Why a die-hard Sanders supporter is happily voting for Hillary

I “Felt the Bern” for a long time during Sanders’ candidacy, within days of his announcement. On a basic gut level, I preferred his populist progressive positions over Clinton’s.

Even as early on, Clinton was trotting out “protect Social Security and Obamacare” messages and promoting those awful free trade agreements, Sanders was proposing expanding Social Security, lowering the retirement age back to 65, increasing benefits, replacing Obamacare with universal healthcare, making public college tuition free, and so on.

On the other hand, on the social issues, they didn’t disagree at all, so I had nothing to complain about there. Really, the early Democratic debates were boring because they spent most of the time agreeing with each other.

My initial hopes for Sanders didn’t pan out

I was hopeful when the caucuses and primaries started that the unashamedly liberal firebrand would take the lead early and take the nomination in a rout. That didn’t happen. From the first Super Tuesday on, Clinton proved she was preferred by more Democrats than Sanders. Week after week, primary after primary, she kept increasing her lead. Sanders would recover when he hit the favorable demographics and open caucuses, but then would lose ground again — often by large amounts — whenever the race turned back to the closed primaries and Clinton-favorable demographics.

Put simply, whenever Sanders won big percentages, it was the small caucus states mostly; whenever Clinton won big percentages, it was the high-population primary states. Hence her current lead of more than 3 million in the popular vote.

April 26th was my self-imposed deadline, the middle-Atlantic Super Tuesday, which included coincidentally my original home state of Pennsylvania. Either Sanders needed to show he could start beating Clinton by double-digit margins, or it was time to recognize the reality of “the math” simply not being in his favor. Yes, a week later he won in Indiana by a small margin… and fell further behind on the percentage of pledged delegates remaining that he’d need to win the nomination. Even if he started beating Clinton in every single state remaining by 55/45, he would still lose. In California, the biggest remaining state of all, he’s behind by around 10 points; he’d have to turn that around by more than 25 now. Which seems very unlikely at this point.

Then Sanders started to lose me

I supported Sanders staying in the race until the end, if only to help keep pulling Clinton to the progressive left, as is obvious he’s already done. I supported Sanders’ notion he should have a hand in shaping the party platform — and perhaps even have a prominent position in the Clinton administration. Hell, I actually mused what a powerhouse a Clinton/Sanders ticket would be. (Not likely, I know, but still.)

However, as I noted in other comments of mine scattered about the Internet blogs, I was unsettled by Sanders’ lack of specificity and seeming lack of grasping the details of getting things done in the NY Daily News interview. (Seriously, I think that paper should get a Pulitzer just for managing to interview just about all the prominent candidates, in-depth, and to ask really great questions.) I didn’t like how “Wall Street” and “Goldman Sachs” became a drinking game whenever he spoke. I was bothered more by Sanders’ continued insistence, even now, that he can still win the nomination outright. And my breaking point was almost there when he began suggesting the super-delegates — the elected and former leaders of the Democratic party — should defy the popular vote, the pledged delegates, and the primary results and give him the nomination.

I’m even witnessing his supporters apparently moving the goalposts, saying Sanders only needs a bare majority of the pledged delegates to win (2,026), whereas they insist Clinton’s “magic number” benchmark is now 2,283, in pledged, not super-delegates.

My “screw it” moment

My “screw it, I just can’t even” moment came when Sanders said this back on April 25th:

“We’re not a movement where I can snap my fingers and say to you or to anybody else what you should do, that you should all listen to me. You shouldn’t. You make these decisions yourself.

“And if Secretary Clinton wins, it is incumbent upon her to tell millions of people who right now do not believe in establishment politics or establishment economics, who have serious misgivings about a candidate who has received millions of dollars from Wall Street and other special interests. She has to go out to you.”

That’s the opposite of responsible leadership and an abdication of responsibility as a would-be leader of the Democratic party. It is his, and every leader’s job, to persuade people to do the right thing.

Even hinting he won’t endorse the party’s nominee if it’s Clinton is appalling. And he’s basically implying it’s okay to just sit out the election if Clinton doesn’t persuade all his people to switch to supporting her instead. Sanders won’t lift a finger to help make that happen.

Clinton isn’t the lesser of two evils

Sanders isn’t morally equivalent to Trump. Neither is Clinton. Neither of them is perfect. I still prefer Sanders’ positions in general, but over the months I’ve become more confident in Clinton’s ability to get things done and command of the details of governing — and most of what she says she wants to do isn’t bad at all. Her husband gave us Ginsberg and Breyer; I expect her SCOTUS picks to be even better. If Clinton says she’ll improve the PPACA (‘Obamacare’) in some incremental way, I’ll complain about it, but her chances of getting it done far exceed Senator Sanders’ chances for giving the country universal no-insurance healthcare. Not when her plan is “win back Congress” and his (in his own words) was for people to email and fax the Republicans.

But Trump IS Trump — and he will be the GOP nominee. Hell, in an alternate reality where Romney suddenly declared he was a Democrat and was the party’s unexpected nominee — I’d vote for HIM rather than sit out the election or throw away my vote on a pointless 3rd party candidate.

This isn’t “lesser evils.” This is someone you might or might not like, or even have decided you hate, versus an outright monster. An avowed racist, xenophobe, misogynist and guy eager to torture prisoners, bomb innocent civilians, and maybe even use nuclear weapons. Nixon was run out of office for targeting his political enemies; Trump has already promised he’ll “do the same, and more.” And Trump has literally said he wants to make “unfair” statements about him illegal. Including no doubt this blog post right here.

Only the Democrats can stop Trump

No independent Sanders run or 3rd party Green or Libertarian candidate will stop Trump. Only the Democrats can do that right now. Only them. Provided the party as a whole doesn’t mess this up, as I already know they can do.

As far as I was concerned, Sanders’ narrow win and pick-up of just 6 delegates in Indiana was the final nail in the already sealed coffin. I could support him as long as he was promoting the liberal-populist cause itself. I could no longer support Sanders when it became clear he intends to do as much damage to the Clinton campaign as possible during the next several weeks, and that he apparently had no loyalty to the Democrats at all. They seem to have been just a convenient vehicle for his own ambitions.

I’ll be honest here, too: While I supported and was enthusiastic about Senator Bernie Sanders for many months, I never stopped believing Clinton was a perfectly acceptable alternative. Especially given who the GOP is running. I finished off many of my remarks with “I support Sanders, but I will support whomever the Democrats nominate for President, and every one of their down-ticket candidates this year. Because it’s just that important.”

Well, the nominee is just about certain now to be Clinton. So I decided it was time finally to do what I promised to do for all those months: Support the presumptive Democratic party nominee. I just donated to her campaign, for my first time this cycle.

I wish Bernie Sanders well back in the Senate and I hope he continues to fight for his causes. But I really don’t want him harming the party which has been giving him plum committee assignments despite his not belonging to them for all those years.

I won’t make the 3rd Party mistake again

Senator Sanders through his own actions and statements lost me and Secretary Clinton won me over, in roughly equal measure. And Trump convinced me to set aside any impulses I might have ever to cast symbolic ‘message sending’ votes. I’m never doing that again because they don’t work. Sanders managed to shift the party leftward by running as a candidate inside it; all he’d accomplish running against the party as a 3rd party candidate would be to make the Democrats even less like he’d want them to be.

Oh and just maybe give the country President Trump instead. Yeah, this is electoral extortion. Sorry. However it’s also our current reality and protest votes aren’t going to change it, not in 2016 and probably not ever. Not as long as here in America it’s winner-take-all and a winner is simply the man or woman who wins the most votes, even if it’s significantly less than 50%. Ask Nader, Perot, and Anderson supporters whether the party their candidate ran against became more or less like they wanted it to be, after their guy lost and the candidate they would have preferred least was declared the winner.

When you declare the Democrats are too far gone ever to get your vote, what happens is they don’t say, “Gee, we should change to recapture the support of those who’ve rejected us.” What they do is say, “There’s people in the middle and center-right who haven’t made up their minds. We’ll go for them.” It’s what’s been happening with the Dems for the last half century.

Sure, Clinton is not in any way entitled to your vote — I get that — but your country is entitled to your responsible use of that important privilege. Voting simply to feel better isn’t being responsible.

Published professional writer and poet, Becca had a three decade career in technical writing and consulting before selling off most of her possessions in 2006 to go live at an ashram in India for 3 years. She loves literature (especially science fiction), technology and science, progressive politics, cool electronic gadgets, and perfecting Hatch green chile recipes. Fortunately for this last, Becca and her wife currently live in New Mexico. @BeccaMorn

Share This Post

168 Responses to “Why a die-hard Sanders supporter is happily voting for Hillary”

  1. Swingstate says:

    No she is not evil, please get a grip. Don’t just repeat attacks that have been debunked. Bernie is just plain desperate at this point. He’s delusional to believe he can beat Trump based on today’s polls. Many people don’t even know him and when the republicans get started on him and his socialism becomes communism, his smut filled writings will be made to look like he’s a pervert, etc. Don’t underestimate their ability to destroy the man. Whatever they put forward real or imagined will make his poll numbers drop like a rock. He’s run a great campaign and came a very long way but cannot overcome the delegate deficit. This is because he wasn’t well known early and just couldn’t catch up, not because anyone stole it or cheated or any other conspiracy theories people dream up. Peace to all the liberals out there.

  2. Rainbird says:

    Hey, how about that Inspector General’s report! That ought to be fun to watch the Hillary supporters spin huh?

  3. hidflect says:

    A vote for Hillary is rewarding bad behavior.

  4. Jessica7859 says:

    just as Brian explained I didnt know that you can get paid $9452 in one month on the computer . look at this web-site http://clck.ru/9vNCb


  5. Dusty says:

    I voted for Sanders, but I will vote for Hillary since they say she will be and she appears to be the nominee. Why jump out of the frying pan into the fire and not vote at all, That would be a sure vote for mein Trumpf. I’d like to leave my grandkids a fighting chance.

  6. mshepnj says:

    Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in California in 2008. In fact, he lost a majority of the late primaries that year as well. Should he have bowed out, rather than go on to become the nominee and later President? Or was that okay because you liked him?

  7. Don Chandler says:

    If Hillary can’t win California, then she should bow out…you left that part out. She has been losing state after state and started the whole nomination process as a certain democrat nominee. Bernie put a great campaign together and has enthusiam and is making a real challenge. My comment had had nothing to do with Hillary being a woman. My problem with Hillary is she is a status quo candidate (lesser evil in some minds) but Bernie is a real progressive…we haven’t had one of those in a long time. I would have loved an Elizabeth Warren candidacy–a feisty and youthful force and a true progressive. And then there are the Hillary gaffes…

  8. LH says:

    It’s amazing to me that some folks (usually men) suggest Hillary should “bow out” and what–let a man who’s losing by 3+ MILLION votes be the nominee? It’s the last gasp of the male-dominated system.

  9. LH says:

    By “rigged system” you mean rules? Welcome to the real, grown-up world.

  10. LH says:

    “Rockheaded” is an appropriate moniker.

  11. TheAngryFag says:

    No, she is the lesser of two evils. She’s a lying opportunist who never met a war she didn’t like whose political career has been bankrolled by Wall Street.

  12. Ryan P says:

    “Sure, Clinton is not in any way entitled to your vote — I get that”

    The rest of the article suggests you don’t. Somehow the Hillary fan club thinks that now that their candidate won, fair and square, all the other Democrats have to vote for her, even though Hillary’s fans know (and this is the problem) that all the others genuinely do not like her. Selling Hillary is the worst kind of uphill battle. Everyone who isn’t brainwashed knows she’s corrupt, venal, and not a leader. I suggest Hillary and her followers take Bernie’s advice and go out and try to earn every vote. And not by browbeating other Democrats who aren’t inclined to put a political reptile like Hillary into our highest office. Figuring out how to do that is your job, not everybody else’s.

  13. perljammer says:

    Heh. I’m sure Bill Purdue can help you figure out that Ukraine thing ;-)

  14. TheNeedle says:

    You lost me at “Slate.”

  15. TheNeedle says:

    Of course not. They have to demonize Sanders and all his supporters even as they demand–DEMAND–that they sit down, STFU. and vote for Hillary, because Trump.

  16. hiker_sf says:

    I’m a Sanders supporter – but not die-hard because I find Sanders to be flawed. And I will vote for Clinton – but not happily. I will hold my nose and, if she is as shitty as a president as I suspect, I hope that her actions will launch an era of robust activism that puts our country back into the hands of the people – and not corporations.

  17. TheNeedle says:

    This “if you don’t adore Hillary, you must be a Republican” reminds me of Geroge Dubbya’s “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” It’s not the only thing the Hill-Bullies do that reminds me of Republicans, either.

  18. TheNeedle says:

    “I’m not that guy” didn’t work for Kerry. It didn’t work for Romney. And it won’t work for Clinton. She keeps coasting on that, and she’s going to lose.

  19. Badgerite says:

    Nader did not run as a Democrat. He ran for president on the Green party ticket. Nader might have been more successful if he had run as a democrat but his stated purpose was to build up the Green Party as a viable alternative to the two party system. In 2000, Ralph Nader received 2% of the national vote.
    Prior to that their candidate had always taken about 1%. After the 2000 election, it went back down to 1%. “More successful then Ralph Nader” is not a hard standard to beat. At least Sanders saw the folly of running as an independent. But he does not seem to see the folly of running to be the Democratic party’s nominee for president while also attacking the Democratic party.

  20. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Wow. There are people downthread on this that make me ashamed to be a Sanders supporter. I almost wonder if they are Sanders supporters, or Trumpets masquerading as Sanders Supporters.

    Anyway…my thoughts on this.

    I am a Sanders supporter. I think Clinton is crooked and opportunistic, and shows lack of good judgment. I think she will bring back the smack of corruption that Obama has avoided these last 8 years, and pave the way for a GOP victory in 2024 (or 2020 if she really goes overboard). I don’t particularly like her as a person, and I would rather Sanders rather than her for my nominee.

    But make no mistake. Come November, I will vote for whoever is on the Democratic ticket. Why? Because Clinton is far, far closer to my ideals than the Trumpster is (thanks, Red State, for that term. And wow. They actually are realizing the flaws that let Trump win! Too bad they’re still gung-ho for eyes-in-your-bedroom crony capitalism, though…). Clinton may be a crook, but I’ve lived under crook politicians before and survived the experience. Hell, Edwin Edwards, one of the most crooked politicians in the country, was one of the crooks I survived.

    But you know what I haven’t survived? I’ll tell you. A Mussolini-quoting, authoritarian twit jerkoff asshat pin-brain fool moron idiot who wears his butt as headwear and espouses Strong-Man Dictatorship Fascism as easily as I talk computers.

    I don’t like Clinton, but I view Trump like the Doctor views the Daleks. “YOU *WHAM* ARE *WHAM* MY *WHAM* ENEMY! AND I AM YOURS! *KICK*” Hell, the 11ths diatribe against the Daleks in Victory of The Daleks fits here. “You are everything I despise. The worst thing in all creation.” And I’d like to defeat this particular foe once and for all and not have to do the whole ‘send to the void’ and ‘save all of creation from you’ things. And the only way I’m going to do that? Simple. Team Blue’s button gets pushed. Top of the ticket to the bottom. No questions asked.

    Clinton is more of the same. We’ve dealt with the wishy-washy Dems for just about all of my adult life, and yes, I’m tired of the BS. But you know what? Now’s not the time to challenge it. You don’t stand on principle when the opponent is fielding the next Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler!

    I’m hoping that the Sanders-hits will tone down, though, now that his chance of winning comes down to “every Clinton supporter in all the remaining states comes down with a severe case of explosive diarrhea on Primary Day”. He gave it a good go, so I’m hoping to turn our attention to the real threat: Herr Drumpf. Let’s work together to keep it Herr and not Fuehrur.

  21. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    As a Sanders supporter, I will say “don’t do us any more favors.”

  22. RockheadedMama says:

    The neoliberals got my last vote with Obama’s second term. I DEFINITELY do NOT want a third Obama term. Real unemployment is hovering near 12%, suicides in this country are increasing, people who have been hanging on by their fingernails can not possibly hang on through a Clinton presidency.

    I am beyond appalled that Hillary Clinton has made absolutely NO EFFORT to distance herself from the election rigging which leaves me no choice but to believe she is complicit in it. I will not vote for a party. I will vote my conscience. There is absolutely no way, Hillary meets my requirements to be president.

    If Bernie, the candidate who can actually beat Trump, does not get the Democratic nomination, then, I will vote third party, for a better candidate. The entire purpose of the super delegates is to make sure that the candidate who can beat the opposition is nominated to run. Let’s see if they are really merely crony enablers instead.

  23. Blogvader says:

    Oh, I know you’re not paid for your opinions. I’ve been around a while.

    And once this stupid election’s over, I look forward to getting back to discussing things in a more reasonable fashion. We’ll all be whining that our government doesn’t get anything done again anyway.

  24. rightsucks says:

    Hillary actually might be worse than Trump, allowing a rigged system to continue unabated. She must be stopped.

  25. kladinvt says:

    Again, is HillaryInc’s Super Pac paying you by the word or the posting?

  26. kladinvt says:

    So instead, this person is voting for the corporate-centrist? This makes no sense. Was this “writer” another one paid off by HillaryInc’s Super Pac?

  27. rmthunter says:

    Yes. Sanders has lost me, too, as the cycle has progressed, but the idea of Donald Trump as president — well, it’s obvious that there’s no place on earth far enough away to take refuge.

    My major question about Sanders was always, “Can he actually do any of this?” about which I had grave doubts from the beginning. The answer appears more and more to be “No.”

  28. Don Chandler says:

    People make arguments that Bernie is untried or untested…what the hell is Hillary waiting for? This contest is very close and she had the establishment behind her from the beginning. If she can’t win California, something is wrong with her campaign.

    Yeah, we all know the superdelegates are an undemocratic concept. Bill Clinton is a superdelegate…all these very special people. We mortals have very little political power and if it’s not Citizen’s United undermining what is left of our power, then it’s undemocratic processes that have always been in place. The super wealthy and their establishment knew this day was coming and Bernie capitalized on it. I like him even if John thinks he’s a commie pinko jew ;) I don’t know what to say. If Bernie wins California, Hillary needs to placate him and his followers.

  29. BeccaM says:

    Thanks Uncle Bucky. I said it in my post above, which most of the angry trolls appeared not to have read at all, that’s been my attitude all along: I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate as their presidential candidate, whether it’s Clinton or Sanders. I had a personal preference for most of the last year for Sanders, now I’ve decided it made sense to switch to Clinton. I believe she’ll be the nominee and I think she has a very good chance of beating Trump. And I think she’ll be a pretty good president, although I totally understand if some don’t agree.

    Happens I also thought Sanders did, too, but he’s just not going to win the nomination. If he did, through some unforeseen happenstance, get the nod, I’d switch my vote back to him in a heartbeat.

    And of course, I’m voting for every Dem down-ticket, too. Even in instances where I might have to hold my nose to do it.

    The one thing Sanders could do though to make me regret supporting him all those months would be to launch a 3rd party run or to tell his people not to vote for Clinton and the Democrats. He suggested once, as I block-quoted, that he didn’t think it was up to him to endorse his primary challenger if she was the nominee; I do hope he thinks better of that remark come June 8th.

  30. BeccaM says:


  31. BeccaM says:

    And I also happen to think Clinton’s foreign policy isn’t nearly as war-mongering and interventionist as the critics want us to believe.

    I’d sure like to know how Ukraine was Clinton’s fault when it was Russia & Putin who invaded. Last I checked, the U.S. was not at war in that part of the world.

  32. UncleBucky says:

    Becca, on target! I am a Sanders supporter, too. But I WILL VOTE BLUE, across the board, no matter what, IN NOVEMBER. PERIOD! :)

  33. BeccaM says:

    And I’d like to say here I did not ask the mods to intervene at all or to remove those posts.

  34. BeccaM says:

    And suppose Sanders wins California by a small amount, say 52 to 48. Or even by a large amount, like 55 to 45. Let’s be generous and say Sanders wins a majority of the remaining states by similar amounts.

    He still would not have 2,026 pledged delegates. He still will be several million votes behind in the popular primary vote count.

    To give Sanders the nomination via super-delegates would be in defiance of the primary results, awarding the nomination not to someone who’d won fair and square but someone else who pulled off an electoral coup.

    The supers should indeed reconsider Sanders candidacy — if he wins more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. But I doubt very much that will happen. And I think it would be really unfair if California voters alone got to override the primary results for the rest of the country.

  35. Don Chandler says:

    The Slate piece is a hit piece:

    “The Sanderistas appear to believe they were treated unfairly, even viciously, in this primary. ”

    The “sanderistas”…come on John.

    Becca has said that Bernie hasn’t won any big contests. Well, winning California would be a big win and a timely win. The super delegates will have to reconsider his candidacy if he pulls it off.

  36. It’s classic Marxist theory. And it’s never worked.

  37. I like her foreign policy. All Democrats aren’t pacifists.

  38. The only person we blocked was a troll who was personally attacking everyone. You’ll note that a lot of people in the comments disagree with Becca’s article, and they’re still here :)

  39. I think if Bernie wins the nomination fair and square, Hillary should bow out – but she sure as hell shouldn’t bow out after she wins by the rules, simply because Bernie won a few last minute states, but still lost the nomination. Those aren’t the rules. You ought to read this from Slate last month, if you want to understand why I don’t believe that Bernie has been vetted at all. Trump would destroy him, and his polls would plummet. This stuff is beyond awful. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html

  40. Don Chandler says:

    These polls are not always right. It’s nice that California gets to vote in the primary and it will mean something. I think if Bernie wins california, Clinton should bow out. The super delegates gave hillary an advantage early but California is a huge prize. If Hillary wins it, she has my vote. If she loses it, I’m writing in Bernie.

  41. BeccaM says:

    Fair enough, Blogvader. Judging from the other comments in this thread, I suppose I should just be grateful you simply disagreed respectfully rather than accusing me of being paid to have my opinions. And that you were someone who apparently did read the post and respond to a specific point made in it, even in disagreeing with it.

    And I do actually respect that. Take care.

  42. BeccaM says:

    Really? How much was I paid, pray tell? Because according to my credit card bill it shows I made a donation TO the Clinton campaign a couple weeks ago, not that they’d paid me a thin dime.

    Know what’s truly fucking sad? That you first seem to accept that I was sincere in what I wrote, but think I’m some kind of monster for supporting Clinton at all….and then turned it around and claimed my opinions weren’t my own, that they were purchased. So which one is it, bub? Make up your mind. You don’t get to have it both ways.

  43. BeccaM says:

    My post was an OpEd, not news. You want news, head on over to CNN or MSNBC or one of the network sites. If you just want right-wing propaganda, check out Fox News. If you want some good old Clinton-bashing confirmation bias, go visit Redstate or Breitbart or Drudge. They love Trump, the know-nothing would-be fascist.

    What you called ‘censoring’ in the comments was one of the site moderators deciding the personal attacks and name calling had far exceeded any attempt at reasoned or rational discussion.

  44. Blogvader says:

    “Trump is Trump!”

    You’re welcome to your opinion, Becca. I respect it, but I disagree. “Not being Trump!” is not good enough for me.

  45. Moderator3 says:

    I’ll do my job..

  46. Inanimate Carbon Rods says:

    Moderator……..do your job

    I’ve been insulted……….

  47. Inanimate Carbon Rods says:

    It does not.

    You have made your point.

    I’m just a recovering reactionary.

  48. Moderator3 says:

    Please explain why attacking someone on a personal level helps make your point.

  49. Inanimate Carbon Rods says:

    Sentences redacted so as not to upset any special snowflakes.

  50. Moderator3 says:

    Were your first two sentences necessary? The rest of your comment didn’t seem to need them.

  51. Moderator3 says:

    Who are you quoting?

  52. basenjilover says:

    Mighty “big” and macho of YOU attacking BeccaM. Now be a good little boy and go play with your carbon rods.

  53. Inanimate Carbon Rods says:

    I’ve not been to a “news site” that censored the discussion this much since I got banned from “Alternet.”

    Enjoy your spoon fed “truth.”

  54. Inanimate Carbon Rods says:

    I guess avoiding Nuclear war is ” just f*cking sad,” huh?

    Have you heard the way Clinton speaks about Russia and Putin?

    How about the way Donald Trump speaks about the same topic?

    The f*cking sad part is somebody paid you to write this opinion piece.

  55. Inanimate Carbon Rods says:

    Are you the author of this mess?

    So, you love intervention and war?

    Clinton is a Neo Con in the tradition of Strauss.

    You like that Hillary used a private email server for classified and secret communication and then destroyed the hard drives and then lied about it?

    Or, does the flip flopping on issues by Clinton get you excited?


  56. Inanimate Carbon Rods says:

    The choice is clear.

    You can vote for a war hawk that is almost Neo Con in her approach to interventionist foreign policy, resulting in failed nation states replete with hundreds of thousands dead and a humanitarian disaster across the Middle East and into Ukraine.

    Or you can vote for Donald Trump.

  57. ParadeOfFools says:

    So neither of them will be able to do anything because of Republican obstructionism. So the main power will come from foreign policy where we know she’ll engage and destroy more parts of the world. Lovely. There are people in Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Honduras, etc. that have nothing now. They live in worse than squalor, fear for their lives and watch their loved ones die daily. Children are dying every single day. She has responsibility in that and it makes me sick. That is not the American legacy I want. That is not the Democratic legacy I want, so I reject it and I do not endorse it with my vote. We do not have to wreak havoc around the world, we really don’t, but she certainly will. Forgive me for valuing human lives even if they aren’t American.

  58. Outspoken1 says:

    Because she has to win the election FIRST – before anything can be done. To win the election, along with the baggage of being a woman, a Dem and a Clinton (which she is not – she is very much her own person, but since she is married to Clinton, well…), she has to stay with ‘safer’ moderate positions. The President’s power is actually quite limited – look at how constrained Obama has been since the Repubs decided not to work with him and then took over both Houses (stupid American voters!). Clinton faces the possibility of both houses as Repub – maybe Dems can take back the Senate and a few things can be done – but the President really does not have that much power. Power is in the legislation and interpretation of the legislation.

  59. Outspoken1 says:

    Which is why the Repubs are trying so hard to supress non-white / not conservative voters.

  60. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Oh okay. We all know that the only possible diversity is race.

  61. Moorezart says:

    For what it’s worth, I think it’s sad I’ll have to vote for Clinton because the alternative is too horrifying to contemplate. I can only hope Sanders’ “revolution” doesn’t die an ignoble death once the election is over. For one, brief, shining moment I had hope!

  62. BeccaM says:

    And then there’s this: Trump endorses the idea of Sanders running an independent campaign for President.

    “Bernie Sanders is being treated very badly by the Dems,” Trump tweeted on Monday. “The system is rigged against him. He should run as an independent! Run Bernie, run.”
    Trump has been pushing this message of Sanders being treated unfairly by the Democratic party for weeks.

    “Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise,”Trump tweeted in late April. “He should show them, and run as an Independent!”


    Please ask yourself, “Why would Trump want Sanders to launch a 3rd party run for the Presidency?” Trump’s a guy who does nothing which isn’t for his own benefit. In case you might think it’s because if he (Trump) can’t be elected, he’d prefer Sanders, well, there’s more:

    He said in a subsequent tweet: “I don’t want to hit Crazy Bernie Sanders too hard yet because I love watching what he is doing to Crooked Hillary. His time will come!”

  63. timncguy says:

    Sanders wins in contests with a larger percentage of white voters. Clinton wins in contests with a larger percentage of non-white voters. Once the non-white population of a state goes above 20%, Clinton’s chances of winning increase dramatically.

  64. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    More diverse populations and less diverse populations? Please explain.

  65. timncguy says:

    There are two choice this fall. Either Clinton or Trump is going to become the next president.

    If you don’t like Clinton’s position on an issue, then compare it to Trump’s position on that issue. Because neither Bernie Sanders nor Jill Stein is going to become president. Clinton or Trump. Those are your comparisons.

    Also, if Trump wins in November, there is no way that the dems will take back the Senate or make gains in the house. No one who votes for Trump is going to split their ticket to vote for a down ballot dem for senate.

    So, allowing Trump to win the presidency means that the republicans will control the white house, the house and the senate. No matter what you think Trump’s position might be, he is going to be presented with legislation that comes from the far right House and Senate and he is not going to veto it. And, all of Trump’s right wing Supreme Court nominees will fly right through the Republican senate. And Trump has already guaranteed what kind of nominees he will put forward. And, again, if he wins, there will not be a Dem Senate to stop his right wing nominations.

    So, if you live in a reliable red or blue state, go ahead and have your tantrum and vote for whoever you want. But, if you live in a swing state, you should think long and hard about what helping to get Trump elected actually means in the long run. No good can come of it.

    If you believe that a vote for Hillary is just as bad as a vote for Trump and at the same time you believe that voting for Trump will make things bad enough for them to finally get better, then you obviously believe that Clinton will make it bad enough to get better, so you might as well vote for Clinton. Or else, you actually don’t believe that there is no difference between them.

  66. timncguy says:

    The only issue I have with this article is the generic characterization of Clinton winning closed primaries while Sanders wins open caucuses. Their win/loss record is reall much more about demographics that it is about open/closed or primary/caucus.

    Their actual records are as follows.

    Clinton has won 25 contests to date.
    20 primaries
    4 caucuses
    1 (Northern Marianas not described as either)
    Of these contests 10 were OPEN, 10 were CLOSED 4 were semi open and again Norther Mariana was not described as open or closed

    Sanders has won 20 contests to date
    9 primaries
    11 caucuses
    Of these contests 7 were OPEN, 7 were CLOSED, 6 were semi open

    Clinton has actually won MORE open contests than Sanders has. But, those open contests were is states with more diverse populations. Sanders wins, whether open or closed have been in states with less diverse populations

  67. ParadeOfFools says:

    It is an option and I will exercise my right to vote down ballot and not vote for either presidential candidate in that scenario. If she wins, she wins. Good for her, she’s just not getting my vote. I don’t understand why everyone is telling me I need to vote for her. I don’t and I won’t. The Democratic party does not own my vote and they’re not entitled to it, they have to earn it.

  68. ParadeOfFools says:

    I definitely appreciate that you have a reasonable, fleshed out reason for voting the way you do. I myself, can’t endorse child killers and war-hawks regardless of the political party. I too appreciate the Democratic party as liberal’s only hope, but I honestly feel that Hillary’s election would solidify the center-right as the Democratic standard bearers and any hopes for progressive values will be pushed even further on the back burner in the long run. I’m not ok with that. I’m not ok with Trump. I cannot endorse either.

  69. Webster says:

    First of all, I didn’t write the above, I shared it, as it seemed an interesting and appropriate counterpoint to BeccaM’s post. Nowhere, either here or on any other site have I said I wouldn’t vote for her if she gets the nomination. But I will stick with Bernie until the fat lady has warbled out her very last high C. And I never voted for George Bush either (wherever the heck that little bit of irrelevant nonsense came from).

    I don’t think I would be quite so opposed to her if she had just given us the courtesy of releasing her Goldman Sach’s speeches upfront. I do think she’s a perfectly competent right/center (Republican-lite, if you will) candidate who probably won’t do too much damage (though I cross my fingers on that), and sadly, I simply don’t think she will come anywhere near being inspirational; at best, she’s a plugger.

    You can rail all you want. Forgive me if I see Bernie’s platform as exactly the medicine our nation needs if we’re to move further into the 21st century with any hope of being all we can be and all we should be. Forgive me for thinking that health care is a right, that students shouldn’t have to move into life saddled with unconscionable debt, that we have had enough of war, that money should not be the Emperor of Politics, and that corporations are not people. Forgive me for dreaming and believing that we are good enough to be all we can be.

    Sorry, I will fight to the end, against all odds, I will donate and phone-bank for Bernie until I am absolutely certain there’s no chance. Then, and only then, I will reluctantly vote for Hillary and hope my conscience can forgive me.

  70. BeccaM says:

    We saw the same thing in the 1960s and 70s, John: The purist radicals who believed the Democratic party and its candidates were so corrupt and tainted, better the country burn down in the belief it would inevitably result in a progressive-liberal-socialist paradise.

    Only history shows the opposite is what nearly always happens. In the chaos and inevitable violence and economic collapse, the citizens usually turn to a strongman dictator who’ll promise to make everything perfect, if only he’s granted absolute power. (Sound familiar?)

    To this day, my wife who was involved in the draft resistance and protest movement says her biggest regret was being among those who opposed Hubert Humphrey after he won the Dem nomination in ’68. Because they helped elect Nixon.

  71. BeccaM says:

    I would agree, both parties have let us down, but the Dems far, far less than the GOP. Under GOP rule, I had no health insurance and no hope of getting any. My nephew nearly died in Iraq (he was finally discharged as partially disabled). I watched in horror as terrorists attacked America in 2001, and then again as New Orleans drowned because FEMA was being run by an unqualified horse enthusiast. I watched as the Republicans vowed never to grant me or my wife any civil rights, even as the Dems were shifting around to the right, progressive position. We nearly went bankrupt in the aftermath of the Dot-com crash and then again after the real estate bubble burst.

    Yeah, President Bill Clinton made a lot of mistakes, many of which I still think were terrible and which hurt the country, its citizens and the Democratic party itself. President Obama was way the hell too accommodating, but we still ended up with two really great Supreme Court justices, I have health insurance again, my marriage is legally recognized throughout the entire country, and my business has been thriving since 2010.

    I’m not just voting against the short-fingered vulgarian monster named Trump. I’m also voting affirmatively for the political party which has consistently made my 53 year life better. And that comes down to an affirmative vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

  72. Phil in FLL says:

    I’m just waiting for the fake “leftist” Bernie supporters to denounce him this summer, and I’m also waiting for them to denounce Elizabeth Warren this summer. The clock is ticking…

  73. BeccaM says:

    Clinton “was allowed” to make it this far because she’s proven to be roughly 15% more popular than Sanders among Democratic party primary participants. She’s won more pledged delegates, more popular votes, and more states.

    Is there a non-zero chance Sanders could suddenly win the nomination by winning more than 65% remaining states’ delegates? Sure. Is it at all likely? No. Even in California, the polling averages have Clinton leading by 10-15 points, and an even larger lead in New Jersey. (The online betting websites? They all think Clinton is a shoe-in for the nomination. ALL OF THEM.)

    More info: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

    Sorry, but no matter how much you complain, “neither” is not and will never be an option this November.

  74. ParadeOfFools says:

    1. Of course it’s possible, but I still have my own opinion. Besides, you’re one to talk, you obviously think very highly of yourself.

    2. I don’t really care. I’ve shared my opinion. It’s different than a lot of people’s perhaps, but I value original thought. Submitting to some politician’s (or anyone’s) whim is undeniably stupid and weird regardless of their name or brand. Politics is not a cult, though some treat it that way. People should have the confidence and ability to form their own thoughts.

  75. Phil in FLL says:

    Very interesting exchange with ParadeOfFools downthread. When it suits this commenter, ParadeOfFools is highly sensitive to any perceived slight against Bernie. This is from one reply to me:

    Then why are you running around shitting on his supporters?

    I explained that I have never supported either Hillary or Bernie, but have always said I would be happy to vote for either this fall. But wait. It gets better. Further downthread I remind ParadeOfFools that Bernie has said many times that he will campaign for the Democratic ticket this fall:

    Do you even understand that Bernie has said, many times, that he intends to campaign for the Democratic ticket this fall?

    Now ParadeOfFools channels his inner Trump supporter and gleefully throws Bernie under the bus (when it’s convenient, of course):

    And…? Do you even understand that I don’t care? Bernie is not my keeper. I can think for myself. I think he’s the only acceptable nominee for president, it doesn’t mean I’m submitting my autonomy to his will. I think doing so for ANYBODY is stupid.

    In other words, if it’s convenient to bash Hillary, ParadeOfFools will make use of Bernie. However, the minute Bernie threatens Republican victory, Bernie gets thrown right out the window. I think all of this is fairly typical of the “Don’t-vote” crowd.

  76. BeccaM says:

    Um, I got a ‘Woman Card’…but I only got it because I made a donation to the Clinton campaign a few weeks back, my first one. The Sanders campaign sent me bumper stickers when I donated to them last summer.

    Sadly overall this campaign has either been a net loss for me or I’m a terrible negotiator.

  77. Phil in FLL says:

    “Critical thinking is truly at an all time low these days.”

    You think so highly of your critical thinking ability. Is it possible that Bernie Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont, could have better critical thinking ability than you?

    “And…? Do you even understand that I don’t care?”

    And…? Why should readers value your opinion more than that of Bernie Sanders? Because it happens to come out of your mouth? Fail.

  78. BeccaM says:

    Thank you, Badgerite. One thing I’ve noticed among the trolls here today is not a one of them actually addressed a single point in the post. Just attacking me and attacking Clinton with unhinged (and often factually inaccurate) wingnut talking points. It’s rather telling.

  79. They’re gone now. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with what you wrote, or your choice of candidates, but outright mocking you, as this person has done with everyone here today, is not acceptable.

  80. If you’ve got their address, I’d love to have it, as no one’s been paying me a dime, and damn it, I’ve earned it! Becca, I expect cut of your richesse ;-)

  81. Yeah, that’s the weird thing.

  82. ParadeOfFools says:

    And…? Do you even understand that I don’t care? Bernie is not my keeper. I can think for myself. I think he’s the only acceptable nominee for president, it doesn’t mean I’m submitting my autonomy to his will. I think doing so for ANYBODY is stupid. Critical thinking is truly at an all time low these days.

  83. grejambri says:

    Obviously, you conveniently forgot the conscious creation of the DLC and Third Way Democrats by the Clintons. We are attempting to build a New New Deal coalition. We will never get there by falling in line behind one of the architects of the Third Way. Bernie or Jill! If the Democrats nominate $Hillary, it will be the end of the party. The country is waking up to the fact that neither party represents the interests of the people. There is a seismic change coming, and the Democratic establishment has elected to represent the status quo. Screw them.

  84. Phil in FLL says:

    Bernie has said, many times, that he intends to campaign for the Democratic ticket this fall. Are there any comments on that from the “Don’t vote” crowd? After all, that is the actual candidate himself speaking, not some Trump troll. Any thoughts about Bernie’s stated intentions? Really. Any thoughts at all.

  85. grejambri says:

    I already know how a Clinton administration would affect me. All I have to do is objectively review her record. That’s why I will never vote for her. Trump? Well, he’s a narcissistic windbag, a bigot, and a bully. Does that mean I will vote for a Wall Street shill, neoliberal, triangulating, right-wing, war-mongering Democrat? No, it does not.

  86. Phil in FLL says:

    Do you even understand that Bernie has said, many times, that he intends to campaign for the Democratic ticket this fall? Did you get that memo, genius?

  87. ParadeOfFools says:

    Maybe it’s about protecting the Democratic party long term and not allowing it to be pulled further to the right. Votes are endorsements and they really should mean something for the person you’re voting for and not be entirely dependent on who you’re voting against. Both parties have let us down.

  88. grejambri says:

    You’re projecting again.

  89. ParadeOfFools says:

    That’s really getting old. Your lack of originality is what’s truly pathetic. I’m not Trump’s crony or anyone else’s even though you’re Hillary’s. You clearly have a high opinion of yourself, going around chastising people for voting differently than you. Phil in FLL is not exactly a political luminary that anyone is looking to for guidance. Crawl back under your bridge please.

  90. grejambri says:

    Your reading comprehension is pathetic, and you know nothing about me. Keep on projecting. Clinton is a deeply flawed and tainted candidate. She will not win the general election. Bernie is the only hope. You’re one of those that have to see things get worse before you vote for them to get better.

  91. Badgerite says:

    Ok. I thought I would try. Good article, by the way. Well stated. To anyone on planet Earth.

  92. Phil in FLL says:

    I can’t wait to see you fools melt in a pool of tears. Clinton is toast.

    These are your words, liar, so don’t say that you “don’t want either Trump or Clinton anywhere near the WH.”

    And don’t offer that bullshit argument of “things have to get worse before they get better.” You just want to get your jollies watching people suffer under a Trump administration, which you figure won’t adversely affect you that much.

  93. ParadeOfFools says:

    Or you can take neither…
    It’s still the primaries, like why was she allowed to make it so far?

  94. grejambri says:

    I don’t want either Trump or Clinton anywhere near the WH. If it’s Trump, there is the benefit that things might actually get so bad that the majority of folks will wake up from their two-party hypnotic state, and vote for real change in 2020. They do have the opportunity to do that this year by nominating Sanders. But for some, it appears things have to get worse before they get better.

  95. Phil in FLL says:

    Honesty from grejambri. Honesty, I tell you! Read this reply from grejambri (downthread) and read it well. This is what the “Don’t vote” crowd is thinking when they think nobody is paying attention:

    Stay tuned, hillbot. I can’t wait to see you fools melt in a pool of tears. Clinton is toast.

    They can’t contain their glee thinking about a Trump victory this fall.

  96. grejambri says:

    Oh, I think it’s you who will be disappointed in November, when you find out just how many progressives feel as I do.

  97. Phil in FLL says:

    Wow. You’re all psyched up for a Trump victory, aren’t you? That’s pretty easy for any reader to see. Do you have your Trump pom-poms ready for the campaign this fall?

  98. Badgerite says:

    Well, you call it spin. I call it context. I was alive and present at the time, so. I remember what the GOP Congress with Newt Gingrich as the Speaker of the House was like. Cutthroats, mostly. Their ‘Contract on America’ involved several Amendments to the US Constitution. A Balanced Budget Amendment which would have tied the fiscal hands of the federal government and crippled the country in any emergency or economic downturn. And Amendment to overturn the SCOTUS determination that the burning of the US flag in a political protest is protected free speech.
    And once you start making those kinds of exceptions in free speech, where do you stop. And those are just the ones that come to mind. Gingrich wanted to do away with Medicare and Social Security.
    The New Deal coalition is no more. Build a new one.

  99. grejambri says:

    Stay tuned, hillbot. I can’t wait to see you fools melt in a pool of tears. Clinton is toast.

  100. grejambri says:

    LOL. You’re clueless.

  101. Phil in FLL says:

    “I will no longer vote against Republicans.”

    Finally, some honesty. If a large number of progressives felt the same, Trump’s victory would be assured. However, I think you’ll be very disappointed in November when Trump loses.

  102. BeccaM says:

    Fine, whatever. You won’t engage in an honest debate, I’m done with you.

  103. grejambri says:

    I am sorry you were maligned as a “Berniebot.” Clearly, you are not that.

  104. BeccaM says:

    Give it up, Badgerite. This one is immune to facts or honest debate.

  105. grejambri says:

    People will vote for whomever they will vote. If Clinton wins or loses, it will because of her record and who people perceive her to be, and will have nothing to do with me. I would prefer to see progressives vote for a progressive candidate. There is only one running for the Democratic nomination. If Democrats continue to vote out of fear, as the establishment wants them to do, that is their choice. I am done with that bullsh&T. I will no longer vote against Republicans. I will only ever vote for true progressives.

  106. BeccaM says:

    Possible war… versus a repeated vow to start multiple wars, openly commit war crimes, and maybe go nuclear “just to be unpredictable.” I think I’ll take the former.

  107. Phil in FLL says:

    Pardon me. I didn’t even get the “Jill” reference. You mean “Jill Stein”?! OMG, that’s even more pathetic than I thought. Go back to sleep. You’re obviously keen on helping Trump.

  108. BeccaM says:

    For months, I was called a BernieBot. Now it’s Hillbot. I honestly don’t care. Make up your mind with the juvenile epithet.

  109. grejambri says:

    Nice spin.

  110. BeccaM says:

    Phil’s a regular here with well-thought opinions and an ability to present a cogent and coherent argument. Sanders and Stein have ZERO chance of winning election to the Presidency as a 3rd party candidate. Just like Nader and Perot.

    You and grejambri just post right-wing anti-Clinton talking points, many of which come directly from Fox News. I suppose the far more fair question would be to ask if you and he are in fact paid Trump operatives. Are you? Because I can’t believe anyone would be so foolish as to conclude it’s better to help Trump become president rather than the only other currently viable alternative without being paid to hold such an appalling and morally bankrupt position.

    No wait, I can believe it. Same as I know there are Trump supporters out there who are simply idiots and bigots. I guess the real question is whether you have any clue whatsoever that your support for Sanders or Stein as a 3rd party candidate helps them not at all, but can only help Trump get elected.

    And maybe that’s what you want.

  111. Phil in FLL says:

    When did I shit on Bernie’s supporters? I have said from the very, very beginning that I don’t support either Hillary or Bernie, but I would be happy to vote for either one in November. I don’t know how many times I’ve said that. When have I ever said otherwise?

  112. grejambri says:

    You helped subsidize Wall Street by giving money to $Hillary? LMFAO! The old adage, “a fool and her money are soon parted,” really is true when it comes to hillbots. I don’t have to refute any of the propaganda you spew. Anyone with half a brain understands who $Hillary is, and who she stands for. That you would support such a corrupt, tainted candidate says more about you than it does about me.

  113. Badgerite says:

    No. I pay attention to the Court and law and how important it is to people’s lives. And additionally, everything I said here has the merit of being true.
    If I have said something untrue you are certainly invited to point that out to me. Every candidate as well as every political philosophy has its down side, including Lincoln, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. But you have to consider their actions in the context of the times.
    Sanders supporters talk about Sanders as a New Deal Democrat. Here is the thing. A big part of the New Deal Coalition that kept FDR in power was the South. The Dixiecrat South. Jim Crow laws, lynchings and all. FDR had to make plenty of compromises on civil rights with those bastards to get his economic agenda enacted. That coalition was broken apart by the Democratic party throwing its weight behind the Civil Rights Movement and legislation of the 60’s. The GOP saw its opportunity and thus began the ‘Culture Wars’ that we are so familiar with now. This is one of my gripes about Sanders. He acts like we are still back in the early part of the last century. We are not. There is a large chunk of the country that will not vote its own economic interests. The Culture Wars are alive and well and Bill Clinton spent a large chunk of his time just trying to keep newly Red south from undoing the New Deal completely.

  114. Phil in FLL says:

    Afraid of obvious Republican trolls? No.

  115. Phil in FLL says:

    Just listen to Rush’s show and you can breathlessly wait for all the details on the Republican Party efforts to make hay. Funny you should mention the FBI investigation. You’re tipping your hand. Will you throw a tantrum if the FBI doesn’t deliver the message that you want? Boo hoo.

  116. ParadeOfFools says:

    Then why are you running around shitting on his supporters? And I won’t vote for a child killer, sorry. I choose who my vote endorses and I don’t endorse wars. How can you appreciate someone pulling someone to the left, but not that person who is already to the left doing the pulling. Why does she need to be coerced into making good decisions and what makes you think it’ll stick through and after the general? Almost all presidents drop certain parts of their platform after gaining office. So you think these new progressive values will stick?

  117. grejambri says:

    You feeling afraid? Come November, if $Hillary slimes her way to the nomination, you will have every reason to be very afraid. BernieOrJill!

  118. Phil in FLL says:

    I agree that foreign policy is Hillary’s shortcoming, although Trump is worse with his talk about war crimes (as defined by the United Nations) being OK. However, there’s a lot more issues at stake than that.

  119. grejambri says:

    Check back with me later, hillbot.

  120. grejambri says:

    I think you just pegged him. He is clearly the latter.

  121. ParadeOfFools says:

    He said “No thanks. Bernie or Jill.” Notice the period dolt. He’s saying they’re the only two candidates he’ll vote for. Who’s paying you?

  122. grejambri says:

    Seek help for your paranoia. This country is screwed if either Trump or Clinton wins.

  123. Phil in FLL says:

    That is why so many people, like me, appreciate the fact that Bernie is running and accumulating delegates up to the California primary. That is obviously pulling the Democratic Party to the left. I expect Bernie to influence the Democratic Party platform, as he says he wants to. I also expect Bernie to keep his word and campaign for the Democratic ticket in the fall, and I hope you do too.

  124. ParadeOfFools says:

    Just because people don’t support Hillary does not make them Republicans.
    You’re the only troll I see in these comments. Some people aren’t ok with someone who has destroyed countless lives around the world and who supports fracking.

  125. grejambri says:

    I have the right to vote or not vote as I please, and to vote for whomever I choose. If you want to vote for more of the same sh%T with Clinton, be my guest. I will never vote for $Hillary or Trump. I’m voting for the only female candidate deserving of a progressive’s vote – Dr. Jill Stein. If the Democratic Party wakes up, and nominates Sanders, then he will get my vote.

  126. BeccaM says:

    It’s not the Democrats who’ll ‘go down with the sinking ship’. It’s the country itself. But hey, you go on feeling smug with that symbolic and ultimately pointless protest vote for candidates with zero chance of winning.

    Hope that protest vote keeps you warm during Great Depression II when Trump unilaterally defaults on the country’s debt obligations because he thinks ‘he can get a better deal’.

  127. ParadeOfFools says:

    So Republicans hate them both, which is to be expected. Nonetheless she is a total warmonger, which is a very Republican trait.

  128. ParadeOfFools says:

    Everyone loses in the long run if we keep allowing our only liberal party to keep getting pulled t the right.

  129. grejambri says:

    Fall in line, hillbot. Just like you’re told to do by the party elite.

  130. ParadeOfFools says:

    Just because Republicans are idiots doesn’t mean that Democrats can do no wrong.
    She IS under FBI investigation, that’s her own fault.
    Are you a critically thinking adult or a drone who dismisses all criticism?

  131. grejambri says:

    Don’t care about either. I am done voting AGAINST a candidate or a party. From now on, I am only going to vote FOR candidates who have a history of representing true progressive values. That narrows the field down to either Sanders or Stein. If the Democrats nominate Clinton, let the party go down with her sinking ship.

  132. Phil in FLL says:

    I can’t help but notice that there sure are a lot of comments begging progressives not to vote for the Democratic ticket that are coming from commenters who supposedly “don’t care” which of the two parties gets the White House. One hell of a lot of keystrokes for not caring one way or the other. LMAO.

  133. doug dash says:

    Jill can’t win, ensuring a Trump victory.

  134. timncguy says:

    She voted against cafta. If you cant get something that simple right why should i trust anything else you have written?

  135. BeccaM says:

    I guess they do, Phil. Which is weird.

  136. Phil in FLL says:

    I don’t think I’m splitting hairs by saying this, but Hillary didn’t have the constitutional authority to do any of those “Bill Clinton” actions since she wasn’t president at the time. Do some people really think that’s splitting hairs?

  137. BeccaM says:

    You’ll get neither, I guarantee it. But maybe that’s your point — you don’t actually WANT to cast an affirmative vote for a candidate with an actual chance of winning in the general election. Because you’d lose your ability to complain ceaselessly how it’d be puppies and unicorns for everyone if only America was smart enough to defy Duverger’s Law and suddenly start electing 3rd party candidates for single-member plurality-win elections.

  138. Phil in FLL says:

    Some substance, please?

  139. Phil in FLL says:

    “Tell us if you’ll still vote for Clinton after the FBI investigation…”

    Thank you, Rush Limbaugh.

  140. BeccaM says:

    So many of the items on that list there are President Bill Clinton’s doing. It is somewhat sexist to presume Hillary Clinton’s positions and support are identical in every way.

  141. BeccaM says:

    Judging from my credit card bill, it was the other way around. I paid CLINTON — or more precisely, her campaign — in the hope she’ll be our next president.

    But hey, you go right ahead believing that anybody who disagrees with your precious opinions must have been paid to do it. Because that way you don’t have to bother at all to question whether your own position might do well with a re-think.

    If Sanders or Stein gets enough votes, the result will be a Trump administration. And if you truly think that’s better than a Clinton one, that’s just f*cking sad.