Sure. In fact, while I’m an Obama supporter at heart, I’m beginning to have twisted political thoughts about who’s more likely to do well in the swing states. (Clinton’s emphasizing the “big” states doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, since they’ve been big blue states that are going to go Dem either way.) I’d be pretty happy with a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket too.
All of that aside, Dems have my vote this November come hell or high water on the issue of SCOTUS vacancies alone. The notion of a Court packed with Scalia/Roberts/Alito types makes me very uncomfortable.
I am for Obama and then Edwards. I will vote for Clinton if she wins out. I want out of Iraq yesterday. McCain has a timetable but 100 years wont do for me.
We’re talking a different of four electoral votes, with the Dem candidate winning either way.
Looks like Obama would do better in some states that would normally go Republican.
On the other hand, looks like McCain would do better than a typical Republican candidate in some states that would normally go Democratic, but not the same ones when opposed by Obama versus opposed by Clinton. And Clinton would beat him in some bigger states.
some interesting Obama (but not Clinton) states: Colorado; North Dakota; Virginia; Oregon; Washington; Nevada; Michigan
some interesting McCain (but only against Obama) states: Florida; Pennsylvania; New Jersey
some interesting McCain (but only against Clinton) states: Oregon; Washington; Michigan; New Hampshire
All I care about is who’s going to at least be a competent president and whose policies more closely match what I like. McCain doesn’t come close on either count. He thinks foreign problems are all solved by war and is pretty clueless about domestic policy.
I hate the way Hillary’s campaigning and voted for Obama, but I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for her in the general election. She’ll make a far better president than McCain. The SCOTUS issue makes it a slam dunk. And I think she’ll win.
I will vote for either. I honestly don’t see thatmuch of a difference between the two stance-wise. I think Clinton would do a fine job. The main reason I support Obama at this stage in the game is that I think he stands a better chance in the General Election… and I don’t want to see McCain win.
The only thing Clinton needs to avoid is the appearance of any inpropriety with the Super Delegates, as that will seem to turn even those in her own party against her. McCain isn’t the super Neo-Con that Bush is, I can see a lot of dem’s changing to him instead.
In my lifetime, I don’t recall any candidate in the Democratic Party boosting the GOP candidate over the rival Democratic candidate. Hillary did exactly that with McCain over Obama.
Also…
A senior aide makes a slip and refers to Hillary as a monster. Obama apologizes and fires her.
A Clinton senior aide calls Obama another Ken Starr because Barack has the audacity to call for Hillary to publish her financial data. Hillary praises the aide and claims the smear is justified because it is somehow tied to a historical fact. After all, there really was a dirty bastard named Ken Starr. Try teasing the sense from that.
No, the onus is on you to actually read the words that appear before your eyes on the screen. You’ve been given plenty of cogent reasons people have for not voting for Hillary, and they’re discernible even through the noise. What your replies sound like is you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “na na na, I can’t heeeeeaaaaar you.”
I don’t think most people are grasping just how deeply damaging a Clinton nomination could be, not just for the current election process, but for the long-term ramifications of a dispirited, angry populace who say “fuck it all”, and the ripple effect that will have on all levels of government and communities throughout this country. Sullivan gets it. While she’d certainly nominate more liberal Supreme Court justices than McCain, I don’t believe for a moment that the country would be any better off. It will be business as usual and not a damn thing will get done. Republicans in every corner will be energized. We’ll lose House and Senate seats for the same reason the Republicans lost them when people came out in droves to protest Bush and his policies. State and local governments will be at the same risk. We may lose Governorships. And every bit of that is just as important and just as potentially long-lasting and damaging IMNSHO.
To answer the OP, no. I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Sorry to all the die-hard Dems that offends.
Yeah. There are critical flaws for each and every one of the Republicans that makes it impossible for me to vote for them. Originally I would have voted for Kucinich. Then it was Edwards. Now it’s Obama. If he goes, I’ll vote for Hillary.
But I think the people who would vote in order of Obama/McCain/Clinton aren’t being irrational. They likely see process issues as more important than Iraq/SCOTUS, and McCain is better on process reform than Clinton. There’s certainly an argument there along the lines of nothing serious getting done until the process is fixed. When citizens are turned off from government, government functions poorly. When citizens are motivated and inspired by government, good things happen. I think Clinton turns people off of government more than McCain (for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons).
That’s ridiculous. People will say they hate Clinton and will never vote for her. It’s not my job to go dig through GD and respond to the reasoned arguments, because I’m not complaining about those. If I ran through all the political threads saying “I hate Obama; I’ll never vote for that asshole” and you got sick of that I guess I could just come back and claim “straw man! You’re ignoring the rational arguments other people have made!”
I’m tired of Hillary-hate, and that’s what I was talking about. I’m not tired of rational arguments against her. Bring 'em on.
I’d like to see them spelled out, if someone doesn’t mind, because I’d like to know why myself and the others in this thread who don’t support Clinton for various reasons should be asked to vote for a candidate whom we do not support. :dubious:
Saw that and dismissed it as a prediction and not a fact. Not to mention that the far more religious Bush has already put a couple of people on the court and we’re still not a theocracy and our country is still standing.
Are there any reasons more compelling than that or can I go back to being annoyed because I’m being told that if I don’t vote for Clinton I’m effectively dooming the country.
The court has shifted further to the right with Bush’s two appointments. I don’t think I meantioned theocracy, but maybe someone else did.
The current court make up is becoming much more pro-big business and pro-religious mores. This trend could lead to the repression of many rights for a while. If that is not a concern or a fear you have, than I don’t have a better reason to vote for Hillary. I only think she will be an average President at best. I don’t like her so I understand why other don’t.
Hell, I even dislike the idea of another person named Bush or Clinton being in office. It would be nice to see both families disappear for an extended period from the executive branch. I would vote for McCain over Hillary if it was not for the Supreme court issue. He is as Green as she is and better credentialed to handle her now infamous 3 am call concern.
No, that was a bit of irritated hyperbole on my part. My apologies. But the idea that we’re supposed to vote for whatever democrat because to allow the republicans to control the white house will lead the country to ruin is almost insulting. It’s also frighteningly close to the right’s argument that a vote for a democrat is a vote for the terrorists.
It’s not something I worry about. Pro-business maybe but McCain doesn’t strike me as the sort to appoint a social conservative anywhere close to the ones that Bush has put up.
