Neofight

Johnny 2.0?

I actually think Garland is a solid choice, and could well be Obama's top choice. We have no evidence that he is not. I wouldn't want to put that much pressure on Hillary. She's got enough on her plate.

This is probably not what happened, given the assumptions involved. Garland was on Obama's short list for both the Sotomayor and Kagen nominations. So, are we to assume that Obama was again playing multiple chess moves ahead of the Republicans, assume he knew they would withhold consent on the nominee and further assume that Obama somehow could predict a future, not yet revealed to us, that Hillary Clinton will be our next President? Or can we admit that the current President is simply doing his job, and the Rebublicans in Congress refuse to do theirs?

You've really made no sense on this. But ok, I suppose there's a point here somewhere.

Are you even trying to make a point? It really doesn't seem like you've much to say here. he is going to vote how he sees fit. Where's your issue?

I'm not certain what you mean by protest vote, but as I have explained here and elsewhere, votes are not obligatory nor should they be expected for any given candidate. They are earned. If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination and then somehow manages to lose to Trump, that is on her and her campaign. Neither of which have persuaded me to give her my vote, in good conscience.

Well, I prefer the terms #### salad to #### soufflé. I also prefer a handful of other candidates to Clinton in the general election. And it's really not close.

I've voted for her husband. Honestly, not sure which is worse.

It's not. When you don't persuade that's on you, and Clinton wasn't persuasive. Votes aren't obligatory, or promised to a certain candidate (unless you're talking about expectations by the establishment re. super delegates). Stop acting like its his responsibility to vote one way or the other. It's not.

That's some convoluted nonsense. He said she is a crappy candidate and a crappy campaigner. He's right, and the information we have clearly shows it. Why would he want to vote for that?

You're making his argument for him. The info on Hillary is the problem. Add to that the fact that she doesn't campaign well and you have her current predicament.

Dude's been working with others to fix the system for going on 4 decades. Hillary has spent a nearly equal amount of time lining her coffers. Which is why a man like Robert Reich, who has known Hillary for 50 years, realizes she isn't the right woman for the job. You'll wake up before another 50 years passes.

I'd vote Hillary before Donald, but the reality is there are other, better candidates out there in the general. Any the beauty is I have a vote that I'm free to cast as I see fit. Doesn't get more real than that.

Considering neither candidate for the Democratic nomination will meet the pledged delegate minimum, the party will most definitely have a say (i.e., party insiders and lobbyists). On top of that, there's all the other party rules put in place to promote the establishment candidate. Plus outright fraud and voter roll purging. But I'm sure that's not on the party in your opinion, right?