Here --more than anything -- just upset me about the Whole Hilary issue.

[diabeticman]

Please Hear (read) me out. I don't want to be disrespectful I am just hoping some can see why some people (like my wife and I ) are
uncomfortable about Hillary in 2016.


My wife said this and to me she hit the nail on the head --at least for me.


First off I will begin by saying my wife and I don't like how "close" she is with Wall Street. It seems when she was Senator she would more likely take a stance that would help big banks other than middle class/working poor/poor. I am not saying ALL the time but when it came to the benefit of one or the other Wall Street won. It seems she is in Goldman Sachs back pocket more than other Corporations.

My wife and I are just use to the fact that the majority of politicians --especially now after Citizens United-- are puppets for Wall Street/corporate America.

This is the big issue. The whole idea that she is being crown Ordained Heir Apparent to the "Presidential Throne".

There is no REAL primaries happening on the Democratic side and WE do need the primaries.

Yes, the Republicans have made primaries a SNL writer's wet dream of laughter. It seems the party is trying to see how extreme they can get with every election to get the fundies, extremist and racist out in force. They have made the primaries a joke and my wife and I can see where people are so sick they just want to skip them entirely BUT as my wife said-- WE NEED THE PRIMARIES! The Primaries help get ideas talked about and different points of views and problem solving out in the light. IF nothing else with primary polls it helps the candidates understand what the average American is REALLY concerned and worried about.

We need other candidates to Challenge Hillary because we need these debates to help people think Critically.

Yeah, with the dumbing down of America now at days why shouldn't we be told you can choose A or B--This is the danger. When we allow a tunnel vision we lose out on ideas and even new view points.

This 2016 election right now is showing the damage Citizens United case has done. It just feels like we are getting two Puppets whose strings for the most part is pulled by the 1%.

We shouldn't be shutting people out for being "Too Liberal" or whatever reasons.

This is Just the humble opinion of Diabetic man and his wife.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[QuestionAlways]

47. We need a primary and I love Hillary

I also love Bernie and Elizabeth. However, in any case I will vote for Hillary. I know that as of now, Hillary is the only candidate in the race; but she does not have a gun pointed at the heads of the other possible candidates telling them not to run. She, like any candidate, only has control of her own actions. There will be other candidates and a primary and debates, I can almost guarantee it. The party needs it, Hillary needs it, and we need it. Otherwise the Republicans will be the whole show in town, this primary season. We do not need them getting all that free air time on TV. So don't worry, you will have your chance to make your choice within the democratic primary, but only you, and others like you, will determine how strong and real that choice will be

[azureblue]

68. but let's face it

the truth is that out of both parties, no one is more qualified to be president than Ms. Clinton, nationally or internationally. She has the respect and backing of world leaders - heck, even republicans like her. She will be the first in a very long time to step into the presidency with world approval. And that is not to be sneezed at.

And this "friend of wall street" meme totally ignores what she is doing, and that is teaming up with and seeking advice from Warren to end teh power of wall street and big banks. Put it to rest.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Maybe you are reading the wrong post and cognitive dissonance has taken over.

The ordained Heir Apparent to the presidential throne is one of the favorite talking points. The Hillary supporters is not the voice in this talking point. In fact, I have encouraged on several occasions for them to find a candidate they want to run. I have seen offerings for Elizabeth Warren who says she isn't going to run and Bernie who has not joined the Democratic party ergo, can't run in the DNC primary.

I am thinking there are others who would run but not to subject themselves and their families to the abuse handed out, it is brutal.

[delrem]

7. No, diabeticman is speaking a truth.

It's an awful truth, but it's a truth.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Well if Hillary is the only one entering the DNC primary then by default she will get the nomination

But she nor her supporters have stopped others from entering so diabeticman is not telling the truth.

[delrem]

31. diabeticman is speaking a truth. It isn't yours or Hillarys,

and you have no right to deny it.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Perhaps you are confused. Prove your point with a link.

[delrem]

43. You want me to link to the OP we're talking about? sheeee!

What a bunch of horseshit.

You haven't said anything on point, to disprove the truth he uttered.
Nor have you shown any comprehension of that truth.

sheeee!

eta: and don't anybody *change* what diabeticman said and then call *him* a liar!

[Thinkingabout]

44. goodbye

[quakerboy]

57. Have not stopped others...

Yeah. Sure.

They've sucked up the funding. You can bet they have made behind the scenes connections to make it clear that any Obama style upset contenders will be met with overwhelming force and destruction. They've sucked up the super delegates well ahead of the first vote cast. by the emails Ive gotten, its clear Clinton has locked up the democratic party machine.

But sure, if your willing to be shown no mercy and no love and no money, feel free to run. Its wide open.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Not if you listen to the other potential candidates. Even Bernie has said he could

Beat Hillary. It is more than funding, Hillary has experience and knowledge which are above others and to me it is more important to elect the most qualified person.

[QuestionAlways]

89. You have said " they have made behind the scenes connections"

Who is this "they." I know politics is a rough sport but do you really think any "Obama style upset contenders will be met with overwhelming force and destruction." Come on now, aren't you exaggerating a little bit.

Hillary has been running for 9 years, and I would be very surprised if she had not gotten the organizational and establishment support of the democratic party. She is the safest bet there is, and the pro's like safe. The last time she also had these advantages, so she just sat back and waited to be handed the prize. She did not realize Obama was a revolutionary figure, the first black man who had a realistic chance to be POTUS. She learned from the last time and will not make the same mistake again.

This time she is not sitting back, and she is also the revolutionary figure, the first woman who has a realistic chance to be POTUS. And unlike last last time, this time she is calling attention to it. This is why other possible candidates know they really have no realistic chance of winning, so they are avoiding the race

[sabrina 1]

9. You haven't been paying attention. There are other candidates getting ready to announce.

I like what I've learned about one of them very much, so far. I hope to learn about him. But on important issues, he has been excellent, forthright with no waffling or 'wait and see' stances.

He wants to RAISE SS Benefits, no CPI thankfully.

He opposes strongly, the TPP, that alone is going to get him a lot of support.

He supports the Public Schools and we have learned, has a record to show his management of education issues in his state.

Waiting to hear more after he announces, but so far, he sounds like a great candidate.

I'm beginning to get excited actually.

Then we have Chafee planning on his announcement in May I believe.

Don't know enough about him right now to say anything either negative or positive, but from what I remember about him, he is a pretty decent guy and has a lot of experience in politics.

I believe he voted against the Iraq War, airc. Will have to check on that, but that is a big factor in any candidate for a lot of people.

Hillary was just the first to announce, that is all. I hope there are plenty of candidates, that is how democracy works best.

[delrem]

13. Every one of them will have to challenge the reasoning

that big money wins always and every time, so this is a justifiable excuse for a candidate being a bought and paid for tool of corporate privateers and war profiteers.

It amazes me how many times I've heard variations of that argument made, on DU. Followed by an argument that the self-same candidate is progressive, too, because the candidate is "running on" some progressive slogans that "sound just like" some true progressive politicians.
Whew.

It's a deadly argument.
I mean, it necessarily has to be wrong, if democracy (small 'd') is to exist, so it's self-annihilating.
Perhaps not in time for these US primaries, though.
In which case progressive Dems, the ones who believe in democracy rather than just money and private profit alone, should be already thinking about a plan B for 2020.

[sabrina 1]

19. Good points, one more thing Progressives should be focusing on right now is the Senate and Congress.

Because once a president is elected, as we have learned, they disappear inside a bubble and the people have no access or influence over them.

But Congress is more responsible to the voters. With a good progressive majority, clearing out those who vote with Republicans on important issues, and replacing them with actual Democrats who view their jobs as representing the PEOPLE, would ensure that a check, as intended, will be held on the Executive Branch.

Right now we have no power, the Dem Leadership lost us the House and Senate, then laughably tried to 'blame the voters'.

But it is necessary to not allow the WH race to distract us from what is even more important, imo, the House and Senate.

[delrem]

27. Your posts on this topic have helped me understand US politics

from a strategic-left perspective.
It's enjoyable reading them.

[sabrina 1]

33. Thank you. The White House Race takes up way too time imo. And either by design or accidentally,

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 01:29 AM - Edit history (1)

attention is directed to that one race. But way more important imo, is winning a majority in the Senate and Congress.

Then no matter who wins the White House, they will not be able to easily implement bad policies. As it is now, if the Republicans hang on to their majority in the House and Senate, no matter who is President, Republicans will have the power to implement more of their awful policies.

So imo, we should be making a list of where we can challenge right wing candidates. And then find and support good Democrats.

It won't be easy but we can't win if you ignore those races.

[winter is coming]

42. I think you meant your post title to say "White House Race".

Kinda did a double-take when I saw "White Race".

[sabrina 1]

54. Lol, I did mean 'White House Race'.

[diabeticman]

15. I hope you are right Sabrina but it just seems from some of the post on this board alone that seems

to be saying "get on the Hillary Bus now".


Maybe you are right and I'm not seeing everything and neither my wife but it just feels as if people are saying it is Hillary or Bust.

[sabrina 1]

28. My post wasn't directed at you diabeticman. It does seem that DU is pushing just one candidate, but

it's not a majority. Put up a poll as people have done, and Hillary is the least popular when up against Warren, Bernie Sanders, and now we have two more candidates who ARE going to run.

They are jumping the gun by attempting to create the impression that we must all support Hillary. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just give it some time. Hillary has been running for more than a year, but her announcement makes it official, so naturally her supporters would like to have no challenges I suppose.

We have over a year and a half to go. A lot can happen in that time. It's way too long a time imo. The WH race should begin six months at the longest before the election.

[diabeticman]

34. [phone]

"... It's way too long a time imo. The WH race should begin six months at the longest before the election."

[Agschmid]

35. .

The WH race should begin six months at the longest before the election.

So you don't support a primary?

.

.

.

.

Kidding of course.

[Agschmid]

21. This.

[rhett o rick]

37. And you stick with the Oligarch's favorite, apparently afraid to stand up for

our freedoms and liberties. Wall Street want's our money and won't stop until we are destitute.

[sabrina 1]

3. We need primaries with as many candidates who want to run participating. Without choices this is not

a democracy and if you don't like the candidate who chosen by those with money, then you are left without a voice. THAT is why we need primaries.

[msongs]

4. you like obama? you voted for obama? well hillary and obama are practically the same except

when she was secretary of state and her job was to implement obama's policy.

[DonCoquixote]

6. did that even adress the OP?

No, it did not. An Unchallenged Hillary will be a weaker Hillary that can get mowed down by Koch bought ads.

[tularetom]

5. Shut up and be happy you even get two choices

If it was up to the 1% it would be a Russian election - 1 candidate and no room for a write in.

So in order to preserve the fiction that we live in an actual democracy, we get to select from two almost identical corporate stooges, and the corporate owned media spend gazillions of dollars telling us how different they are.

On edit: I left out the most important part. Yes, that is why we need primaries and we need active participation in those primaries by all factions of the Democratic party.

[TDale313]

8. Actually, I think this illusion of choice...

Serves tptb just fine.

[HERVEPA]

10. Total Bull and you know it.

On social issues the two parties are miles apart.
On economic issues not so much, but Republicans still much worse.
If you try to tell ne Hillary is the same as Cruz or Rubio or Christie or Walker or Jindal or any of the rest of those clowns then you are not paying attention or you are being disingenuous.

[blkmusclmachine]

12. Window dressing.

[HERVEPA]

14. Yeh. tell that to the people who didn't die because Obamacare exists.

I'm sure they'll think it's window dressing/ You're more elitist than the 1%

[LanternWaste]

71. No doubt, the narrow-minded will believe that the 93 women's health clinics that shut down in 2013

No doubt, the narrow-minded will believe that the 93 women's health clinics that shut down in 2013 and 73 in 2014 and 15 to date in 2015 are indeed, little more than mere window dressing. To be frank, I'd be surprised if the narrow-minded thought any differently...

[treestar]

61. Nothing stops people from campaigning for anyone

Why do people think this is a consumer decision, a "choice." Start up a campaign.

[sabrina 1]

66. Campaigns are going to begin. Did you start Hillary's campaign

btw? Could you give us some advice on how you did it?

[treestar]

81. Somebody did it.

They didn't sit around on the internet demanding more choices.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. 1% to America: "Pick your candidate of choice. We own them all."

[840high]

16. Yes they do.

[still_one]

18. When George McGovern ran he was right about almost everything, but especially the war. When Barryh

Goldwater ran he was wrong about almost everything, especially the war and social security

I believe both candidates lost by wide margins because the perceptions at the time were they were too extreme. One toward the liberal end, and one toward the conservative end.

My question is simply what kind of candidate could win today?

Bush won twice, and his administration was as right wing as they come.

Obama won twice, and for the most part his policies were moderate to liberal on some issues.

What kind of candidate has the best chance to win today?

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Bush didn't "win twice"

He had to get the US Supreme Court to award him the presidency, after it was becoming apparent that Gore would win Florida, despite all the shenanigans that had been occurring in the state that was governed by Bush's brother, and where the votes were being counted by his campaign co-chair. And nationwide, Gore got more than a half million votes more than Bush.

[bvf]

48. Thank you for pointing this out.

Not to go off the rails here, but I'm happy to see corrections to the whole "Bush won twice" canard wherever it crops up.

As an Ohioan, I'm not convinced he even won once.

[Enthusiast]

67. We should have started shooting if we had known what they would do to the country.

You know, after they stole the election.

[QuestionAlways]

90. What kind of candidate has the best chance to win today?

As always, the candidate who is perceived as the most moderate, who will rock the boat the least. Most people fear change, and Obama would not have won in '08 except the economy fell apart one month before the election.

[still_one]

91. I don't agree with that assessment. McCain had a very real chance until he choose Palin. She

troubled a lot of people, especially the independents, but also some republicans at the time.

Also, the republican party was moving even further to the right, and mccain was viewed as "too moderate" within his own party, though his true colors have come out since, that he is actually a batshit crazy war lover, and his choice of palin was actually very representative of his reasoning and judgement calls.

[QuestionAlways]

94. After the Republican Convention, at which Palin gave her acceptance speech

McCain was beating Obama in the polls. And then the economy fell apart. Mccain did not suspend his campaign to go to Washington as Obama did and FROM THAT POINT ONWARD THE ELECTION WAS OVER.

[still_one]

98. That may be, but Peggy Noonan, a hardcore republican made the comment after Palin was selected that

McCain just lost the election

As to your point about the polls after the convention, it is quite normal for polls after a party's convention to cause a convention bounce for the respective candidate, and that is what I attribute it too. In addition, most of mccains advisors were not happy with his choice, and their concerns were verified when she opened her mouth. It sure wasn't due to the mediocre journalist we have, she did it to herself

[pnwmom]

20. Don't you have to have multiple filed candidates to have a primary?

I haven't seen a single person make an official announcement except for Hillary.

Obama announced on February 10 in 2007, and John Edwards announced in December 2006.

If someone is going to run, he or she should have already announced. I don't see why anyone would be waiting.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. What's the rush to announce a year before the primaries start?

[pnwmom]

49. Ask Obama. He won. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

50. JFK didn't announce until January 2, 1960

And he was competing in a field of 10 candidates.

[pnwmom]

51. Our current primary system didn't exist then. You could go into the convention with a minority of delegates

and come out the winner.

As recently as 1968 only 14 states had primaries.

[LanternWaste]

72. What is the precise and relevant time frame from which an announcement should be made

What is the precise and relevant time frame from which an announcement should be made, and on what objective measure is that based?

[Chathamization]

26. There are plenty of primaries where there is only one name on the ballot for a position. N/T

[diabeticman]

30. yes, you are right BUT there is a HUGE difference between a Primary for local Dog Catcher and The

Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

[Chathamization]

40. Obama was actually the only name on the ballot here the last Democratic presidential primary

But yeah, he was the incumbent. Even then, he had challengers in some states. Clinton's not going to be the only one on the ballot.

[zeemike]

23. Don't be fooled by the Republican clown car.

They are there to scare us into not having a competitive primary...and accept a Goldman Sachs nominee with baggage because she is not as bad as they are.
At the end they will nominate the reasonable one...Jeb... and we will have the one with the most baggage to unpack.

We just don't understand how the con works...but they do. Throw out some red herring to keep our attention focused on them.

[rhett o rick]

39. Right on. nm

[RufusTFirefly]

53. A+ 100 percent!

Once you understand the con, it's pretty obvious. The loonies are designed to make us heave a huge sigh of relief when we only elect a corporatist. Just think: I could've been so much worse!

[hrmjustin]

25. That is fine. i hope we can all unite around our nominee.

We can disagree. No big deal.

[onehandle]

29. Nobody is saying that there will be no primaries except for the Hillary haters.

I want primaries because it's free advertising for the Democratic Party and the nominee.

The 'Not Hillary' supporters are driving fear with repetitive bullshit, on an online forum. I see none of this from liberal Democrats I know in the real world.

[Agschmid]

36. Yup.

[workinclasszero]

86. Same here.

My wife is excited to vote for Hillary and I was talking to a male co-worker yesterday that backs Hillary and will vote for her.

[Yo_Mama]

32. K&R

[SheilaT]

38. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

If Hillary is simply crowned, it will be a total disaster. If she wins after a primary/caucus season as strong as the one in 2008, I still won't be happy because there is so much about her I don't like, but at least she will have prevailed over other candidates.

Hillary Clinton is close to Wall Street. She voted for George W Bush's war. She is completely tone deaf about the needs of real Americans. Totally broke when they left the White House? No. She has no idea of what totally broke is really about. She has willingly bombed women and children. So far as I can tell she has done nothing about real women's rights in most of the world. She at best pays lip service to them in this country.

Oh, and I understand she pays women staffers less than she pays her men staffers. So much for pay equality.

If she becomes President she will (maybe with a pretense at reluctance but more probably not) sign legislation that further advances the age to collect Social Security and Medicare. She'll do appropriate hand-wringing and talk about difficult choices without ever acknowledging that Bush (and maybe Obama, I'm not quite sure here) got us into wars that weren't paid for. And lowered taxes on the wealthiest. While blaming the poor for being poor.

A populist? No. Someone who will subvert advertising to make us think she's a populist? Yes.

For those of you who haven't already read it, "What's the Matter with Kansas" is still a good read, and is totally pertinent to the Hillary problem.

[Agschmid]

45. .

Oh, and I understand she pays women staffers less than she pays her men staffers. So much for pay equality.

False.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/internal-data-hillary-clinton-paid-women-and-men-equally#.qxkLOzvPe

Hillary Clinton paid women and men equally as a U.S. senator, according to a review of internal salary information that shows full-time female and male staffers from her Senate office and three political committees making a dollar for dollar.

Clinton, who has been a longtime advocate of equal pay for women, is expected to launch a second presidential bid on Sunday — and has, along with senior aides, spent recent weeks building her campaign staff, to be headquartered in Brooklyn.

The compensation data, obtained by BuzzFeed News, spans from 2002 to 2008 — a period covering every full fiscal year of Clinton’s tenure as the junior senator from New York.

Staffers included were on the payroll of either the Senate office or Clinton’s political entities from that time period: Friends of Hillary, Hill PAC, and Hillary Clinton for President. (The data also shows one staffer who worked jointly for Clinton and a Senate committee.)

[Agschmid]

46. .

So far as I can tell she has done nothing about real women's rights in most of the world. She at best pays lip service to them in this country.

False, but open to some interpretation...

And Clinton allies argue that embracing women’s issues comes naturally to Clinton.

Tracy Sefl, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary who worked on the 2008 campaign, said that, “at every turn Hillary Clinton demonstrates that the advancement of the rights and opportunities for women and girls is central to who she is.

“This isn't a side issue, this isn't a one-off,” Sefl said. “As she says, this is 'our great unfinished business.'”

Source.

- 1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion.
- Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception.
- Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus.
- Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
- Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.
- Women in Public Service Project: 50% of officials by 2050.
- Crack down on sex trafficking of women and girls.
- Women’s rights are human rights.
- First chair of ABA Commission on Women and the Profession.

I could go on...

[libdem4life]

77. Please..."if Hillary is crowned"...that's hogwash and I tired of it. This isn't even a make-believe

kingdom unless we roll over and play dead. Also, Citizen's United has set the financing bar, as 2 more justices will see the end of women's rights and dilute voting rights. It's not that far away. Personally I'm still undecided, but to pick apart who is, at present our best chance to avoid the last sentence re SCOTUS, then please tone it down. Wouldn't it be ironic if she lost and the next act was to gut women's rights.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

52. We don't need a Republican Party.

They're all twisted and so beholding to corporate cash or their own versions of Jesus that they are a sideshow voters will see through.

It's equally weird to have only one viable candidate from the Democratic Party. But given who is already endorsing and supporting her, I think Hillary has a real opportunity to be a Progressive in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt.

[JDPriestly]

55. K&R.

[YOHABLO]

56. It's early and she WILL be primaried, yes, most certainly. Just be patient.

[peace13]

58. k&r

For acknowledging that it is OK to make an informed choice.

[treestar]

60. Nothing new here

She has real supporters, so it's not a coronation.

What votes has she made that indicate she wants to help the banks over the people? What has she said? Just speaking to and associating with people does not mean she adopts their political opinions.

[MoonRiver]

62. It's up to other candidates to announce and campaign.

Why aren't they doing that?

[world wide wally]

63. Taking at least a "little" comfort in the fact that she at least acknowledges this is a problem and

at least a mention that she will try to do something about it.
Now it remains to be seen what actually happens, but if you ask me….. She, or any other Dem, will need the help of a Democratic congress!

[Enrique]

64. what's Martin O'Malley?

chopped liver?

[diabeticman]

70. You don't hear much from him.

[Enthusiast]

65. Kicked and recommended! Thank you, diabeticman.

[JaneyVee]

69. Except Hillary is currently the ONLY candidate who...

Has made campaign finance reform a top priority on her to do list.

[LanternWaste]

73. Who is under the fanciful, creative, and melodramatic illusion there will be no primaries?

Who is under the fanciful, creative, and melodramatic illusion there will be no primaries? And would you ask them to send me a baggie of the strain they're smoking...?

[BainsBane]

75. Amazing how that fantasy scenario persists

When we already have thee declared candidates and O'Malley set to declare soon, possibly even Sanders.

[BainsBane]

74. There are two other candidates already announced

and more on the way. You have other choices, and you did a week before you wrote this OP.

[upaloopa]

76. A lot is said on this board about Hillary's record with

absolutely no support for the accusations.
I think these opinion prices should be taken as just that.
Who knows the motive of the OP.
Where is the link to the charge Hillary backed Wall Street over people.
Someone could say just the opposite with as much authenticity!

[Xyzse]

78. I don't believe that people are shutting others out for being "Too Liberal"

In fact, I tend to believe many of us welcome it.

Problem being is that, they do have to go through the process. Process as in, going through the primaries, as well as to see if they can make it out of the burgeoning activity called "garnering support".

There has been no problem in showing support to other primary candidates, and I think it is welcome to show other possibilities. It is just unfortunate, that very few have materialized thus far.

Clinton is currently the only one with the highest name recognition. There is still a heck of a lot of time till the actual election season, so I can't wait to see who else would put their name in to the race.

I can understand being uncomfortable with Hillary Clinton. I don't want her to be the nominee either, but if she does win the primaries, well, I don't see myself having a choice. I don't want a Republican in office. So if I have to donate and support her, come the General Election, I will do it.

Some people are forwarding people to O'Malley, I can only do the same thing. Check the guy out.
There is also Webb, who I don't think I am supporting. I liked him for his moderate views as well as the fact that he was able to win in the Virginia Senate race, but I really only supported and helped him due to the fact that I wanted to help turn VA Blue. Beyond that, I would rather have someone else.

[brooklynite]

79. Sorry, you lost me at "Goldman Sachs back pocket"

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

...followed by"puppets for Wall Street", "Ordained Heir Apparent" and "Presidential Throne".

You said you didn't want to be "disrespectful", and then dropped a litany of insults accompanied by NOT ONE specific policy statement or vote you objected to.

You're welcome to object to Clinton as our nominee. You're welcome to encourage anyone else you want to run (nb - at this point in the game it's pretty late to be getting in with any hope of running a successful campaign - Chafee, O'Malley, Webb and probably Sanders are all you're likely to have to choose from). But if you want to convince any Hillary supporters or undecided to join you (a pretty substantial number of Democratic voters by current estimates), you might want to try a more "respectful" set of arguments.

Just a suggestion.

[diabeticman]

82. Here is some links

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/12/hillary-clinton-wall-streets-pick-2016/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782.html#.VTa2mLlFDIU

http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/15/heres-hillary-clinton-presidency-mean-global-warming/

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

http://www.thenation.com/article/191521/hawk-named-hillary

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton


Those are just a few.

AND the fact I have seen more posts lately about how We have to get behind Hillary on this board. Any talk about any other candidate on this board seems to get slammed.

I am NOT trying to convince Hillary Clinton supports of anything OTHER than We need a TRUE primary process. It has been extremely once sided in favor of Hillary and if she ends up being the Candidate -FINE- BUT don't deny that we need a true primary in which a true debate on the issues are talked about.

[brooklynite]

83. And no Hillary supported has objected to a Primary...

What HAS been said is that Democrats should be prepared to support Hillary if she's the nominee. A position fully consistent with Skinner's TOS.

[diabeticman]

84. It seems anyone who starts talking about supporting others are slammed.

[QuestionAlways]

92. All ot us would welcome a primary

but it will be difficult to beat Hillary because Hillary has been running for 9 years, and I would be very surprised if she had not gotten the organizational and establishment support of the democratic party. She is the safest bet there is, and the pro's like safe. The last time she also had these advantages, so she just sat back and waited to be handed the prize. She did not realize Obama was a revolutionary figure, the first black man who had a realistic chance to be POTUS. She learned from the last time and will not make the same mistake again.

This time she is not sitting back, and she is also the revolutionary figure, the first woman who has a realistic chance to be POTUS. And unlike last last time, this time she is calling attention to it. This is why other possible candidates know they really have no realistic chance of winning, so they are avoiding the race.

[brooklynite]

97. Please define "slammed".....

Someone disagreed with you?

[onehandle]

93. What other candidates? Who are these candidates 'getting slammed?'

There is no other declared candidate. Period.

[foo_bar]

88. you mean, "he had me at Goldman Sachs back pocket"?

You're always going on about my wife the Wall St. lawyer and, uh...? Opensecrets.org? Y'all have good taste in venal politicians, I'll concede, and I can't imagine you're buying much influence at the Bronze rate, but I imagine it means you can make a few phone calls, maybe bend the rules a little when you're (not personally) advising Goldman Sachs and their ilk on "cross-border withholding tax and reporting issues". The part I don't get is why you brag about it on DU like a James Bond villain... shouldn't there be an army of minions? (I mean, duh, but still...) I know DU means fuck-all in the world of politics, since you keep reminding us, but what do you get out of this then? Feeling superior to the schmucks who think politics is up for debate?

[Laser102]

80. Vote for who you want!! I don't care!

I'm a Hillary Grandmother and I have seen this woman drug trough the mud and ripped to shreds by the republicans, media and now again by a great many here on DU. She has survived and will survive. She's a fighter so with all due respect to all those rending their garments and explaining why they can't vote for her, I don't care!!! Vote for her, don't vote, whatever. Enough already!

[workinclasszero]

85. Has any other democrat announced that they are in the race?

Who is shutting out "too liberal" democratic candidates that aren't even in the race?

[raindaddy]

87. Completely agree with you and your wife

We need a primary that includes someone to the left of Hillary Clinton. The possibility of just one candidate who's been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to Wall Street, won't state her position on the TPP and has a history of being a hawk, supported fracking, etc is appalling especially with the middle class losing so much ground.

It's time to make some drastic changes and I don't believe that's going to happen under another President Clinton.

[jimlup]

95. Your position is pretty much identical to mine... And it is my wife who has convinced me Hillary is

a mistake for the dems...

I mean I'll vote for her if it is between her and one of the clowns from the clown car but I have to say that I won't be very enthusiastic.

[katmille]

96. You make some good points... But,

We just CANNOT have a Republican win the presidency, if for no other reason than the ages of the Supreme Court justices. You think Citizens United is bad, (and I do) just think if Jeb Bush or Scott Walker gets to nominate 3 or 4 judges. Any hope of a progressive agenda would be dead for decades. So put on you rational thinking cap and get behind a Democrat who can win. Then keep her feet to the fire by working in your precinct and your state to advance the progressive causes.