HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Hillary cannot and sh...

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:55 PM

Why Hillary cannot and should not win in 2016

For a while now, I'm hearing on the media all this adoration of all things Hillary. Yes she will run, Hope she will run, Isn't she just that and a Bag of Chips! She may be, but the times they have already changed.

1. The Primaries of 2008 ensured that the old guard of politics is being rightly challenged, and in a big new way - modern media. Obama foresaw this and was the first to use it so effectively in high politics. Clinton was resting on her surname (the thinking was Clinton = quality and inevitability), Obama was relying on another method - get as many people out and working for you at the grassroots = quantity and enthusiasm for a different politic. Obama used social media and Hillary used social climbing.

2. Because of this brave new world of communication, Youtube can now have evidence of every stupid word uttered, every bad vote voted, every embarrassing moment and every bone of every skeleton you had rattling around. Hillary has many of those, as all politicians who have been in the business long enough do, to different degrees. She just cannot run away from history that is recorded. That is one of the reasons Obama won in 2008, his closet was virtually clean - dust free - and no matter how long the media yelped and yapped about Rev Wright and all that other nonsense, none of it stuck enough to change the course of history.

This is a public service announcement to spare some great disappointment when the nomination and election of Hillary Clinton just will not happen.

It is time for people with clean closets. Elizabeth Warren for 2016 and anyone else who is brave enough and true enough to take this incredibly difficult challenge.

188 replies, 14435 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 188 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Hillary cannot and should not win in 2016 (Original post)
Whisp Dec 2012 OP
randome Dec 2012 #1
XemaSab Dec 2012 #153
fadedrose Dec 2012 #177
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #184
lalalu Dec 2012 #2
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #3
Whisp Dec 2012 #9
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #14
Auggie Dec 2012 #159
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #4
blueclown Dec 2012 #5
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #7
blueclown Dec 2012 #17
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #20
blueclown Dec 2012 #28
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #44
blueclown Dec 2012 #58
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #59
fadedrose Dec 2012 #131
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #138
fadedrose Dec 2012 #160
Bucky Dec 2012 #77
amandabeech Dec 2012 #123
blueclown Dec 2012 #143
graham4anything Dec 2012 #11
Bake Dec 2012 #23
graham4anything Dec 2012 #55
Bake Dec 2012 #57
graham4anything Dec 2012 #61
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #12
blueclown Dec 2012 #19
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #34
Whisp Dec 2012 #40
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #49
Whisp Dec 2012 #62
Hippo_Tron Dec 2012 #115
leftstreet Dec 2012 #24
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #36
Whisp Dec 2012 #42
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #45
amandabeech Dec 2012 #124
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #72
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #136
Walk away Dec 2012 #169
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #182
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #180
lindysalsagal Dec 2012 #188
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #6
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #8
Whisp Dec 2012 #13
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #26
Whisp Dec 2012 #35
ieoeja Dec 2012 #43
Whisp Dec 2012 #68
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #78
Whisp Dec 2012 #96
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #99
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #64
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #79
graham4anything Dec 2012 #87
graham4anything Dec 2012 #10
Bigmack Dec 2012 #15
msongs Dec 2012 #16
graham4anything Dec 2012 #22
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #29
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #80
Whisp Dec 2012 #89
antigop Dec 2012 #47
antigop Dec 2012 #30
patrice Dec 2012 #130
graham4anything Dec 2012 #134
antigop Dec 2012 #149
antigop Dec 2012 #32
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #52
graham4anything Dec 2012 #65
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #73
graham4anything Dec 2012 #81
antigop Dec 2012 #90
Whisp Dec 2012 #75
patrice Dec 2012 #129
amandabeech Dec 2012 #125
liskddksil Dec 2012 #18
KamaAina Dec 2012 #39
graham4anything Dec 2012 #88
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #21
graham4anything Dec 2012 #27
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #31
yardwork Dec 2012 #25
antigop Dec 2012 #33
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #38
randome Dec 2012 #51
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #56
antigop Dec 2012 #92
Whisp Dec 2012 #60
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #85
graham4anything Dec 2012 #71
antigop Dec 2012 #93
graham4anything Dec 2012 #100
antigop Dec 2012 #109
graham4anything Dec 2012 #111
antigop Dec 2012 #112
graham4anything Dec 2012 #116
antigop Dec 2012 #118
graham4anything Dec 2012 #119
antigop Dec 2012 #120
graham4anything Dec 2012 #121
antigop Dec 2012 #145
patrice Dec 2012 #132
blm Dec 2012 #157
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #110
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #66
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #82
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #114
MFM008 Dec 2012 #37
Spike89 Dec 2012 #41
Whisp Dec 2012 #69
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #183
99Forever Dec 2012 #46
antigop Dec 2012 #48
leftstreet Dec 2012 #53
antigop Dec 2012 #94
leftstreet Dec 2012 #107
antigop Dec 2012 #113
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #142
leftstreet Dec 2012 #155
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #178
leftstreet Dec 2012 #185
still_one Dec 2012 #162
antigop Dec 2012 #166
still_one Dec 2012 #167
antigop Dec 2012 #170
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #181
AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #50
Bucky Dec 2012 #76
Whisp Dec 2012 #150
ieoeja Dec 2012 #54
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #67
Bucky Dec 2012 #74
ieoeja Dec 2012 #83
Bucky Dec 2012 #106
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #63
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #70
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #84
Whisp Dec 2012 #91
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #101
Whisp Dec 2012 #102
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #103
Whisp Dec 2012 #105
libdem4life Dec 2012 #86
antigop Dec 2012 #95
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #97
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #104
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #98
IDemo Dec 2012 #108
center rising Dec 2012 #117
patrice Dec 2012 #133
goclark Dec 2012 #141
antigop Dec 2012 #146
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #122
amandabeech Dec 2012 #126
antigop Dec 2012 #147
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #163
Tigress DEM Dec 2012 #127
Whisp Dec 2012 #128
veganlush Dec 2012 #135
Warren Religion Dec 2012 #137
davidpdx Dec 2012 #139
antigop Dec 2012 #148
Earth_First Dec 2012 #140
Whisp Dec 2012 #152
davidpdx Dec 2012 #186
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #144
davidpdx Dec 2012 #187
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #151
Whisp Dec 2012 #154
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #156
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #158
still_one Dec 2012 #161
antigop Dec 2012 #164
lonestarnot Dec 2012 #165
Carolina Dec 2012 #168
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #171
Whisp Dec 2012 #172
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #173
Whisp Dec 2012 #175
bamacrat Dec 2012 #174
djean111 Dec 2012 #176
cynatnite Dec 2012 #179

Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:58 PM

1. As wonderful as she may be, she is old school politics.

Obama has reset the board. It's time for the next generation to take over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:22 AM

153. There's also something disturbing about

Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama
Obama
Clinton
????

We're not a monarchy, and recycling people from the same family is creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #153)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:59 AM

177. I agree nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #177)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:28 PM

184. Me Too. Seems Like Royal Lineage

It bugged me to no end when 43 got his acendency without any qualifications other than a last name.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:08 PM

2. Thank You. I agree 100%

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:11 PM

3. Well, looks like the "Warren or no one" movement begins now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:31 PM

9. Nope. Warren is one I think I know best at this point in time.

I truly believe there are a great number of people that are qualified - it's just having the guts to put up with what politicians at that level have to put up with is the kicker.

Because of social media and our ability to get a lot more information that what the network and cable yappers give us - I see a trend toward that choice of many more because change may be coming where you don't have to be in politics for 30 years or have a few million stashed to get in the game. Obama and Warren are good examples of this.

I like that. And I think that may be just a part of why the Repugs are flailing in confusion and fear. Their time is coming to an end in more ways than they may know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:37 PM

14. I hope not. I think the support for Warren in 2016 is premature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:33 AM

159. Depends who the Repukes put up ...

I like Warren, but it's my observation this country elects the Presidential candidate they'd most like to have a beer with.

If she runs, Warren will need to craft a public image that the Joe Six-Packs can relate to. Is she up to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:14 PM

4. If this Brave New World you speak of will doom her in 2016...it should have doomed her in 2008

And yet she almost won the primary.

She's smart and has a backbone...I'd still vote for her.

Yeah, right. Warren will have to start campaigning in about a year...what record will she have accomplished in the Senate by then? I like Warren, but to say she'd be ready by then is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:20 PM

5. Hillary lost the 2008 primary because of her vote for the Iraq War

I don't think there is much debate that is what cost her the nomination. People forget how important that vote was during those primaries. And it won't be nearly as important in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to wyldwolf (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:41 PM

17. Are you denying that the Iraq War vote didn't play a major role in the reason why she didn't win?

While you could say that she had some strategical follies, I don't think you could say that there was a matter of policy that prevented her from winning the nomination, other than her support for the Iraq War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:46 PM

20. Unless you have some solid evidence to the contrary, yes.

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

As I said initially, it may or may not have played a major role. But her support for the Iraq war was not THE reason she lost as you've claimed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:06 PM

28. Solid evidence - the large focus on the War in Iraq and Afghanistan

during the 2007-2008 Democratic primary.

There was not a distinctive difference between Hillary and Obama on other issues of note, such as the foreclosure crisis, health care and the incoming financial crisis.

There was a wide gap between Hillary and Obama on the Iraq War - in particular, Hillary's support of the authorization of war and Obama's clear denouncement of it during his speech in the run-up to the war.

Where's your evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:26 PM

44. Providing your opinion is not empirical evidence

... Do you have pre or post election polling?

Please, don't distract from the point by copping out on providing evidence of your claim by asking me where MY evidence is.
I've made no claim that requires it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:42 PM

58. It isn't my opinion that Hillary supported the war when was being authorized

and Obama didn't.

Here are exit polls from the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus, which proves my point.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/IA.html

Issue that Matters Most
35% - War in Iraq
35% - Economy
27% - Health Care

The War in Iraq was a very important issue back then, and it was one of the only issues where there was any difference between the two candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:47 PM

59. Yes it was an important issue but not THE reason she lost

If we use one exit poll from one primary as as evidence, the economy was equally important - an issue she had more credibity on than Senator Obama.

But since there were numerous primaries with varying dynamics it would be silly to use one poll from Iowa as your evidence.

As people keep nicely reminding you in this thread there were multiple contributing factors including but certainly not exclusively the Iraq war vote.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/06/12-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-lost/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:00 AM

131. People preferred other candidates is one reason....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #131)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:29 AM

138. Well, of course. That is the case in any primary for any election in any year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #138)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:49 AM

160. Michigan's Primary of 2008 was anything but normal...

Still hard feelings here about the delegate grab attempt in spite of the election being termed "illegal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:19 PM

77. Reasoning isn't evidence. Reasoning is important, but it's not empirical data.

If you're gonna hang out with the big donks, you need to sharpen you terms a little more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:07 AM

123. I know the guy who writes that blog and he's pretty a pretty sharp character.

The one thing that I would add is that Hillary totally missed the caucus game after Iowa. She got hosed on the ground in Nevada and was never a player in other caucuses.

Me, I voted Edwards because he was the only one who actually knew what it was like to see a whole area fold economically, which was what was happening in my home area and was what I was afraid would happen all over the U.S. Little did I know that he couldn't keep his pants zipped.

But for your sparring partner, I preferred with the guy who opposed the Iraq war over the gal who I thought really could get the job done from day one.

What I think I have now is a guy who really had a lot of catching up to do who was convinced to get into another war, Libya, which is threatening to metastasize, by the gal who voted to go into Iraq.

It was a lousy election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:41 AM

143. Exit polls aren't evidence of the importance of an issue?

Your snide remarks don't do much for discussion here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:35 PM

11. I like your avitar of LBJ. Same as mine.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:59 PM

23. I like it, but I really like the shot of LBJ with some long flowing hair!

Have you seen that one????

Kind of a Gregg Allman vibe happening there ...



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:39 PM

55. Yeah. I would love to get a sweat shirt with that picture on it.

 

I put a thread up yesterday with that picture in it.
I found an old DU thread from 2004 that was in google cached.

I do think that showed the true person LBJ was.

1968 is a great example of what happens when Dems fracture. He would have beaten Nixon
both before Bobby entered the race(RFK wouldn't have run if LBJ was still in race) and after Bobby's tragic death, if the Dems pleaded and LBJ reentered, he would have still beaten Nixon in a down and dirty race but he would have won (IMHO of course).

(I would post that picture again here, but don't want to be accused of shifting this thread)

That is why we gotta win again in 2016 and 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:42 PM

57. Aw hell, post the pic!

I love that shot!

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:50 PM

61. Since you insist (LOL). I have it as my screen wallpaper now

 




but it's a great reminder to remember 1968 and what happened when the party divided and while Eugene McCarthy was a great person, he couldn't have won and in the end led to Nixon and Bush and Reagan and Ford and Bush and beware, Jeb is coming
(and had LBJ won, RFK would have been President in 1972 and 1976.)

Wish LBJ were here in the Senate it would be just what is needed to help Obama get things through

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:35 PM

12. Hillary lost for several reasons, one of which was her vote for the Iraq invasion.

She also lost because she ran an ineffective campaign.

With that said, if she is the nominee, I will wholeheartedly and ethusiastically support her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:45 PM

19. Of course, when you lose, you run an "ineffective campaign"

That comes with the territory.

How about a position she took during the campaign that caused her to lose the nomination? Or a previous vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:14 PM

34. Like all politicians (Obama included) she told several lies during the campaign, a la being the

target of sniper fire, brokering peace efforts in No. Ireland. Not to mention, I believe the scorched-earth politics turned a lot of people off who would have supported her over Obama, and the subtle racism didn't help, either (e.g. "hard-working white people").

Honestly, overall, I think it was her inept campaign--more than anything else, including Iraq--that cost her the nomination. And basically, the Obama folks ran a better campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:20 PM

40. o no, not this 'both sides do it' Anderson Cooper stuff!



please tell me a whooper like Tuzla or Ireland that Obama let go.

come on.

speak up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:29 PM

49. Read carefully what I wrote. All politicians "exaggerate" if not lie. Maybe "lie" is too much,

but it is what it is.

I stand by my conclusions: Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary; Hillary ran an ineffective campaign; Hillary lost the nomination for several reasons, not just Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:51 PM

62. okay, no such whoppers. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:26 PM

115. By ineffective campaign, he means the fact that she had no strategy for after Super Tuesday

Mark Penn bet everything on the assumption that she would win by Super Tuesday and had no solid plan to deal with the fact that the primaries and caucuses in the following weeks were going to be on turf that was heavily favorable to Obama. Eventually they were able to slow down his momentum, but it was far too late to grind it to a halt.

Axelrod and Plouffe knew how to work the system to create a path to victory for their candidate against overwhelming odds. If Mark Penn had prepared for the possibility that the nomination wasn't going to be an easy victory and that they might have to engage in trench warfare, Hillary would probably be sitting in the White House as we speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:00 PM

24. ...also because she endorsed mandated health insurance

wait a sec...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:15 PM

36. The president, then Senator Obama, was dishonest about mandates during the campaign.

That is clear NOW. Obviously he pretended to be against mandates back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:22 PM

42. I happen to think Obama is an honest person

so I don't buy your take on that at all.

I think when push came to shove he had to make that decision to keep anything at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:27 PM

45. The point is that he was adamantly opposed to mandates. Now he is adamantly for them.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he did more research and came to a different conclusion. And maybe "lie" is a harsh word, but you should admit that it was a complete 180 on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:14 AM

124. The President also said that he would renegotiate NAFTA.

Which brought out one of the Chicago boys (whose name I cannot recall at this late juncture) to calm down the Canadians.

Let me just say that Obama didn't do that lie convincingly, as far as I'm concerned.

He hasn't met a trade deal that he doesn't like.

Maybe he can read about trade under mercantalism, because that's pretty much the system that our major trading partners are using, with the possible exception of Canada, and Mexico, which seems to use guilt and minority voting power as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:14 PM

72. Without her ridiculous vote for the Iraq War, there never would have been a Barack Obama. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:00 AM

136. The blood is still drip, drip, dripping from her hands. No sentient human being will

 

ever be able to excuse that vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:29 AM

169. Well then you can help give 2016 to Jeb Bush! Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #169)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:23 PM

182. Oh, FFS, as if Hillary is the only Dem capable of winning in 2016. Right

 

now, I'm leaning toward Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden, fwiw. Either can and would run rings around anyone branded Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:18 PM

180. I don't believe that. Barack Obama's success was a result of his own merit, and a little luck.

He ran a brilliant campaign. And frankly I tire of people not giving this man his just due. Everything that he has accomplished is not due to someone else's efforts. The man is brilliant. And I believe that he would've run despite Hillary's vote. To presume otherwise is insulting. Let this man enjoy his accomplishments without belittling it or attributing to something else outside his control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:53 PM

188. Thank you. I will never forgive her for that.

Otherwise, she's been a great statesperson and done wonders for the world. But she knew better. She knew better. She did. She went along with the crazies. She knew better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:23 PM

6. As a supporter of Barack Obama before he even ran for the Senate

 

I must remind you, Hillary Clinton came within a hair's breadth of winning the 2008 nomination, and she would have won the 2008 GE had she been nominated.

If she runs in 2016, I do not believe another Barack Obama will emerge. she will win and win handily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:26 PM

8. Now see, I was preparing a long rebuttal to the OP but you did nicely in two lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:37 PM

13. I forget the actual number, but hair's breadth is not one of them.

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The delegates were in favor of Obama, they were in the background whispering this in support. The democratic hefties like Kennedy and Kerry were the ones who pleaded with Obama to get into the race.

I don't think it was close at all - it was pretty well over in April (??) when the Clinton camp started complaining about caucuses because they didn't pay the heed needed to them and Obama did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:05 PM

26. The final delegate count from Real Clear Politics was Obama -2229.5 and Clinton - 1896.5

 

That's pretty damned close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:15 PM

35. ok, in numbers, yes, it's pretty close, but

let's keep in mind Obama beat the Clnton Machine.

something that a few months earlier that if someone said Obama would win against Hillary, laughter would ensue.

So those numbers are fairly close, but if the fact that Obama had to work 10 times harder to get there than Clinton did - those numbers are actually a huge difference between.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:24 PM

43. But Clinton padded her numbers at the end after Obama had already switched to GE mode.


Obama completely dominated Hillary in rural states when he was campaigning. He was even able to take Indiana in the general. Yet, Hillary swept Obama in the lower midwest. It is inconceivable to me that Hillary would have turned the results in the rest of the country upside down in the lower midwest had Obama campaigned there.

I really wish Obama had not stopped his primary campaign. One of the things I loved about his primary was his campaigning in "red" areas. We will never win those areas with liberals or progressives if we never campaign in those areas.

Many of the reliable conservative areas today were not so reliably so thirty years ago. And they did not become so until the DLC "I'm not one of THOSE democrats" campaign strategy was introduced. The DLC/etc are more responsible for the shift to conservative than are the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:09 PM

68. then there was that Michigan, Florida and one other state... where it was agreed not to count them

because they went against some rules in the set procedure.

All candidates agreed not to be on the ballot because of that, then when Clinton needed the numbers she tried to count those anyways for herself.

think that's how it went, I just don't want to google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:20 PM

78. That's exactly how it went. Hillary led the fight to exclude those 2 states.


But then, when she was in trouble, she did everything she could to go against her own words and change the rules she all but wrote herself.

Watching her give a campaign victory speech the night she won the uncontested Florida primary was one of the saddest, and most dishonest primary campaign acts I have ever seen.


Its funny. Everyone loves Hillary now. But just going through this thread we are all quickly reminded why SHE DID NOT win in 2008.

Its real easy to have high approval ratings when you are not involved in Politics. But Hillary historically has had negative ratings that always approach 50%. And nobody here for one second should think that with a GOP campaign against her, those high negative numbers won't return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:48 PM

96. this is the kind of stuff she can't talk her way out of

there is evidence EVERYWHERE of stuff like this.

but I don't want to do that. everyone knows what they are - or should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:02 PM

99. Could you imagine what a GOP super-pack would do with this.





I love Hillary. I am going to work hard for her in 2016. But people here are delirious if they think she will just walk into the Presidency. It almost reminds me of Republicans who watched FOX news and then were shocked when Romney lost on election night.

A general election campaign in 2016 with Hillary at the top of the ticket is going to be tough. Anyone who thinks her current approval numbers would hold through a Presidential campaign doesn't know politics.


Do you want to know what 2016 with Hillary would look like? Pull her national numbers about mid way through the Democratic primary in 2008. That's what we would be working with to try and keep the White House in 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:54 PM

64. Not to mention, Pres. Obama will most likely endorse Hillary, guaranteeing her the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:22 PM

79. Obama will be in a tough spot of Biden and Hillary run. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:30 PM

87. I would not mind if Joe Biden made history himself- Hillary45/BidenVP

 

That would be a winning ticket. People love Joe, but not for President.

He might though run to throw blocks on some of the others football style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:33 PM

10. It takes a Clinton To be a Bush. Last thing we need is another Dukakis like scenerio

 

as 41 did to Dukakis, Jeb would do to Warren.

daydreams are nice, but no one in their right mind thought Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern would win. One issue candidates NEVER EVER win

and its probably time for a while to never nominate a person from Mass. for President
Not after Dukakis, Tsongis, Kerry and on their side Mitt couldn't get near the white house.
Even Ted Kennedy the liberal of all liberals did not make it.

Winning is what is needed. Not daydreams. Not one issue candidates. (as Ron Paul was to the right, Warren is to the left).

And being that Warren owes her career 100% to President Obama, and he will be backing
Hillary, well, she would not even run. She might be a good teacher or philospher, but without Barack Obama putting her in his cabinet and then opening a race for her in Mass, she would still be teaching.

Not to mention HIllary is the only one who is nationally vetted.

Jeb would win as big as 41 did over Dukakis if it were Warren.

And the only reason Hillary did not win in 2008 was that she did not have Barack Obama's core voters. Those voters(of which I am one) will 100% support Hillary.

it's a done deal.

not to mention in 2016, HIllary has EARNED the nomination.
She might not have had the credentials in 2008, but does now.

While others like Bill dribbles Bradley and what's his sorry name? Russ Feingold whined and took the ball home and disappeared from public sector to make millions, Hillary remained in the public sector and hopefully will win the Noble Peace Prize next year for her magnificent job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:38 PM

15. I agree.... winning in 2016 is all! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:39 PM

16. nobody has "earned" a nomination not coming for 4 years nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:56 PM

22. We need 100% unity and let them fight their civil war

 

unlike in the past, elections are 24/7/365

and the democrats need unity

at least the Warren fans want a female president. So we are united in that.As that is what will be happening.

As they are all starting their camapign best we do too, especially it would be good to have a Captain on the 2014 team.

BTW, if Mass. were to field a candidate, Deval Patrick would be more likely, but that would be for VP as it will be a woman next time.

It takes a Clinton to beat a Bush.And it will take Chicago leading the way. Hope Axelrod and Plouffe will be convinced to come back for another Presidential race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:07 PM

29. If Hillary is going to run, I hope she has already been quietly talking to Axelrod and Plouffe

 

She's got awesome political instincts and she knows damned well and good those two can run a brilliant campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:24 PM

80. +1


They need to be on board. Sometimes it worries me because they act more like they are "Obama's staff" instead of the "Democrats staff."


Say what you want about Karl Rove, but at least he tries to help his party long after Bush is gone. I worry that Axe and Plouffe won't do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:34 PM

89. I think the Obama team works/worked well is because of the chemistry

between them. They all clicked.

You can't rent that kind of thing out and expect it to work the same way.

I doubt very very very much they would go to Clinton in the same capacity as they worked for Obama. They might be willing to be additional advisors to her team or set them up at the beginning but cannot possibly work the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:28 PM

47. is there a part of -THERE WILL BE A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN 2016 -- that you don't understand? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:07 PM

30. +1000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:57 AM

130. I don't like this kind of stuff. It's presumptious. Feels like we're being railroaded by partisans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #130)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:26 AM

134. One don't like opinions on a political discussion board where people give opinions???

 

I may be 100% correct, but it is only my opinion, unless the vast majority of people
agree that Hillary45 is our next President.
(after all, she wouldn't have 45 after her name if it wasn't true, would she?)


Nobody on my end is silencing anyone else's opinion, just arguing against it

but it is obvious that it goes without saying- who ever Barack Obama endorses, shall be the next President
Where Barack Obama's voters go, and how avidly they go to the poll, will be to whomever
she is.

but you really don't think Bill Clinton now playing golf with President Obama and going all out
for Barack Obama doesn't have an angle in it?

and just demographically speaking- if anyone here thinks the democratic party will nominate anyone but a woman, they are highly mistaken. It is not, demographically, and who our party majority is, it is not going to be a white male. If you think otherwise, you will be disappointed.

Because to cede that historic issue would be party suicide at this point.
(and the republicans most likely will continue to be the same old same old, though Jeb will showcase his wife quite often probably.) But it won't extend to his VP, (mostly because Rubio can't be Jeb's VP unless one of them changes the state they are in or cede Florida's electoral votes).

In fact, odds favor Hillary45/Castro46 or Hillary45/Patric unless Hillary plays it safe and indeed
takes Joe Biden to have another historic 8 years as VP, especially if Joe blocks others out
and runs and finishes 2nd.(or unless it's Hillary45/Michelle45).

It's simple logic as Mr. Spock would say it's logical.

And Democratics have seen what can and what cannot win
(and by win- I mean SEATED AS PRESIDENT. For all the whining about thefts and such, unless the person enters the White House as President, it is NOT winning.

And the Democratic Party saw in 2008 and 2012 how to win.
The nation does not mind having a (example) Dennis Kucinich in the house, or Bernie Sanders in the Senate. But they are not going to elect either to the Presidency and never have.

And those can whine and say another woman, not Hillary45, but 2004 showed that John McCain took that strategy to very bad effect.
NO, having someone not qualified to be President does not equal having someone who is qualified. McCain thought Sarah was Hillary45.

While McCain himself would have lost anyhow no matter who he picked, he made the 3rd or 2nd worst choice of all time (after John Edwards and Dan Quayle because of that mistake.

Same as the democrats made their mistakes in the past with a super great person like
George McGovern and HHH. Both great people, great viewpoints, great everything, but when one calmly looks at the way presidents are elected, each was doomed from the start.
(In HHH's case, you don't pick someone who is not half the politician as the one who was tossed in the river, and anyhow, HHH wasn't half the liberal LBJ was on social issues.
(it can be actually said, LBJ was to the left of RFK though legend doesn't allow that to be said in the open I guess).

All humans have flaws. That is what makes them a human. Nobody is perfect.

But it takes more than one viewpoint on one issue to make a President.
NO single candidate person ever won the Presidency. NEVER. And none of them were perfect.

(and truth be, neither were any of the people who never became President.)

they are just human beings. Playing in a very dirty game of politics. But that is how we play it.

(as I recall, two major names in the beginnings of America actually had a duel and one shot the other and died. Friendly gentleperson sport? NEVER.
(and it's not in any other nation either.)

May the best most qualified on all issues woman win #45 in 2016.
It most certainly will not be Deborah Wasserman Schultz or Kirsten Gillibrand. That would be as foolhardy as Sarah was for the other side.

And it won't be Ashley Judd either, even if she becomes Senator in 14(though she should wait for 16 and challenge Rand).Defeating Mitch is next to impossible.
With the proper financing nationwide, Rand can be defeated(especially if the tea party keeps being repudiated.) (hey Ashley, if you denounce loudly guns, there is a great person in NYC who will endorse any candidate who dares say those words...)
And it would be better for her to stop Rand from having higher aspirations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:56 AM

149. ah, yes, the same "inevitability" meme n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:09 PM

32. cut the "inevitability" meme. OK? People are sick of it. THERE WILL BE A 2016 PRIMARY. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:33 PM

52. Hillary Clinton has not earned anything. She has to ask for our votes. We make that decision

through the democratic (small "d") primary process.

This sense of inevitability and entitlement thinking hurt her in 2008 as well. It is unfair to all the other candidates who want to run, too. We're not Republicans. We are Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:58 PM

65. Funny thing is, the public is only calling Hillary.

 

It's 3am. Now, in 2012 and in 2016, we know Hillary is ready to answer that call.

The others are sleeping soundly as their phones won't be ringing.

Not giving the public what they want (which is Hillary, means the public sits home like in 2010).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:14 PM

73. That's crazy. The public wanted Hillary because they thought she was better than

the other candidates except for Obama.

Regardless of all that, we still have a process. Let us play it out and see.

For now, it's all about 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:25 PM

81. That is what I said. She would have won had it not been for President Obama entering the race

 

in 2016, she has President Obama's backing and hhis voters (which I am one) voting for her.

I was an Obama fan since 2004(as my button I still wore this year says-not a typo, 2004).

She did not have President Obama's voters once he entered the race.
In 2016, she will have all of them and they will come out to vote(myself included as I include myself in the 2008 core voters he had).

Had he not run, Hillary45 would have gotten 85% of the democatic vote or more.
There was no other competition. They did not expect President Obama to run. I do agree I hope Penn is not involved in 2016 at all.

And long term it is better this way, and is 16 years of the Presidency.

All the others can run in 2024.(though I bet it will be Julian Castro who wins).

I mean I would love a Jerry Brown/Jimmy Carter ticket (or Jimmy/Jerry) but jees, that is not going to happen as won't any other candidate but Hillary45.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:40 PM

90. Um, dude, Obama hasn't "backed" anyone. THERE WILL BE A PRIMARY IN 2016. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:15 PM

75. I think it's mostly Clinton surrogates that are calling Hillary to run.

it's pretty clear who they are and why they are doing that. Because they got 'the word' from on high.

so I think Hillary really does want to run and her and Bill have sent the word out to pave the way this early,

but she shouldn't.

and she will be challenged,

and lose again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:55 AM

129. +++1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:20 AM

125. I think that the Noble committee will be very reluctant togive away

the prize to anyone engaged in any war next time.

Syria is about to blow up, Egypt is unstable, Mali is a mess and I don't think that there was any diplomatic activity going on in Benghazi.

No. She will not get the prize next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:45 PM

18. I'm ABC - Anybody but Cuomo

So if it means Hillary, so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liskddksil (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:19 PM

39. Roger that.

I cringed when I saw his name being floated the other day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liskddksil (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:31 PM

88. I agree about Andrew. And Let's Go Mets. They signed Wright for years. Now it's Dickey's turn

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:52 PM

21. If she does run

She needs a better campaign team than she had in 2008. I just reread the Newsweek 2008 behind the scenes article published after the election, and it reminded me what a freakshow her campaign team was. Aides constantly sniping at each other on TV, overpriced consultants, huge internal power struggles. They were not prepared for the long primary fight and counted on wrapping it up quickly. One of her top strategists didn't even know that California did not have winner take all primaries!

I remember after the Superbowl that year, my mom said that she had rooted for the Patriots, but the Giants played the better game and deserved to win. That's how I felt about the 2008 primaries: Obama played the better game, and that's how he was able to take down a frontrunner who had been presumed inevitable.

I am not ruling out supporting Hillary for the nomination in 2016, but if she does run, she needs a team that will serve her better and have her back instead of being out for their own gain.

Edited to clarify: I know she had hundreds of loyal staff at the ground level, which may even include some DUers. I want to make sure it's clear that I am only talking about the people at the top (Penn, Wolfson, etc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:05 PM

27. She needs Axelrod and Plouffe running it or at least advising it.

 

Chicago wins like in 1960 and 1964 and 2008 and 2012.(Chicago is a good term, not bad)

and though I was not a fan in 2008 of Hillary, she would have won the general(especially had she taken Obama as her VP).

IMHO that he came first is better as it frees her from most of the crap that would have been done to her that was done to him from the repubs.

And she will end up being far left of Bill when her 8 years are done. IMHO

and the court will be 8 to 1 by then, with President Obama being Supreme Court Justice Obama (even maybe Chief Justice)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:08 PM

31. I can definitely see Roberts leaving the court if there is no conservative majority. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:02 PM

25. Hillary is highly respected and has a lot of support among rank and file Democrats.

Polls show that Hillary could win in 2016. It's very difficult for the party who has held the presidency for two terms to win a third term. Poppy Bush did it in 1988 for two reasons - he was VP to Reagan, the most popular president of the era, and his opponent, Dukakis, ran the worst campaign I'd seen until Romney's.

It's very unlikely that Biden will run in 2016 so winning the White House is going to be a serious challenge for the Democrats. We can't count on the Republicans running another campaign that is utterly and completely incompetent. If they nominate Marco Rubio, for instance, we are going to have a serious challenge.

Hillary may be our best chance to keep the White House in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:10 PM

33. For cying out loud, Obama hasn't even started his second term yet. This is ridiculous. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:16 PM

38. +1,000!!! I think I now understand why this is happening. Dividing Democrats!

Just reading this thread and others like it, I realize that there are still wounds from the 2008 Democratic primaries.

The Corporate Media has a vested interest in manufacturing discord in the Democratic Party, since the Republicans are imploding.

We need to unite.

And what's more, we need to support this president and forget about 2016 for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:31 PM

51. Until about 2015. This is all pointless speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:40 PM

56. Yep! It's also designed to distract us from focusing on the battles that we need to fight

before us, not to mention the 2014 midterms. The 2016 presidential election won't matter shit if Republicans win in 2014, which is typically what happens in midterm elections when the party of the president loses seats.

DEMOCRATS, PLEASE FOCUS!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:41 PM

92. so true, Liberal. Spot on. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:48 PM

60. then ask the media why this is happening.

it's some of the same people that supported Hillary in 2008 that are talking about her in 2016 on the yap shows. You can't get away from it for a whole day now. So it has started alright, but I sure the heck didn't make this OP out of thin air.

yes, I agree it's ridiculous but just leaving them say what they want without challenge is just as ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:28 PM

85. Liberals are almost as likely to fall prey to Corporate Media narratives and memes as the cons.

The Liberal Media Establishment is almost as bad, too. Sometimes I think we should tune out.

You're right. We should challenge them, but we shouldn't allow those memes to define how we act.

The Corporate Media is discussing Election 2016 and the president hasn't even been inaugurated yet. We should ask ourselves why that is. My view is that they want to choose our nominee for us. They did this in 2007, and I believe that it hurt Hillary Clinton then, too, because people were hungry for change. There are people who reject being told what to do. They reject any sense of entitlement.

And as I stated before, we are not Republicans where people stand in line and take turns running for president. The Democratic Party is different. Or least I'd like to believe that we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:13 PM

71. if you mean unite around Hillary45 100% agree. BTW- I was most certainly NOT a fan in 2008.

 

the funny thing is-I was most certainly not a Hillary45 fan back then.
Anyone who knows me from then probably is laughing out loud at how she converted me for 2016.
Because SHE EARNED IT the old fashioned way with hard work, staying in the public arena,
and the loyalty to the President.(and loyalty is very important to me).

No back stabbing, no shadow running. And not being political at all.
(In fact she won't be announcing officially for a good 2 years, but she is making subtle hints
and that is because it will clear the field except for those running for #2.)

The ones who wish to divide, are like the same ones who think John Kerry should leave his seat to take SOS and allow Scott Brown back in.

Warren should be the liberal fireball in the senate for 18 years. In fact, she should be the new LBJ or Teddy. Teddy was there for 40 years. She should be there for at least 18.
LBJ was the greatest senate majority leader ever.
(BTW, I am sure you all realize Warren is just about the same age as Hillary, lots of people do not even realize that.)

Since when did Senator become a dirty word?

And we are of course supporting President Obama if we want Hillary to run.
(I never speak for others that is for them to say).

But I know I was one of the few who thought President Obama won the first debate doing the rope-a-dope (something only Al Sharpton in the media agreed with (and Dennis Haysbert the actor did too).
The uber libs on msnbc were selling Obama down the river after debate one.

Not me. President Obama was letting the little brat child have his tantrum and ignoring it taking the hits, letting the windbag empty his wind cannon and solidly come back and knock the loser out of the ring in 2 and 3 and the general election. The look on President Obama's face in the Oval Office w/the loser was priceless.

The divisive crap would be to not support the person President Obama will support, which will be Hillary45.

(and if it wasn't Hillary it would be Deval Patrick, but it will be Hillary45).
because the people will demand it. And it will be a woman President

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:42 PM

93. we are NOT uniting around Hillary. We should unite around Pres. Obama right now.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:02 PM

100. The goal is to keep President Obama's agenda winning for decades to come,no retreat from it

 


How is having threads about 2016 or Michelle running for the senate in Illinois so that we can continue President Obama's wants and dreams forever, interferring with anything?

It is like the people who said we should be debbie downers and sad sams and Cutten Runners duirng the past election, instead of those (LIKE ME) that said it would be a landslide and indeed it was.

Only ones not wanting to talk about democratic candidates want republican candidates to get a head start.

Time is now to start tearing the repubs down,and boosting the dems

as you can see, the repubs are not any more bipartisan now than they were in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:59 PM

109. is there a part of -THERE WILL BE A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN 2016 -- that you don't understand? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:37 PM

111. the formalities will be done, like they were this year

 

it's a major industry after all. Wouldn't want to depreive the states of their money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:01 PM

112. it's a PRIMARY -- not a coronation. Got it? N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:42 PM

116. you are the only one disputing it, not me.

 


The people will decide. It won't even be close

unless you are unhappy that it will be hillary, the people will be very happy.

Some of the other choices though are bizarre...in what universe do some of the others think they will even get a hundreth of what Joe Lieberman got in 2004 when he tried?

thy name is vanity and ego I guess.

It is a vast waste of money, especially if they get donations from those that least can afford it.
The also rans also end up not doing the job they are paid to do, which nowadays is
something residents of individual states appear to care more about than in the past.

Look how many are currently already playing Iowa, 4 years in advance.

(I love the ones complaining about it being early who don't want Hillary, who's personal fave rave is already doing Iowa big time. 4 years in advance, yet they complain about Hillary who is doing her job and she might be doing it so well, she will broker an ever lasting peace, making
her wise than Solomon and winning a noble peace prize to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #116)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:16 AM

118. there you go again...the "inevitability" meme... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #118)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:37 AM

119. People said Obama was not going to win in 2008 and 12

 

but it was inevitable back in Iowa that indeed it would be inevitable he would win in 2008
and that the Dems were going to win the Senate in 2012

and that the Dems would not win in 1968 once they ditched LBJ

sure, it's not inevitable Hillary will be the nominee in 2016
but neither is it assured the New York Jets won't win the Super Bowl this January.
and that the NY Mets will win the World Series this coming year

I would say it is not inevitable, it is possible people will soon live forever and there will be no taxes whatsoever either.And the earth is flat, and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #119)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:39 AM

120. ah,yes, the same meme...she's the only one....it's hers. The Dems will decide who the nominee is

via a primary in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #120)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:53 AM

121. and the repubs will the same

 

Jeb Vs. Hillary
the best woman in America will win
take it to the bank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #121)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:47 AM

145. still the same "inevitability" meme...there's no one else. Just her. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #120)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:08 AM

132. Thanks for you efforts with this! She's ONE good candidate. This is starting to look like a cult of

personality. "It's Hillary's turn."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #118)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:29 AM

157. Disingenuous posts usually do get more overthetop as the exchanges continue....

....a number of us have found this to be a pattern and left the exchange as the posts became even more disconnected and absurd and began to repeat RW talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:49 PM

110. I was a fan of Dennis K., then John Edwards (*sigh*). I didn't come 'round to Obama until the very

end. Now, I'm a huge fan!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:58 PM

66. Thank you. And Elizabeth Warren has been a senator for about five minutes.

Can we just take a breather?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:25 PM

82. Actually, technically I don't think she has been sworn in as a Senator yet. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:15 PM

114. Good point!

Either way, election day was precisely ONE MONTH ago. We all need a rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:16 PM

37. if she runs

she has my vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:21 PM

41. Too early still, but your points aren't persuasive

1. It was a tightly contested primary (btw - there is no electoral college in primaries as you mentioned downthread, they gather delegates). But even if it had not been a close primary--the fact that Obama ran a great campaign and Clinton a mediocre one is actually a point in her favor going forward. She can and would learn from the 2008 campaign. As Obama's former Sec. of State, Hillary has built her resume', and could reliably count on Obama's tacit and overt assistance in both the primary and general elections. As for "old guard" - aside from your feelings, which actual policies do you think Clinton and Obama actually disagreed on? The reality is that they were virtually identical with Clinton ranking ever so slightly as the more progressive.

2. Granted, everything is out there. However, there probably hasn't been a politician in the history of this country more vetted than Hillary. Virtually everything has been thrown at her already. I like Warren, but it isn't the things we know that cause potential problems, it is the revelations that come out once the campaign starts--it isn't that Hillary's closet is empty, but everyone has already dug through it.

Despite disagreeing with you on those two points, I'm not locked in on Hillary. I'm also not locked in on Warren. I think we have a party full of good ideas and leaders, we'll be fine and I'm sure I'll have some excellent choices in about 3 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spike89 (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:11 PM

69. yes, delegates. ty I will change. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spike89 (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:27 PM

183. I disagree with your second point. Obama has been the most vetted candidate and politician

in history. The constant nitpicking at his religion, his birth, the blatant racism, the consistent disrespect ("You Lie!"), going over the fiscal cliff for the first time in history. There is a very long list. This man has been taken through the ringer, disrespected, mistreated, aided by a Corporate Media that refuses to do its job and hold the Republican Party accountable for this obstruction and willingness to hold the American people hostage for their own political ends.

Whatever we thought of him in 2007, he has EARNED his title as president. Whatever we think of him now, he IS the president of these United States and deserves our attention NOW rather than worrying about what will happen 4 years from now. Again, the disrespect is amazing. This man can't even enjoy being reelected, but less being inaugurated.

All this talk and speculation is moot if we lose state level or congressional seats in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:27 PM

46. I'm not so sure we're ...

.. going to see 2016. (Not because of the Mayan calender nonsense, but because REAL, important issues that are still being for the most part ignored.)

And I sure as heck am not ready to begin the madness before the victors of the last election have even been sworn in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:29 PM

48. it's ridiculous..Obama hasn't even started his second term yet and this crap has already started. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:33 PM

53. He had 4 years. People are ready to move on n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:44 PM

94. and he has four more to go. His second term hasn't even started. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:33 PM

107. No one's expecting anything spectacular from him

He did the whole neo-FDR thing in his first campaign. And look how that turned out

People are ready to gear up for a new 'leader' and a new horserace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:03 PM

113. no, it's the surrogates who are pushing for a new horserace. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #107)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:01 AM

142. Who are these "people" you speak of? The president is sitting on a very high approval rating.

He won in a landslide. He's still very popular. And he has leverage to get things done, starting with raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.

"People" aren't ready to move on. You are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #142)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:27 AM

155. Landslide? Lowest voter turnout since 2004

maybe even lower

Obviously there wasn't much interest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #155)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:12 PM

178. Link or Lies. I'll go with the latter. Blacks and Hispanics stood in lines for hours upon hours.

Early voter turnout exceeded that of 2008.

Like I said, link or lies.

Better yet, welcome to IGNORE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #178)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:07 PM

185. Are you able to access the Internet?

Once you do, type www.google.com into your browser


Here are some links to get you started - but there are many, many more. I think you might be confusing an increase in early turnout with overall turnout

Election results 2012: Voter turnout lower than 2008 and 2004, report says

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says


Popular Vote 2012 Results: Voter Turnout Down Compared to 2004, 2008; Early Voting Sets Record

Read more at
http://www.latinospost.com/articles/6842/20121113/popular-vote-2012-results-voter-turnout-down.htm



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:52 AM

162. you are absolutely right, but it is free speech, no matter what the bs content it contains

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #162)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:05 AM

166. it may be free speech, but you have to question what the real agenda is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #166)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:10 AM

167. Absolutely, however we really need to focus on now and the next four years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #167)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:31 AM

170. there are a lot of issues we need to focus on now -- Medicare, SS, budget, etc. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #167)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:22 PM

181. We need to focus on now and the next *TWO* years!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:31 PM

50. Hillary said she wasn't planning on a run in '16 anyway.

So what's with the hype, fellas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:17 PM

76. "Am not planning" does NOT equal "Will not run".

She's a politician and she missed being elected president by a hair's breadth last time. I'm not in her camp, but if she runs only the self-deluded will be surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:15 AM

150. where there are Clintons, there is hype.

Like I said, I'm hearing this on the tv daily now.

Wish I could remember how the announcement of Hillary running unfolded for the 2008 election, and whether it started off like it is now where she denies it and her surrogates keep talking about on the tv shows.

I forget when exactly she officially threw her hat in the ring but it might give more of a clue about how these things go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:39 PM

54. She switched parties because her fellow Republicans were rude to her at the 1968 RNC.


The #1 reason not to vote for Hillary is her stated reason for switching parties. Not because of policy. But just because the boys were picking on her when she was working at the Republican National Convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:03 PM

67. Yes, because Hillary always crumbles when "the boys pick on her."

1968 was 44 years ago.

Not that we should even be thinking about 2016 right now anyway. But FFS, "the boys were picking on her." Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:14 PM

74. Being the first random thought to pop out of one's head doesn't make it "reason number one"

I mean, seriously, you gotta go back to something she said in the 90s about something that happened in the 60s?

You owe it to yourself to formulate significantly more substantive arguments in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:27 PM

83. Fine. How about ... because she is a neo-lib founder of the DLC that took this country near ruin?


The reason Republicans became Teabagger central is because she and her ilk took the Democratic leadership so far to the Right that the Republicans have nowhere to go but into loony toon lands.

She is one of the architects of the destruction of the American Left. I will never under any circumstances vote for her. I am willing to state right here and right now:

If Hillary Clinton receives the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, I will vote Republican.

And I will encourage my fellow Democrats to do the same. The party does not need to be purged of Rightists. But they should not be leading the party.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:31 PM

106. See? Don't you feel better about yourself now?

Thank your for fighting centrism by voting Republican, by the way. Truly you've started to put your mind to work now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:52 PM

63. Is 2016 too soon to push for a progressive nominee for President? It has been 40 years after all.

2016 will be 44 years since the Democratic Party last ran a progressive nominee for President. I think progressives have waited long enough, have been patient enough and loyal enough - After waiting more than a whole generation - if 2016 is too soon - when will we be ready?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:12 PM

70. The Iraq War vote has always been my main problem with HRC.

I would probably prefer EW, but if Hillary decides to run I will listen to what he has to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:27 PM

84. I think Hillary wants to be President.


The question is... does she want to campaign to be President. That's what she is pondering now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:40 PM

91. heheh.

I think you are right because I want to be President too (not really) - but that campaigning and stuff, naw, I'll pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:04 PM

101. I think the Clintons are hoping they can knock out other Dems before the primary starts.


This will limit the campaigning Hillary would have to do. I'm not sure yet, that she wants another long drawn out campaign against Biden or whoever.

And with our current nominating rules, which are very different from the GOP, a longer nominating process is far more likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:08 PM

102. 2008 taught them not to rest on their laurels, that's for sure.

their imagined laurels it turns out.
I'm sure they are working underground right now to dissuade others from running against Hillary. They already have their surrogates from last run starting to speak about 2016 regularly and of course the idiot media follow along.

things will forever be interesting in the american political world.
that's a for sure too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #102)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:12 PM

103. I wonder if anyone is talking to Axelrod and Plouffe?

Hillary will need better people around her than what she had in 2008 if she wants to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:17 PM

105. I had a reply to that in #89, pasting it here:

89. I think the Obama team works/worked well is because of the chemistry

between them. They all clicked.

You can't rent that kind of thing out and expect it to work the same way.

I doubt very very very much they would go to Clinton in the same capacity as they worked for Obama. They might be willing to be additional advisors to her team or set them up at the beginning but cannot possibly work the same.

===

Hillary would do a lot better if she didn't have such jerky men in her life like that Penn guy and her husband. I bet she would have made much better decisions that what that mess ended up being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:28 PM

86. Hillary the Harpie ... that was the drum beat that was played out by both parties, in one way or the

other. The way her gender, intelligence, commitment and reputation was treated was dreadful and unconscionable in the Primary. Obama was not so gender-blind and she has gone on to prove her statesmanship. That she not only survived, but excelled says it all.

She can win the primary and take Jeb down, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:46 PM

95. We'll see IN 2016 who will win the primary. It's not a coronation, it's a primary. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:50 PM

97. Hillary would be one of the most qualified people to ever run for the office.

 

She's definitely fit for the gig.

She'll inherit the Obama ground game. That's the price for Bill's services in this election.

She'll have have Bill, Barack and Michelle stumping for her. Superstar power, the GOP has none.

Castro as Veep beats Rubio on any level with the Latino community.

The gender gap will be as wide if not wider with her.

Citizen's United was proved ineffectual. They can run an endless loop of her gaffes and it won't really matter.

I don't see how she loses absent a serious personal crises or an abject failure in Obama's second term that would turn everyone away from Democrats.

For the record, I'm much more in tune with Warren's politics than with the Clinton's. Much more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #97)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:13 PM

104. I hope you are right.



I like the idea of her inheriting Obama's ground game. You're not the only one who think the Clinton's and Obama struck a deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:58 PM

98. It's the 21st century..we need to back away from the "it's xxxxxx's "turn" mentalilty

Turn-takers rarely win..

We need NEW thinkers.. That's one reason for Obama's success.. he was different and he signaled a NEW FACE for a NEW century..

Change is scary, but always going to the back the closet for the comfy slippers is human nature.

Hillary is smart and in good shape for her age, but I'm not sure she would win.

By 2016, the short-memory folks will be out in full-force and this country has a nasty habit of pendulum politics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:11 PM

108. Enough of 2016

Who do we expect to run in 2024?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:14 AM

117. The Hillary hate continues!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to center rising (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:12 AM

133. It's not hate. People just don't like the presumption. Don't like having a candidate

shoved down their throats. "It's Hillary's turn."

All of this looks like a cult of personality. That's dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #133)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:57 AM

141. I love and respect her

Would love to see her run....but IMO it's "way too early" to focus on the next election.

We have our hill to climb with this Budget!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #133)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:49 AM

146. nice post, Patrice. Spot on. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:02 AM

122. I have to disagree with the old guard theory

It is the old guard of the republican party that the Tea Party says it is fighting against. Old guard isn't necessarily a bad thing and new guard isn't necessarily a good thing. I like Hillary. The only thing I don't really like about her is the fact that she has taken a lot of lobbyist money in the past. I want someone who will take on lobbying. But she has done some really good work on special education in the past and education is very quickly becoming a single issue vote for me. I will be watching very closely to how the democrats address education in the next four years. So far they all seem to be going with the flow of charters and as far as funding education the status quo seems to be adequate for most democratic politicians. And I love, love, love the fact that she and Bill pioneered the UNIVERSAL healthcare fight. There is a lot I really like about Hillary, but I will not make up my mind until we get closer to 2016 and we start to see what the field will look like then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #122)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:30 AM

126. Very seldom do 4 years of one party follow 8 years of that same party.

Truman followed four FDR victories with his own, but didn't go for the 8, largely because the war and his opposition, who simply was not going to be denied at that time.

Jimmy, bless his heart and the October Surprise, only managed 4 after 8 years of pukes.

Poppy Bush managed 4 after Ronnie's 8, but Perot, the economy and Clinton (not necessarily in that order) laid him low. If only he'd been able to restrain Jr. I would consider him a reasonable puke.

Then you have shrub and darth for 8.

If history is any precedent, it will be very tough for us to get another 4, let alone another 8. However, the pukes seem ready to refight the civil war, so we could sneak in. But it won't be with a familiar face.

Does anyone here have a good line on the Governor situation? We had two winners in Carter and Clinton. Schwietzer comes across as too nice and for me, he's too ready to throw in the towel on outsourcing. Anyone come to mind?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #122)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:51 AM

147. you really need to check history..the universal healthcare fight in this country started long before

the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #147)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:53 AM

163. ooh, sorry I guess I used the wrong term

The fact is they fought hard against the insurance companies, way harder than Obama ever did. I admire Hillary and Bill for at least being willing to go up against the bahemeth insurance companies on behalf of the people. That's the kind of fighter I want. I want someone willing to fight for education too and so far right now I don't see anybody doing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:44 AM

127. I think 2016 will NOT be 2008 in many ways. Hillary always learns and improves.

I wanted Edwards, because his outlined strategy was what I believed in, but he didn't get the final nod and had those personal problems. Obama basically made Edwards policy his own and added the flair.

Hilary took money from Murdoch so I had a hard time trusting her. I was VERY anti-big business then. Still am, but I see how she's dealt as a Sec of State and I'm encouraged again about her as a hard working DEM.

I was encouraged by how she did take her best shot but did turn her full force behind Obama once the decision was made by the DEM party.

I'D like to see Elizabeth Warren as ATTORNEY GENERAL in 2016 prosecuting these bozos who have turned America upside down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tigress DEM (Reply #127)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:47 AM

128. Now that's a good thought - Warren as AG.

I like that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:51 AM

135. Hilliary may be our best shot

And it would be very much like having Bill and Hilliary back in the Whitehouse. They are practically immune to the right wing attacks now with all the praise that has been heaped on both. The organization, the Obama ground game, Obama's help on the trail....I think she'll win and she and bill are sure as hell better than any republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:55 AM

137. Uh, no.

 

I respectfully disagree: Hillary would be a great president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:31 AM

139. I'm one of the few people not willing to take a position either way

I want to see who's running first or who might run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #139)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:53 AM

148. absolutely, David. You have to wonder what the real agenda is here, don't you? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:40 AM

140. The Howard Dean campaign was the first campaign to effectively use the internet...

bundled with the 50 state strategy that David Axelrod developed during the 2004 primaries is what changed the face of grassroots campaigning.

The Obama campaign was the first campaign to successfully adapt and use the strategies of internet campaigning to win office, however to say that it was attributed solely to the Obama campaign, is incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #140)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:22 AM

152. okay, I stand corrected.

You are right, it was Dean. I forgot about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #140)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:13 PM

186. Very true

I think Dean didn't have enough time in his campaign to be able to learn how to effectively use the strategy before he dropped out. Of course between then and when Obama started running there was plenty of time to test and add to what had already been done. I hope every candidate on our side in the future realizes this is what they have to do to fund-raise and win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:46 AM

144. I'm sorry, but if Hillary is the best Dem candidate for 2016, I'm voting for her....

....no matter what you or any other self-appointed critic has to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #144)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:15 PM

187. Never said I was a critic

She's done a great job as SOS. No one has declared their candidacy and a mid-term is the next election. I'd like to focus on getting both houses of Congress back as well as some of the governorships. It would sure make it easier for whomever won in 2016 wouldn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:19 AM

151. She wont be my first choice.

Personally I'm hoping Brian Schweitzer runs, but if she's the nominee I wont be disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #151)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:24 AM

154. Brian seems like a good guy.

the kind with not many skeletons rattling around and he has a great personality and appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #154)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:28 AM

156. Yeah I think he has a lot of working class appeal.

Rural governor, did a great job with the budget in Montana, rancher, shoots guns, but at the same time supports universal health care.


Not to mention when he vetoed a bunch of nonsense Tea Party bills he did it with a branding iron.




I could see him winning Iowa easily!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:31 AM

158. And what a magNAMINOUS PSA this is. You're just all heart!

 

Unlike you, however, I am not terrified of Hillary Clinton eclipsing Barack Obama if she should become president.

Which is what your post is really all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:50 AM

161. She will be the nominee, and she will win no matter what you want

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #161)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:55 AM

164. ah, yes..she's the one...the "inevitability" meme n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:00 AM

165. EW 2016!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:19 AM

168. Couldn't agree more

New blood, new ideas, no more DLCers.

I was done with her after her IWR vote in 2002. Her 2008 primary campaign with its ultimate kitchen sink tactics and Bobby Kennedy comment sealed it for me. Enough of HRC!

She is where she is today because of Bill who had smarts and charisma in spades. She hitched her wagon to his star after Yale. Recall: he returned to Arkansas and she followed him. He has still got it on the campaign trail... to whit his help in the 2012 general election. But time for her to retire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:35 AM

171. Holy Fucking Shit...

And I thought the annual War On Christmas came early...

Just a thought. Could we please wait until after the Inauguration to start fighting the 2016 primaries? Is that too much to ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #171)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:40 AM

172. ask MSNBC and all the rest to do that.

I didn't make this OP out of the blue - this is what is being talked about and is news whether one likes it or not.

Her surrogates are out there banging this drum, maybe they need an email or two as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #172)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:42 AM

173. So they put a gun to your head....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #173)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:53 AM

175. if you have a problem with my OP I recommend you alert on it.

or put me on ignore.

to tell me or anyone else not to talk about something you don't like to talk about, is pretty silly isn't it.

you have choices, man. take some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:52 AM

174. I know this may piss some off but...

Hillary is the only woman that can win in 2016. If we want to keep a Dem in the WH, we can. If we want a woman it has to be Hillary. 2020, yes a different woman may emerge. Elizabeth Warren is great and all but has no chance in hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:58 AM

176. If I recall this correctly - Congress voted to give Bush the power to declare war IF there were WMD

in Iraq and IF Iraq refused to give them up.
Bush then lied about WMD and declared war. I believe that Congress did not think Bush would go ahead and declare war as quickly as he did, based on deliberate lies.

The vote authorizing President Bush to wage combat operations in Iraq was on October 11, 2002, and Obama wasn’t elected until 2004. For all I know, he may have voted "present" if he were in Washington then.

I will vote for Hillary if she runs, but I would be surprised if she wants to put up with all the bullshit that is evidently starting right now. And I consider the internet no more inherently believable than a Murdoch rag - anyone can opine anything, I like to look for actual facts. This is why, I believe, liberal TV and radio does not do as well as right wing media - most liberals I know don't just listen to opinions, they look around for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:14 PM

179. If she runs, I'll support her...

I did in 2008. When conceded, I turned my support to Obama. Not a hard thing for me to do.

I like her and always will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread