The Democratic Party - We Can Do So Much Better Than Hillary Clinton For President

[Divine Discontent]

I do not dislike her personally. But, on a progressive website we should be doing all we can do to derail the corporation's favorite candidate who has so many ties to the people and corporate entities we know are against us. If she's our representative in the GE against their 'best', I will vote for her. Until then, she's the candidate we must rally against and convince our friends and relatives to see her for the "politics as usual" candidate she truly is compared to most of our other more worthy group who are running, or we hope will run if she appears to be winning the primaries.

Again, I don't dislike Senator Clinton, just her corporate ties and her desire to continue the Iraq invasion without apology for voting to give B*sh what he needed.

[mark414]

1. agreed...you couldn't pay me 10 million to vote for her in the primary

but i'm slowly starting to come around to the fact that it may be necessary to vote for her in the general. i vote in wisconsin, which tends to be a swing state, and if the race looks tight i will place my vote. but if it's a lock i'll either vote third party, write someone in, or abstain from voting for president.

[Divine Discontent]

4. that's how devisive she is!

"but if it's a lock i'll either vote third party, write someone in, or abstain from voting for president."

I know several lib dems in my family who are cringing her as our choice. I cannot see see her winning Florida. This state voted for Mel Martinez (if you know politics well, you know how pathetic he is) for senator over a wonderful lady named Betty Castor, in 2004. I cannot see them voting for her over Rudy, Fred or even Mitt! That alone would give them the presidency. We MUST win FL this time. And I believe Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden or Gore have the best chance to do that. I prefer John but hopefully Gore will run!

[never_get_over_it]

43. Her whole candidacy

has me in almost a constant state of anxiety - I use to like her - I WANT TO LIKE HER - I WOULD LOVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT and I like you was slowing coming around to vote for her in the general election - mainly because of SCOTUS and the fact that as much as I don't like her she is BETTER although I believe only marginally than ANY of the repunks - so I had gotten to a hope to hell she doesn't get the nomination but if she does I will vote for her AND THEN she went and voted for LIEberman Kyl Iran thing and she threw me into a tizzy again

Jesus its going to be a long 13 months......

[mod mom]

2. We need a populist president. Let's put an end to corporate profit first!

[BrightKnight]

10. A Lamont / Kucinich ticket would win all of the red states. -- n/t

[Beerboy]

24. Yo, say what?

Nah, I get it, just funnin' w/ya!

[mod mom]

45. Edwards and certainly AL Gore, both populists would make fine leaders, as would

Kucinich and Lamont.

JUST LET'S FORGET THE ONE WHO PLACES CORPORATE INTERESTS OVER THOSE OF THE VOTERS. (THINK OF HER VOTE OF AYE WITH THE KYL LIEBERMAN AMENDMENT AND OF COURSE FREE TRADE)

[Az_lefty]

3. couldn't agree more. I'm sick of the bush-light candidates

I'm for Bidon myself, anyone else?

[Divine Discontent]

5. He's in my top 5, and he's even more feisty than all of our other candidates w/a chance

and would give the Repub nominee a run for their "red state" electoral votes, which alone could make him win in a landslide.

[gateley]

47. I'd love to see Biden debate ANY of the Repubs - They'd shrivel. nt

[jillan]

11. Az lefty - how come you call him Bidon? I always laugh when you do that.

I'm for Biden. And from Az as well.

What part of Az are you in?

[Az_lefty]

44. Sheesh, didn't catch that. I'm in Vail, just outside of Tucson

:blush:

[gateley]

46. Me! Me! I'm for Biden! And we're not alone. Many great DUers are edging closer..nt

[1776Forever]

6. I hope she doesn't put more dirt on top of the middle class!

If Hillary gets in and does not take care of the middle class and turns into a semi-Bush I will never never never vote again!

This country is so on its last good leg and can't take any more greed!!! Will there be more of this??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301700.html

Closed-Door Deal Makes $22 Billion Difference

GOP Negotiators Criticized for Change In Measure on HMOs

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 24, 2006;

House and Senate GOP negotiators, meeting behind closed doors last month to complete a major budget-cutting bill, agreed on a change to Senate-passed Medicare legislation that would save the health insurance industry $22 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

...........................................................

And they say Dem's are socialist - they are the ones getting the benefits and the tax payers are paying for it - isn't that called stealing???

[Divine Discontent]

8. hear, hear! n/t

[emsimon33]

7. Ditto--you have certainly captured my feeling on this topic

[Richard Steele]

9. We certainly can do MUCH better! My vote will go to someone who shares MY principles...

...not someone whose integrity is for sale
to the highest bidder.

[Yael]

41. My sentiments as well

Ps -- love your sig line. :rofl:

[jillan]

12. That picture of the dems is hysterical. Look at them.

What are they all pointing at?

That pic is good enough for a 'caption this' thread.

[Divine Discontent]

14. LoL

they're all pointing to people in the seats after seeing where they're sitting, but it's rather comical that three of them are doing it!

caption - "politicians just cannot stop pointing the finger!" ha...

[Colorado Progressive]

13. Your sentiments are appreciated. She is the lesser of evils, no better.

I think the only other hope we have is Edwards, because he is pro-union, anti-corporation. He is the only candidate I have sent money to.

[Divine Discontent]

15. yay! another JE backer! goodnight y'all n/t

[AllyCat]

19. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for her, even in the GE. She is pro-war and stands against nearly everything in which I believe.

[JackORoses]

16. Down with Corporate Shillary!!

[BenDavid]

17. You really want to lose again? Then select

one of those in that picture and thats what will happen. Hell, I am tired of losing. Clinton = Won Kerry = Lost
Clinton = Winning Obama = Trailing by 20 - Clinton = Winning = Edwards = Trailing by 25 - Clinton = Won Gore = Lost

[AdHocSolver]

18. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. Bill only won because Ross Perot took Republican votes.

If Ross Perot hadn't run, Daddy Bush would have had a second term. Bill Clinton's win was a fluke. In the 1996 election, the Republicans demonstrated a lack of interest in the Presidency by selecting Bob Dole as their candidate.

You really want to lose? Select Hillary to be the Democratic candidate. Why? because the Republican candidates so far are causing their party to lose interest in the 2008 election. A Hillary candidacy would bring out every voter who ever disliked Hillary or Bill, a huge number. It will galvanize the right wing, where their own candidates do not.

By the way, both Gore and Kerry won the Presidency. Florida and Ohio vote counts were fraudulent. The Republicans stole both elections. Where were you in 2000 and 2004?

A Clinton candidacy would cause such a divisiveness in the country that we would see another very close election, which would give the Republicans an opportunity to manipulate the vote counting and steal that one also.

[Divine Discontent]

26. EXCELLENT COMMENTS! recommended! n/t

[flyarm]

33. well said AdHocSolver..thank you!! eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. "If Ross Perot hadn't run, Daddy Bush would have had a second term."

Respectfully, that's a crock of shit:


In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

< Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.>

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

[paulk]

51. that has been debunked

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

many many many times here at DU

[TahitiNut]

23. A post worthy of BenDover.

:shrug:

:puke:

[Beerboy]

25. With all due respect,

there's no way that if Obama were the nominee, he's gonna lose by 20 points against the Rethug. Edwards trails by 25?
Maybe your Grandpa was the guy who took this picture... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deweytruman12.jpg
I apologize if I'm mis-reading the meaning of your post, but that's what I think you were saying.

[Divine Discontent]

27. I took it that way also...

and it's highly incorrect. the only one I could see on the losing side of a landslide would be hillary. of course, she'll pick clark to try and change her fortunes, but that won't be enough unless she gets better at campaigning, because right now she's very stiff and unlikeable if you haven't really listened to her much before. she seems wooden, and I don't get that from the others running.

edwards would win presidency by 3-5 if he chose clark/obama/biden for VP, be a nail biter for obama as president, but I think he'd pull it off with edwards/clark vp. I just hope gore gets in if hillary starts winning the primaries.

[Beerboy]

31. On the face of it, the numbers that poster cited

aren't even close to reality. This is a 50/50 country right now, and there's no way that even if DK became the nominee that he'd lose by anything, let alone 20-25 points vs. the Greedy Old Pervert party nominee.

[JackRiddler]

34. Past results are not indicative of future returns.

And these push-polls in the absence of built name recognition for given candidates are irrelevant. (Where was Carter at this point in 1975? And why should any of us have been debating it?)

[Kazak]

20. Her vote for Kyl - Lieberman tells me all I need to know.

We're being force fed Hillary.

Rec'd.

[Divine Discontent]

28. that vote is NOT a good thing indeed n/t

[Beerboy]

21. There's a sense of inevitability about her,

but that's corporate media spin. This is also a capitalist economy, with the corporations seeking government protection against their competitors on a global scale.
I definitely sympathize with your viewpoint, but I'll take her nominees to the SCOTUS over those of another GOP prez, and the Court is old... there will probably be 3 maybe 4 prospective nominees to the Court in the next Administration.
Bush may have anointed himself 'the Decider', but he's just showing typical ignorance; the true Deciders have slapped him down before.
I don't like some of her policy positions, but I know I'd prefer her nominees over those of any on the thuggish side.
B-)

[Divine Discontent]

29. true (about the SCOTUS) n/t

[pointblank]

22. Here fucking Here

We can do better people...I too will vote for her if she is put against the re-slugs, but for *****'s sake, can this country think for itself and not be told who is going to win by the talking fucking heads?...

















I didn't think so.

[happygoluckytoyou]

30. EDWARDS..... THE NEXT PRESIDENT...

HILLARY IS A GOP WET-DREAM....

VOTE EDWARDS AND GET THE CLINTONS OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE...

[Beerboy]

32. Hang on now, fellow n00b...

it's a bit early for SHOUTING!!! And Hillary doesn't caucus with the GOP.
edited to add, again Where's my manners? Welcome to DU!:hi:

[Gravel2008]

35. "BUSINESS LOVES HILLARY!"

Yep, so true!

ABH! - Anybody but Hillary!

[Beerboy]

36. I see a pattern. N00bs SHOUT.

Not me so much, but some.

[Imagevision]

38. I'm with Obama when stating; "Hillary will be Bushlite"... Hill says vote for me and

I'll end the war, then 6 weeks later tells us this would happen by the end of her first term, but the I think about it, why won't it take until her second term after she has her foot in the WH.!!!

[gateley]

49. In his first run for President, Nixon said "Anybody who can't end the VietNam

war in 4 years has no right to be President." I forget what he said after he'd been re-elected to his second term and we were still in the thick of it...

Bush used the promise of ending the war to get in the second time, too.

[Orsino]

39. Apparently they can't.

Not while the TV tells us otherwise.

[april]

40. I agree...Dennis or Edwards

[Divine Discontent]

42. part of me wishes

for John to win Iowa barely over Clinton and Obama, and then springboard to the nomination and pick Dennis for VP! I know that probably won't happen if he did get the nom, but I'd like it. If not Dennis, then Obama would be nice. Of course, all bets are off if Gore enters! lol

[gateley]

50. I still firmly believe Biden would be the one who could do it. nt

[undeterred]

48. Dennis Kucinich.

John Edwards. Barack Obama.

[ooglymoogly]

52. Yes we can, but corporate media has decided otherwise.

[yurbud]

53. that FORTUNE cover says it all