August 27, 2007

Why I'd Vote For Hillary Clinton

... if for no other reason. (Not that there aren't other reasons, but this is a good one that I think pretty much trumps.) Links, mine:

"The only way conceivable way I'd vote for Hillary is if the Republicans nominate something truly, awe inspiringly batshit fucking God damn crazy."

Well...um...what I meant to say is...

Jeez, dude, IS THERE ANY OTHER KIND OF REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS??

So, do you want that HRC for President bumper sticker in oval, or rectangular??!!?? ...

Ayup.

Posted by natasha at August 27, 2007 07:41 AM | US Politics | Technorati links |
Comments

Draft Gore. Forget Hillary.

Posted by: Jim at August 27, 2007 09:13 AM

The Rodham family is every bit as dynastic Old Money as Bush. You'de trade one dictator for another?

Posted by: Thomas Ware at August 27, 2007 09:32 AM

Why are Democrats so fucking dumb? Why go out there and nominate Karl Rove's dream Dem candidate when she only differs from the Repubs on issues the government has no business being involved with in the first place? Why vote for someone who is has already given up and isn't going to fight?

If HRC is on the ticket, I will join a large number of Democrats and stay the fuck home in November. If we don't have a real choice on the ballot, then it's not worth the silicon it's temporarily imprinted on.

Posted by: Charles at August 27, 2007 09:48 AM

Here's a link

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2007/08/27/the-resume-of-hillary-clinton/

Posted by: pop at August 27, 2007 10:10 AM
  1. I'll vote for any Democrat in the 2008 presidential election before I'll consider voting for any of the Republicans.
  2. That said, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whom I vote for. New York will give 31 electoral votes to the Dem, whether I vote for him/her/it or not. Is that an effed-up system, or what?
Posted by: Barry Leiba at August 27, 2007 10:19 AM

We're coming to the close of an in vivo, 8 year experiment that began with the premise that there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. I don't know how that's working out for you all, excepting you, Barry, but I've been having kind of a sucky time of it.

Clinton isn't my first pick. I'm a Gore person, but he probably isn't going to run. I was a Dean person last time, but only because Gore wasn't going to run. I'd be okay with Edwards or Obama, no one else really has a chance. But I don't hate any of our candidates, and despite the continued 'everybody hates Clinton' drumbeat, national polls not only indicate that plenty of people like her fine, but that she's been decreasing her negatives over the course of her campaign.

The idea that she's very unpopular with the Democratic base, or that she's worsening her stance with the general public, is simply untrue. Just wrong.

I don't live in an early primary state, so it's all just a floorshow to me. And not for any of the candidates now running would I do what I did for Dean and volunteer to go to Iowa or New Hampshire to risk frostbite knocking on doors and holding up signs on street corners. Other people can figure out who the nominee is going to be, I'll mark my ballot for whoever it is come next November.

Because that D after their name really does matter.

Posted by: natasha at August 27, 2007 01:28 PM

You're just going to have to accept that some of us find Hillary Clinton to be completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter if you don't understand it. It doesn't matter if you don't agree. It's something the Democrats will have to deal with. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is just too evil.

She isn't very unpopular with the base. She is mostly popular. But those of us who won't vote for her will not ever vote for her. We don't have to be 50% of the party to prevent the democrats from winning in the general election. We only need to be about 5%. Do you really think that 5% of the Democratic party base doesn't hate her enough to refuse to vote for her? Can you think of another major candidate that that's true of?

Posted by: soullite at August 28, 2007 05:54 AM

Natasha: there's a real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? It's really hard to know that, because the Democrats weren't in power after 9/11 and it's impossible to know what they would do. No matter how much you'd like to pretend they would NEVER start a war with Iraq, plenty of them seem itching to start one in Iran. What about the FISA bill? The Bankruptcy bill most of them voted for? The war that's still ongoing, and that Democrats don't seem to actually want to end. I've read plenty of news reports of the VSP having been assured that we'll still have troops in Iraq at the end of 2017 if Hillary is president.

Personally, I doubt the democrats can hold either house of congress or the Presidency if they do not end the war by 2012, but that's what you're looking at with Hillary as president. a kinder, gentler version of the Bush years. That's not good enough for me. Not anymore. The damage to our country and our culture needs to be repaired. Hillary will keep all of Bush's powers, and maybe give us national healthcare. That's not a trade-off I'm willing to make, and I can't accept someone who will not surrender completely every special power that Bush has claimed for himself.

Posted by: soullite at August 28, 2007 06:01 AM

Soullite: I get that you detest Senator Clinton. I won't argue with that. But my question is whether you really detest her enough to have us wind up with President Huckabee, or President Brownback. Do you, really?

That would frighten me.

Posted by: Barry Leiba at August 28, 2007 11:27 AM

To even consider this psychotic bitch dictator wanna-be - with absolutely no experience in running anything - shows what sheep liberals are.
She is a communist - pure and simple. Is that what liberals really want? Yes or no?

Posted by: Hank Dagny at August 29, 2007 11:05 AM

Soullite - From the comments you've made here over time, I haven't always gotten the impression that you really are a member of the Democratic base. And if you are, then perhaps you merely learned nothing from the election of 2000. Pity.

Barry - Ditto.

Hank - You're a psycho. Not even the Chinese believe in communism anymore. And Clinton? Not remotely. That's just batsh*t, like the Republican candidates that some of the commentors would see us end up with instead of Clinton, people who don't believe in evolution and want to double down on Gitmo, among other things.

You're just so, so ... 1980s John Bircher.

OMG! She's evil! She's communist! Y'all sound the same. We're not getting a progressive candidate this cycle, not going to happen. And hell will freeze over before this country elects an actual communist, which is a relief to me.

Chill the frak out.

Posted by: natasha at August 29, 2007 09:24 PM

I wouldn't want Hillary to win the nomination. I actually don't like the fact that she voted to authorize the war in Iraq. It would have been politically difficult, but I think as a Senator in New York she could have still kept her seat with a NO vote. I don't buy the argument that a No vote in Iraq would have made her vulnerable. She won re-election by a landslide.

Not to mention, no one is going to mobilize the Republican base against a democrat like Hillary Clinton.

I like Obama and Edwards. I could vote for either but I give more points to Edwards for having the most comprehensive plan on what he would like to do with healthcare of any candidate Democrat or Republican. Whether he can get it to happen is another matter which is more reason for extending the Democratic majority in Congress.

Perhaps we can get an Edwards/Obama ticket or vice-versa. It think that would be a dream team actually.

Posted by: Graham at September 1, 2007 12:46 AM