I find it curious that you accuse me of lying to myself. I have not declared Clinton to be the best possible candidate or that she's as pure as the newly driven snow. I have only pointed out that I don't buy into two decades of conservative-driven scandal mongering against her. She has policy positions (primarily foreign policy) that I abhor but her domestic policy is much, much closer to what I'm looking for. Since I can't have the candidate I want I'll work with the candidate available to me. Third party candidates aren't viable, and I'm not willing to risk a repeat of 2000 when I voted for Nader.
I'm curious to know what you think another candidate will do better than Clinton and how that justifies your support. Unless your opposition isn't based on her legislative record so much as the Republicans' unending attempts to find some scandal -- anything at all -- that they can make stick against her.
I find it curious that you accuse me of lying to myself. I have not declared Clinton to be the best possible candidate or that she's as pure as the newly driven snow. I have only pointed out that I don't buy into two decades of conservative-driven scandal mongering against her. She has policy positions (primarily foreign policy) that I abhor but her domestic policy is much, much closer to what I'm looking for. Since I can't have the candidate I want I'll work with the candidate available to me. Third party candidates aren't viable, and I'm not willing to risk a repeat of 2000 when I voted for Nader.
I'm curious to know what you think another candidate will do better than Clinton and how that justifies your support. Unless your opposition isn't based on her legislative record so much as the Republicans' unending attempts to find some scandal -- anything at all -- that they can make stick against her.