I probably would not cast a presidential vote. I'm tired of having to choose between candidates I have no desire to see in office and I no longer want to contribute to the continuation of the mess in the Washington by doing so.
If forced to vote for someone, I might write in Ralph Nader's name if I was really desperate.
My primary vote goes to Clinton. I will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter which gets selected, this time and probably every time from now on. I refuse to publicly criticise a Democrat until after the new president has been elected. No need to give ammunition to Republicans.
Eva wrote:For the record, I'm an Obama supporter who would definitely vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. I would much prefer to see her as president than any of the Republican candidates.
Me too. It may pinch a little and I might screw up my face just a bit but, I'll vote for her before putting another Republican in the White House.
FreeDuck wrote:What "type" of people do you mean, cj?
Smart people, apparently.
(Go GW!)
FreeDuck wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I'm not going to say anything that a republican can turn around and parrot about him in the general election to beat him should he get the nomination.
There's something about this line of thinking that really bothers me. I'm going to sit on it for a few minutes and come back and tell you why.
Ok, [..] I'm going to try to expand on what it is about this line of thinking that bothers me. It smells like the same bs we get about not trashing our president because of what other countries will do with that. Or not speaking publicly against the war where our enemies might hear us. The fact is this, if Hillary is bad news (as I think she is, and not because Republicans once trashed her about that baking cookies comment), then now is exactly the time to speak up. If the Republicans will have such a field day with what we say about her, and if our criticisms are valid, then we should find another candidate. Otherwise, who cares what the Republicans try to use against the Democratic nominee based on what was said in the primaries, that knife cuts both ways.
Exactemento. Totally agree, and I think an important counterpoint to BPB's and now Edgarblythe's posts.
Any Democrat is better than any Republican.
That being said, Hillary has the unique ability of being labeled "Liberal" without courageously taking a stand on any "Liberal" issues.
If she deserved the Liberal label, I would be much happier about voting for her.
I am strongly supporting Obama in the primary, and I hope he wins the nomination.
But in the event that Clinton wins, I will certainly support her and vote for her in the general election.
McCain is a weasel. He has had moments where he appeared to have integrity, but he is still a weasel.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I would only consider voting for McCain over her.
You gotta realize, BpB, that she's 80% Republican. She's Republican lite. I don't trust her to represent my interests. I have a hard time believing that she's interested in ending the war, or ending domestic spying, or stopping corporate control of our nation.
Cycloptichorn
I highly doubt that any republican would consider her 80% on their side....
maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I would only consider voting for McCain over her.
You gotta realize, BpB, that she's 80% Republican. She's Republican lite. I don't trust her to represent my interests. I have a hard time believing that she's interested in ending the war, or ending domestic spying, or stopping corporate control of our nation.
Cycloptichorn
I highly doubt that any republican would consider her 80% on their side....
That is because their knee-jerk hatred impairs their ability to think straight.
ebrown_p wrote:Any Democrat is better than any Republican.
I don't doubt that you believe the above too. Did you also not appreciate Eisenhower?
I dont think he was there for Ike yet... more than half of us werent, I'm guessing. And the Republican party we've gotten to know has little in common anymore with Eisenhower's politics.
Yeah, my statement was intended to be present tense...
But then I haven't ever voted for a Republican candidate on any level (although I have supported a couple of independents).
The first national Republican I was old enough to vote against was Reagan.
nimh wrote:I dont think he was there for Ike yet... more than half of us werent, I'm guessing. And the Republican party we've gotten to know has little in common anymore with Eisenhower's politics.
If one reads, one was there for Lincoln, Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, etc., etc. Reading is a time machine.
Eisenhower had a few good points. He was one hell of a golfer. He was good at rousting out veterans camps. As Nicky Kruschev was fond of saying, "Roosevelt proves America can run with a good president. Truman proves it can funtion well with a bad president. Eisenhower proves it can do well with no president at all."
dagmaraka wrote:Being someone who cannot vote (though I can pay taxes for the last 11 years or so, damnit)...
Don't be silly, darlin. You can vote too. No registration necessary. Just come to Wisconsin and find someone charmed to vouch for you. (Yep, vouching is still legal here, last I checked.)
FreeDuck wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I'm not going to say anything that a republican can turn around and parrot about him in the general election to beat him should he get the nomination.
There's something about this line of thinking that really bothers me. I'm going to sit on it for a few minutes and come back and tell you why.
Ok, after much thought I'm going to try to expand on what it is about this line of thinking that bothers me. It smells like the same bs we get about not trashing our president because of what other countries will do with that. Or not speaking publicly against the war where our enemies might hear us. The fact is this, if Hillary is bad news (as I think she is, and not because Republicans once trashed her about that baking cookies comment), then now is exactly the time to speak up. If the Republicans will have such a field day with what we say about her, and if our criticisms are valid, then we should find another candidate. Otherwise, who cares what the Republicans try to use against the Democratic nominee based on what was said in the primaries, that knife cuts both ways.
I do tend to agree with you, however I hate to break this to everyone on A2K, but neither Republican nor Democratic operatives are monitoring this forum looking for clever barbs to use against their opponents.
Everyone should feel free to say all the bad things they feel about any candidate. If they come back to haunt you it will only be in the context of this forum and they will never come back to haunt any of the people you diss.
Yeah, I agree that A2K is probably not being scanned by partisan operatives looking for strategic gems of rhetoric.
Oh, and I promise not to use any your criticisms of Democrat politicians to advance my own displeasure with such folks. Especially the one about Hillary being 80% Republican.
This thread is fascinating.
I was of the opinion that the Left wing of the party didn't consider Hillary Left enough, and this is affirmation.
You can, however, probably count on her moving to the Left in her positions now that she lost to Obama and Edwards in Iowa. Maybe not so much in New Hampshire, but look out if she loses that one too.
From the point of view of someone on the Right, these developments are heartening.
If Hillary had been able to lock down the nomination last night with a major victory over Obama and Edwards she would have been able to move entirely into General Election mode and modify her positions for a wider audience.
Now she's in a fight for the support of you folks (well, at least the self-proclaimed liberal democrats), and it appears she will have to try and win the debate at the level of what appeals to the party's base.
Whoopie!
The further Left the ultimate winner has to move to secure the nomination, the better for the Republican nominee in November.
Of course it cuts both ways, and if Huckabee instigates all out pandering to social conservatives by all Republican candidates, it will help the Democrats in November.
I love that at least two, ostensibly liberal, posters have indicated a willingness to consider voting for McCain. Now all we have to do is get him through the primaries without pandering to the base of the party and he stands an excellent chance of winning in November.
It seems ironic that someone would express disdain for Hillary because of her vote on the Iraq War and yet express some interest in supporting McCain who has, arguably, been the fiercest Hawk in DC. I'm happy to assume it is appreciation for integrity and encourage you to keep this in mind.
Re: I Have Stated Consistenly And Everywhere
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:that I will throw my support and vote to Obama if he wins the nomination even though he is not my candidate of choice.
How many of you will give Hillary your full support and vote if she wins, as I believe she will, the democratic nomination, and how much weight do you think your support will swing given the fact that most of you have attacked her as virulently as any republican?
I shall not be voting for her, even if she wins.
