Not my first choice, but I voted for her.

"Not my first choice, but..."

I'm sorry but it is. Disappointing. Especially coming from you, for some reason.

Again, I'm sorry.

Obama as my new first.

If only we had her, the Senate, and much more of the house now... Just think all we'd be accomplishing. Like new, good paying infrastructure jobs allowing skilled people to once again earn middle class incomes by updating our crumbling nation.

And these DACA kids' biggest worry would be that newly affordable college laws would be phased in, some breaks now, more next year...

In the Iowa exit poll 90%of those who voted for Bernie said they were pleased to have Hillary for a second choice. They were specifically asked if they would use the word respect for how they felt about her and a very large majority said yes.

People like them, mostly Democrats of course, were the typical Bernie voters, his true base. Notably, since Iowa has closed primaries, very little of the Bernie vote was from spoilers who wouldn't vote for him in the general.

what matters is what was done in the booth on election day. Nothing else matters, absolutely nothing.

The only choice.

You see, in my 6+ decades on this planet, I've learned that "purity" is an illusion.

Honestly - when I see the left bicker and attack each other for not being "pure" enough - as in "I agree with all their positions, but there was this one vote 10 yrs ago" or "Well, they did take corporate money once". And that will be the reason to vote against them and demonize them and search for some damn unicorn of perfection.

Whereas the republicans - don't give a flying fuck what you did or do or say or who your money comes from as long as there is an R after your name and you want tax cuts.

I mean - Trump accused Ted Cruz's dad of being involved in the assignation of JFK. Trump was on every side of every issue depending on who asked him. They all fell in line - and continue to do so. Chaffetz was all self-righteous about the "locker room" talk and the need to protect his daughters while Trump was lagging, but once he became the candidate - well...boys will be boys.

It is absolutely ridiculous how hard it is to get the left to come together as one.

which has become overly emoprog, where we essentially alienate would be allies, eat our own, and get hung up on attacking individuals instead of structures.

People are imperfect, and it's their overall body of work/character we should judge them by, not a moment of weakness, or a word they utter in anger (ex: Alec Baldwin absurdly being accused of being a homophobe for locker room type of talk) or said 20 years ago (ex: Hillary being accused of being a racist for saying 'superpredator', when she was just addressing youth crime that was rampant back in the 80s/90's).

Purity simply doesn't work in politics, which is a cynical business, especially in a 2 party system that demands appealing to a large and ideologically diverse electorate.

Republicans also have purity tests, but they more easily come to terms with, and can easily overlook past imperfections or disagreements, and get in line when it comes time to vote.

emoprog? please. i wasn't here in the run-up to the election so i don't know everything that went on, related to animosity. i found it curious when the media talked the sharp nature of the campaign when the dem debates seemed within bounds to me. the only place i heard about a negative campaign was from Hillary - er Barbara boxer - broadcast on the wall at the NV primary. i concede that during the first debate he came off sounding a little short, but his second debate had a better tone. he won that debate handily - Hillary was booed.

I read somewhere the DNC/party plan is to reach out to middle America. while that is important, remember that we can barely get ourselves (as a nation) out to vote. sanders had a huge amount of momentum going into NY but then we started hearing stories about jane sanders college. that, combined with a perceived lack of energy policy (IMO) fluttered his campaign. that is when the "outsiders" would start hearing a different buzz on the street. he should have come out strong for wind, nuclear (whether he meant it or not), and smart oil/gas less coal and would have appeared much stronger.

just the other day i was thinking about who really would have abstained from voting due to a Hillary nomination. it is not a progressive or dem, but one of those elusive middle-of-the-roaders. i supported Kucinich (how's that for unelectable) but voted for Obama and watched every state of the union until he ruled out a public health care option. at that point i knew it was business as usual. i doubt we'll have as good of a candidate for a while, and it's unfortunate.

i don't mean to single out this post and i skimmed over a few of them. i suppose it was the first two lines that i have a problem with. don't blame progressives for a poorly run party strategy. lobbyist lobbyist lobbyist lobbyist, Koch Koch AM radio.

republicans, I admit that I do envy their ability to unite when it comes time to vote.

The Republican candidates have been so bad I vote against them, not for anyone.

That's what people are missing. When you're playing defense not offense you need to change your perspective.

but I voted for him. Funny thing: I did not feel the need to make a big deal out of that and announce it to people months after the election.

Hillary was my first choice. I'm still with her.

Why do people feel compelled to say that kind of qualifying shit before saying something nice about Hillary?

Because there's a ton of posts here still causing infighting between bernie supporters and hillary supporters?

How? I'm not getting any of that was a knock on HRC

As in, some folks can't just say they voted for Hillary or they can't just say that Hillary was right about a certain issue. They have to throw in that she was not their first choice, or similar qualifier, to make it clear they are not a fan. It's like they're afraid to be seen as liking Hillary.

DU was a hostile place for those of us who really respected and liked Kerry in 2005. That was why DU John Kerry was so important to us. It was the only place where a mention of this wonderful statesman was not met with posts using words like held my nose. It is a myth, repeated constantly that no one criticized Kerry after he lost.

And it was not just DU. In 2005 articles there were negative Bill Clinton comments that Kerry and Gore did not understand how to fight the right wing. THAT idea was one part of the 2008 Clinton campaign.

I was stunned by how nasty it got in here for Kerry supporters. I felt that everyone was disrespecting him. There was no reason for it.

I remember a lot of hostility toward Gephardt too. Some of the more childish people kept saying things about pink tutus.

IRL, I did not see that kind of behavior. My daughter worked for Kerry early on. She still has a shirt here that he autographed for her.

I learn a lot at DU. But many of the people here seem content only when they can disrupt. I wonder how many of them get out and do any real work for the party and our candidates. They might find disagreement about candidates, but not the kind of unfiltered nastiness that I see here. Are they keyboard warriors only?

Dean himself was one hundred percent behind the Democratic Party. The rest of us could follow his lead on that.

All candidates should be challenged. If we do not agree with their positions, we should be free to ask them questions at town halls and other types of gatherings. And we need to understand that no one is "pure."

I think we have a lot of posters who are not Democrats and do indeed seem to thrive on being disruptive. It is impossible to discuss issues and policies with people who only want to bash our candidates and abuse their supporters. The name calling and snippy retorts make them appear like middle school children.

regarding the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Gore and Kerry, both of whom I supported in the primaries, are good guys, but they let alot of 'attack memes' go unanswered. You can't do that in this day and age.

Bill (and Obama) obviously was a far more charismatic and tough politician, which in many ways is a natural talent, but I think if Gore and Kerry (and Hillary) fought harder and had better campaign teams, they could've won, as all of those losses were very close.

In 1992, Bush had a below 40 percent apprival by election time. Not to mention, most of Perot's attacks were on Bush and Perot. GWH was stronger than GHWB and Obama at the end of their terms. He was at 60 percent at the end of 2003.

Kerry did not let the SBVT attacks go unchallanged. In April 2004, the first time they hit, he put his entire Navy record on his Web site, other than his medical records, which he opened briefly to the media. The Republican former Vietnam era Secretary of the Navy, Senator John Warner said Kerry's record was accurate and he was a war hero.

With that record there, Democrats other than Kerry, should have been the ones to attack the liars. Defining yourself as a hero is nowhere near as good as others doing it. One person who deserves special blame is Edwards who told the campaign repeatedly he would, then didn't.

Note the SAME party has spent decades defending Bill Clinton for real trangressions. Yet, they failed to defend a real hero against lies. Not to mention, people like Begala and Carville, top Democrats on TV, actually pushed the Kerry is just anybody but Bush and did almost nothing to help get Kerry's accomplishments out. Partly, I suspect, because they did not want the Kerry/Kennedy wing running the party and thought a big 2008 would be better than beating Bush in 2004 before people saw a Iraq as a mess.

However, it was not the SBVT that made the difference. By November, polling did show that most people knew those accusations were lies. 2004 was lost because too many people were still traumatized by 911 and actually were concerned Kerry might be too moral to do things Cheney and Bush were doing - like torture.

All elections are not the same or equally winnable. 1992, like 2008, was a year any Democrat nominated would win. 2000 and 2016 were not as easy. Even 2012 was a harder job for the incumbent than 2004. Kerry beat all the models that looked at the economy and other variables. Had there been enough voting machines in Ohio, he would have pulled off a huge upset.

As to Gore, he really did win Florida and should have become President. Both ran FAR better campains than HRC.

but I disagree that it was better than Bill in '92, which were a rag-tag group with raw political talent that took on the establishment and won: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Room

I don't put much stock in those supposed low approval numbers, as Poppy (unlike W) was actually successful with the Gulf War and was viewed as a competent president, and had crushed Dukakis in '88 after (again, supposedly) being 17 points behind him.

The idea of a Democrat (a party that was in shambles) winning in the age of the Reagan Revolution was still a long shot, and most prominent Dems (Cuomo, et al) decided to sit it out fearing yet another landslide defeat.

It was a fairly unknown governor from a small southern state who burst onto the scene, and through the force of his charisma, moxy and intellect was able to topple the Reagan/Bush dynasty.

By 2004, Dems already knew the 'formula' (center-left pragmatism) for winning national elections - the formula created by the '92 Clinton/Gore ticket.

I do however agree that Kerry faced a more difficult opponent than Gore or Hillary, due to W at that point having wrapped himself in the flag of 9-11/antiterrorism etc. But the Iraq War did fall apart long before election day, so that was the opening Kerry had, and IMO his campaign wasn't tough enough in this regard.

Note, that I do like Kerry, supported him in the primaries, and was devastated when he lost, so I don't come from this from an anti-Kerry perspective.

I also liked Edwards, and thought it was a good choice - even though he later proved not to be tough enough, he still had the charisma and ability to draw in young people that Kerry lacked. Just wish he would've fought Cheney harder, probably would've made all the difference, since the VP is supposed to be the attack dog.

As far as Bill Clinton supposedly not liking Kerry - Bill's 2004 'send me' convention speech in support of Kerry was one of the most powerful speeches I've ever heard, that perfectly encapsulated the difference between a true patriot like Kerry and the chickenhawk neocons.

With many bumps caused by him or his baggage. His charisma and the fact that the media was very much on his side helped him in the primaries.

I still believe any Democrat would have won 1992. I do believe the polls reflected something real. The economy had turned bad and he was blamed. He was very well regarded in early 1991 at the end of the first Gulf War, but Perot and the economy changed that by late 1991.

I agree that the popularity of GHWB did keep some stronger candidates out including Cuomo. However, even before the end of 1991, Bush was in trouble. However, at one point in the general election, Clinton polled THIRD to them. Then Perot imploded speaking of GHWB threatening to disrupt his daughter's wedding and pulled out very near the Democratic convention. Soon Clinton was ahead and stayed ahead until the election.

I think the the broadcast media treated Kerry worse than any major party nominee. It still annoys me that the broadcast media did not blast Republican delegates wearing purple heart band aids, almost condoning those disgusting, undeserved attacks. However, what is worse is they gave him less coverage than normal. Unlike any nominee in modern times, no network did a puff piece bio to play before the convention, although his bio would have made it easy. PBS did a Kerry/Bush bio and some of the cable stations did coverage focused on the only controversy in his bio, his courageous protests. Then almost no coverage, outside the convention and debates, was given other than short snippets where he spoke against Bush. ( Not to mention contrast the nasty coverage of the wonderful, accomplished Teresa vs Melania)

As to Edwards reaching people Kerry didn't, that was the media speaking. KERRY trounced Edwards in the primary and was by far more inspiring when people actually heard him. Kerry was the real deal, while Edwards was a shallow charleton.

I did not say Clinton did not like Kerry. I have no way of knowing what he thought or thinks. I do know Clinton was not happy when he endorsed Obama. What I did say was Kerry was part of the liberal Kennedy wing of the party and some people allied with Clinton did not want the party to go that direction. An ok sentiment in the primaries, but many did not rally around Kerry as nominee.

One thing I thought of as Carville spoke of ABB was that though I supported Tsongus or Brown, I never said I was ABB in 1992. This in spite of Clinton having a bad record on the environment in Arkansas and the fact we already knew his lack of honesty and character from his responses to the draft issue and the Flowers issue. The fact is almost everyone here is already ABT (or ABPence), which is why ABX was always used in the context of a primary.

as they are political rockstars who have an 'extra gear' when they get into tough spots - that really is the difference. Reagan and (and W to a lesser extent) had it too.

In the media age, it's a simple fact that 'boring' candidates (no matter how qualified) have a tough time, as the media knows they're going to have to spend 4 years covering this person, so do the voters/audience, so that factors into it heavily, i.e. the 'do i want to see this person in my living room every night?' test. Sad, but this is how many people (especially swing voters) think.

His win in 1992, which should have been like 2008, was pretty narrow. Also, time matters in terms of issues. Bill Clinton absolutely would have lost 2004. I am assuming he had continued as Governor of Arkansas. He had no military or foreign policy experience in a year when national security, war and foreign policy were big issues.

The Republicans saw Kerry enough of a threat that they attacked his genuine status as a war hero with lies -- rather than simply attacking his honorable protests. Kerry also blew out the first debate on foreign policy, having been a strong member of the SFRC for almost 20 years. (After the election, the Republican chair Lugar praised him for that debate.) Kerry over preformed all the models that suggested a very big win for Bush. In fact, had Ohio had enough voting machines, he would have pulled out one of the largest upsets.

Hillary people correctly list all that was against her, however, the media tacitly backed GWB, likely thinking he would win and afraid of being excluded from interviews -- knowing that Kerry would never retaliate in that manner if he won. In addition, the Catholic church everywhere except NE made abortion the issue, and the evangelical churches made gay rights and abortion the issue. Note that it was already known that at least one right leaning SCJ would be replaced and had Kerry won, the SC would have tilted to the left. (I actually think that this was again an issue in 2016 - 2008 and 2012 were notthe same as the likely SCJ to leave were not on the right.)

As to boring, I suspect the reason that the media gave far less attention to Kerry's biography is that it is almost too full. Note the media tried to paint him as the second coming of Al Gore - even calling him wooden. Had the media treated him and Teresa as they did Bill and Hillary in 1992, no one would now be calling him boring. Even 12 year old Kerry, taking his passport and biking into East Berlin, was an interesting person.

To give you an idea how poorly they covered the accomplishments of the wonderful Teresa, I learned big things that she led on in Pittsburgh only when Pittsburgh was chosen in 2009 to be the site of the G7 (or G20) meeting. In the 1990s when Pittsbirgh was incredibly depressed, Teresa called the other Pittsburgh area philantophists and led them in an effort to revitalize the city by an enormous coordinated effort to build green public buildings and facilities. It led to the former steel town being one of the greenest towns in the US and simultaneously was a "stimulus package" for Pittsburgh. It was for things like this that GHWB named Teresa as an NGO member of the US delegation to the Rio conference -- where she and John Kerry, who she had met when John Heinz and Kerry led the Senate earth day effort in 1990, really had a chance to talk.

I was very active on DU JK and had read everything I could find in 2004 and afterward and other than having been told by a Pittsburgh native that there much not reported that should have been I absolutely did not know that she was the key person in revitalyzing a city. I know that in 1992, Hillary was attacked for not wanting to be a Barabra (or Laura) Bush, but if anything that emphasized her accomplishments and intelligence. It completely bothers me that Teresa, unlike John Kerry, never had any visibility that would have allowed her to be seen for the wonderful person she is. Here, I think I know the reason. In Northwest NJ, where I lived, one of the best people convincing people in the general election was a former PA Republican, who unhappy with Bush, had looked at the Democratic primary. The FIRST thing that impressed her about Kerry, was that Teresa thought enough of him to marry him. Had Teresa been seen as the good, brilliant woman she is, for some she would have validated Kerry.

But what about her emails? THAT is insanity in it's purist form!

Therefore, DO NOT BELIEVE.

'course, who here couldn't use a little more of that, amirite?

insisted that the fly buzzing around President Obama's head was a sign that he was Beelzebub, the Lord of the Flies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub

She was not my first choice. It had nothing whatsoever to do with her politics. It had everything to do with how easy a target she made. In hind sight I realize that any Dem candidate would have had this shit shoveled on them. She bore the insults admirably. And, yes, I did vote for her without hesitation.

I don't understand how having reservations about a candidate during the primaries is damning as long as a person voted Dem in the general.

start to finish.

It sickens me to hear Democrats defending that man.

Just because Rump fired him doesn't make him our friend. How can we just quickly forget what he did in october ?

But I still voted for Clinton in the general election since she was obviously better than Trump. One thing that the 2016 election revealed to me was the extent to which some people have come to personalize politics. Some people were treating the election like it was a vote for Prom King/Queen and you had to be best pals with a candidate to vote for them.

Voting should be seen as a strategic move to get as much of your preferred platform realized. I have voted for plenty of politicians who I didn't like personally and even disagreed with on a number of issues that are important to me, but because the alternative was worse I still voted for them.

Obama was my first choice in 2008 and 2012.

Kerry was my first choice in 2004. Gore in 2000. Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

HRC was an outstanding and very well-qualified candidate. Still heartbroken (and angry) that she is not our president.

tell everyone that she wasn't your first choice? And why wasn't she? Can you give one non-bs reason? She worked her ass off, preparing for every debate because she had respect for the process. She released decades of taxes, unlike trump, and frankly Bernie.

I have enthusiastically voted for all wings of the Dem coalition and have NOT REGRETTED a single one, even when I knew our nominee wouldn't win.

"You don't have to like her..."

I wanted to smack Oprah on the side of the head. She seemingly had no idea what she was risking, with such a tepid opinion and endorsement. Those white males were already lined up and salivating to oppose Hillary and any Democrat, all in the cause of hate, fear and bigotry.

Meanwhile we lollygag around as if Hillary actually leads by double digits and no chance the nation will be stupid enough to elect Donald Trump.

I think every Democratic strategist and liberal talk show host last year should have been forced to attend a PGA golf tournament. That would have been a jolt and a half. It's all white males in those galleries and they were already sporting Trump's hats and spewing his propaganda alongside every tee box, fairway and green. Somehow we wanted to pretend those people either didn't exist or weren't going to vote.

There were many people who were Democrats, bur over the years had come to not really like HRC. Oprah WAS making the case that they still needed to vote for her because every issue important to them would be affected by the election.

I actually wish Begala, Carville and others HAD said exactly the same thing about John Kerry. They attacked Bush, but never spoke about any Kerry position or accomplishment.

Oprah at least made the case for Clinton.

i suppose i will never know. good luck demanding that type of loyalty before the primaries are finished. criticism will be leveled between competing members of a political party.

edit-don't get me wrong - I've seen him on TV before and I generally agree with him. talking heads are talking heads though.

Still my first choice!

someone who did the mature thing in the end even after being at odds with her. What I have problems with are people who not only didn't vote for her, but who helped spread lies about her (e.g. the out-of-context "superpredators" quote) and who show no remorse for enabling a White nationalist-friendly candidate.

I am so sick of these posts. Not sure they serve ant purpose except to create disruption.

We need to make sure to let the primaries go after the nomination is decided. I voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the GE. Defeating the horrible R agenda is the most important thing to me.

Quite a bit many of us voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the GE, mostly because we were smart enough NOT to put a Fascist in office. That doesn't mean we should be berated because she's not our "ideal".

Going to take all of us to task? You'll be here all week.

Or your usual emojis and a dismissive "LOL"?

Well as has been proven by many "not first choice" advocates, either primary campaign or general elections, reluctance to see through the lies, obfuscating and prevaricating and the just pure baby whining meaness of 'losers' from the election campaigns, we are now faced with a true horror that is fascist, racist, SEXISTS and homophobic running our country. It is plain for all to see now, a vote not HRC was a vote for RW fascism. Pretty simple really to see really.

I am sure I was not really sharp that night at 02:32 AM.

The post was about Hillary's very thought provoking comment about Trump.

I avidly supported Hillary during the primaries. She was not my first choice because the Republicans have been trying to dig up dirt on her for years, because they would use the Benghazi BS against her and because they would run an anti-Obama campaign and tie her to the hip on every Obama policy. My first choice would have been Elizabeth Warren who, of course, did not run.

I have admired Hillary Clinton for years and I wish with all my heart she had won the election.

I'm still with her and hope she continues to speak out.

I am never here to agitate and I am sorry my post was worded as it was.