OK, now no question, I'd vote for Hillary in the general, no reservations

[Nym90]

barring a massive change in worldview on my own part, I can't envision supporting the Democratic nominee in November.  Clinton or otherwise.  although she more obviously represents the worst of the political system than does Obama...

look BRTD...  McCain's a dick.  not a difficult conclusion.  he's an opportunistic egomaniac, but they all are...  I challenge you to find the sliver of policy difference as president between McCain and Clinton.  one wants to be in Iraq for 50 years, the other for 100...  one wants to raise the SS earnings cap, one doesn't...  both want to run the healthcare industry through corporate thugs (except Hillary's probably more corporatist and fascistic about it, reading their platforms, not that it matters)...

stop choosing between evils.  the day you do that is the day you will be free.  if we had done this in 1968, maybe it would have mattered.  it'd be a late start, I know.  but I really hope every goddamn Obama voter, and every black, sits on his ass on November fourth and lets McCain win 42 states...  that's the only way to teach the Democratic Party to care about US...

or maybe I'm a dreamer...  keep embracing your hacks...

We've been trying that for 40 years.... Look at us now. We will be in a REAL dystopia long before your strategy bears fruit.

No kidding. Letting Reagan and W both win was really good for us in the long run, right?

Well maybe W was politically, although that will probably only be fleeting at best if we can't come up with a true positive agenda.

[Nym90]

barring a massive change in worldview on my own part, I can't envision supporting the Democratic nominee in November.  Clinton or otherwise.  although she more obviously represents the worst of the political system than does Obama...

look BRTD...  McCain's a dick.  not a difficult conclusion.  he's an opportunistic egomaniac, but they all are...  I challenge you to find the sliver of policy difference as president between McCain and Clinton.  one wants to be in Iraq for 50 years, the other for 100...  one wants to raise the SS earnings cap, one doesn't...  both want to run the healthcare industry through corporate thugs (except Hillary's probably more corporatist and fascistic about it, reading their platforms, not that it matters)...

stop choosing between evils.  the day you do that is the day you will be free.  if we had done this in 1968, maybe it would have mattered.  it'd be a late start, I know.  but I really hope every goddamn Obama voter, and every black, sits on his ass on November fourth and lets McCain win 42 states...  that's the only way to teach the Democratic Party to care about US...

or maybe I'm a dreamer...  keep embracing your hacks...

We've been trying that for 40 years.... Look at us now. We will be in a REAL dystopia long before your strategy bears fruit.

No kidding. Letting Reagan and W both win was really good for us in the long run, right?

Well maybe W was politically, although that will probably only be fleeting at best if we can't come up with a true positive agenda.

how different would our lives be with Presidents Mondale and Kerry and Gore?

Much better in my opinion. But obviously we need candidates who can actually win, too (and the Clintons, bad as they are in many ways, are still far better than the Republicans). It's just disappointing that when we get a progressive who can win in Obama, we seem intent on denying him the nomination.

[Nym90]

barring a massive change in worldview on my own part, I can't envision supporting the Democratic nominee in November.  Clinton or otherwise.  although she more obviously represents the worst of the political system than does Obama...

look BRTD...  McCain's a dick.  not a difficult conclusion.  he's an opportunistic egomaniac, but they all are...  I challenge you to find the sliver of policy difference as president between McCain and Clinton.  one wants to be in Iraq for 50 years, the other for 100...  one wants to raise the SS earnings cap, one doesn't...  both want to run the healthcare industry through corporate thugs (except Hillary's probably more corporatist and fascistic about it, reading their platforms, not that it matters)...

stop choosing between evils.  the day you do that is the day you will be free.  if we had done this in 1968, maybe it would have mattered.  it'd be a late start, I know.  but I really hope every goddamn Obama voter, and every black, sits on his ass on November fourth and lets McCain win 42 states...  that's the only way to teach the Democratic Party to care about US...

or maybe I'm a dreamer...  keep embracing your hacks...

We've been trying that for 40 years.... Look at us now. We will be in a REAL dystopia long before your strategy bears fruit.

No kidding. Letting Reagan and W both win was really good for us in the long run, right?

Well maybe W was politically, although that will probably only be fleeting at best if we can't come up with a true positive agenda.

how different would our lives be with Presidents Mondale and Kerry and Gore?

Much better in my opinion. But obviously we need candidates who can actually win, too (and the Clintons, bad as they are in many ways, are still far better than the Republicans). It's just disappointing that when we get a progressive who can win in Obama, we seem intent on denying him the nomination.

I said "how"

Well as others have said, impossible to know for sure. They might have all been failures who would've set progressive ideals back as a result of their defeats.

But I think in terms of energy independence, universal health care, rational foreign policy, progress on global warming, civil rights and liberties, etc. we'd all be a lot further along, I think. The men listed all would've been competent Presidents, though they made rotten candidates.

[Nym90]

barring a massive change in worldview on my own part, I can't envision supporting the Democratic nominee in November.  Clinton or otherwise.  although she more obviously represents the worst of the political system than does Obama...

look BRTD...  McCain's a dick.  not a difficult conclusion.  he's an opportunistic egomaniac, but they all are...  I challenge you to find the sliver of policy difference as president between McCain and Clinton.  one wants to be in Iraq for 50 years, the other for 100...  one wants to raise the SS earnings cap, one doesn't...  both want to run the healthcare industry through corporate thugs (except Hillary's probably more corporatist and fascistic about it, reading their platforms, not that it matters)...

stop choosing between evils.  the day you do that is the day you will be free.  if we had done this in 1968, maybe it would have mattered.  it'd be a late start, I know.  but I really hope every goddamn Obama voter, and every black, sits on his ass on November fourth and lets McCain win 42 states...  that's the only way to teach the Democratic Party to care about US...

or maybe I'm a dreamer...  keep embracing your hacks...

We've been trying that for 40 years.... Look at us now. We will be in a REAL dystopia long before your strategy bears fruit.

No kidding. Letting Reagan and W both win was really good for us in the long run, right?

Well maybe W was politically, although that will probably only be fleeting at best if we can't come up with a true positive agenda.

how different would our lives be with Presidents Mondale and Kerry and Gore?

DISCLAIMER:  I do invoke my belief in God in this post, though very respectfully.  If you are offended by my faith, then don't read it and move on to the next post.

Personally, I'm glad Mondale and Gore lost.  

Reagan was the right man for the times and so was W.  For example, Reagan really precipitated the fall of the Soviet communism and precipitated the end of the Cold War (though it was H.W. who ended both).  

Bush 43, in my opinion, handled 9/11 superbly.  That was his best moment of the past 7 years.  That's exactly why I supported Afghanistan, and partly why I supported Iraq in the beginning.  

I thought Kerry was the best man for the job in 2004, which is why I voted for him, because Iraq was already starting to go downhill fast and only recently has started to ease up in the past 3 or 4 months.

I believe that everything happens for a reason and that there is no such thing as chance or luck in this world as I believe God is in control of every single minute detail of this world's happenings, so I believe Reagan was meant to win big twice.  I believe Bush was meant to win that contested election in 2000 and he was meant to be re-elected in 2004.  Obviously, I was wrong about Kerry, as Bush was God's appointed leader for this country.

I know for a fact, and am at peace, that God has the right man (or woman) for the job in 2008.  I vote because its my civil duty.

Interesting that you don't believe in free will, but I probably oughta leave that for another thread.

I can't see what Bush did after 9/11 that was so much better than what Gore would've done. It's not like Gore couldn't have made good patriotic speeches to make people feel warm and fuzzy, also. I could've done that just as well.

And Tweed is of course right about the history of Soviet collapse. If telling Mr. Gorbachev to tear down this wall is all it took, well, I think we would've accomplished the goal just a trifle sooner.

[Nym90]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

yawn...  just deckchairs on the Titanic to use a cliche.  it's not about the little issues like "weakening" some Act, or if "gun control" (what a joke) is overturned.  it's not about that.  and nobody understands, except for an enlightened few.  enjoy your Nixon and your Mondale and your Christ and your Clinton and your McCain and your God and all of that sh**t, but one day, you'll wish you didn't...

Ok, well, please tell us who would make a difference as President, then. I do truly feel Obama can move us into a new era in politics unlike anyone else we've ever seen; is that what you are getting at as well? Or is there something else I'm missing.

I don't like being half-hearted in my support of candidates anymore than the next guy, but the Clintons are still a hell of a lot better than any Republicans we've had. It does matter who wins, maybe not as much as it should, I'll agree with you there, and I'm sick of supporting candidates out of fear as much as anyone else. But I'm not just going to drop out of the process if my guy doesn't win, out of some sense of teaching a lesson. My conscience dictates I must still choose the best possible candidate among those available.

[Nym90]

Judicial nominations effect the entire spectrum of issues, including corporate issues. People who focus only on Roe v. Wade don't recognize that the courts are basically an entirely separate branch of government, who do the governing in an entire area of law that effects almost all government policies. And after the past 28 years, they are already dominated by Republicans. Another 4-8 years will only make that far worse.

Very true. It does affect economics and also civil liberties issues a lot. Roe v. Wade is maybe the most overrated Supreme Court decision ever in its true impact.

[Nym90]

free will is infinite responsibility...  we all know BushClintonOklahoma and his ilk could never ever handle that!   (and doesn't it prove my point, in a weird way, that he's changed his username from BushOklahoma to ClintonOklahoma without any major persona swing?)

Why are you all of the sudden attacking me?  I'm baffled.

Well if God controls every single minute detail of the universe, I guess that would make the answer to your question (and every other single question in the history of the world that starts with why) pretty obvious.

My answer would be he's in a bit of a bad mood today, but we are all entitled to that from time to time. Although I don't agree with you on many issues you are still a good guy and I am glad to have you in our party.

[Nym90]

Ok, well, please tell us who would make a difference as President, then. I do truly feel Obama can move us into a new era in politics unlike anyone else we've ever seen; is that what you are getting at as well? Or is there something else I'm missing.

I don't like being half-hearted in my support of candidates anymore than the next guy, but the Clintons are still a hell of a lot better than any Republicans we've had. It does matter who wins, maybe not as much as it should, I'll agree with you there, and I'm sick of supporting candidates out of fear as much as anyone else. But I'm not just going to drop out of the process if my guy doesn't win, out of some sense of teaching a lesson. My conscience dictates I must still choose the best possible candidate among those available.

Mike Gravel, David Duke, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, to name a few, for better or for worse...

and please stop the love affair with the Clintons, they're just as evil as the "Republicans" (gasp)...  I know they're the only grasp of power you've had in your lifetime, and the emotional connection to that is oh so pervasive, but please, tell me the difference between John McCain's world and Hillary Clinton's...

and obviously individually "dropping out of the process" isn't going to matter, but if tens of millions of people did it, well, we'd have something...  of course your value currently to the "process" is infinitesimally close to zero, considering about 9 elections in the USA in the past 100 years have been decided by <1 vote...

Well, I do feel quite inspired by Clinton's personal story from his childhood and such (possibly because it matches my own in many ways, plus just the general idea that someone can rise from basically nothing to become President). I have no particular love for the Clintons, I don't see why thinking they are better than the Republicans mean I necessarily think Bill was a great President per se. He was an effective manager, and was better than his opponents. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as answering your question about how Clinton would be better than McCain, if you are truly convinced there is no difference it's probably not going to help much, but Clinton does support universal health care, she supports getting us out of Iraq in less than 100 years, she opposes tax cuts for the rich, she would appoint sane people to the Supreme Court, with a Democratic Congress (and yeah I dislike how they've caved to Bush as much as you, believe me, but I think with a Dem in office we'd see some actual leadership finally) there would be a definite force for change there. Hell, even progress on one of those issues would at least be a step in the right direction compared to where we've been.

I'd think of more right now if I wasn't so damn tired.

I still don't think the short term pain of a McCain win would be worth the potential and extremely uncertain long term gain; as I mentioned, it didn't work that way in the past by letting people like Reagan or Bush win.

I truly do share your angst about our political state; I just disagree that a McCain victory helps matters any.

[Nym90]

Anyone who is honestly not bothered by the thought of 24+ years of Bushes and Clintons probably doesn't really deserve to vote.

And 'Democrats' who are willing to vote for this couple after the horrifying years of Bill Clinton's presidency either have long term memory loss or are actually hardcore conservatives.

Indeed. It's incredibly disturbing.

I am getting incredibly sick of people who petulantly attempt to justify their "support" for Hillary Clinton by throwing around the same old "BUT IISN'T SHE BETTAR THAN THE REPUBLICANZ LOLZ!!!!!11" bullsh**t. Are you merely attempting to guilt apathetic and disillusioned Democrats, former Democrats, liberal-leaning Independents, et cetera into supporting Clinton because she is a Democrat and you believe that being a Democrat automatically makes someone better than any Republican? It's so wonderful how partisanship inevitably wins regardless of what individual candidates actually stand for. No wonder nothing ever changes.

So she is supposedly a Democrat. So what? Who knows what we will get from another Clinton presidency? The Democrats don't deserve my vote if they are pathetic enough to nominate this annoying corporatist warmonger.

After a while, I fail to see any remarkable differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Obviously supporting her simply because she is a Democrat would be senseless. But she pretty much toes the party line on almost every issue, so if you believe as I do that the Democratic platform is overall superior to the Republicans, then that alone makes her better, yes.

I do agree the Democrats and especially the Clintons are way too corporate. No argument from me there. But I still think Clinton would overall be a good President, far less good than Obama to be sure, but still far better than McCain or any Republican. It's not just that I support her for being slightly better, I do see big differences between her and McCain on pretty much every issue.

So while I will do whatever I reasonably can to convince my party to nominate Obama, in the end I will still vote for Clinton because she still will be far better than Bush or McCain.

I'm not trying to guilt anyone. If you honestly believe Clinton was just as bad a President as Bush, and that Mrs. Clinton would be just as bad as McCain, you should vote your convictions. I'm just trying to point out there are substantive differences, and while Clinton is far from my first choice, she will, if nominated, still be by far the best available choice.