If Hillary wins the nomination will you vote for her

[Flabbergasted]

Poll question: If Hillary wins the nomination will you vote for her

[TomClash]

1. Only if she gets Bill a harem in an undisclosed locattion

so he stays occupied and out of sight.:)

[Clarkansas]

2. It will be very, very hard for me. I probably will, unless the Obama smears push me

over the edge.

[Champion Jack]

3. Write in Ralph Wiggam

[Invidious]

4. As of right now

Probably not..

[bigwillq]

5. At this time

Yes. I will be supporting the DEM nominee.

[peace13]

6. Her speeches and votes on Iraq

make me sick. Her blowing in the wind opinions that change on whim are not something that I will bank my future on. Just saying.

[MadBadger]

7. At this moment, I will write in somebody else, but support her anyway.

[wintersoulja]

8. only if the machines count it that way

so quite possibly.

[Occam Bandage]

9. 49% of DUers are not Democrats.

[MadBadger]

10. Guess I'll have to find another party. What if I write in Al Gore, can I still stay in the party?

[LeFleur1]

14. People Who Won't Vote for the Candidate...

...are probably the same people who handed Bush the Presidency by either voting for a third party candidate or staying home and pouting.
It's their way or the highway. You are either with them or against them. We've seen how that works. They do America so much good.

[MadBadger]

17. I vote in the very blue state of NJ, if I voted at my school in WI, Id vote for her.

I see this write in at the moment as my own personal protest. I believe if she is president, she will do fine and represent me well. I just find the way her campaign has been run as pretty disgusting.

[Occam Bandage]

23. "I believe if she is president, she will do fine and represent me well." This is problematic.

Much as many Nader voters in 2000, there seems to be again the idea that one ought not vote for a good candidate, simply to register your anger that said candidate is not absolutely perfect.

This is a suicidal mindset that cost us 2000. It only subsided in 2004 because of the specter of Bush. Now that Bush is gone, this mindset is returning. What its proponents do not understand is that the next Republican president will be just as bad as Bush.

[Egnever]

42. Not buying

Sorry but I don't buy the fear mongering. A continuation down the path of secretive and dishonest government will not be saving us from anything. It is highly unlikely the Dem's will lose their majority in congress no matter who wins the presidency. If a pub gets the nom they hopefully will not be getting the rubber stamp bush got and the damage they can do is limited. The president is only one part of the equation. If our "party" doesn't have the balls to stand up and do something at that point then it wont have mattered who I chose as the fix is already in and we lose no matter what.

Sorry "party" to me does not mean I have to swallow whatever candidate is thrown at me because of the fear of the how much worse it can be specter.

[Occam Bandage]

46. So, you're cool with a Republican president,

because you think Hillary might be sort of dishonest. You're okay with a Republican veto preventing our party from accomplishing anything for the next four to eight years, because you think Hillary lies to get elected.

There's some great perspective.

[Egnever]

53. I think Hillary is part of the problem

not the solution. And yes I will take gridlock over more corporatist agenda. I hope that our "party" would do their jobs and stand up for what we suposedly believe in. If that means gridlock under a republican president as oposed to a corporatist setting the agenda then I think in the end I come out ahead.

[Occam Bandage]

55. So you believe the Democratic party has an unacceptably corporatist agenda,

and would prefer gridlock to a working Democratic majority. Why are you on DU?

[Egnever]

59. Thats not what I said at all

I prefer gridlock to unfettered corporatism. Which is what I believe we get with hillary.

[Occam Bandage]

62. Clinton votes 97% Dem. Her agenda is the Democratic agenda. If you prefer gridlock to her,

you prefer the Republican status quo to the Democratic agenda.

[Egnever]

66. nonsense

and your trying to browbeat me will do you no good. I vote for what I believe is going to help our country not for what the dem party tells me will help it. What you are asking for is the very definition of sheeple . As long as you continue to support bad candidates just because they have a D next to them you enable more bad candidates to run. I believe that until we firmly reject corporatist candidates such as hillary we guarantee ourselves more of the same. That is something I refuse to be a part of unless the other choice is so horrendous as to make it imperative to vote against them. Last time I voted for Kerry despite my misgivings because Bush was just that bad and perhaps this time I will have to do the same. That is not guaranteed however nor will it ever be despite your call to accept whatever garbage is thrown at me just because theres a D next to it.

[Invidious]

68. Exactly

Some of those that would demean our hesitation over HRC are the same ones that claim to welcome choice and consideration. I have considered Hillary and due to my own feelings I cannot support her. I'm not trying to change anyone elses vote but it is MY vote.

[Occam Bandage]

69. Hillary is not a "bad candidate." She is practically the definition of the Democratic establishment

She is as party-line as a Senator gets. If you would find gridlock preferable to Senator Clinton, then you support maintaining the current Republican status quo above the Democratic party. It's not "browbeating" or "garbage." It's true.

[Egnever]

74. Sorry I disagree

Hillary to me is absolutely a bad candidate. She represents everything I despise in Washington at the moment. Votes made for political expediency instead of personal principle or worse personal principle that is far removed from my own. Her actions here in nevada are a perfect example of why I will not vote for her. I am fervently opposed to disenfranchising voters because you don't like the results you get when they are given a chance to vote. Her calculations on the IWR are another example of her holding her finger to the wind and voting for what she thinks will get her elected as opposed to doing what is right.

I cant really affect what the republicans do as far as picking a candidate goes or changing the party platform. i can however have a minuscule effect on what the Dem's do. I will vote for what I think pushes our party to become what I want it to be as opposed to voting out of fear of what the other party is.

By buying into the you musty vote for a D no matter what or else you get a republican you play right into the two party game of division and ensure we get more of the same.

[sniffa]

81. hear hear

very well said. :thumbsup:

[HughBeaumont]

93. National and International.

:7

[sniffa]

95. all 3?

:rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

114. She is Counted Amongst the Republican-Lite DLC

so she is not a Party Democrat in any sense of the word....at least IMHO

[ronnykmarshall]

83. Hope you enjoy Huckabee's "GOD Constitution".

[Egnever]

96. If it changes our party to one I can respect

So be it. Hopefully all the enablers voted in because they had a D behind thier name will get the clue and start standing up. If not we were lost anyway it is only a slower death we face.

[Carrieyazel]

100. I didn't vote for that charlatan Nader, I voted for Gore, but this doesn't compare to 2000

And the Nader dolts frustrated me to no end; it hurt Al Gore terribly.

But people now know that voting for a third-party candidate will likely harm one of the major-party nominees this time. And that may be what they're trying to do. They weren't thinking about that in 2000. And if people don't want Hillary Clinton in the White House, they have every right to vote for another candidate.

[LandOLincoln]

26. Yes, exactly right.

What infuriates and amuses me in nearly equal measure is the many who slaver over Al Gore now, but voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 (and probably would again).

Fucking idiots.

[wintersoulja]

102. Im rubber youre glue

and those statements can only stick to you.
Im sure not demanding you vote for a candidate who is against the war and in favor of genuine health care. I believe youre free to vote against your own interest. I also believe you arent free to steal votes by any means necessary. Let the candidates earn their votes, no strong arming, no red baiting, no mccarthyism. Or is that just too much to ask?

[Occam Bandage]

15. You would be

allowing your personal distaste for Sen. Clinton (who votes Democratic 97% of the time) to prevent you from effectively opposing the Republican candidate, who would assuredly be as damaging to the nation as Mr. Bush has been, if not more so.

You can "stay in the party," obviously, but I'm not sure why a Republican enabler would want to.

[LostinVA]

27. Exactly -0- good post

Just like your guy gets MY vote (also in teh very blue state of NJ) if he gets the nom.

[Egnever]

50. Sorry but that's fear mongering

There will be a difference in administrations between bushes and whoever comes next and that will be a dem majority in congress. They are proving so far to be spineless for the most part and unwilling to stand up to this pig, If they continue on that course with another republican president, then its not my party anyway.

I would like to believe it is my party and that they will stand up and do what is right, since at this point I am still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and because of that another puke president doesnt scare me that much.

[Occam Bandage]

52. Hey, we've had a Dem majority for the last year. He's blocked almost everything.

You want to get out of Iraq? We won't as long as there's a Republican veto. You want universal healthcare? We won't have it, as long as there's a Republican veto. You want anything to get better? It won't, as long as there's a Republican veto.

[Egnever]

57. Sorry I dont buy that BS either

If our party wanted out of Iraq they could easily do it. Unfortunately the military industrial complex is so entrenched they control both parties. Electing hillary will do absolutely nothing to change that. Ill take gridlock over more damage from the corporate wing of the dem party any day.

[Occam Bandage]

64. "If our party wanted out of Iraq they could easily do it."

How? If they cut off funding, Bush could simply divert funding from other pentagon programs. First research programs, then other deployments (such as Germany and Japan), then veteran's benefits, etc., etc.

[Egnever]

67. then make him do it

The backlash would be extreme if he did anything of the sort. I dont buy that BS excuse for a second either.

[Occam Bandage]

70. " The backlash would be extreme."

And directed mostly at Democrats, who cut off funding for supplies, medical care, and ammunition without passing any sort of withdrawal bill. While I hate to break this to you, the Democratic leaders are very likely more intelligent than you, and have access to more polling data than you do. And public polling data does indicate that an immediate defunding is just as unpopular as indefinite deployment.

[Egnever]

76. And thats our difference

you and our current dem leadership are willing to put aside principles for public polling. I am not. I want leaders willing to stand up for what the perty suposedly believes in instead of worying about what might happen if they take a bold stand for what is right.

Your loyalty oath Bs enables them to continue doing just that. I am sick and tired of leadership that follows the pollls instead of moving the polls to them. If you believe we have the better ideas you have to be willing to fight to get them accomplished and not just roll over at any sign of trouble. Untill we put people in office willing to fight for what is right instead of what the people seem willing to accept at the moment we never even hear the arguments to make the changes that are needed.

sorry our dem leaders are proving to be imbeciles. They were given the majority to opose bush and they have caved time and again. I will keep working to try to get people in willing to stand up and fight for what is right .

You keep enabling whoever is trhown at you because you are afraid of the republicans.
Our two party system is playing you like a fiddle.

[Occam Bandage]

79. I also want leaders willing to do that. I'm just aware

that voting against the Democratic party will not actually bring those leaders; it will simply catapult more Bushes into office.

[Egnever]

98. Ridiculous

So voting for whatever is given you is somehow going to change the party more effectively than rejecting Dem's who don't adhere to what the party is supposed to stand for?

You making this shit up as you go along?

[rucky]

31. I would leave the party, but still vote for her.

The vote part is private, but the party registration is public. It's a safer and more effective way to send a message.

[MercutioATC]

25. Correction: 49% of DUers aren't sheep

...well, I'm sure some of the "yes" votes are people who actively support Clinton. They're not sheep, they're voting for the candidate they feel is best.

However, you don't have to vote for an "annointed" candidate to be a Democrat. Voting "no" does NOT kick you out of the club.

[Occam Bandage]

36. I'm sorry, but if you enable Republicans in the GE, you are the most sheeplike of all.

[MercutioATC]

40. But enabling bad Democrats is Ok?

Yes, Democrats are generally more in line with our way of thinking, but most of them have proving they're not doing the job we sent them there to do.

Is it possibly better just to do what we're supposed to do in an election and vote for who WE think is the best person for the job?

[Occam Bandage]

41. It's a binary game. HRC votes Democratic 97% of the time. She's about as Democratic as you get.

If you want to throw a fit and decide to enable the Republicans, good for you. But you really oughtn't call yourself a Democrat, because you're obviously a third-party supporter.

[MercutioATC]

48. You support every "Democratic" issue?

I think you'd be the first.

That aside, if we're talking specifically about Clinton, she voted in support of the IWR...one of the most Republican-enabling pieces of legislation ever seen.

Anybody can be wrong every once in a while, but the fact that this was such a BIG error compounded with her refusal to issue a real mea culpa speaks to her character and decision-making ability, in my opinion.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Nope. But I support enough of them that I consider them better than Republicans.

Apparently you do not consider them better than Republicans. Why are you on Democratic Underground?

[MercutioATC]

60. Oh, they're better than Republicans...they're just not the best we have to offer.

I'm here because I'm a Democrat. However, part of being a real Democrat (or anything else) is voicing concerns when you have them and proposing a solution.

You might not agree with my concerns. You may not agree with my solutions. You don't have the right, however, to question my motivation or right to be here.

[Occam Bandage]

63. If you believe the Dems are good, then the General Election should be an easy choice.

[HughBeaumont]

78. You really have NO business WHATsoever to dictate who is "allowed" on DU and who isn't.

Let's just make that PERFECTLY clear, understood?

Our vote is our vote. It is not up to YOU or anyone else in America to decide that or be an arbiter of anyone's Democratic cred for not supporting candidates with less-than-democratic positions on critical issues.

[Occam Bandage]

80. I didn't claim anyone wasn't allowed. I simply asked why someone who does not support the Democrats

(as evidenced by opposition to a candidate who votes Democratic 97% of the time) is on DU.

[HughBeaumont]

85. She gets no medal for doing what she's SUPPOSED to do.

It's more than just voting; a candidate also has to display some progressive ideals on issues that affect real Americans. It's her bad positions on critical issues that we're concerned with, particularly on Bewsh's wars, Health care, free trade and job offshoring.

[Occam Bandage]

88. You realize there wouldn't have ever been a President Bush

had not 100,000 Floridians thought the same way about Gore in 2000.

[Invidious]

89. Her Voting Record

isn't the end all-be all, she is just on the wrong side of too many of the issues I care about. Plus the inability of her supporters to do anything but berate those that are not for her has driven me further away.

[Occam Bandage]

91. Check the avatar.

[BootinUp]

11. I call bullshit on the party dividers. nt

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Wouldn't even consider it.

[robbedvoter]

13. Easier than I would have a while ago. At least she attacks Bush!

[Flabbergasted]

18. Obama: Bush Falls Short As World Leader (many more examples)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3067846

[robbedvoter]

104. But he called him "efficient" in the last debate, and he embraces Raygun - eeeew!

Until now these two candidates were almost identical to me - with a slight preference for Obama for his IWR stand. Tha Raygun/Bush thinghie turns it around. And actually makes ma kinda disgusted, seeing how many here defend raygun/making nice to raygun

[Onlooker]

16. Anyone who wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee is selfish

There are gays, poor people, women, people of color, victims of war, etc. who would be far better off with any Democrat than with any of the Republicans running right now. One more Supreme Court Justice appointed by a Republican and it's likely we'll see the end of a woman's right to choose, not to mention a further collapse in protection for other minorities. It's disgraceful that anyone in this forum would even consider not voting for the Democratic nominee.

[Carrieyazel]

105. And what further collapse in protection for minorites do you think will happen?

Protections that were in effect in 2000 have not been taken away. As awful as this administration has been, their incompetence and idiocy has mitigated the damage. And wouldn't a Democratic-controlled Congress and Dem majorities at all other levels act as a blockade to prevent a Repube president from attempting to do any of that?

I agree with you on the Supreme court; definitely that's the biggest worry by far.

[Webster Green]

19. I won't like it, but I will do it.

I'm voting for Dennis in the primary.:patriot:

[dbackjon]

20. Anyone that does not vote for the Democratic nominee

NEEDS TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.

You make me sick. You are the exact reason that we had to endure 8 years of Bush's bull crap. HRC or Obama or Edwards may not be the perfect candidate, but they are a million times better than the alternative.



Anyone that does not vote for the Democratic Nominee is no better than the worst Talibanistic, Fascist Freeper. Disgusting that this is even an issue.

[MercutioATC]

33. How's that "Vote Dem" thing working for ya?

We have the majority in Congress and we're STILL getting almost nothing done. In fact, these great Democratic leaders we've elected have willfully chosen to ignore important issues while making time for things like hearings on steroid use in Major League Baseball.

Democrats and Republicans at our level usually have very different beliefs and goals.

Democrats and Republicans at their level usually don't.

How does it serve us to vote against our conscience because the Dems at the top have picked a different candidate?

[dbackjon]

37. Democrats have a bare majority in the Senate

And ass-wipe Bush keeps vetoing bills - we can not get anything done until we are a majority in all branches.

The thought of another Scalia on the Supreme Court should be enough for anyone with half a brain to vote Democratic.

[MercutioATC]

43. How many bills has Bush Vetoed? A half dozen?

Our changes aren't failing because Bush is vetoing them...they're failing because OUR elected representatives (Dems) either aren't proposing them or aren't voting for them.

The Supreme Court issue is valid, but I believe it takes a back seat to our immediate need for real change.

[dbackjon]

47. And how many dozen have been bottled up in the Senate

By the Republicans filibustering?

There is zero chance of good change, only bad change, with a Republican President. There is at least a good chance of change, and 100% chance that things will not get worse, with a Democratic President.

[MercutioATC]

54. And how many have not been introduced or supported by Dems?

We're our own worst enemy here...

It's my view that long-term benefits are worth working for even if they entail some short-term pain. The established Democratic leadership has proven pretty damn ineffective at effecting positive change. We can continue this death by a thousand cuts, or we can vote for candidates that we feel would make real changes.

[Occam Bandage]

65. The Republicans have already set a record for filibusters, and the session is half over.

[Carrieyazel]

107. So you don't blame the despicable media treatment of Al Gore, the Monica mess, Gore's missteps

the crappy ballot in Florida, skullduggery from Katharine Harris, etc., all of which is every bit as culpable as the dopes who voted for Nader? There's a lot of blame to go around.

[leftynyc]

108. Abrasive but I agree 100% (eom)

[featherman]

21. Definitely... any DEM but with the caveat that I will not

be looking forward to four more years of anger, divisiveness, bitter partisanship, and gridlocked government that would certainly ensue

[Zynx]

22. I call bullshit on those who say they won't.

I bet 3/4 of them will vote for her if it comes to that.

[rox63]

24. Yes, I will vote for the Dem nominee

even if it is not my favored candidate.

[Guava Jelly]

28. I'll vote for whatever slab of meat gets the nod.

Because our worst is better than the republicans best.

[Larkspur]

29. Can't vote for anyone who wants to ship my job to India

and Hillary does.

I'd like to ship her job to India and see how she likes working as a greeter at Walmart.

[HughBeaumont]

92. But, but but . . . ANY jawb is better'n NO jawb!!

A job's a job's a job! Being a MalWart greeter makes just as much as manufacturin' or computer techin'!!!!1!!!!1!!

Ah, the dead elephant HRC supporters continually whistle past in the room and at the same time wonder why we'd never cast a vote for a pro-free-trader such as her.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

[redqueen]

30. Yup. (nt)

[Debi]

32. Of course - I will vote for the Democratic nominee

:patriot:

[Taverner]

34. Do Republicans eat their own?? OF COURSE

And I think she'll make a damn fine president. So will Obama. And Edwards.

[onenote]

35. so many noses being cut off to spite so many faces

[Egnever]

38. Other.. Depends who she is up against.

I will probably fall in line one last time. I cantguarentee it though. My distaste for hillary is on the same level as my distaste for a lot of our congress critters at this point. I am sick of the lying lot of them. If it apears we will get a good majority of dems in the senate then I might just vote for someone else. I think it will be a false choice at that point anyway.

[ZinZen]

39. No

because this voter suppression crap in NV has pushed me over the edge. The Clintons are showing their true colors. They should have not allowed this to happen.

[gemlake]

49. So you'd rather a Repuke get elected for another 4 years?

Riiight.

I will proudly vote for Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

[LostinVA]

72. Are you Zoco's Mother?

[jackson_dem]

44. Yes

[jzodda]

45. I vote yes!

In this daily, sometimes multiple times per day question poll :D

[OHdem10]

56. Hilary has the guts to say the GOP are wrong on some issues

and she will push back on these. Most Recent time I heard
her say this was Sunday on MTP.

She can compliment Gop when they are correct, but she can
criticisize and push back. She understands the country
is on the wrong track.

[ShortnFiery]

75. And HRC will give the Military Industrial Complex every damn "killing machine" and munitions

their ghoulish death-culture desires. This is reflected by HRC's votes NOT to ban Cluster Bombs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/hillary-cluster-bombs-ar_b_28990.html

We will continue to follow the PNAC/BushBot Empire SWAGGER. You doubt it? Just check out the war-mongering bent of one of her most ardent supporters, Bob Kerrey:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/22/bob-kerrey-wrong-iraq/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/17/kerrey-says-obama-attende_n_77209.html

Yes, Bob Kerrey is a warmongering "piece of work" who ENDORSES HRC to the point that he LIES about Obama. :thumbsdown:

Yes, we will be a totalitarian state led by an "Iron Lady" with morally bankrupt surrogates. Gee, is there really that much of a philosophical divide between the RNC and DLC? Methinks that they are *waltzing together* and taking turns at OCCUPYING the WH? While the lion's share of the hard working American People are being financially raped. :thumbsdown:

[Egnever]

99. Spot on

Thanks for that post!

[terrya]

58. Yes, I will vote for her. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Period.

[ShortnFiery]

61. No, if HRC snags the Democratic Nomination, then I will KNOW that the DLC is calling the shots

for The Democratic Party not all that dis-similar to the *harangued talking points" spewed by those who serve the RNC.

I will know that it's media Mogul BILLIONAIRES such as Rupert Murdock (FOX) and Bob Johnson (BET) who send tainted messages to the American People.

THEN I will know that our beloved country has made the transformation into full blown FASCISM, i.e., when Corporate and Government Power merge as one. At that time, those of us who do not have at least $300,000-$500,000 in our Stock Portfolios will have *no voice* in our government. :(

Say "NO!" to a 3rd term for The Clintonian DLC stacked Executive Branch. :scared: :nuke:

[Nailzberg]

71. Can't say until I see a slate of third party candidates

[dionysus]

73. if you add in a "yes, but will have to get drunk first" option, i will choose it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. If Lee Mercer's campaign falls short, I guess so

[Midlodemocrat]

87. Don't even SUGGEST such a thing!!!

That man is exactly what we need. :rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

82. I am not a member of Motion Picture Academy

therefore I can not vote for Ms Swank.

[proud patriot]

84. Yes

[Critters2]

86. Yes. I'll hold my nose, but yes.

The Greens have no possible candidates I could support, so I'll vote for the Dem, whoever it is.

[Midlodemocrat]

90. One word - SCOTUS. Whoever gets the nod, gets my vote.

And, I question the sincere Democratic notion of anyone who says otherwise.

[Zorra]

94. Absolutely. I suspect that, once elected, she may prove to be more

of a classic liberal than many of her supporters here bargained for.

[THUNDER HANDS]

97. of course

it's a silly question. we shouldn't even have to ask this on here.

[closeupready]

101. I'll have to think about it. And anyway, we aren't allowed to answer "no", so

I'm not even sure what you hoped to accomplish by posting this poll.

[wintersoulja]

103. so besides fanning hatred in at least one direction

what does this tell supporters of the Senator from Wal-Mart?
She best be counting on Republican votes in the general, or Machine chicanery throughout.

[leftynyc]

109. Stuff it with the machine chicanery

If you've been following the recounts and are paying attention, she's getting MORE votes than she had (as are Edwards and Obama albeit a smaller amount). Or in your fevered imagination is she screwing with the recount also?

[wintersoulja]

110. you dont even know what type of machinery i referenced

more than one way to skin an election, isnt there?
a little bullying should pay dividends,eh?
worked for Hitler.

[leftynyc]

111. Comparing any of our candidates to Hitler

could be the most loathsome thing I've ever seen on this board. If I felt you had the capacity for shame, I would try, however, I'll have to settle for finally breaking down and putting someone on ignore.

[wintersoulja]

115. once again the mark is missed

Im not comparing any candidates to Hitler or the Holocaust. That distinction is usually reserved for our nasty enemies like Saddam and all the rest of those world beaters the Bush family has turned on.
However, a few parallels in persecution might be fair warning regarding the behavior of
some folks. Its not as if the rise of NAZI Germany hasnt been pointed at before in relation to
our current political culture.

[mnhtnbb]

106. In the last week I've moved from the don't want to think about it to the definite yes

column.

In fact, I even came to the conclusion that I would support her over Obama if Edwards doesn't stay in for the long haul.

As long as Edwards is in, I'm supporting him.

[annie1]

118. cool! : )

[Strawman]

112. You bet your ass I will

[navarth]

113. what other option would I have?

yes...holding my nose

[HughBeaumont]

116. Well, this bullshit was productive.

As usual.

[MethuenProgressive]

117. 7:40 PM update: Democrats 13, Freepers 84.

Huckabee has strong DU support in some Hopeful circles...