 |
“But would you vote for her in the general?” |
 |
When I tell Democrats that I am not comfortable with Hillary Clinton and do not want her to be the Democratic nominee, I get varying responses. Some agree. Some fly into a rage. Some call me a rightwing agent. Some ask what candidates I prefer.
Often, no matter what else, the response is a question.
“But if she is chosen as the nominee, would you vote for her in the general election?”
While sometimes this question is asked in good faith, at other times it is barely veiled code for a more aggressive message:
“Talk all you want, but we’re not listening. Get in line behind the front runner and shut up, or you can’t be a Democrat.”
The hostility that pro-Hillary Democrats direct at Hillary’s critics can be astounding. Their vehemence rests, it seems, on the assumption that any division in the party will translate into electoral losses.
I would argue, however, that internal debate strengthens the party - especially at this particular moment in time.
In the primaries, the party should pick the best candidate: the candidate who, ideally, represents the party base’s ideals most closely while simultaneously standing a solid chance of winning the general election. In selecting the best candidate, the role of thoughtful debate is crucial. We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history: defining the Democratic party’s strategy as it faces that juncture deserves our clearest thought. Hasty conclusions - such as clinging to a centrist candidate out of fear that America will be alienated by a more progressive one - could be a damaging mistake to the party and the country. If nothing else, the internal conversation within the Democratic party deserves to run its full course, and opinions deserve to be heard by all elements with an open mind.
To have a dissenting opinion does not make one a traitor to the party. Indeed, given that freedom of expression and thought are core democratic/Democratic values, constructive dissent is beneficial for moving the party forward. By ignoring it or disparaging it, Hillary supporters lose a chance to sharpen their own arguments - practice that could come in handy during the general election. They also lose their chance to consider another point of view. Emphasizing allegiances over critical thought at this moment is a mistake.
To return to the question of whether I would vote for Hillary in the general election, I refuse to answer. If lurking behind the question is a demand that I render my voice irrelevant, that I toe the party line, that I allow debates to be prematurely silenced, then I refuse. Real moral values are at stake in the choice of who the party nominates, and the issues need to be discussed.
Of course, I hope it’s a choice I won’t ever have to make. For those who demand that I put forth an alternative to Hillary, let me say that I would vote for Senators Obama, Edwards, or Dodd, all of whom I consider worthy candidates. I believe that any one of them would be a better choice than Hillary Clinton. Would you like to talk about it - not name-calling, not attacking each other, not ascribing malevolent motives to each other? I would.
For me, it’s very simple. There are better choices than Hillary Clinton.
as a liberal, i would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. With absolutely no hesitation I’d be checking an independent (unless the Republicans run Ron Paul, then the choice becomes trickier). Does that make me “a traitor” to the party? well, I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. I have allegiance to individual candidates who espouse ideas i find appealing and i think everyone should vote that way. to give loyalty to one monolithic party is lazy politics. many democrats i find reprehensible and dont associate myself with them out of allegiance to a political party. i let the strength of individuals win the day. if i had to vote between hillary clinton and chuck hagel, id be voting for hagel. anyone who calls me benedict i call a fool.
Interestingly, people who would vote for hillary can be convincingly put forward as the traitor. a vote for an independent in place of hillary clinton, cast by everyone who doesnt take to her, may cause a landslide loss to a republican in 2008, but people should see politics as a marathon, not a sprint. it may swing the democratic party out to the left once and for all. what’s even better, it may legitimize a third party and make for an even healthier democracy, with a broader spectrum to be fulfilled. a vote for her just because she’s a democrat encourages this cowardly swing to the center from the democratic party.
Ish, I think I take your stance in the Hillary debate. Although the idea of having a female president might make her attractive, I think Hillary has fallen too far into the game of politics. At the debates, for example, she is one with well-rehearsed answers full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. Aside from the health care policy she put forth last week (and I must admit I have not looked at it so cannot review its relative strengths or weaknesses as a plan), I have not yet seen Hillary come out with anything that makes me think having her in the White House will change the way America is run.
I am ready to see politics migrate to another plane where candidates are willing to take slightly controversial positions in order to start waves and make change. (Like that motivational poster about aiming for the stars…) With that in mind, Obama and Edwards appear to be better candidates than Hillary, though I have problems with both of those candidates as well (especially with Obama for his problematic foreign policy statements…).
None of the candidates seems capable of tackling either foreign or domestic issues, and I’m looking for someone who can do one or the other incredibly well. Is it too early to be pessimistic?…
If people vote for Hillary because she is a female candidate they really shouldn’t be voting. I think Ron Paul is one candidate who speaks from the heart and says what he means. People might not like him, but at least we know he is not holding back or lying.
He understands that having a free market and limited government is what the founding fathers wanted. U.S needs a lesson from Estonia on the free market. Less than 20 years they were under Soviet control, now they are excelling (There is a documentary coming out about Estonia’s Singing Revolution: http://singingrevolution.com. This film is quite inspirational.) One thing about Hillary is I don’t respect her as a person.