I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

You forgot to include "...or if Hillary clearly beats him outright..." Just an oversight on your part, I'm sure. Happy to correct that for you.

It was interesting in 2008 how the leadership of the party, the Senators, Representatives and Governors, met with both candidates and pretty much split up the middle. Sure Clinton got an initial lead, but the ones who took their time to decide generally went for Obama. Right now, the people who know Sanders and Clinton best, the ones who worked with them in the Senate or have had an opportunity to talk to them face to face are pretty unified in their stance. Every Senator and Governor who has endorsed has gone with Clinton. Sanders has the endorsement of four representatives vs over 100 for Clinton. I'm sure Sanders supporters will say something about the "Democratic Machine" and the stranglehold Clinton has over the party, but that didn't work eight years ago. Honestly at this point eight years ago, I think people thought Obama was a longer shot than Sanders. I've read this several times: people who actually talk to Clinton come away very impressed with her grasp of the issues and proposed solutions. I can see favoring Sanders, I can't see being a Sanders supporter who would never vote for Clinton.

Very well put, sir.

I guess the democratic machine just disappeared for Hillary in 2008. I don't believe that for a second. The fact is Sanders ain't Obama. Sanders appeals to Independents and younger or working class white democrat voters and people who think they suddenly invented the term "progressives." It seems as those who went for Hillary in 2008 have switched to Sanders and those who went for Obama in 2008 are going to Hillary albeit with less enthusiasm and numbers. At least that is the way I see it which could be wrong or just partly wrong.

I think this might send a stronger message. The DNC will think twice before suppressing votes for one presidential candidate during primary season.

Talk about spin.... Sander's supporters threw a fit, the organizers found a solution to appease them (even if it was a poor choice and/or poor choice of words), and so the Clinton is guilty of "a nasty bit of spin politics?"

This is starting to feel a lot about how Republican's treat Obama. Anything that has the least hint of controversy is somehow his fault. Now anything that has the least bit controversy during this primary is Clinton's fault and/or nefarious.

The Clinton supporters lied about racial rudeness that didn't happen. When they were discovered to be lying about the incident - with video thankfully - no apology for the artful smear, no repudiation from Hillary Clinton to staffers/surrogates for intentionally attempting to paint Bernie supporters as racists.

Hillary's campaign is relentlessly trying to use false racism to turn Hispanic voters away from Bernie. She's already been smacked down for trying to use sexism several times.

It's inexcusable.

So? That's really an ad hominem argument against Clinton. "Some of her supporters are terrible people so she must be a terrible person."

Wanna bet whether I can find some Sanders supports that are terrible people?

I'm guessing Sanders has some feet of clay somewhere. His initials aren't even J.C.


Edit: One of Niven's Laws:

I'm not sure why people hold the candidates accountable for what others say.

If this is supposed to be a QUOTE...who said it??

Having attended Democratic conventions at various levels, and the GOP is the same way, the convention attendees tend to be strong party loyalists. They will support those that have supported the party in the past. In this case, Clinton has been a democrat for a number of years, has raised money for democrats, has worked to get democrats elected. Bernie, as much as his politics may mesh well with the left wing of the Democratic party, has not been a member of the Democratic party even though he does caucus with them in the Senate. This is a strike against him when it comes to the super delegates. Unless Bernie ends up winning a majority of the regular delegates in state contests we won't see a shift of the super delegates to supporting him. It's the way party politics works.

It will be interesting to see how the super delegates end up on the GOP side with Trump being in a similar position to Sanders, not a long time party activist.

I'm not sure you're clear on the meaning of ad hom.

When supporters of a candidate do stupid or ruthless ****, people expect the candidate to disavow the behavior publicly. I know Hillary damn well expects it of Bernie.

Quid pro quo.

But, of course, she acts like it didn't happen, which defines her.

Not ad hom.

Observation of her behavior.

If we all went around commenting on and disavowing ourselves of everything we find distasteful, we'd never get anything accomplished.

So far, all I've heard is a bunch of he said/she said about what happened. Should Clinton suspend her campaign and get to the bottom of who shouted "English only?"

If the worst thing you can find this week on Clinton is that she hasn't dropped everything to deal with this tempest in a teapot, then you've got less than a handful of air.

Get a sense of proportion, already. This is American politics at the national level. Let's not pee our pants every time someone has a strong opinion, m'kay?

I heard this proposition in 2000. Bush and his policies were going to destroy the republican party. So why do we have a republican house and senate. All they need is a republican president to screw everyone in the middle class and I firmly believe that Bernie will give them that option when the republicans open up with their communist=socialist year long daily rant.

Albert R. Hunt in a review of Mrs. Clinton's book, in 2014. It was written for Bloomberg View and carried in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/the-pros-and-cons-for-clinton.html?_r=0

Are you telling us that republicans are (more or less)commies?

From PDiddie's blog
-- Delores Huerta got Snoped on her "English-only" chanting smear and failed the truth test.

I don't understand why people say they don't understand why Clinton is accused of lying when there's so much videotape evidence of it, and when her surrogates also lie repeatedly for her. Just this past week, John Lewis claimed he met the Clinton's in the 60s and implied Bernie Sanders was never present during the decade's most seminal civil rights activism, when he was. WaPo reporter Jonathan Capeheart continues to insist that a photo of Bernie Sanders during the time period isn't him, when it quite clearly is.

Is this 'ends justify the means' politics? Is it "just"politics? Is winning the only purpose of all of these lies? Does it depend on what the definition of the word 'lie' is?

I suppose making up lies is better than what Barney Frank is doing: scapegoating people who aren't voting for Hillary eight months in advance for her (potential) November defeat.

Clinton's going to move to her right in order to capture the voters she perceives she will need to win the fall election. All of the effort people made in terms of "pulling her to the left" is set to be flushed, in about three weeks, shortly after March 15 when her nomination appears more inevitable than it does today. Will Bernie Sanders' supporters meekly fall in line, threatened into submission with the "Supreme Court" whip?

There's a conversation people need to be having with themselves.

-- Jon Ralston, the big dog in Nevada politics, gives the credit for Clinton's win to Harry Reid and the Culinary union workers. Lots of people rightly share kudos, however.

Sanders outspent Clinton 2 to 1 on TV ads in the state, and managed to build up his campaign operation to rival hers in size. But Team Clinton, which had been in the state since April under the direction of Barack Obama campaign alum Emmy Ruiz, was better organized. Clinton’s female-focused outreach strategy in Nevada paid off, with exit polls showing Clinton winning among women by 16 percentage points, reversing the embarrassing New Hampshire trend of women choosing Sanders. Clinton once led the state by large margins, but a poll last week showed she and Sanders in a dead heat. The former secretary of state canceled a campaign rally in Florida this week and spent an extra day campaigning in Nevada.
Her high-profile surrogates, including actress Eva Longoria and Cabinet member Tom Perez, flooded the state and held multiple events every day, out-campaigning Sanders’ team.

There was also longtime Clintonite America Ferrera, who raised eyebrows when she said she wanted to "Netflix and chill" with Hillary (if you don't get why that's eyebrow-raising, then Google the phrase and read the Urban Dictionary's NSFW listing), and Will Ferrell, who until yesterday morning was listed on Sanders' website as a supporter but was out encouraging caucus-goers for Clinton.

Total team effort IMO.

Clinton finally arrived at Texas Southern University after midnight, rallying her Houston troops.

This in from Cornel West
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/cornel-west-sister-hillary-clinton-is-the-milli-vanilli-of-american-politics/

I saw Huerta's post, was very dissapointed, and then saw
something that was more descriptive.

My reaction was that Huerta (whom I have liked) didn't get it.

Someone else followed to shut down her take, but that is all I see.

Ridiculous statement. She has called other candidates to the carpet for the same thing. Only you in the throes of nutty hyperbole suggested suspension of a campaign over it.

Quid pro quo.