For me, the question is how do you rank your dislike for Hillary in comparison to your dislike for the platforms of other candidates? I won't vote for a candidate whom I disagree with on major issues and policy positions. If the alternative is to vote for someone I don't like, but whose platform reflects my views... then I'm making a choice between platform and character. Which is more important?
I think character is underrated. I think it determines how well a President will govern, how well he or she will understand and confront challenges. When I say "I don't trust Hillary" I'm not speaking lightly. I mean I don't trust her to do the right thing at crucial moments. I don't trust her to draw a line in the sand during an international conflict and mean it. In "Living History," she recounts the ceremony at the opening of the Holocaust Museum. At that ceremony, Simon Wiesenthal spoke of the genocide then being committed in Bosnia against Slavic Muslims. He turned to President Clinton--who was then engaged in a "policy" of staying the hell out of Bosnia and praying the Europeans would solve the problem for him--and directly challenged him to get involved, to show some leadership, to take action. In her book, Hillary writes that she agreed with him. Yet, it is well documented that she--without any particular knowledge of the situation in Bosnia--had been actively lobbying her husband to stay out of Bosnia because she didn't want to risk her health care initiative. That's a deeply unserious and disingenuous retelling of what really happened. It suggests that Hillary does not take such situations seriously; it's all about weighing domestic political risk and then spinning the unpleasant reality afterwards. I don't want somebody like that as Commander-in-Chief.
Lets get really Bushy...there might not be that many significant policy differences, but I don't think she makes the best leader. I'm not sure whether I'm in more thorough disbelief of that I just typed something so trite, or that I think I actually believe it.
I have no doubt that the Republicans would mega-SwiftBoat and mega-WillieHorton Obama so that he'll be much easier to beat than Hillary (in 8-12 years, Obama will be a much more formidable candidate). These silly "I won't vote for Hillary, if you want a Democrat it has to be Obama" threats just can't be taken seriously. It's Hillary or the Republicans.
Isn't that just the same threat? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...is there a reason that you think Clinton is less likely to be mega-swiftboated?
Except that I will gladly vote for Obama (unless Ron Paul wins me over heh heh). The Clintons are as well known as any two people on the planet Earth. Just about everything than can be used against them, has. And they can dish it out pretty f-ing well. With Obama, you'll have THE MACHINE pushing this story for day after day after day: (1) scary young black man (2) scary Muslim ("hussein osama") (3) scary immigrant (4) no experience. Against that, the Republicans will be putting up War Hero McCain or Mitt "Mr. Clean" Handsome. I don't like those odds. Heck, I'm not sure I like Hillary's odds either, but at least we'll have Team Clinton on our side.
I can't really fault your reasoning, but I think Clinton is still subject to attack. I guess I actually think some of the Machine will self destruct this time around when they try 1-3, and I think he can overcome 4.
That depends. I see a distinction between personality/style & character. The former is superficial and the latter most certainly isn't. I'll vote for someone that I'm not wild about personally (which, honestly, includes most politicians because I hate attention whores) but whose platform I approve of before I'd vote for someone with the right platform but dubious character. To me, HC's problem is largely one of character rather than personality or style.
She's pre-swiftboated. On the other hand, I think the republicans swiftboat Obama at their peril. People are sick and tired of that shit. And Obama comes across as a zillion times better than those kinds of desperate tactics. Kerry? Not so much.
You're using "dislike" in such a vague and general way that it means nothing, and everything. If I think that Hillary's support of the Nevada voter suppression lawsuit was anti-democratic and unethical, that's not me "not liking" her. It's me deciding that she's unfit to serve as a leader of my party based on her rejection of the values that my party holds. Now, one can argue whether my interpretation of the Nevada lawsuit is correct, but it's not about whether Hillary is funny or not, kind or not, warm or not. In any case, you keep avoiding the reality that there is significant difference between them on foreign policy issues, which is of course THE major reason why the anti-war left justifiably sides with Obama.
As the Democratic nominee, she would have no unalienable right to the votes of Democrats. She has to earn those votes, which is why she has been phenomenally stupid to piss off people whose votes she would need in the general election. I'm trying to think of the last time that a major Democratic presidential candidate was so divisive towards their own party, and I'm failing.
I'm going to disagree slightly. "Unalienable" is perhaps the key word. I think the winner of the primary does have SOME right to the votes of her party members. Otherwise, what's the point of being a member of a party? It would be like having a vote for team captain, and when the squad didn't vote for the guy you wanted, you decide to quit the team. Being in a party should command some degree of loyalty. That said, you're right that the race baiting comes dangerously close to becoming an issue that would be a legit reason for quitting the team. I don't think it's there yet. I initially was so pissed at the Nevada lawsuit and Bill's support of it, that I contemplated leaving the Dems if we nominated Hillary, but I've calmed down a bit. But if they continue to try and marginalize Obama on race, then they do indeed lose the right to true Dem votes.
There are a lot of people voting in these primaries who are not party members. Would she have a "right" to the independent and Republicans who are participating in the Democratic primaries but aren't voting for her? I'm guessing you'll say no. If that's so, then why should "party members" be under any different obligations than those independents and (shall we say) "differently partisaned"? Do you renounce your freedom of choice when you register with a political party?
I don't agree. I think any citizen can join a political party for whatever reason, and in doing so he makes it his responsibility as a citizen and a party member to be part of the process of selecting the best candidate to represent the party. But, it doesn't mean that we should be in any way bound to vote for the nominee our party ends up selecting. Why should we be? I think we are citizens before we are partisan, and as citizens it is our responsibility to vote for the candidate we believe will be the best person to fill the important job of president of the United State, even if that person happens to belong to another party. This is not a sporting event, and the political parties are not teams. This is a process in which the citizens and the political parties play a role in order to fill an important job. By losing sight of this fact, we often choose the wrong person for the job.
I think Alice means that for example in Texas if you vote in a party primary you become a "member" of that party for one year. If you vote, for example, Democratic, you can not vote later on at the Republican primary. Your electoral card is stamped with either a "D" or "R" in order to make sure you don't try to pull a fast one.
Okay, maybe I didn't follow along closely enough but.... in some states you get to vote in whichever party's primary strikes your fancy but in some you can only vote in the primary of the party that you designated when you registered to vote. And if you registered independent you're hosed completely. So yes, there are restrictions on your freedom to choose. Depending on where you're registered to vote. If this isn't what you meant, I'm going to plead fatigue.
FYI, as someone who considers themselves a Democrat (or at least a liberal-leaning independent) I will vote for Obama in the primary, but not Hillary in the general. Her campaign tactics and lack of character are sickening, and using my vote as a protest is the best way in which I feel I can do something about it. Texas will stay red no matter who wins the nomination, so I might as well vote Green or Bloomberg instead of Hillary.
Not exactly the same situation, but the 1980 Democratic primary between Carter and Ted Kennedy was pretty acrimonious. Carter lost, of course, and they never reconciled and the party suffered a rift. Reagan capitalized on the acrimony and we're still feeling the ramifications. I was ten at the time, so I don't remember much except that John Anderson was running as an Independent.
I have mixed feelings about that. Part of me thinks parties should be responsible for their nominees, and that means primaries should be closed. But there are some countervailing strategic reasons for opening up primaries. First, it creates something of a general election measure within the primaries - ie can a candidate attract support beyond the party? Second, it gets more people involved and invested early and if they're involved and invested they are much, much more likely to support candidates in the general election. Third, it actually promotes party registration in the long run. (I can speak somewhat personally here: I used to be a Dem but after the Kerry disaster I felt I could no longer associate with those losers and in disgust I registered as an independent. I could have voted in the primaries in 2006, but I elected not to do so -- washed my hands of it and was just as happy for it. And I was all set to sit out the presidential primaries this year as well. But then at the last minute to request a Democratic mail-in ballot I decided that as an independent voter I felt a duty to vote against Clinton and for Obama not only to influence the election but to send a message to the Democratic party about the direction they needed to go in order to get my vote in the future. If Obama were not in the race, I would not participate.) Personally I like how it works in California on the Dem side: primaries are open to party members and to independents, but you can't participate if you're affiliated with another party (so GOPers can't crossover). That maintains the integrity of the party system, but it recognizes that the fastest growing group of voters in California are independents. It makes sense for all parties to court those independents in the primaries and it was a huge mistake for the California GOP when they kept their primary closed.