's mind bogglingly stupid to dismiss the SC, children, the elderly and the environment- among other areas of concern. But as I said, I don't think it will make a difference.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. i think its about the dumbest threat i have seen. exactly what point are these people proving?

plus i heard this rhetoric with al gore and now gore is our new saviour.

[cali]

42. that is interesting, isn't it?

I'd bet that a lot of the people currently adoring Gore and excoriating Clinton, said the same thing about Gore 7 years ago, that they're saying about her now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. its infurtiating to see people not learn from history.

[Catherine Vincent]

39. It's code for the Clinton haters to check in with each other.

And some of them are slimey trolls.

[Virginia Dare]

90. You're right..

same with the Pelosi bashing threads, there are a lot of people "posing" here.

[AlGore-08.com]

44. Zogby poll 10/20/07: "Half Say They Would Never Vote For Hillary Clinton For President"

The poll is below - - it has a 1% MOE. The poll does not give a geographic breakdown, but it is extremely unlikely that she could win the electoral college if 51% - 49% of Americans refuse to vote for her. The only way she could win under those circumstances is if 1.) there is a third party candidate who appeals to 10% - 20% of conservative voters in swing states (at least) or 2.) the Republican candidate is more hated by Republicans than Hillary Clinton is. And since the leading GOPers are polling 41% - 43% in this poll, the second scenario is unlikely.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most

While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?


%

Clinton (D) 50%

Kucinich (D) 49%

Gravel (D) 47%

Paul (R) 47%

Brownback (R) 47%

Tancredo (R) 46%

McCain (R) 45%

Hunter (R) 44%

Giuliani (R) 43%

Romney (R) 42%

Edwards (D) 42%

Thompson (R) 41%

Dodd (D) 41%

Biden (D) 40%

Obama (D) 37%

Huckabee (R) 35%

Richardson (D) 34%

Not sure 4%

(more...)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. I don't get a kick out of it.

Enough idiots voted for Nader in 2000 to make the difference.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. that too.

[WilliamPitt]

53. Do you refer to the primaries, or to the general election?

No one should have any beef whatsoever with people who won't vote for Clinton in their primary.

I hope people here support whomever wins the nomination, and I will advocate for this long and loud...but I am a little wiser now than I was a few years ago. As long as people vote - period - and do so in good conscience, I will not speak ill of them.

Support the nominee, dammit.

Otherwise, just vote. Dammit.

Freedom can be a real pain in the ass. Thank God.

:toast:

[cali]

58. I meant the general. definitely not

the primaries. That's why I said "if she's the nominee". And if people vote for Nader or the repukes, I'm likely to speak ill of them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. ge.

[WilliamPitt]

62. ?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. general election.

[WilliamPitt]

69. Thanks!

:)

[Ian_rd]

55. Why in the hell is this on the greatest page?

This is nothing more than a nya-nya by a Hillary supporter to those of us opposed to her campaign.

And thank you so much for supporting my right to vote how I choose. How incredibly generous (and revolutionary!) of you.

[cali]

60. bwahaha. I'm no Hillary supporter.

she's my dead last choice in the primaries- well, except for Mike Gravel, who I do think is a nut.

Don't like that it's on the Greatest page? boofuckinghoo.

[Ian_rd]

64. I dub thee, Cali, as the "Greatest"

I'd rather the Greatest Page be populated with posts that inform people of things we don't know or offer opinions that are somehow new and insightful. There's enough You're stuck with Hillary neener-neener! in the mainstream media.

But, I do support people's right to vote how they choose with regard to what should be on the Greatest Page. :P

[cali]

65. Except that this isn't a "you're stuck with Hillary" post

but hey, if that's how you want to see it, feel free.

[Ian_rd]

70. Hmmm ...

I think your words "I don't believe you represent a statistically significant number of dems, and ... it escapes me what you think you're actually accomplishing," are a clear implication for me that you're saying we can whine and cry and vote for Dennis or whoever, but we'll get Hillary whether we like it or not. But if you say that's not what you meant, then I concede.

[cali]

72. No that's not what I'm saying

I'm voting for either Dennis or Dodd in my primary. I used Hillary as an example, because there are so many posts saying I won't vote for her in the general. I'm hoping fervently that she's not the nominee, but if she is, I'll be voting for her.

[Virginia Dare]

91. I say that about 90% of the crap that's on the GP...n/t

[rodeodance]

57. The 08 Pres Election is the Dems to lose.

[timber84]

61. Right now I'd vote for Mr. Ed(the horse of course) before I will

vote republican at this point.

[MadHound]

63. Keep on thinking that

How statistically insignificant are all the current voters who don't participate in elections now? Oh, yeah, they actually outnumber those who do vote, or damn close to it. But naw, all those stay at homes are statistically insignificant:eyes: Then again, we can also look back at the last time we had two warmongers running against each other, the '68 election. Most of the anti-war people either stayed home or voted for McCarthy. Guess what, that defection of the left cost the Dems the White House. Then we can look at the reverse, the last time conservatives got pissed at their party what happened. Oh, yeah, they went out and voted for Perot, thus allowing Clinton to win.

So just keep thinking that all this is statistically insignificant. Just don't act so surprised when Hillary gets her ass handed to her next November.

[cali]

68. first of all, aren't you forgetting that she's not the nominee

yet? And there's no guarantee that she will be. Secondly, most progressives and liberals will vote for her. And quite a few are already supporting her. I understand that wounds your own sense of inflated self-importance, but that's not my problem. Oh, and if she is the nom, I expect she'll run a very effective campaign against her opponent, and stands a good chance of winning.

[MadHound]

79. Ah that's it, denial of reality

I present historical facts and figures to counter your hypothetical nominee scenario, and you respond with ad hominems. Good show:eyes:

[AmBlue]

73. I get a kick out of them, too...

...but for entirely different reasons.

[xultar]

76. I get a kick out of them as well. They make me roll.

[Mountainman]

77. Reminds me of little kids who throw tantrums if they don't get their way.

I say,who gives a shit why you won't vote. Go to your room for a time out!

[weeve]

78. Oh, I'll vote for the Democrat.

Just sayin' that it would be foolhardy to nominate the one Democrat who will energize the other side's base, while simultaneously turning off ours. The one who will likely help us to LOSE Congressional seats. The one - should they again try to tweak/steal the actual vote - with the readymade excuse from the Media why we lost yet again , even if we really didn't.

Regardless of whether you "like" Hillary or not, nominating her is the riskiest, dumbest choice our side could make. Call me paranoid, but when I see Rupert Murdoch, Joe Lieberman and their ilk supporting Clinton ... I figure there's a good reason. Her votes and statements on Iraq/Iran , plus her being the biggest beneficiary of Defense/Big Pharma contributions seal the deal for me. It'd be nice to think that this nomination is NOT one that's up for sale. I hope I'm right.

[foxeyes2]

80. My Vote

My vote is sacred. Too many people have shed their blood, fought in wars both here and abroad and lost their lives to preserve my right to vote for me to treat it casually. If I do not agree with nominee on those issues important to me, if they do not think that I deserve equality as a citizen of the United States of America then I will not vote for them simply because they are the nominee.
It is not stupid, it is not giving the election to the opposition, it is me exercising the greatest right I have as an American. Voting is serious business and I refuse to cast my ballot for anyone who would continue my oppression. So think what you, say what is on your mind because the the only opinion that matters is mine, it is settled by fiat and the polls have closed.

[hiphopnation]

81. if she's the nom

i'll vote for her in the GE ... and it will sting. one, cuz I don't want more war and two because i want an end to corporate greed and i'm not confident that these priorities are at the top of her list.

that's why, until then i'm working hard to garner as many votes for another candidate in the primaries.

may i submit that the people of which you speak may comprise several different groups: third party voters (anti-DLC anything), trolls, and maybe the most important group as pointed out by waterman up-thread, concerned, frustrated, angry, depressed, vexed Democrats blowing off steam. (thank god for DU!) i guess, gotta take the good with bad, baby with the bath water and so forth. In my more frustrated and angry moments I sometimes find myself agreeing with them.

but again, if she's the nom, i'll hold my nose...

[Marr]

82. If she loses, I expect you'll say those people cost her the election.

We'll only be 'statistically irrelevant' until we make convenient excuses.

[frylock]

86. exactly..

I, for one, refuse to take the blame if that happens.

[cali]

87. nope. If she loses, she'll be responsible. n/t

[mondo joe]

100. Every nation gets the government it deserves. NT

[madokie]

83. thats what I say why beat each other up over our pet candidates when theres not enough

of us in any one area to have much effect on the outcome. rather that cut our candidates down lets build each of them up and then if anyone wants to tear someone up go after the opposition, even though the re:puke:s do a good job on themselves to not need much help from us. I'm going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is always. I promised myself that a long time ago

[hfojvt]

88. We will see who gets the last laugh

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt

Although if she precipitates the disaster to our party and our country that I expect, I won't think it's funny.

What I think I will be accomplishing is sending a message to independents in Kansas - 'I don't like Hillary either, but I am still voting for Boyda.'

Maybe I am just always in the minority. I wanted Jackson in 1988 but Dukakis got the nomination. Clinton got the nomination in 1992, before I even got to vote, and I did not like him so I voted 6th party.

2000 is the exception. I was happy to support the author of "Earth in the Balance" and I loved his convention acceptance speech.

In 2004, my choices were Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kucinich, Sharpton and then Kerry. I really did not like him, maybe because he was so rich. But I still enthusiastically supported the nominee, thinking he would beat the worst President ever.

Now here we have a candidate who is endorsed by all the elected bigshots (just like Lieberman) and big money donors ($500 a plate fundraiser in KC compared to Obama's speech for $25) and the M$M who has been encouraging the sheeple to jump on the bandwagon for months to the point where it is almost over before anybody even votes. Not only is she our least progressive and least popular candidate, but this entire process, like her selection to the Senate in 2000, makes Democracy look like a fu$%ing joke to me. Dollars and the media get to decide, not the people.

It's nice to know that you do not care about any of these things. The majority of ignorant sheeple do not mind and "our" big money candidate will win in 2008 and things will be great just like the 1990s when all sorts of progressive issues got advanced, like welfare reform and Nafta and the telecommunications act, and when the economy was so great that the temp agency Manpower became one of America's largest employers and when Democrats lost both houses of Congress.

[frylock]

96. thanks for helping to put things in perspective..

the dems continue to ignore thier progressive base at their own peril.

[Virginia Dare]

92. If you can't vote "for" somebody..

then you've got to vote "against" somebody. Nine times out of ten you'll feel strong enough one way or the other to be able to make that choice.

[tinrobot]

93. So much negativity on this planet.

Instead of being "against" someone or something, try to be "for" it's opposite. The positive approach is a much more powerful place to start.

Besides, being negative against any Democrat ultimately uplifts Republicans when the general election rolls around.

[Hawkowl]

94. Nader wasn't statistically significant either

Your post has no logical merit. If the HRC campaign does think as you do, she is done for. Period. The democrats who do state categorically that they will not vote for her under any circumstances do serve a valid purpose. They push the party to the left. Where it should be. Away from the corporations which are pushing for fascism.

If HRC has any brains, which she does, she will remember Nader voters and move left.

[cali]

98. Not so. This isn't the 2000 cycle. Much has changed.

She's going for the independents now. I personally find that a bit arrogant- it signifies that she really IS running a general election campaign in the primaries, but I do know that she has one hell of a team.

[Jacobin]

99. that pretty much sums up the mindset of the DLC

Is that a pink tutu?

;)

[Le Taz Hot]

101. We know.

You post it here at least once a week.