To All Of You People Threatening A Boycott: Bullshit. We've been through this before.

[Austinitis]

We've already had a discussion about backlashes before and we all know that you're not going to stay home (or vote McCain) if Hillary wins. The whole "backlash" thing isn't a real possibility; it's a scare-tactic meant to keep people from supporting Hillary if she continues to do well in the primary. So let's stop the bullshitting - you're starting to sound like the Bush administration and you know we're not going to let you shut down the democratic process.

And while I've come to disagree with some parts of the entry in the months since I first posted it, I'm going to quote my original argument against the backlash narrative. The basic argument still holds and the backlash threats are still bullshit.

Obama's Politics of Fear

“’Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,’ cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, ‘surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?’”

“Once again this argument was unanswerable. Certainly the animals did not want Jones back; if the holding of debates on Sunday was liable to bring him back, then the debates must stop.”

-George Orwell, Animal Farm

Possibly the most egregious example of the politics-of-fear being utilized by the Obama camp these days goes like this:

Regardless of whether they think he or she would make the best president, super-delegates must support whichever candidate takes the lead in pledged-delegates (however small that lead may be). To do otherwise risks a backlash by Obama supporters which would cost the eventual nominee the general election and lead to a return of Bush (in the form of McCain).

Repeated incessantly by Obama supporters and left unchallenged by Clinton supporters, this single piece of rhetoric is used a cudgel to silence debate and frame Obama’s candidacy as inevitable. And until those of us who support Hillary finally say no; until we refuse to be silenced and to have our candidate driven from the race; until we call this absurd bluff for what it is, we’ll always be handing Obama the nomination.

So it’s time to finally say what needs saying: Bullshit. There won’t be any backlash. And anyone who was half awake during the Republican primary should see that.

Calling the Bluff

A quick history lesson seems to be in order. If there was ever – and I mean EVER – a candidate for a political party in a political climate who might inspire a backlash it was John McCain for the Republicans in 2008. And if there has ever been – and I mean EVER – a party which could resist splintering after a primary, it’s the current Democratic party in 2008. So when the Republicans have managed to come together around John McCain, the idea that Hillary Clinton could somehow inspire some “killer-backlash” among the Democrats is at best an absurdity on its face.

Some Examples:

• Republicans in 2008: Are almost certainly going to lose. That means that the average Republican doesn’t really have a lot of motivation to support someone they don’t like in order to take the Whitehouse. They’re not risking much staying home, so why not use the 2008 election to send a message?
  Democrats in 2008: Have an excellent chance of winning. That means that the average Democrat does have a lot of motivation to support someone who isn’t their favorite in order to take the Whitehouse. If a Democrat stays homes and pouts they’re risking a lot and it’s unlikely they will.



• Republicans in 2008: Have been rocked by a series of scandals. Faith in their party leadership has been shaken (even a lot of the Republicans I know bought into the “Culture of Corruption” slogan from ’06). This means there’s not a lot of party loyalty to hold off a backlash.
  Democrats in 2008: Have largely avoided the crazy Republican scandal spree. Faith in the party and in party leadership, while never perfect, is certainly better than what the Republicans are working with.



• Republicans in 2008: Have a party platform that hasn’t really been working out too well. Tearing down government regulation? Doesn’t look too hot after the sub-prime crisis. Aggressive, unilateral foreign policy? The death toll in Iraq makes it glaringly obvious how stupid that is. Privatized health care? Not so attractive once people you know get sick. My guess is that even a lot of Republicans are feeling pretty sheepish about what they’re running on this year.
  Democrats in 2008: Represent at the very least the return of sanity to the Whitehouse. We’re pumped about our policies. We have a chance to make real changes and improve the world. I don’t know a single Democrat who would miss out on that in November so that they could pout about who was picked in August.

Yet the backlash argument gets dumber still. Because John McCain has every single one of the features which in Hillary Clinton are supposed to create a backlash. And once again, if those features didn’t cause a backlash against him, there’s no way there’ll be one against her.

• Argument: A lot of Democrats strongly dislike Hillary!
  Reply: Not nearly so much as Republicans disliked John McCain. I mean, seriously - right wing pundits brutalized John McCain in the media during the Republican primary. Nothing in the Democratic primary has gotten that nasty.



• Argument: If the Super-Delegates pick Hillary the election will seem stolen!
  Reply: It’s hard to see how super-delegates could “steal” an election by acting within party rules, but – more on point – John McCain faced the same charges and Republicans still rallied around him. Rush Limbaugh http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022108/content/01125108.guest.html">explicitly claimed that the media, through endorsements and friendly coverage, picked the Republican’s candidate for them. And a lot of Republicans felt that independents had crossed over and picked their candidate for them. And despite feeling that their primary was thus polluted, Republicans still got in line and backed McCain.



• Argument: A lot of Obama’s supporters really like Obama!
  Reply: A lot of Hillary’s supporters really like her (in fact, a http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx">recent Gallup poll suggests that her supporters would actually be the most likely to defect (not that we will)). Moreover, Democrats were excited about this election even before Obama was anywhere near the front. Obama may, then, be a vehicle for Democratic excitement, but here’s surely not exhaustive of it.
  
  And again, and more to the point, a lot of Republicans were enthusiastic about their favored candidate (or about “http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/2963.html">anyone but McCain”), yet they’re still backing their party. And once again, if they did it, so will we.

Finally, it’s worth stressing that McCain, unlike either of the Democratic candidates, actually diverges from his party’s base on a number of issues. McCain managed, let’s remember, to alienate large chunks of his base by pushing immigration reform and campaign finance reform. Nevertheless, at the end of the day Republicans still came together.

What the Republican primary tells us, then, is that, however divisive the primary, the far larger differences between the parties will, within a few weeks, get both sides back on the wagon.

And that’s why it’s important for those of us who support Hillary to call this nonsense for what it is. Because at the end of the day this absurd backlash narrative doesn’t represent a real possibility. It represents, instead, the calculated use of fear by the Obama camp to try to silence debate and force the hands of super-delegates.

Taking Back the Narrative

So we have our first step: When they say “backlash” we say “bullshit.” Those of us who support Hillary need to reject and denounce the narrative crafted by the Obama campaign and the fear mongering used to justify it.

Step two, then, is to cast the debate in terms which reflect the real purpose for which super-delegates were created. The job of super-delegates is to support the candidate who would make the best president of the United States. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.

And this is what makes this argument fundamentally a message of hope. Once we reject this “Hillary can never win” narrative; once we point out that both candidates need the support of super-delegates to win; once we drive home the message that the candidate most likely to win is the candidate most likely to make a great president, then Hillary becomes the front runner in this election.

One final point: There will be those who say that even if Hillary’s supporters reject the “delegate math” narrative, super-delegates will still find it compelling. This, I think, is what makes it so important that we Hillary supporters speak up and take back the narrative. The “backlash” narrative is only compelling when everyone repeats it like a mantra. The more we speak up, and the more we say no, the weaker that absurd meme becomes.

[PVnRT]

1. Wait a second...

"...once we drive home the message that the candidate most likely to win is the candidate most likely to make a great president, then Hillary becomes the front runner in this election."

But...she's not winning. That kind of invalidates your argument.

[PoliticalAmazon]

78. Hillary supporters are getting more desperate, and pathetic, in their begging. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Not gonna work with me.

[boppers]

2. Did Kerry win?

How'd that IWR backlash work out for him?

[Austinitis]

6. Because that's totally the explanation political scientists give for 04...

Let's face it. There wasn't a serious boycott in 2004. There's not going to be one in 2008.

One or two dozen people on the fringe does not a backlash make.

[boppers]

15. One or two dozen?

Where did you get that number? And how did they measure the effort that anti-war people were willing to put in for Kerry, vs. the effort Dean had going for him? Any interesting links you have for me to look at?

[onenote]

3. how does this "fear" tactic differ from the "electability" argument used by HRC's supporter

That argument is that a lot of moderate Democrats who would support HRC won't support Obama. And, in particular, that a lot of women would stay at home or vote for McCain -- and thus faciliate the roll back of Roe v. Wade, rather than vote for Obama. Sounds about the same to me.

[BlueManDude]

4. No - we haven't been thru this before. She's gone thru the looking glass.

[leftofcool]

5. I agree

[John Q. Citizen]

7. It's moot. There is a very good reason all the supers are moving to Obama. The party isn't

going to reward the treachery of one of their own endorsing the Republican candidate for president over the Democratic front runner for president.

The supers are all going toward Obama. Have you noticed? Or do you imagine that is somehow just a minor distraction to your fantasies?

[TheDoorbellRang]

8. Don't try to guess what democrats will do by what Republican voters will do

We are not sheeple.

We are also very, very pissed.

[Austinitis]

10. Again, they were angry too

And I don't doubt that you'll be upset if your guy loses. But maybe 2 weeks later you'll be back on the wagon against McCain.

[Exilednight]

19. I never jumped off the wagon against McCain, but I won't jump off the wagon against Clinton either.

You want my honest opinion? Here it is. Clinton = McSame. They're completely interchangeable. In my book, one is just as bad as the other.

[11 Bravo]

30. Then you're either blind, or foolish. Look at their votes on Bush's SCOTUS nominations.

There is nothing interchangeable about them. (Hyperbole is not always your friend. Frequently it makes you appear to be either uninformed, or disingenuous.)

[Heathen57]

34. Honestly, I'm not sure I trust her

on the USSC nominations. She will put whoever her big money people tell her to. You might get the Roe supporter we need, but will that same judge go against the others when it comes to the other issues we are worried about (Executive Privilege, Wiretapping, citizen rights). These same issues that Hillary is strangely silent about.

[Exilednight]

37. Bingo!! Read this, it's a real eye opener.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html

After the election of Bill Clinton, for example, the chamber (referring to a right wing economical think tank) endorsed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in addition to her pioneering achievements as the head of the women’s rights project at the A.C.L.U. had specialized, as a law professor, in the procedural rules in complex civil cases and was comfortable with the finer points of business litigation. The chamber was especially enthusiastic about Clinton’s second nominee, Stephen Breyer, who made his name building a bipartisan consensus for airline deregulation as a special counsel on the judiciary committee; and who, as a Harvard Law professor, advocated an influential and moderate view on antitrust enforcement.

During Breyer’s confirmation hearings his sharpest critic was Ralph Nader, who testified that his pro-business rulings were “extraordinarily one-sided.” Another critic, Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, said that the fact that the chamber was the first organization to endorse Breyer indicated that “large corporations are very pleased with this nomination” and “the fact that Ralph Nader is opposed to it indicated that the average American has a reason to have some concern.” The chamber’s imprimatur helped reassure Republicans about Breyer, and he was confirmed with a vote of 87 to 9. “Frankly, we didn’t feel like we had anyone on the court since Justice Powell who truly understood business issues,” Conrad told me. “Justice Breyer came close to that.”

The Breyer and Ginsburg nominations also came at a time when liberal as well as conservative judges and academics were gravitating in increasing numbers to an economic approach to the law, originally developed at the University of Chicago. The law-and-economics movement sought to evaluate the efficiency of legal rules based on their costs and benefits for society as a whole. Although originally conservative in its orientation, the movement also attracted prominent moderate and liberal scholars and judges like Breyer, who before his nomination wrote two books on regulation, arguing that government health-and-safety spending is distorted by sensational media reports of disasters that affect relatively few citizens.

Since joining the Supreme Court, Breyer has also been an intellectual leader in antitrust and patent disputes, which often pit business against business, rather than business against consumers. In those cases, many liberal scholars sympathetic to economic analysis have applauded the court for favoring competition rather than existing competitors, innovation rather than particular innovators. “The court deserves credit for trying to rationalize a totally irrational patent system, benefiting smaller new competitors rather than existing big ones,” says Lawrence Lessig, an intellectual-property scholar at Stanford.

[Exilednight]

35. Breyer's and Ginsburg's rulings are not that left leaning.........

Take a look at their rulings in favor of corporations, and against workers unions alone.

When you say someone can't sue Enron, I have to seriously question how progressive or liberal a Justice truly is.

Seriously, take a long hard look at their rulings since being appointed. Yes you will find liberal and progressive rulings on several social issues, but there are just as many conservative rulings on issues that aren't as attention grabbing as abortion and gun control.

[Austinitis]

31. You're saying that now, but two weeks after she secures the nomination

you'll be extolling her virtues and trashing McCain.

Let's be serious. You're just caught up in the heat of the primary.

[Exilednight]

38. It will never happen. I promise you that. Lucky for me that Obama will win the nomination. n/t

[SwampG8r]

66. never

she is over for me

[bowens43]

9. Hillary can't 'win'

all she can do is steal the nomination. It's not a scare tactic. It's about integrity. If hillary steals the nomination, her political career is over . count on it. What's bullshit is hillary supporters thinking that there won't be a backlash.

[Austinitis]

12. Whatever. You'll back the Dem, no matter who they are or how things play out

Let's quit bluffing. You're not going to sit back and watch McSame roll into office. I know it and you know it.

:eyes:

[Heathen57]

36. If Hillary did get the nom.

I would be voting against McCain, not for Hillary. It isn't much of a distinction, but morally that is the only way I could cast a vote.

[cali]

11. Honestly it's hard to know

I'll vote for her but I think you're sadly deluding yourself if you don't grasp the anger of the AA community and the fact that many of the young voters enthused by Obama have no such interest in Hillary. It's entirely possible that if she were the nominee, many of these folks will simply sit it out.

Luckily, it's unlikely we'll have to find out.

[Austinitis]

13. Again, I agree they won't be happy.

But they're just not going to sit this one out.

[cali]

14. Again. You can't possibly know that.

not even close.

[Mooney]

16. Why not?

The main argument I keep hearing for why Obama is "unelectable" is because he gets a lot of his support from young voters, who are notorious for not showing up on Election Day. With Obama out of the picture, why wouldn't they just go right back to not voting?

[Austinitis]

18. That's certainly not the main argument I keep hearing

I hear that Obama can't win over Reagan Democrats. And there it's not supposed to be a backlash - it's supposed to be that they're more sympathetic to McCain than to him.

[SwampG8r]

67. i wonder which one

of the tombstoned this is

[wileedog]

21. I'm sure the African American voters will jump right in line

I mean, its not like they had their first legitimately elected candidate for president and a bunch of rich white people decided he wasn't good enough and pulled the plug on him for another rich white person right?

No big deal though, I'm sure they will be completely eager and waiting to support the new candidate that was propped up instead because theirs wasn't good enough for all the white people.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. I will happily support and vote for Senator Clinton should she win the nomination

under the rules as they were established.

If she persists in the unfair seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates, and is successful, and wins behind that, I will not vote for her, period. It constitutes such fundamental unfairness, such brazen subversion of process, that I don't believe McCain and the Republicans could do worse. You don't change the rules of a game halfway in. That's basic "Stuff I Learned in Kindergarten" ethics, and violating that basic a rule tells me that Senator Clinton would be a lousy - and even DANGEROUS President: as dangerous as McCain, if not worse. I don't care if she wins by superdelegates. That's fine. It's part of the rules. But if she wins by Florida and Michigan, I am checking out of the process pure and simple, because the process will have checked out on me, on every other voter, and on fundamental decency. You bank that, skippy.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

22. Before Obama, a lot of people were already planning to sit out

Like it or not, his candidacy is bringing out voters.

Everybody thought HRC vs McCain was a done deal. But it was a major snooze fest and WOULD NOT have motivated voters.

[Melinda]

23. "Months" since you've posted it? You've been here 5 weeks... have a previous incarnation, did ya?

"And while I've come to disagree with some parts of the entry in the months since I first posted it..."

You're either a huge bullshitter OR you've been reborn on DU.

So which is it? :eyes:

[Austinitis]

28. I guess time spent with you Obama supporters just seems to drag on...

It's like an old joke that went "Married people don't live longer; it just seems to them like they do!"

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. Yeah....now pull the other one.

:eyes:

[SwampG8r]

70. everyone please alert on this reincarnated tombstoner please and highligh the months ive been here

line in the OP
thanx in advance

they are like rats you think you got em all but they slither back in

[xmas74]

76. Now it's ok to threaten to tombstone someone on here?

Do we know that they were previously tombstoned? No, we don't. IRL I've made plenty of comments about going somewhere "weeks ago" and then realizing that it had only been eight or nine days.

People made broad remarks about spaces of time on a regular basis. Unless there is more proof that this is a tombstoned poster we should cut this out.

[SwampG8r]

88. no threat intended

i have no power to do anything but ask mods to check it out
and ask others to do the same
a threat without backup is a bluff really not a threat and my reply is more of a request for an investigation of this poster than anything else

any belief of a reincarnated disruptor is my own

[xmas74]

89. That sounds nicer.

I just hate the "I don't like what you're saying so I'll get you banned" game. I've been around here and other boards for far too long to not know how the game is played. It's a horrible game, even if you can't stand the person it's "done to".

I am a firm believer in vocally stating differing opinions in a polite manner. (Yes, that even includes conservative opinions. We can all learn something from each other!) I just don't think it's fair to call someone out in that manner unless the person is really posting something against the rules. (A good example would be disruptors posting pics of porn in the Lounge-it's happened before and it will happen again.)

I don't know. I guess this cycle is a bit tiring for me. I'm not quite as young as I was last time 'round.

[iamahaingttta]

24. I think this is one of the stupidest posts I've read in a long time.

Really. I do.

I live in New York State. If my senator steals the nomination, I will vote Green (hopefully McKinney) and Dem for the downballot races. I will have no qualms about doing that, because I know that if Clinton is the ballot, McCain wins. My vote won't matter, because she'll win New York and lose the presidency.

I'm not bullshitting...

[Austinitis]

29. Yes you are. No you won't.

Seriously, quit bullshitting. You'll get in line and probably donate money.

[Heathen57]

39. You are wrong there.

I will vote against McCain, but she will not get one penny for the campaign, nor will I give to the Democratic party nationally.

Why would I waste money on a candidate that in all but name would be the same as her repub opponent? Besides she already said that our votes don't count as far as she was concerned. She doesn't need them, just the big states.

[iamahaingttta]

41. Well, I certainly won't donate money...

And I have yet to vote for Hillary Clinton, so I can't imagine starting now. She's would win NY against McCain, so I don't have to.
No bullshit!

[Cali_Democrat]

25. What's Austinitis?

Is that some kind of athletes foot? Just like you, stinky and annoying.

[rucky]

26. Blockquote Violation - 10-yard penalty. n/t

[RiverStone]

27. No, we have NEVER been through this before!

In the 30 years that SuperD's have been in existence, we have never had a scenario where the SD's over-ride the will of the pledged delegates. Nobody has a clue what that would look like!

We also have not seen young people involved in the Democratic process and specifically, the DEM party since the days of JFK.

If Hillary wins via a coup, there will be a mass exodus from the party in numbers beyond any historical precedent. I would not vote for a puke - never! - but I will not vote for any candidate who wins by a coup. That's not democracy.

Thankfully, Obama will seal the deal by the end of the month (maybe sooner).

[NorthCarolina]

32. I won't vote for a DLC member "."

I'll vote, but it's called a "write-in" for Kucinich, or for Obama if a national movement is afoot to write-in his name.

[littlebit]

33. I can honestly say

that if Obama is the nominee I will probably not vote for him. I am still going to go vote. We have a senate race and a governors race I want to vote in. I will probably just leave the top blank.

[JoFerret]

43. I understand that

but would urge you to reconsider nearer November should that be the situation we are in.

[Texas Hill Country]

40. bingo, thank you.

[HousePainter]

42. Boycott Clinton... work your ass off down ticket

That's what we should all do if the Clinton Horror Machine steals the nomination.
The more Democratic a Congress we have the better off we'll be
and I frankly don't see that much of a difference anymore between John McCain and Hillary.

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran .........Obliterate Iran

There will be more wars........Extended Nuclear Umbrella in the Middle East


Gas Tax Pander..............Gas Tax Pander

I'm against the tax cuts I'm for NAFTA (FLIP FLOPPING on the middle and working class issues)
I'll make the tax cuts permanent....... I'll renegotiate NAFTA

They are both desperate to get elected so they can keep doing business as usual Washington insider style


And in either case a good strong Democratic Congress can move us in the right direction.

But let's do the best thing.......Get Obama into the White House and give him long coattails...

[AZBlue]

44. No, no one has ever tried to blatently steal the nomination. Ever.

So don't presume to know what I or anyone else will do if that situation were to arise.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. It's Hillary - what did you expect?

[Splinter Cell]

45. No

It's not bullshit. I know several democrats that won't cast a vote for Billary, and yes, they will be voting no matter what.

[davidpdx]

46. For the record, I've never say I'd stay home

There are plenty of candidates and other things to vote for that are worthy of my time. That being said, IF Clinton were to win the nomination I would not vote for her. At the same time I wouldn't vote for McCain either.

[LWolf]

47. I hope you're not taking that pronouncement for granted in November. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

48. Just you watch.

[TBF]

49. I'm either voting for Obama or Nader. I will not vote for Hillary.

[MirrorAshes]

50. I'm a white 27 year old male with an education. Hillary has villified me.

Bill, moreso.

It is no longer about the party for me and many others. The Clinton campaign has insulted people who simply happen to like Barack Obama better in ways that she never should have stooped to. She made it personal. That is why the danger is real, it is why the sentiment is real, and it is why history will not be kind to the memory of the choices she has made in this race.

I will not vote for Hillary. Say what you will. I've thought long and hard about it but her politics of personal destruction, open disdain for anyone who stands in her way, and her blatant pandering have made it impossible for my conscience to allow me to cast a vote for her. And if Hillary does manage to snatch this away from Barack Obama, it can only be on illigitimate grounds.

I'll take the scorn. I'll be yelled at about the SCOTUS. I'll be compared to a Nader supporter in 2000 or much worse. But I'll be ok with myself.

I'll invest myself in down-ticket races. If Hillary beats McCain, I'll be awkwardly happy, for the party's sake. But since she has declared open war on me and my ilk, not to mention any of the other several demographics she's written off, I won't exactly feel like its my party anyway. Not anymore. And hey, If she loses, I'm confident McCain can be beaten in 2012.

And listen very closely: don't dare for one second tell me about costing people's lives in Iraq. Hillary's vote made cleared that path. Barack Obama knew better. This simple fact alone ought to be enough for any sensible peace & progress seeking Democrat to cast their vote for Obama.

Hillary is running on ego and entitlement. She has sunken to depths no Democrat should ever sink to.

So yes, I will boycott. Take it to the bank.

[Breeze54]

51. And how would McLame, 100 years in Iraq, make it better?

I am NOT an HRC supporter and I don't think she'll win BUT

How would a Rethug, lying his ass off, make it all better?

Please explain. You seem to have forgotten the people. :(

And the last 8 years of opprehesion! :grr:

How easily we 'forget' when WE aren't effected!! :grr:

[MirrorAshes]

52. Hillary is the one who has forgotten.

Forgotten how to be a Democrat, forgotten any sense of ethical responsibility, forgotten the lessons she learned in the 90s and turned into exactly what she once decried.

Hang it around Hillary's neck, not mine. If she had run a different kind of campaign, this would all be a lot easier.

I never said I'd vote for McCain. He won't make it better. But I don't have confidence that "we'll obliterate Iran" Hillary will make it that much better either. I really don't. She seems to have the same imperialistic foreign policy views "100 years in Iraq" McCain does anyway.

Why can't Hillary supporters see through her? It is so blatantly obvious.

[Breeze54]

54. Great post and

You are the epitome of all the people I have been chastising and schooling
for YEARS against DLC Hillary! Well done!! Bravo! :applause: :applause:

My faith is restored. ;)

[Breeze54]

55. " If she had run a different kind of campaign, this would all be a lot easier. "

I agree.

[Neshanic]

53. Well looks like you break the rules. Vote Democartic no matter what,

and no matter what fuck heads the Obamista become.

Those are the rules. Tough luck.

[MirrorAshes]

63. "Obamista"

thats cute.

lets not forget that Obama has been the one actually playing by "the rules". that in fact it would be breaking "the rules" to give the nomination to Hillary.

If the party were to do that, which btw i do not think there is any chance of actually happening, then the party will have made a huge mistake, one that would tear the party apart and alienate a huge chunk of new voters. Obama has a much easier case to make to Hillary supporters to come home to him--they may be seething over defeat but Obama has basically treated her with class during this campaign and has truly taken the high road. She cannot make the same argument.

Do you really turn away a chance at significantly expanding the democratic base? Just to appease the now sacred "white blue collar" vote? At the expense of African-Americans and the first real youth movement in decades? Does that actually sound like a plausible scenario, or somehow a win for the democratic party?

So, do the same rules apply under these circumstances? Vote democratic "no matter what?"

What if you don't look so much like the democratic party anymore?

[Triana]

56. No I won't stay home or vote McCain - I'll go and write in Obama. n/t

[ruby slippers]

61. I'm with you.....

[BzaDem]

58. If Hillary wins, people here will fall in line and vote for her.

They might even claim they won't right up until election day (or afterwards). The foam will be flowing out of their mouths at how angry they are. But they will vote for her, because anyone who actually takes the time to post on a democratic message board knows what the stakes are deep down (even if at an unconscious level).

[judasdisney]

62. You overestimate your own telepathy. I didn't vote for Kerry and I'll never vote for Hillary.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

69. Why didn't you vote for Kerry? Did you vote for Bush?

Inquiring minds and so forth.

[judasdisney]

90. Answer for Inquiring Mind/BleedingHeartPatriot

Kerry was not a serious candidate. The evidence which betrayed that was manifest and legion. His presidency would have been a doormat presidency and would have strengthened fascism and strengthened Bush for a comeback. Bush's second term is disastrous in ways that Democrats are too chickenshit to discuss -- the economic collapse we are on the doorstep of reaping will dwarf the Great Depression; Cheney's Sleeper Cells are embedded throughout the intelligence agencies/judiciary/Federal bureaucracy; there is incentive for a ravenous Frankenstein Pentagon & arms industry & paramilitary industry to attempt a Chilean-style military coup against the next Democratic President. These aren't being discussed and will be laughed at until the cigar blows up in your clown face (not you specifically, but the universal "you").

I was/am an Edwards supporter on the basis of his New Deal policies. I am a de-facto supporter of Obama insofar as his potential to be an FDR, while remaining skeptical of his willingness to do so. I am expatriating in August and will not return to the U.S. I expect to see a meltdown in the bond market in September accompanied by capital flight from the U.S. I will make some effort to vote absentee if it is convenient for me to hold my U.S. citizenship that long, and I will vote for Obama as a write-in candidate if he is not the nominee, or as the candidate if he is the nominee. Because of Obama's association with Paul Volcker, who would likely be Obama's Fed Chairman, I would strongly assert that Obama will never be allowed to become president -- Volcker raised interest rates to 18% in the late 1970s to save the U.S. dollar and would likely do so again -- Volcker is the anti-Greenspan, which Wall Street and the DLC and the Neocons will team-up to prevent under any circumstances.

In the unlikely event that the U.S. finds the testicles to stage a Ukranian-style general strike until Obama is sworn-in as President, his presidency will be sabotaged via Cheney's Sleeper Cells as the arms-for-hostages sabotaging of the Carter presidency was staged. Gore's "statesmanlike" capitulation and the U.S. public's acquiescent slumber was fateful. There is no exit and the U.S. will become a closed society by statute within 8 years. There will be roundups and it will end with international nuclear confrontation by powers who recognize the fascist, expansionist designs of the U.S. Both parties are complicit. Save yourself and your family. The time for martyrdom for democracy was on December 12, 2000.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. I'm not convinced that you support either of the Dems. I think this is

just more "Operation Chaos". How many other sites have you shared this thread with? You like seeing the continuing saga of this prolonged primary for sinister reasons, don't you? That being said, I don't hold with your opinion that those of us who oppose Hillary's candidacy, would somehow "fall in line" if she manages to steal the nomination.

I think it would unleash forces within the Democratic Party that would decimate it for a generation. I know that makes you feel better, doesn't it?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

71. Unleashing "forces" which "decimate" the Dem party. Threat?

I am SO glad I'm bookmarking this one. :-)

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. Bank on it. Listen to some of the callers on talk radio sometimes.

Bookmark Away..............;)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

85. On whose show? Limbaugh's? I don't take them very seriously and besides they're hardly Democrats.

[ruby slippers]

60. do you want to make a bet that some of us will vote McCain or stay home? There are

Independents here....

[WeDidIt]

64. I would vote for Hillary, except under one condition

If she nukes, she will be the greatest evil on my ballot.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

65. K & R, good points. This thread is instructive.

bookmarking. I think we'll find some interesting things regarding the accuracy of the content of the OP and the responses to it when looking back on it over the next few weeks.

:kick:

[dionysus]

68. hillary is running the GOP-style fear campaign...

seriously, can you guys post this shit with a straight face?

[Butch350]

72. After Scrooling thru this crap...

I'm 100% positive I will vote McCain. That tripe you posted will more than ever reenforce my dedication
to distance myself from the democratic party if barack gets jipped. I have NO PROBLEM with a fair race,
but let the SD's pull a switch - McCain will get my vote.

[Austinitis]

74. No you won't. You'll be right back in line within a week of her getting the nomination.

Really, you sound just like the Republicans - right before they got in line behind McCain.

[sampsonblk]

73. Uh, I am not going to vote for Hillary Clinton

She lost. Its time to get over it and move on.

[Austinitis]

75. If she wins you, uh, will.

Quit bullshitting.

[SeaLyons]

77. Backlash = bullshit

Go Hillary!!!

[Khaotic]

80. If Hillary Goes Nuclear ...

I'll be voting McKinney in November.

No bullshit about it.

I will personally make sure her movement gets traction in Northeast Iowa.

You fucking watch me.

If we can't get change through Obama then I'll get it through McKinney.

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

[Austinitis]

83. No, you won't.

You'll get in line with everyone else. Quit bluffing. Your scare tactics aren't very scary...

[Khaotic]

84. Scary?

I'm not looking to scare.

It's that fucking simple.

If Hillary goes nuclear then I'll be voting for McKinney in November.

Pretty simple.

If your stupid ass doesn't believe me then go fuck yourself.

I think I know the man in the mirror better than you.

[iamthebandfanman]

86. shoot i dont care who it is

if this race were completely opposite, id still feel the same way about the SDs

[sueragingroz]

87. I know for an absolute certainty that I won't be voting for the big 0

...... canadian ......


:p