NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you going to switch votes?

Yes. I voted for Hillary in the primary election, but I'll definitely be voting for McCain in the general. :)

Out of the two, I'd vote for McCain, but if it's an option in my state, I'll be voting Paul.

I will probably vote for McCain. I think a split government is absolutely necessary to clean up the mess left by Bush and his cronies, and I feel that McCain has a better economic and trade policy than Obama making him a solid first choice.

I myself am disappointed with Clinton's loss, but I've lost before and not been catapulted to the other side. The many attacks from many of Barack Obama's supporters both on here and IRL have driven me to oppose them.

Still very much undecided, thank you.

I will probably vote for McCain. I think a split government is absolutely necessary to clean up the mess left by Bush and his cronies, and I feel that McCain has a better economic and trade policy than Obama making him a solid first choice.

Not to mention that Obama's wife seems to be a nutcase. Throw in the church this guy has been listening to for 20 years and McCain looks very good.

I posted this in the other thread, but it bears repeating here:

Not that I am surprised, but this makes you

A) Childish
B) Stupid
C) Probably a closest Republican

You have to be at least A and B in order to jump from Hillary to McCain rather than Obama, because they agree on almost everything. You are just upset that your pet has been trounced in an election she should have had locked up by month 2, yet through incompetence and Obama's superior campaign lost. It was not stolen from her, as it was never hers to begin with, and he broke no rules.

I find it very funny that so many people who claim to be such passionate Clinton supporters and passionate democrats are so willing to cut off their nose to spite their face because they feel that the mean black man (and probably closet Muslim) has cheated their beloved Hillary. It surely had nothing to do with his superior campaign, her constant mudslinging compared to his relatively clean campaign, and her being caught in multiple lies throughout the campaign, as well as various other things she said and did that destroyed her chances.

No core principles were betrayed. The rules were established from the get go. Some people broke those rules, and thus they were punished. Now, they are getting a comparatively lighter punishment. The chosen candidate has won per the established rules that everyone knew and agreed to. He also held the popular vote (if real math, not fuzzy Clinton bordering on Bush esc math).

To recap, it is extremely childish (yet predictable) for you to support a candidate who will: continue wars which cost thousands more lives and billions of dollars, rape the constitution and economy with continued Bush policies, and crush a woman's right to choice through the appointment of Scalia adepts and clones to the Supreme Court. All of which are the exact opposite of what your candidate wants and ran on. A candidate with nearly identical views has been given the nomination. Yet, out of petty spite, you will vote against him. As I said childish and stupid, yet predictable.

I welcome your departure from the party. It has enough DINOs and fools.

Yes. I voted for Hillary in the primary election, but I'll definitely be voting for McCain in the general. :)

Not a Democrat.

I myself am disappointed with Clinton's loss, but I've lost before and not been catapulted to the other side. The many attacks from many of Barack Obama's supporters both on here and IRL have driven me to oppose them.

Not a Democrat.

Not to mention that Obama's wife seems to be a nutcase. Throw in the church this guy has been listening to for 20 years and McCain looks very good.

Not a Democrat.

Yes. I voted for Hillary in the primary election, but I'll definitely be voting for McCain in the general. :)

I think that pretty much describes Hillary supporters, running into the conservative camp because they are bitter at how much she fails. Talk about traitors.

How many of you were were Clinton supporters?

I think that pretty much describes Hillary supporters, running into the conservative camp because they are bitter at how much she fails. Talk about traitors.

And there again is the reason why Hillary supporters are bolting as we speak.

Not a Democrat.

Not anything. Didn't want the junk mail. :p

And there again is the reason why Hillary supporters are bolting as we speak.
I see no problem, Hillary is a closet conservative anyways.

And there again is the reason why Hillary supporters are bolting as we speak.

If the shoe fits...


Seriously, dont be petty children and then throw a tantrum when you get told to stop acting like petty children.

If McCain wins the general, I am going to make sure every DINO who ran out and voted for him out of spite knows that the blood of every young man who dies for the next 100 years in Iraq is also on his/her hands.

And there again is the reason why Hillary supporters are bolting as we speak.

Why? You're being 'slandered'? You accused Obama supporters of being sexist since he started winning, and you blamed the DNC. Glass houses. . .

Does moving to McCain from Clinton mean that you don't care about policies?

I see no problem, Hillary is a closet conservative anyways.

If that's the case, Obama doesn't have a chance.

If the shoe fits...


Seriously, dont be petty children and then throw a tantrum when you get told to stop acting like petty children.

If McCain wins the general, I am going to make sure every DINO who ran out and voted for him out of spite knows that the blood of every young man who dies for the next 100 years in Iraq is also on his/her hands.

If McCain wins the election, it's because leftist, elitist liberals hijacked the Party and nominated someone so far outside the American mainstream that they misfired even with all this going for them.

If that's the case, Obama doesn't have a chance.
How so? Half her supporters can't see through it, but I am sure only the most bitter and fanatical minority following her will actually turn to the conservative camp. Hillary is just trying to wreck the chances of the Democratic Party.

If McCain wins the general, I am going to make sure every DINO who ran out and voted for him out of spite knows that the blood of every young man who dies for the next 100 years in Iraq is also on his/her hands.

You don't seriously believe Obama would bring the troops out of Iraq any sooner, do you? Hell, it took a Republican to get us out of Vietnam...

Seriously, dont be petty children and then throw a tantrum when you get told to stop acting like petty children.

"If we're going to get called petty children, they we'll damn well act like petty children!"

If McCain wins the election, it's because leftist, elitist liberals hijacked the Party and nominated someone so far outside the American mainstream that they misfired even with all this going for them.

I knew that word would turn up sooner or later! Whee!

How so? Half her supporters can't see through it, but I am sure only the most bitter and fanatical minority following her will actually turn to the conservative camp. Hillary is just trying to wreck the chances of the Democratic Party.

She isn't, her supporters are. I don't blame her in this fiasco, at least not directly.

Not a Democrat. Not a Democrat. Not a Democrat.

Not that I am surprised, but this makes you

A) Childish
B) Stupid
C) Probably a closest Republican
Aww, are folks not wanting to play Party Politics with you guys?

She isn't, her supporters are. I don't blame her in this fiasco, at least not directly.

If well if we get another four years of Bush (in the form of McCain), it's going to be her fault, she should just give it up and stop being such a wrecker.

Aww, are folks not wanting to play Party Politics with you guys?

Party politics or no, its illogical and stupid to vote against the guy who agreed with your now defeated prefered candidate on...well...everything.


The only explaination is the childish tactic of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Aww, are folks not wanting to play Party Politics with you guys?

I only say that in case someone claimed to be a Democrat at some point. They weren't Dems to begin with if they aren't voting on Democratic principle.

I only say that in case someone claimed to be a Democrat at some point. They weren't Dems to begin with if they aren't voting on Democratic principle.
The more people voting for a candidate from a party, rather than their candidate from their party, the better.

Hillary doesn't have any principles, and she cannot be trusted on health reform because for all her talk she accomplished nothing to that end in Clinton's term. All that's left of her these days is personal lust for power, and that is going to destroy the Democratic chances.

Hillary is going to loose the nomination so she's just desperately trying to wreck everyone else's chances.

I have never been a Clinton supporter but I'm voting for Obama. I believe he is the JFK of my generation and the country honestly may need him. People want to talk about his preacher but McCain is the one that wanted the endorsement from a guy who thinks God sent a Hurricane that killed thousands because of gays and that Hitler was Heaven sent. To me that's far worse than a preacher stating God may not bless a country that has practiced social injustice for over 200 years.

I was never a Clinton supporter, or a democrat, and I think I'd vote for McCain over Obama.

The more people voting for a candidate from a party, rather than their candidate from their party, the better.

I'm working from the basis that if you are a Dem, you support Dem ideals. Voting McCain is against Dem ideals. Using my shitty logic (:D), you aren't a Dem.

General you, and I in general agree with you.

To me that's far worse than a preacher stating God may not bless a country that has practiced social injustice for over 200 years.

But the Bible says America is God's chosen country! Obama's pastor saying otherwise makes Obama a freedom-hating atheist!

Or something.

I see no problem, Hillary is a closet conservative anyways.
She's nowhere near the closet. Policy-wise, she's McCain in a Fashion Bug pants suit.

Does moving to McCain from Clinton mean that you don't care about policies?
No, it means you're a rightwinger.

If well if we get another four years of Bush (in the form of McCain), it's going to be her fault, she should just give it up and stop being such a wrecker.
If she gets the nomination and wins the general election, we'll get another four years of Bush, too. If Clinton and McCain are the candidates, then there will be no choice for any of us to make. It will be two rightwing military-industrial complex whores with all the exact same war, foreign and domestic policies. I have not missed voting in a general election since the late 1970s, but honestly, if those two are my options, I just don't see any difference between them. What the fuck am I expected to vote for?

The more people voting for a candidate from a party, rather than their candidate from their party, the better.
Actually I am completely against that kind of personalism in politics, what America needs is more disciplined parties with positions dictated by the party and not on the whimsical fancy of some candidate using the party as a personal platform to power.

It's that kind of system which allows people like Hillary to get away with being in a 'progressive' party.

I'm working from the basis that if you are a Dem, you support Dem ideals.
And I'm working from the basis that being 'a Dem' or 'a Rep' is one of the most fucked up things about US politics, and Western politics in general.

And I'm working from the basis that being 'a Dem' or 'a Rep' is one of the most fucked up things about US politics, and Western politics in general.

Fuck. I just compromised my worldview in my head over Hilary Rodham Fucking Clinton.

Hillary doesn't have any principles, and she cannot be trusted on health reform because for all her talk she accomplished nothing to that end in Clinton's term. All that's left of her these days is personal lust for power, and that is going to destroy the Democratic chances.

Hillary is going to loose the nomination so she's just desperately trying to wreck everyone else's chances.

She accomplished nothing on health care reform because the GOP Congress torpedoed it.

Hell, it took a Republican to get us out of Vietnam...
25,000 corpses later, and only after gratuitously deciding to destroy Cambodia as well.

And I'm working from the basis that being 'a Dem' or 'a Rep' is one of the most fucked up things about US politics, and Western politics in general.

Since you're a Scot and in Scotland, then I guess we can ignore your opinion about whether you'd switch your vote from Clinton to McCain, then, eh?

I have a few questions... :D

Yes. I voted for Hillary in the primary election, but I'll definitely be voting for McCain in the general. :)
Are you a liberal or further left, or are you more center-right and therefore tend to agree more with McCain's policies than Obama's?

I myself am disappointed with Clinton's loss, but I've lost before and not been catapulted to the other side. The many attacks from many of Barack Obama's supporters both on here and IRL have driven me to oppose them.
Are you saying that the invective of some Obama supporters make you want to vote for McCain?

And I'm working from the basis that being 'a Dem' or 'a Rep' is one of the most fucked up things about US politics, and Western politics in general.

I'm kind of surprised to hear that from the one of the parliamentarians across the pond.

Are you going to switch votes?

Only way I am voting McCain is if Hillary is on the ticket.

25,000 corpses later, and only after gratuitously deciding to destroy Cambodia as well.

Yeah, I think the American people thought of something different when Nixon said he would 'end the war in Vietnam', I think the American people envisaged a steady withdraw, not the destruction of 1 million Vietnamese civilians to keep the NLF recruitment pool down....

And there again is the reason why Hillary supporters are bolting as we speak.

Not all of them. Actually...not even most of them.

Are you going to switch votes?

My father certainly won't, despite his rather emotional and bombastic support for Senator Clinton. All things said and done, he'll bite the proverbial bullet and vote for Obama. (So I voted for him, if that's okay.)

Since you're a Scot and in Scotland, then I guess we can ignore your opinion about whether you'd switch your vote from Clinton to McCain, then, eh?
If I was espousing such an opinion, then you're well within your right to ignore it.

I'm actually talking about my dislike for party politics and the polarisation it causes, but you can ignore that as well.


I'm kind of surprised to hear that from the one of the parliamentarians across the pond.
'Parliamentarian'?

I'm certainly no supporter of representative parliamentary democracy; at least in its present form.

She accomplished nothing on health care reform because the GOP Congress torpedoed it.

You also forgot the fact that several dems opposed it as well so it was not just the GOP that opposed it.

Please try to keep up.

If I was espousing such an opinion, then you're well within your right to ignore it.

I'm actually talking about my dislike for party politics and the polarisation it causes, but you can ignore that as well.
I shall, gladly, since it's off topic.

I shall, gladly, since it's off topic.
Ouch!

If I was espousing such an opinion, then you're well within your right to ignore it.

I'm actually talking about my dislike for party politics and the polarisation it causes, but you can ignore that as well.

You want party politics? Go to Europe, hell go to Italy. America has not got a party system in the way you're thinking, we have an extremely broad-based 'camp' (not a party in any meaningful way) in which certainly individuals laxly use the party as a platform for office, in which individual characteristics and views are more important than 'getting the XYZ party into power'...

You want party politics? Go to Europe, hell go to Italy.

Um, he's from the U.K.…

America has not got a party system in the way you're thinking, we have an extremely broad-based 'camp'.
It's not that broad. The wings of the Dems and the Reps aren't far apart at all.

European parties are much the same; there's wings in all parties, generally leaning to the right and the left.

I am just wondering... Those who are switching to vote for McCain instead of Obama, is it because you like McCain's policies better? Or is it some other reason?

I am just wondering... Those who are switching to vote for McCain instead of Obama, is it because you like McCain's policies better? Or is it some other reason?

Its petty spite.


It cant be liking his policies better. Clinton and Obama had nearly the EXACT SAME POLICIES.

Out of the two, I'd vote for McCain, but if it's an option in my state, I'll be voting Paul.

In truth, it's always an option. You can do a write-in vote if he's not officially on the ballot.

Personally, I can't see why you'd want to vote for Paul, but you certainly wouldn't be the only person I know* who might take that option.


*"Know" here is clearly used in the loosest of manners. =)


And there again is the reason why Hillary supporters are bolting as we speak.

So it's a self-fulfilling prophesy? You claim that people are being mean to you so you're going to spite-vote, and then when people are mean to you for that, you claim it validates you?

If you choose to vote for McCain, that is your choice, and yours alone. Blaming it on other people makes it clear that you don't really think it's a good choice.

Its petty spite.


It cant be liking his policies better. Clinton and Obama had nearly the EXACT SAME POLICIES.

Pretty much, but I have faith in Obama actually fulfilling his policy promises, while it's pretty clear Clinton is far too corrupted and will not deliver.

If McCain wins the election, it's because leftist, elitist liberals hijacked the Party and nominated someone so far outside the American mainstream that they misfired even with all this going for them.

I'll be the first to point out that Obama and Clinton had distinct policy differences. On some of them, like LGBT issues, Obama was clearly the more liberal (although I'd still argue not liberal enough). But on others, such as many of his economic policies and his health care plan, he's actually more moderate.

And one way or the other, they are fairly similar. If Obama is "far outside the American mainstream", then so is Clinton.

Unless, of course, the thing that makes him outside the mainstream is the color of his skin?


You don't seriously believe Obama would bring the troops out of Iraq any sooner, do you? Hell, it took a Republican to get us out of Vietnam...

And it is now the Republican who says we'll stay as long as it takes to accomplish whatever is now supposedly the goal. If we have to set up another South Korea and have troops there for 100 years, McCain says, we'll do it.

Even if Obama finds that he can't pull the troops out as fast as he originally plans, I do believe he'll at least begin the process.

Its petty spite.

I'm not here to troll, flame or hijack this thread with straw positions. I want to hear what the switchers say.


It cant be liking his policies better. Clinton and Obama had nearly the EXACT SAME POLICIES.
In some strange way it could be. If we listen, we might learn something.

And you're right: they had nearly the exact same policies. But they are different enough in ways that matter. For example, Barack Obama is clearly the person a civil libertarian liberals should vote for. His policies on hate crimes and ant-discrimination would specifically protect transgender people. He didn't introduce the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which would have called for a one-year jail sentence and a fine of up to $100,000. Hillary Clinton did.

Shalrirorchia look at the stances of McCain, that's where you'll see stuff outside the American political mainstream.

I'm not here to troll, flame or hijack this thread with straw positions. I want to hear what the switchers say.


In some strange way it could be. If we listen, we might learn something.

And you're right: they had nearly the exact same policies. But they are different enough in ways that matter. For example, Barack Obama is clearly the person a civil libertarian liberals should vote for. His policies on hate crimes and ant-discrimination would specifically protect transgender people. He didn't introduce the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which would have called for a one-year jail sentence and a fine of up to $100,000. Hillary Clinton did.

An independent left-libertarian movement is all but non-existent in America, it's basically in the Democratic party. Believe me on this, I knew people in the Libertarian Party and they were glorified conservatives with an unhealthy obsession with calling anything they didn't like 'socialism'.

Modern libertarians in America don't give a crap if gays or blacks get oppressed or women get beaten, all they care about is taxes and ending 'big government', and civil rights might as well be expendable to that end.

Bunch of reactionaries I say, no compassion for people's ills.

It's not that broad. The wings of the Dems and the Reps aren't far apart at all.

I agree that the center of American politics rests in an area of overlapping values shared by the more moderate segments of the democratic and republican parties. However, they far left of the democrats and the far right of the republicans differ quite a bit. I am considered very liberal by American political standards, so I have chosen to associate myself with the democrats as the best chance to bring the country more in line with my beliefs.

An independent left-libertarian movement is all but non-existent in America, it's basically in the Democratic party. Believe me on this, I knew people in the Libertarian Party and they were glorified conservatives with an unhealthy obsession with calling anything they didn't like 'socialism'.

Modern libertarians in America don't give a crap if gays or blacks get oppressed or women get beaten, all they care about is taxes and ending 'big government', and civil rights might as well be expendable to that end.

Bunch of reactionaries I say, no compassion for people's ills.

Indeed. They're all right-wing economists who use the libertarian label while ignoring the personal freedom it should entail.

I could probably stomach much of the right-wing economics (especially because they'd never get the more extreme proposals through) if they'd only put forth a candidate who is also a social libertarian.

I just wouldn't vote.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/01/28/tomo/story.jpg
This is all that really needs to be said, really.

I agree that the center of American politics rests in an area of overlapping values shared by the more moderate segments of the democratic and republican parties. However, they far left of the democrats and the far right of the republicans differ quite a bit.

Not really. At least, not in the view of people used to having dozens of parties all over the political spectrum.

Republicans and Democrats occupy an extremely small band. Views outside this narrowmindedness simply have no chance for the presidency in the land of the free.

Its petty spite.


It cant be liking his policies better. Clinton and Obama had nearly the EXACT SAME POLICIES.

Perhaps you should let them answer first, I hope you would have voted and activly encouraged for people to vote for Clinton had people not decided to vote in Obama.

An independent left-libertarian movement is all but non-existent in America, it's basically in the Democratic party.

Frankly, this is a fact that saddens me very deeply and which has caused me to resent America and many of its people.

I am going to university in Canada partially because I am thinking of ex-patriating.


Believe me on this, I knew people in the Libertarian Party and they were glorified conservatives with an unhealthy obsession with calling anything they didn't like 'socialism'.

As far as I'm concerned, "libertarians" are crypto-totalitarians who want big business to be more powerful than the State so that an eventual megacorporation will become the State. It will oppress the people in ways we've never dreamed of.


Modern libertarians in America don't give a crap if gays or blacks get oppressed or women get beaten, all they care about is taxes and ending 'big government', and civil rights might as well be expendable to that end.

Bunch of reactionaries I say, no compassion for people's ills.
I agree. I would say that their talk of "states' rights" is a chicken-shit position. It's basically code for, "we don't want to compromise our 'libertarian-ness' by openly advocating oppression, so we'd rather have the states oppress people."

I think it was Dempublicents1 who stated that "states' rights" is code for "authoritarianism on the state level." Wise words, those.

Indeed. They're all right-wing economists who use the libertarian label while ignoring the personal freedom it should entail.

I could probably stomach much of the right-wing economics (especially because they'd never get the more extreme proposals through) if they'd only put forth a candidate who is also a social libertarian.
As a matter of fact, I like some of the things the Libertarian Party stands for, like gun rights.

But seriously you guys: are you switchers voting on policy?

Goddamn, you people are annoying.

Confucius says:
"He who worships lies is often annoyed by truth."

Well, actually he didn't. But I can just see that written on a fortune cookie.

Goddamn, you people are annoying.
Okay.

Frankly, this is a fact that saddens me very deeply and which has caused me to resent America and many of its people.
It's just a shame that so many people have fallen for the contradiction of modern conservatism, with it's simultaneous love of 'economic freedom' and downright authoritarian social stance.

It's like voting for the NSDAP and the Liberal Democrats at the same time, they don't mix.

I am going to university in Canada partially because I am thinking of ex-patriating.
Where abouts do you reside?

As far as I'm concerned, "libertarians" are crypto-totalitarians who want big business to be more powerful than the State so that an eventual megacorporation will become the State. It will oppress the people in ways we've never dreamed of.
Yeah I came to this conclusion quite a while ago, then again I've also seen Ayn Randers saying how Arabs are 'primitive' and need to be destroyed, so...:(


I agree. I would say that their talk of "states' rights" is a chicken-shit position. It's basically code for, "we don't want to compromise our 'libertarian-ness' by openly advocating oppression, so we'd rather have the states oppress people."

I think it was Dempublicents1 who stated that "states' rights" is code for "authoritarianism on the state level." Wise words, those.
Yeah, you hit it on the head with that one, reminds of Ron Paul the so called 'libertarian' squirming when he got a question about gay rights, saying it would be up the 'states', sounds like a recipe for 51 North Koreas to me...

As a matter of fact, I like some of the things the Libertarian Party stands for, like gun rights.
It's something I spose, but compared with everything else it's token.

But seriously you guys: are you switchers voting on policy?
I would still vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, which doesn't seem likely at this point anyway, but yeah I consider myself loyal to the party.

I am confused about how many people supported Hillary. Basically, she seemed to be a bit like Obama, but with some of (but not all of) the crazy bat-shit neo-con ideas.

I know the US system seems to be two right wing parties anyway, but why try to make the available choice even more limited. McCain and Hillary have a moderate amount in common. Having those as the option would be a Hobson's Choice.

Not to mention that Obama's wife seems to be a nutcase. Throw in the church this guy has been listening to for 20 years and McCain looks very good.

Interesting Marrakech M.D. How is she a nutcase? The Wright thing is dead and gone, The fact that you bring it up now is desperation. the RNC is going to have a tough time pushing Obama's crazy pastor (who is a former Marine after all) when there's Hagee, Parsley, Falwell, et al.

If McCain wins the election, it's because leftist, elitist liberals hijacked the Party and nominated someone so far outside the American mainstream that they misfired even with all this going for them.

buzzwords of the RNC (neocons) from 2004 used here: "Leftist!" "Liberal!" "Elitist." Makes me think you were a closet Neocon from the start.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/01/28/tomo/story.jpg
This is all that really needs to be said, really.

/Kachi.

I'm with Obama, but then I always was, so on second thought maybe I shoudn't have voted in this poll.

But seriously, John McCain is a senile old man, who equates any real diplomacy with appeasement, mixes up Shites and Sunis, admits he lacks knowledge on the economy, and has consistently sold out his preivious values, wheather on imigration, torture, or helping veterans, in order to court the ignorent, bigotted masses of the GOP. I can see alot of Clinton supporters not voting, but alot of those who go for McCain will likely be those who would have gone Republican anyway, and were participating in Limbau's "Opperation Chaos."

You know, alot of Clinton's supporters were essentially backing her as the easiest to beat in November. For example, Obama won Indidanna among Democrats and Independents. Clinton won it by taking the Republican vote, and then only won by a narrow margine. Stuff like that, not widely reported on but surely well known to the party leaders, seriously undermines her electabillity argument. I suspect it was also a factor for a lot of superdelegate decissions.

So no, I don't think most Clinton supporters who are actually Democrats will vote for McCain.

*Passes on congress the Stop Cruelty Towards Deceased Ungulates Act of 2008.*

*Watches as thread is closed due to law violation.*

And this is to be Hillary's legacy. Not a woman who was the first serious contender for the job of US president, not as a fine politician. Oh no, her legacy will be a campaign of baseless entitlement, divisiveness and an unparalleled persecution complex. A woman who single handedly ripped the Democratic party in half because she thought it was her turn. That she deserved to be president and anyone who dared oppose her was a sexist bully.


Some legacy there. I'll bet Bill is proud of how she's done the Clinton name.

The thing is, I never really switched over the McCain. I was kinda always there to begin with :).
I was though, for awhile, considering Obama, but in the end I stuck with McCain. I think what turned me over was when Obama and Hillary had that argument on who could get us out of Iraq faster and both promised a mere number of days...

And this is to be Hillary's legacy. Not a woman who was the first serious contender for the job of US president, not as a fine politician. Oh no, her legacy will be a campaign of baseless entitlement, divisiveness and an unparalleled persecution complex. A woman who single handedly ripped the Democratic party in half because she thought it was her turn. That she deserved to be president and anyone who dared oppose her was a sexist bully.


Some legacy there. I'll bet Bill is proud of how she's done the Clinton name.

QFT

And this is to be Hillary's legacy. Not a woman who was the first serious contender for the job of US president, not as a fine politician. Oh no, her legacy will be a campaign of baseless entitlement, divisiveness and an unparalleled persecution complex. A woman who single handedly ripped the Democratic party in half because she thought it was her turn. That she deserved to be president and anyone who dared oppose her was a sexist bully.


And the problem here is that she has likely hurt the feminist cause. She certainly is not indicative of all women - or even of all female politicians. But she will be held up as an example when someone wants to argue that women shouldn't hold high office.

It is common knowledge to women in traditionally male fields that (and it was clear to many during the civil rights era that this is true for all sorts of bigotry), for better or worse, a trailblazer doesn't only have to be equal to her male counterparts. She has to do better. She has to work harder and excel to get the same recognition her male counterparts will get for adequate work. Stupid as it is, a woman who is merely adequate or who is substandard reflects on women as a whole in that area until things begin to even out.

Hillary could have been a good example for women to come. She could have been a good example for politicians in general. It depresses me that she didn't. Because the next female candidate in a run like this will have it harder because of her.

And the problem here is that she has likely hurt the feminist cause. She certainly is not indicative of all women - or even of all female politicians. But she will be held up as an example when someone wants to argue that women shouldn't hold high office.

It is common knowledge to women in traditionally male fields that (and it was clear to many during the civil rights era that this is true for all sorts of bigotry), for better or worse, a trailblazer doesn't only have to be equal to her male counterparts. She has to do better. She has to work harder and excel to get the same recognition her male counterparts will get for adequate work. Stupid as it is, a woman who is merely adequate or who is substandard reflects on women as a whole in that area until things begin to even out.

Hillary could have been a good example for women to come. She could have been a good example for politicians in general. It depresses me that she didn't. Because the next female candidate in a run like this will have it harder because of her.
I would have liked to see someone like Cynthia McKinney run on the Democratic ticket. Or just about anyone else. There are just better women in politics than Hillary.

And the problem here is that she has likely hurt the feminist cause. She certainly is not indicative of all women - or even of all female politicians. But she will be held up as an example when someone wants to argue that women shouldn't hold high office.

It is common knowledge to women in traditionally male fields that (and it was clear to many during the civil rights era that this is true for all sorts of bigotry), for better or worse, a trailblazer doesn't only have to be equal to her male counterparts. She has to do better. She has to work harder and excel to get the same recognition her male counterparts will get for adequate work. Stupid as it is, a woman who is merely adequate or who is substandard reflects on women as a whole in that area until things begin to even out.

Hillary could have been a good example for women to come. She could have been a good example for politicians in general. It depresses me that she didn't. Because the next female candidate in a run like this will have it harder because of her.

I think part of Hillary's problem is that she came across as an opportunist, not a patriot. When she ran for office as a New York Senator everybody knew she didn't give a fig about the people of New York's interests. She wanted a highly visible position as a stepping stone to a Presidential campaign. Her motives were always in question and she seemed to come across as a phony more often than not.

She accomplished nothing on health care reform because the GOP Congress torpedoed it.

It is more like the GOP got control of congress because she tried to get goverment controlled heath care.