I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

It's disingenuous to try to front the narrative that HRC is to blame for the fact that her husband cheated so prolifically. It's how she responded that earns her her reputation.

Ask Carl Bernstein, her biographer.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?referer=&_r=0

The lifeblood of Hillary's negative "reputation" has nothing to do with anything Hillary's done as a public servant in the last 20 years. It's kept alive in the American echo chamber by people like you who are obsessed with denigrating Hillary, for no particular good reason.

I think the reason is vitally important.

That being? I'm interested because when I confronted you with why you keep up the invective, you said "I have no purpose" for doing it.

That's only because it's true.

The vote to authorize the Iraq War was less than 20 years ago.

But I wrote that because I want it to stop being true.

Kudos on your meticulous fact and date check. My main thrust still stands - the reason for Hillary's lingering bad reputation has to do less with actions of hers than with the constant harangue of the chronically anti-Hillary.

Sorry I dont understand your comeback. Went over my head.

I can't imagine that's accurate.

That's easily understandable. You're much too busy imagining the miraculous effect of a Bernie presidency and the toxic criminal disaster of Hillary's, to have any energy left to imagine (the fact) that the constant attacks on Hillary have created an exaggerated negative narrative.

It's the same innane chatter that has 40% of Republicans still believing Obama's a Muslim, and 20% of them believing he's born in Kenya.

No one is saying the constant drum beat that Hillary is a bad person isn't effective, just that it's bullshit, and low class, and wrong.

Quote snood:

And certain to be less effective as the election nears, assuming she gets the nomination. These outsider candidates and seeming "issues" get a lot of play early on the election cycle, when most voters are not paying attention. As the election nears it comes down a few issues, mostly bread and butter issues, and all those seeming "hot" topics that got the political junkies hyped up early on disappear as the majority of Americans engage in the election.

Remember the "threat" of immigration during the 2012 election? Big big topic early on. After Labor Day, nobody was talking about it during the campaign.

Let us assume there is no Bernie in the picture. Does that elevate my opinion of Clinton? Not at all. Just makes me gravitate to Jill Stein. My assessment of her has zero to do with my support of Bernie. Why Hillary supporters don't get that fact is not my problem.

We get it. We also get that you therefore have no trouble with a repeat of 2000, when Nader got just enough votes to deny Gore the election, because the Naderites felt that the country needed so much re-orienting that we could afford a term of George W. Bush in the interests of getting the country pointed in the right direction once we realized he's not the answer.

How'd that work out?

I've got no problem with any of that. I just grieve that so many Bernie supporters might let their antipathy toward Hillary contribute to the success of a madman like Cruz or a dangerous racist egomaniac like Trump. I try, but I just can't understand how they reconcile that without just completely being in denial about the natural consequences of withholding their vote from the eventual Dem nominee if its Hillary.

Tired of being taken for granted. I explained over a month ago that I consider voting for a candidate simply to block out Republicans has never been viable, as they just throw the base a few bones and then do what they like, once the election is over. I am voting Bernie because he is one of us, not just a politician seeking votes for money and power.

I'm almost certain that you're mistaken. I don't suppose you could share the link.

Currently, my right and ability to communicate what's important to me is equal to yours.

I can't believe that amid the shysters, liars, and sell-outs, there is a candidate for president who is as clean and forthright as Bernie Sanders. It's like a miracle to me. In my opinion, he is running against one of the shadiest people in politics.

He calls out Wall Street, institutional racism, and the desperate situation with costs of an education and healthcare as loud as he can - and vows to make life in this country fair for all of us.

She feeds off several of those problems and had a role in making several of those problems worse.

I disrespect those who attack him and support her.

So, yes. I point these things out.

Not the great crime you and some others seem to think it is.

I guess by your definition Bill Clinton was just after money and power. So he got money, power, and under his watch 16 Million Full Time jobs were created. Life improved for the American people. Thanks to Nader, George W. Bush next was the one who went after money and power. However, under his watch only 2 Million Full Time jobs were created-even if you consider the 2008 crash not Bush's fault, he only created 7 Million Full Time jobs before the crash. Life was worse for the American people under Bush.

If the guys at top want money and power, so be it. Just improve life in the damn country while you're doing it, that's all I ask. The two goals are not mutually exclusive.

I don't see any "crime" in what you do. But you and others will be committng a serious offense against the decent people in the country if you withhold your vote from the nominee if its Hillary, and that helps Trump or Cruz into office. I think the only way you can't see the wrongness of withholding your vote from the eventual nominee if its Hillary is if you are in denial, and willfully maintaining a dissonance about it.

You and Edgar don't even address that, when it's brought up to you. You just say something about Bernie's superiority to the others and about the determination you all have for his cause. But you don't address the devastation that could happen with a Trump, Cruz or even Rubio presidency. As if it's secondary or insignificant. People said the same thing about withholding their votes from Gore - when the hellish possibilities of a Bush presidency were brought up, they were dismissed with more rhapsody about how Nader was so superior morally. We're STILL trying to get out of the destruction Bush caused to our economy and our stature in foreign countries.

I want you and Edgar and all those who are thinking that a Cruz or Trump presidency would be a small price to pay in order for you to cast a vote untainted by politics, to be in full public acknowledgement of the possible consequences.

I want you to say you know we might get Trump or Cruz as president but that doesn't matter to you as long as you don't have to vote for Hillary. If you can say that and don't dance around with another hosanna to Bernie's greatness, at least I can rest assured you actually know what you're doing. Can you say that?