Skip to main content

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) conference opening session in Dublin December 6, 2012. REUTERS/Cathal McNaughton (IRELAND - Tags: POLITICS)
Despite the recent Republican shrieking about Benghazi and 1990s-era blow jobs, Hillary Clinton remains very popular:
A majority of Americans, 59 percent, view Clinton favorably, compared with 37 percent who view her unfavorably, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.
That represents a slight decline from her numbers as secretary of state, but you'd expect that as talk about her shifts to be almost exclusively political. But 59 percent approval for a potential presidential candidate who has been targeted by literally decades of attacks? That's high. Which doubtless explains the desperation behind the latest attacks. You don't bring up the potential candidate's husband's 20-year-old sex scandals if you think you've got anything better, or a chance otherwise. Hillary Clinton hasn't announced she's running and already Republicans are backed into a corner, terrified.

So, obviously, BENGHAZI!!!!

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:47 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Many here will be surprised at how popular (27+ / 0-)

    she will be and it is time for a woman and that will carry her through.

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:49:51 AM PST

  •  Dirty.Her.Up.We.Must....We.Must. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raptavio, Aunt Pat
  •  Oh good lord... (24+ / 0-)

    Here comes the Purity Parade... but, but but... WarZ and TPP and DLC and Triangulation and Insidery-stuff and .. and... oh! Drones!  Dont forget drones!  AND wALL STREET!  Yes... Drones and Wall Street!!

    sigh  ... but she is popular.  Being AWESOME tends to help in that category.  

    I simply can not wait to hear that campaign announcement when she formally makes it.  This place will be like when the zookeeper walks into the monkey house with the buckets of food for a few days, but I hope it settles down when it becomes clear that there really isn't going to be a primary challenge of note and we are going to carry Hilliary over the finish line in November.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:57:30 AM PST

      •  I do. (24+ / 0-)

        I just fail the "Lets just shoot ourselves in the face" false choice between either supporting HRC as a corporatist neoliberal sellout or sitting out the election because I'm fucking stupid.

        Those can't be the only options.

        What I actually dont care about, truthfully, is the Draft E. Warren campaign.  If the woman was interested, at all, in running, I'd probably be pretty hyped about it.  But she's not.  And the diversionary wishful thinking coupled with the more diversionary bashing of anyone who will not join in the daydreaming is simply juvenile.

        I think Wall Street, Drones and TPP are all viable campaign topics. ANd I think we should push both the candidate to get on the record and address them.

        But no... Im not pulling my support from HRC a priori because of them.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:25:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I get why you support Clinton. (6+ / 0-)

          Trust me.
          hagd

          •  If Hillary Clinton is our candidate after the (9+ / 0-)

            primary process, I will support her.
               In the meantime I want someone better. My preference is Elizabeth Warren.
               Also, I do not believe it serves us well to have a non-contested primary, but maybe that's just me.

            "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

            by elwior on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:35:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No illusions. (9+ / 0-)

            I'll concede that there are issues -- important issues -- where Clinton and I disagree.  However, there will be no projection of my political proclivities on to her, so there will be no disappointment when she doesn't live up to those expectations.  

            I hope she runs.  I hope she's challenged in the primaries.  I hope that challenge brings her positions into sharp focus.  I don't expect to agree with her on everything.  For the last 4 years, she served at the pleasure of the president.  She advanced HIS agenda as Sec. of State.  I look forward to hearing what she has to say as a political candidate advancing her own agenda about issues like war, TPP, Wall Street, and drones.

            I admire her, as I do President Obama, a great deal.  I have very strong disagreements with both -- and you know that I haven't been quiet about voicing those disagreements.  

            I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012 because, unlike many, I realized that much of the rhetoric would not match his actions.  I have no such worries with Clinton.  She's a pretty well-known commoditiy, and, to be honest, she can't disappoint me -- she can only pleasantly surprise me.

            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:47:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can't wrap my mind around this argument.. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw, 4kedtongue, Radiowalla

              But tipd outta respect, everyone has to vote his own conscience.

              •  Thanks for the tip. :) (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dclawyer06, Ga6thDem, Radiowalla

                It's actually not that hard to grasp...and from a psychological standpoint, it's probably a pretty common default.  I'm comfortable, even when I know there are important policy opinions I don't share, with what I know.  I know how to deal with people who are known to me.

                What I can't abide is people claiming that they were misled...duped into voting for someone who they claim changed once safely elected.  It's a bullshit argument.  Frankly, it's scary to think that people so naive are able to vote.  

                It's simply a lot easier to support what we already agree is GOOD about Hillary Clinton and agitate against what we know is BAD about her.  No time is wasted trying to figure out where we went wrong -- where we were betrayed.

                all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:23:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  "I didn't vote..." (3+ / 0-)

              "... for Obama in 2008 or 2012 because, unlike many, I realized that much of the rhetoric would not match his actions."

              So you would've been perfectly happy with John McCain for 2008 and Mitt Romney for 2012?

              •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                But I would have dealt with them the same way I dealt with with Obama where I disagreed with his policies.

                I didn't vote for McCain or Romney either.

                all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:25:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you're saying the Obama is as bad as McCain and (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BleacherBum153, doroma

                  Romney?

                  •  No. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DeadHead, Dr Swig Mcjigger, TheMomCat

                    That's the limitations of how you're framing your indictment.

                    I'm saying that I voted for the people who most closely reflected my political beliefs.  Moreover, since there are VERY important policy initiatives undertaken by president Obama (NSA, drones, Afghanistan, Chained CPI, Libya, Kill Lists, Health Insurance Reform) with which I fundamentally and earnestly disagree, I act in the same manner were those initiatives advanced in a McCain or Romney administration because I could EASILY see those VERY same initiatives advanced by a Republican president.

                    I'm sorry, but, how did my not voting for Obama, McCain, or Romney lead to a McCain or Romney administration?

                    So you're saying that you only voted for Obama to prevent McCain or Romney from being president?  I'm sure the grieving mothers in Yemen who've lost children to drone attacks appreciate you for it.

                    Do you see how your questions to me are as silly as they are offensive?  We can both play that ridiculous game.  So maybe you should stop pretending to misunderstand what it is I'm saying, m-kay?

                    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                    by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:45:09 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You said that you didn't vote for Obama; (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      doroma

                      That either means you sat out the election or voted third party. IMO, either is equivalent to voluntarily acquiescing to the possible election of the republican. That it didn't turn out that way was a happy coincidence, not a justification.

                      The fact that you were ok with it (especially in light of your support for Hillary Clinton) is incomprehensible to me.

                      •  Correct...sort of... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Radiowalla

                        Another possibility is a 'Write In' vote of another Democrat (ding, ding, ding!)  No, not Hillary.

                        The fact that Obama beat both McCain and Romney despite not getting my vote might be a happy coincidence, but as a California resident, the elections were all but in the bag for Obama in BOTH 2008 and 2012 in this state.

                        My support for Clinton is based on the presumption that she will run and she will be the only Democrat to run.  As repeatedly stated in this diary, it is my STRONG desire to see her run, AND to see her CHALLENGED in a vigorous primary season.  Her life in public services reaches back to the 1970's -- and is marked by very comendable accomplishments and very questionable decisions.  Taken as a whole, without isolating any given accomplishment or any given bad decision, I am comfortable with her as a candidate and as the president is she is nominated.

                        Will I vote for her?  If the election were today, I would.  

                        I won't engage in hypothetical match-ups pitting her against any other potential Dem candidate.  I reserve to make up my mind only after a challenger steps up and debates her.

                        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                        by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:43:06 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  The limitation of my framing is the limitation of (0+ / 0-)

                      reality.
                      The current reality of the US election system is that voter essentially has two choices. Since a candidate must
                      A. Earn majority in electoral vote (not just plurality).
                      B. If no majority is gained by any candidate, the house (currently controlled by Republican).

                      A third party vote is almost guaranteed to be a useless/feel-good vote since unless you get 50%+ of electoral, OR a majority of house supporting, you're essentially throwing your vote away.

                      I'm sorry, but, how did my not voting for Obama, McCain, or Romney lead to a McCain or Romney administration?
                      When given the choice to inflict bad or worse on fellow humanity, you chose to not pick one with the full knowledge that one of the two will happen.
                      "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
                      So you're saying that you only voted for Obama to prevent McCain or Romney from being president?  I'm sure the grieving mothers in Yemen who've lost children to drone attacks appreciate you for it.
                      If you think McCain and/or Romney would've stopped the drone attack, why didn't you vote for them?
                      In Democracy, every choice have consequences, even not choosing. All you did is abdicating your responsibility as a citizen.
                      •  I didn't vote 3rd Party. (0+ / 0-)

                        I voted for a Democrat.

                        I didn't abdicate my responsibility, I exercised my right as a citizen.

                        Obviously, having voted for Obama twice, you have endorsed his policy of Drone attacks.  And NSA surveillance.  And using Social Security as leverage in budget battles with Republicans.  I haven't.  I didn't vote for him.  Nor did I vote for McCain.  Nor did I vote for Romney.  And yeah, I felt good about my vote(s).

                        The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
                        I'm far from indifferent to public affairs.  Choosing a different option than you have chosen is hardly an indication of indifference.  Obviously, you can't explain to me how the drone policy (or NSA policy or Chained CPI) would be different in a McCain or Romney administration as compared to the current administration, so I really don't see your point.  I never made the argument that either McCain or Romney would have halted the drone policy.  My guess is that they would have carried it out in much the same way as president Obama has.

                        I chose.  I voted.  My guy lost.  Your guy won.  He won despite my vote for a better candidate -- one who opposed war (and the Patriot Act, and putting SS on the table).  We have the policies we have not because my vote cost you the election of your guy, but because your guy carried the day REGARDLESS of my vote.  Sucks for me, I guess, but that's the way it played out.

                        Your civic lesson, rather than being a lesson in the hard-bitten realites of an electoral duopoly, is simply a facile attempt to coerce votes for candidates that I find to be lacking.  We are the country we are because of the limits such cynicism puts on the process.  I do not feel limited -- nor do  I act as though I am limited.  I'm an American -- I'm free to vote as I choose.  And I live with the consequences of my votes without equivocation or regret.  I work to change policies I disagree with, and my vote reflects my commitment to those changes, whatever they may be.

                        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                        by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:33:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  I felt the same about Obama in 2008. (5+ / 0-)

              Although I voted for him, I was expecting very little indeed from his presidency.
              What he has been able to do has impressed me well beyond my expectations.  

              It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

              by Radiowalla on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:12:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not trying... (3+ / 0-)

                ...to convince people that they voted inappropriately.  Nor am I trying to say that President Obama hasn't pleased me regarding certain positions he has or has adopted during his tenure as president.  I'll state this for the record:  I am not disappointed in President Obama's performance.  It is exactly what I expected it would be.  

                This isn't a diary about his job performance.  It's a diary about Hillary Clinton's electability -- and the reasons why, as a politician with whom I share some political opinions and someone with whom I disagree on other political positions, I could vote for her.  My reason is, she isn't trying to sell herself or her positions as anything other than what they are.  I have no illusions about her.  Nor do I think she is trying to create some false illusion about herself.

                That's all.  I'm simply capable of voting for her and opposing her where I disagree with her.

                I do realize that there will be people here who resent my not having voted for the president in either election he ran in, and, as I'm sure you can tell, I'm perfectly ok with that.

                all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:23:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just so long as you didn't vote for Nader (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  4kedtongue, CaffeineInduced

                  in Florida in 2000!  ;-)

                  I was never impressed with Obama and it took me a long time to become a real supporter.  But I would never have dreamed of not voting for him.   The very thought of Sarah Palin coming anywhere near the levers of power gave me a serious case of hives.  

                  It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                  by Radiowalla on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:46:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I voted for Nader in 2000 -- (0+ / 0-)

                    -- but in California, not Florida.

                    :)

                    At no point in time -- and I mean NEVER -- did I ever think that McCain / Palin had a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected.  Far from scaring me, it was a very liberating feeling.  

                    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                    by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 02:19:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  And if HRC came out fully and (10+ / 0-)

          unabashedly embracing Wall Street, Drones and TPP, you'd support her anyway. The tone of both your comments makes that clear. Who ya trying to kid with "I think we should push both the candidate to get on the record and address them."? To what end?

          In 2006 Obama explicitly ruled out a 2008 run for president and declared he would remain in the senate until his term expired in 2010. Encouraging Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016 is the right thing to do.

          by WisePiper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:38:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know you weren't addressing... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radiowalla

            ...your comment to me, but, as of right this very moment, I do support her and I think she should run.  However, my continued support is predicated on her positions wrt to the issues you list above  (and other issues, as well).

            I'm not a pragmatist when it comes to primaries, and, if any dem to her left were to oppose her in the primaries, I would definitely vote for the candidate who not only most closely matches my political beliefs, BUT -- and this is important -- who I also believe isn't just staking out those positions without any intention of following through once elected.  Simply put, one of the reasons I supported and voted for Clinton in the 2008 primaries was the fact that I simply didn't believe Sen. Obama was as far to the left as he was leading us to believe he was.  I knew Clinton, warts and all.  Obama was a question mark, and I wasn't willing to gamble away the things that I knew for an uncertain expectation.  

            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:59:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Elizabeth Warren (9+ / 0-)

          I have commented many time that I am not a Hillary fan; I have also made the comment many times that Elizabeth Warren needs to stay where she is and keep doing what she is doing and run once she has made an impact on those issues we all care about.

          I have also said that Clinton is making a mistake - starting talk of a coronation two years before the first vote has been cast -  the same thing she and her supporters did in 2006.  Voters want to be asked for their vote, especially in Iowa, and they want to see, hear and listen to all the candidates before they decide.  

          Iowa always produces a surprise and it will again this time, and whoever it is will ride a wave into New Hampshire and perhaps beyond that.  Will it be enough?  Who know.  But 2008 proved she has numerous vulnerabilities with progressive voters in caucus states, as well as with upper educated, college educated white voters in primary states.  Look at the results In Washington State (caucuses) and Virginia (primary)  in 2008 for supporting data.  

          Clinton is the most qualified person to run for the White House since George H. W. Bush.  However, she has vulnerabilities like any candidate does, and failure  by her campaign and her supporters to recognize those failures could be problematic.

          We also need a progressive in this race to flush her views out during primary season in order to keep her from governing from the center, defending Wall Street in such a way that Cory Booker does, and ignoring the economic struggles of the middle class, working class and the poor, the way Mark Pryor does.  I have no clue where she stands on a host of issues, and I really want to hear her views on foreign policy to determine if het stint as secretary of state have mover her further right, from her stances as U. S. Senator, or if she has shifted left.

          In the meantime, I plant to sit back and watch all of this unfold, and see if someone viable breaks out in Iowa.  

          "The quote on the Statue of Liberty doesn't say 'give me your english-speaking only, Christian-believing, heterosexual masses'

          by unapologeticliberal777 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:49:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wait - (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Portlaw, Satya1, dclawyer06

            Why is she more qualified than Sherrod Brown?  I'd take his years and years of legislative experience over he brief stints in the Senate and as Secretary of State.

          •  Iowa 2008 (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes, Dr Swig Mcjigger, kareylou

            Obama clearly had a better organized campaign, not only in Iowa, but in other caucus states around the country. The news from Iowa was that Hillary came in third. Actually, the top three were bunched fairly closely. Obama had 37.6% of delegate equivalents and Edwards and Hillary each had just under 30%. Edwards virtually lived in the state for two years. When he didn't win, he was done. Edwards margin over Hillary was only 0.2%.

            In 2007 I got to see all 6 active candidates in person three times, even had a chance to ask questions and hear answers. I narrowed it down to Hillary, Biden, and Dodd (a mistake). I thought Edwards was a fraud. (I was right.) I liked Obama (still do) but I thought he was too inexperienced, based on our history with Jimmy Carter. In the end, I caucused for Hillary. There was very little difference among the candidates on most substantive issues.

            Hillary is popular among Iowa Democrats, but she will need to spend some time in the state in 2015.

            •  AND she will need the Obama ground game in Iowa, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, cocinero

              ... and elsewhere. I think she can replicate it, even improve on it with advances in campaign tactics, but Hillary Clinton is a known quantity where Obama was not. You and many others held inexperience against Barack Obama, a fair point. Hillary is definitely not inexperienced. She is a known quantity. That will, I predict, make her first several primaries/beauty pageant caucuses tougher than his were in 2008, not easier.

              Remember, she had about 110% of the Democratic Party faithful - state and national organizations with feet on the street and ready access to Major Money - going for her at the outset of the 2008 campaign. And her campaign spent money like it was a monarchy war chest, which it was. That helped in some places, but not enough.

              Her 2016 prospects are no where near the slam dunk her cheerleaders and the Beltway media meme say it already is.

              2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:34:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Good points, unapol., but why does Warren ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oh yay another commenter, joesig

            ... "need to stay where she is and keep doing what she is doing" and run only "once she has made an impact" at what you want her to do?

            That's putting her fate in the hands of many people of various stripes, including some Senators and professional Democrats, who have interests in her not succeeding at what she is biting off. (Not because they don't like her, but because the banks and Big Finance run that game for now and in the near future.) Her appeal is to voters and her ideas will not get put to an election vote outside the state of Massachusetts until she runs.

            My problem with Hillary is that she has many flaws, most prominently a doomed-at-the-outset health care initiative that she was explicitly in charge of. (Yes, it's fate was also in the hands of others, but that was obvious at the Get Go and nevertheless, she handed Congress a thousand-plus page fait accompli. A 10th grade civics class could see the problems with that strategy.)

            Also consider - for example - HC's law billing records that reappeared "under her chair"; a host of Clinton Groupies, political hangers-on who were and are - to be gentle - very far from principled; and her holding out for weeks after the delegate count for the 2008 nomination became clear, unnecessarily causing divisions and sapping support. And the Big Dog, surprisingly dormant during her State Dept. tenure, will be circling. (He will help her candidacy mostly in states where she's already strong. And watch out after November 2016.) Bottom line: these folks are not naturally Progressives.

            I'll vote for her if necessary. Not because of the fleeting phantom of poll popularity, but because she is the Democratic nominee ... and she should win unless the Republicans find a saint to run between now and 2016.

            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:21:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Couldn't agree more. (0+ / 0-)

            We elevated Barack Obama overly the eminently qualified Hillary Clinton in 2008 based upon untapped promise, potential, and hoped-for fulfillment of dreams.  I pray that we are not so naive as to heap all that on Elizabeth Warren this time around also...

        •  r u calling people who don't (3+ / 0-)

          Support HRC "cycling stupid"?

          Please don't piss all over my shoes and tell me it is raining. I know better. And you're getting my shoes wet.

          by kaminpdx on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:03:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DMentalist, METAL TREK, wmspringer

            ...while Im sure I could point out a few that are, I did not mean that as a blanketing statement.

            The only people I would stack up under the "I R DUMB" banner are the ones that will say, and continue saying, there is no difference between HRC and the GOP Candidate.  LIke they did with Obama and like they do with any given Senator/Rep that does something they don't like.

            There are still people that think we might as well as voted in President McCain because of the NSA scandal.  Those people have a significant cognitive deficit and should really think about doing less of the whole "talking out loud" thing.

            If people want to voice objections to Clinton... have at it.  Many of them have very good points.

            Oh, and I do think the draft Warren sentiments are wasteful.  Not stupid by a long shot because she is an awesome public servant that would do well for us in any office she held, but I think she could go door to door and sit down in the living rooms of half the people here to lay out a heartfelt explanation of why she won't be running and they would still keep the "DRAFT WARREN '16" hope alive.  It will be sad to see them keep banging that drum after she publicly endorses HRC.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:52:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I happen to think that the Warren supporters (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Seanachi

              are a good thing, regardless of weather she runs or not. Warren's supporters show that there is a progressive side to the party that must be addressed, and with the Senator herself as a possible contender for the candidacy, it gives more weight to the progressive cause. Warren doesn't really have to say or do anything more about running than she's already done, but I think her supporters are important to the dynamics of the election. I would support Warren if she declared, but I think that's unlikely.

        •  Comment of the day... (3+ / 0-)
          I just fail the "Lets just shoot ourselves in the face" false choice between either supporting HRC as a corporatist neoliberal sellout or sitting out the election because I'm fucking stupid.

          GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

          by LordMike on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:23:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Selling onesself to Wall St is not just "a topic." (4+ / 0-)

          It's an allegiance, and it won't be undone by some populist-sounding statement.

    •  Oh, wow, AWESOME! (19+ / 0-)

      I just totally vote for the most awesome candidate.  I  mean, just send me one of those AWESOME bumper stickers and I'll put it right there with my WICKED COOL bumper stickers.  

      And war is so totally last year.  How boring!  How Debbie Downer!  Get over it, people.  They didn't kill YOU.  It wasn't YOUR village.  Forget about it!  

      AWESOME!!

      •  My problem (6+ / 0-)

        is the obessession with the war vote brought us Obama who spent years laying down in front of the GOP.

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:15:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe the opposite of war really is surrender! n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ga6thDem, cybrestrike

          It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

          by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:44:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  He didn't start any new wars, did he? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hooper, Portlaw, chuckvw

          If HRC wins, there will be blood in the mideast.  She is a warmonger who supported every war and loves to call for "military action".  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:24:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have you not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4kedtongue

            paid attention to what Obama has been doing in the middle east? I guess not by your comment.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:27:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Libya, Pakistan, Yemen... (0+ / 0-)

            ...so glad Jeremy Scahill has been added to First Look.  Maybe you can read all about the Dirty Wars this administration has started.  

            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:11:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Drone strikes are not the same (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw

              as a war of aggression.  

              Or perhaps you think killing a few hundred civilians rises to the level of the Iraq war, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians?

              I don't agree with the drone program either, but while Obama is far from perfect, he is no warmonger.

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:57:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Very consoling... (0+ / 0-)

                ...to the victims.  And I'll be sure to remember your comment when the blowback of this antiseptic 'non-war' program comes back to haunt the next generation of innocent Americans because those of us here today mitigate it as not war.  Yemenis see it a little differently, no doubt.

                Osama bin Laden was not a man -- he is a belief.  A belief made stronger with each drone strike.  What will the president of the United States say and do in response to the next catastrophic terrorist attack here?  Will he or she call it Evil?  The act of a handful of religious extremists, the act of mad men?  Or will he or she say, 'We knew this would happen 20 years ago.  We knew it each time we rained down a missile on a village from a drone.  We knew it, but we continued to do it.  What were we thinking?'

                all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:41:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You entirely miss the point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greenbell

                  My point is that HRC favors a more belligerent foreign policy than Obama.  She has advocated for military action in instances that Obama has not, such as Iraq, Iran, and Syria.  She also agrees with his drone program.  

                  Not sure what to say about OBL.  Are you suggesting it was wrong to take him out?  We'll just have to differ on that one.  

                  I'm opposed to the drone program for the same reasons as you, btw.

                  "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                  by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:59:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Iraq will always... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...haunt (and should haunt) Clinton.  Some will accept that, at the time of that vote, so soon after being elected in New York and so soon after the attacks of 9/11, she simply believed what the administration was saying regarding Iraq's involvement in the attack was an unfortunate -- some won't.  She was not alone in that vote, and, ironically, John Kerry voted the same way and is now Obama's Sec. of State.  Iran -- sorry, but I think she has publicly stated that she agrees with the president regarding diplomacy rather than a hardline approach.  Publicly stated.  

                    http://www.latimes.com/...

                    Syria:

                    Hillary Clinton BACKS Obama wrt to missile strikes in Syria.  Far from holding a different position on Syria than the  president, the President's then-Sec. of State backed HIS decision.

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                    No problem with anyone who holds Clinton to her positions and subsequently refuses to vote for her based on those positions.  Take great exception to inaccurately comparing her positions to the dove who currently holds office.  I will not argue that her positions do not represent the staus quo because her positions are NOT a departure from the positions of the current administration.  If you voted for Obama, you should have no problem supporting Clinton.

                    Not sure what to say about OBL.  Are you suggesting it was wrong to take him out?  We'll just have to differ on that one.
                     

                    Of course I'm not saying that.  (Incidentally, we didn't take him out with a drone -- we attempted to capture him in a raid of his compound.)  I think you know that's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that the very policies which gave rise to bin Laden in the first place are the very policies which you refuse to call war, but those who find themselves on the wrong end of a drone strike DO consider barbaric acts of war.  And those victims of our Dirty Drone Wars will one day react to our aggression as bin Laden repeatedly did until he was taken out.  The fact that YOU mitigate the aggression as less-than-war is why the aggression will continue and the animosity against us in that part of the world will only worsen.  And we all know what happens as a result.

                    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                    by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:27:01 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The problem is Iraq doesn't haunt Hillary (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Subterranean

                      I don't think it bothers her one bit.  

                      •  I think you're wrong about that. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dr Swig Mcjigger

                        I don't ascribe such cold-hartedness to her.  greenbell, I like you -- I think you know that, but I'm reminded of Susan Power calling Clinton a moster.  And if that vote didn't bother her, she WOULD be a moster.  Do you actually think she doesn't regret that vote -- and not simply because it cost her a chance to be president in 2008?  But because countless innocent people died and suffered and live in misery based, in part, on HER mistake?

                        I think Hillary Clinton is a human being, and I think she wrestles with that vote and harbors great regret every day.  I've made bad decisions which are trivial in comparison which bear on me constantly.

                        Why does she have to be inhuman?  Is it enough to agree that she made a huge mistake which she regrets -- because of the human consequences?

                        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                        by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:05:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I think if she regretted the vote (0+ / 0-)

                          she would have said so in the 2008 primary.  Instead she doubed-down on the war.  

                          As Powers said, she's a monster.  Her actions are guided entirely by considerations of a path to power.  For HRC, morals do not enter the question of war and peace.

                          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                          by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:24:36 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I've seen no evidence that she regrets the vote (0+ / 0-)

                          She's as human an any other hawk.  But I don't see her as any different from Bush on Iraq.  Both of them seemed to believe war is swell for other people's kids.  That's the whole neo-con thing and she's far, far to close to those interests for my comfort.  

                          I could be wrong.  That's why I want to hear her on the issues!  Because I see her as all too willing to get involved in Iran if the lobbies want it.  I think she's a much bigger hawk than Bill.  Maybe she's learned some things at State that temper her enthusiasm for war.  If so, let's hear from her.  

                    •  If this is true: (0+ / 0-)
                      Some will accept that, at the time of that vote, so soon after being elected in New York and so soon after the attacks of 9/11, she simply believed what the administration was saying regarding Iraq's involvement in the attack
                      Then her lack of judgment renders her unfit to serve as president.  

                      Kerry at least admitted he was wrong about Iraq, and he is now putting in the effort at diplomacy.  HRC is proud of her Iraq warmongering.

                      Your effort to equate the destructivness of drone strikes with the Iraq war is something to behold.  I oppose drone strikes for the exact reasons you state, but I'm not so foolish as to think they are tantamount to waging a war of aggression.

                      Ultimately, what I'm hearing is "HRC is as bad as Obama on war and peace."  I would hope that those arguing this point view this as a reason NOT to support her run for president.

                      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                      by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:19:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  To say that Hillary... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...does not harbor the very same regrets as John Kerry is to deny reality in lieu of painting Clinton as the ONLY democrat who never acknowledged that vote as a mistake.  Completely false.  Completely false.  There is not a millimeter of difference between her and John Kerry wrt to that vote and their respective regret of it.

                        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                        by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:29:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I did not say (0+ / 0-)

                          anywhere that HRC is the ONLY democrat who is proud of her support for the Iraq war.  She has plenty of company on that one.

                          As for her regrets, all I have to go by is what she's said and done since then.  She has emphatically stated that she does NOT regret supporting the war.  Is there some reason you think she's lying?

                          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                          by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:35:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Ur Right (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rich in PA, atana, Jay C, Matt Z

        When Obama ran in 2008 in support of the Afgahnistan War I remember how much of his support simply evaporated.

        All these people really wanted to support him but that war stuff was a deal breaker.  ..which is probably why 2008 was one of the closest elections in US history having been just a paltry choice between two warmongerers...  ..oh, wait....

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:20:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You grumpy Gus... (8+ / 0-)

        Poor people are just jealous!
        Stupid poors!

        Gag

      •  HRC- the corporatists choice. Oh well, she's a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oh yay another commenter

        woman, so how could we go wrong by voting for her?  I say we just skip the primaries and general election and just put her ass in there!

        This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

        by swtexas on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:37:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't borrow trouble. (0+ / 0-)

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:10:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What Whisper said. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      METAL TREK

      This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

      by swtexas on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:41:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you are your own establishment purity police (2+ / 0-)

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:56:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which would suggest (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4kedtongue, Lying eyes, sukeyna, skohayes

        that I seek to silence disagreement.  Except I don't.

        I have seen several... I'd even say many cogent arguments about Clintonian policies that people don't like.  Some I agree with, many I don't (or at least not to the extent that others do)

        I have NEVER seen anything remotely close to a rational sounding argument about why we should sit out elections if Hilliary Clinton is our only option.

        Nor have I seen anything that sounds even close to something an adult would articulate about why a Hilliary Rodham Clinton President would be just like having a GOP Administration.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:01:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd say the passive aggressive comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oh yay another commenter

          you made at the top there is exactly purity-shaming on your part.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:03:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought it was farily openly aggressive (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes

            against self-defeating angst and delusion.

            The only thing I would want to "shame" are the extremes.  "HRC must be President because she's perfect" and "HRC is a corporatist shill that will be just like electing a Republican" to me are sentiments as equally asinine as those that espouse them.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:06:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  indirect expression of hostility is passive (2+ / 0-)

              aggressive - since you are indirectly sweeping up anyone who cares about these issues you find irrelevant to  popularity, it's indirect.

              and now you're doubling down calling out people who don't support a "candidate" that hasn't declared, nor has won the primary delusional. Hilarious.

              But please carry on. You got the weight of the site behind you. Storming the gates with the establishment candidate!

              Where we come to elect more of the same candidates! Hooray!

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:14:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  and zombie Vince Foster returns in 5,4,3..../nt (4+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 06:58:53 AM PST

  •  Every single right wing radio show (7+ / 0-)

    attacks her every day. Their desperation is quite funny.

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:09:58 AM PST

  •  She's well liked, (14+ / 0-)

    she's extremely competent and she runs a damn effective campaign.

    Now let's push her to the left to earn our votes. :D

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:11:22 AM PST

    •  Not sure about the "damn effective campaign" (7+ / 0-)

      part given how she ran her 2008 campaign, but agreed on all the other stuff.  

      "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

      by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:15:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She got (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radiowalla, katesmom, Lying eyes, skohayes

        half of everything in the primaries. She got better as the primaries went on while Obama started to fade.

        Anyway, the super delegates are the ones that decided the nominee in 2008 because neither one had enough.

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:19:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She had an overwhelming lead in the polls (4+ / 0-)

          a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses.  She thought the race would be decided on Super Tuesday.  Her top campaign strategist wasn't aware that delegates were apportioned proportionately and not by winner-take-all.  Her campaign was completely outmaneuvered by the Obama campaign at almost every turn.

          And remember, she's the one who had the experienced, battle-hardened political team, she was the clear front-runner, had the biggest name recognition of any Democrat in that race by far.  Yet an upstart first term senator out-campaigned her and she had to desperately play catch up at the end to almost get to a tie with Obama.  And still in the end Obama had enough of a lead in delegates and in the popular vote that super delegates didn't want to overturn what they believed to be the popular will of a plurality of Democratic primary and caucus voters.

          That's not what a damn effective campaign looks like.  

          "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

          by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:26:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  NO (5+ / 0-)

            she did not have an overwhelming lead in Iowa. She was not even going to compete in Iowa but decided late to do it.

            Obama relied on red state caucuses because he knew it was the only way he could get enough delegates. He knew he could not win a lot of the big state primaries.

            Like I said the super delegates decided the nomination. If Obama was so great and HIllary so bad then the super delegates would not have been the ones making the decisions on who the nominee was.

            Obama's campaign only was great in some minds. The truth of the matter is it was adequate to get the nomination.

            Obama had the backing of the entire party. He was not some little upstart. He got tons of money from Wall Street before before the first vote was counted.

            And the way the primary schedule was arranged was so that states that Obama would win in were front loaded into the primary schedule.

            And yeah, Obama lost NH right after Iowa which he was supposed to win in a rout. Right?

            Whatever.  

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:37:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I meant in national polls (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Portlaw, TFinSF

              and while Obama got money from Wall Street, Clinton got more.  The party only got behind Obama when he looked to have the momentum.

              Obama did run a good campaign, but it was not as great as myth would have it - but only because his campaign was unable to put away the Clinton campaign.  Unlike 2012 Obama, the 2008 Obama was still Mr. New Politics who refused to engage in really hard-hitting attacks of the sort he used in going after Romney.  If he had gone that route in 2008 he'd have put Clinton away a lot sooner.

              "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

              by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:48:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                she was leading in national polls predicted her winning the big state primaries which she did. Certainly polls are not predictive of what is going to happen in caucuses.

                Are you kidding? Barbs were slung from Obama and Clinton both ways. The fact of the matter is Obama started to fade and had people start demanding that Hillary drop out of the race because she was beating him in the later primaries. The truth of the matter is Obama is not that good of a politician.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:08:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, now we're wandering off into (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chuckvw, TFinSF

                  derangement territory here.  Obama's not that good of a politician?  He's many things, some good, some not so good, but what's fairly certain is that he's a very good politician given that he's the only President since Dwight Eisenhower to win 51% of the popular vote in consecutive elections.

                  As for barbs being slung both ways, c'mon, I remember that campaign very vividly, and I remember the Obama supporters everywhere begging Obama to really go after Clinton but he kept refusing to go in for the kill, a problem that continued in his campaign against McCain.

                  Clinton was whacking him with the 3 a.m. phone call stuff and came close to endorsing McCain, and Bill Clinton's hammering Obama on very personal terms on an almost daily basis, and all the while the toughest thing Obama could offer was complaining about how Hillary enjoys this kind of mudslinging and how we need to get past all that.

                  "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                  by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:29:54 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                    Reagan did win over 50% or are you cutting numbers here.

                    Winning elections does not translate into being a good politician. By that standard George W. Bush was a good politician which he was not.

                    Are you kidding? I remember tons of stuff that the Obama campaign sent out there. They were saying stuff that the GOP is NOW saying. As a matter of fact, they sounded just like Newt Gingrich from the 90's back then. They blamed Bill Cinton for everything that happened during the Bush Administration and beyond.

                    The problem with Obama vs. McCain is that Obama once again went against McCain/Palin on a personality basis not a policy basis. IIRC Obama went after Palin talking about her crazy personality not that her ideas WERE BAD. So maybe in that sense he did not go after them in the right way.

                    Yeah, Clinton whacked him with the 3 a.m. phone call but that was no where near endorsing McCain.

                    You're kind of backing up my statement saying that he's not a good politician.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  51%, not 50% (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TFinSF

                      not to mention Obama was the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson to even win 50% of the popular vote.

                      And just because I point out Obama's flaws as a campaigner doesn't mean he's not a good politician.  I've pointed out Hillary Clinton's campaign flaws in this thread but I still think she's a good politician.

                      Jesus H. Christ.

                      "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                      by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:16:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think (0+ / 0-)

                        you and I differ on the definition of a good politician. I think a good politician does good policy and policy is not Obama's thing.

                        It's the policy stupid

                        by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:25:47 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well I've spent the last few months (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          METAL TREK, TFinSF

                          helping to sign up previously uninsured people for health insurance here in California, where Covered California has signed up over 700,000 people for private plans and many more enrolled into MediCal.  Which is a lot more uninsured who received affordable health insurance than pretty much any president since Lyndon Johnson.

                          Not to mention I'm real happy about that new tunnel that was installed in the Caldecott Tunnel by the Stimulus, as well as the new bus and train terminal being constructed a few blocks from my office, with Stimulus funds.

                          But yeah, what else did Obama do policy-wise?

                          "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                          by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:32:56 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            politically indigo

                            think the ACA is good policy because it is doomed long term.  The way it is set up makes it very easy to be gutted. And there are areas where they don't have insurance choices. Many rural areas are going to not be helped at all by the policy. All that is going to have to happen in the future is for some President to say we don't have money for it and take away the subsidies and people are going to have to purchase very expensive insurance or pay a fine. The crux of the problem is that the ACA is based on the current insurance model which is a flawed model. It's great that people are able to get insurance now but are they going to be able to have it next year or the next? No one knows about that. So it's not really affordable for a lot of Americans.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:46:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh FFS (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            METAL TREK, TFinSF

                            you know who had a health care plan based on providing subsidies to people to buy health insurance and expanding Medicaid?  Practically every Democrat running for president in 2008.  Including Hillary Clinton.

                            Besides the whole "a future president will gut it" argument has been made about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but it ain't happened yet.  You know why?  Because once people get benefits it becomes politically impossible to take it away from them.  

                            And it is affordable for a lot of Americans.  The millions of people who couldn't previously afford health care and who've signed up for the ACA and received subsidies would beg to differ with you.  

                            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                            by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:54:49 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hillary (0+ / 0-)

                            was going to open up Medicare and Edwards too which would have helped the rural areas. Where the ACA works right now is in densely populated areas.

                            I don't know about "taking it away". If they get rid of the subsidies don't you think people will just willingly give it up as it will go back to being too expensive? Or they could cut the subsidies back little by little.

                            There have been cuts in Medicare--lots of them and they were done by Obama.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:03:34 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's Hillary Clinton's health care plan from '08 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TFinSF
                            •If you like your plan, you can keep it.
                            •If you don't like your plan, you have two options: •Choose a new private plan from the menu of federal employee plans available to members of Congress; or
                            •Choose an affordable public plan similar to Medicare.  http://healthinsurance.about.com/...
                            In addition to that:
                            •Clinton would offer families a refundable tax credit as financial assistance with the cost of individual health insurance. Because it is a tax credit (as opposed to a deduction) families would receive these funds regardless of whether they owe any income taxes.
                             •Health insurance premium payments would be limited to a percentage of a family's income.
                            •Large employers would be required to contribute to the cost of their employees' health coverage.
                             •Small employers would received refundable tax credits to encourage them to provide their employees with health coverage.
                             •Safety net programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP, would receive more funding to ensure that all vulnerable populations are reached, including poor adults without children.
                            Wow, sounds exactly like some other health care reform, what's the name of it again?  Oh yeah, the Affordable Care Act.

                            Lastly, to help pay for it:

                            •Eliminating government-authorized overpayments to Medicare private plans
                            Wow, sounds exactly like the sort of Medicare cuts that Obama implemented.  Cuts which happened to extend the solvency of Medicare which last time I checked was pretty important.

                            Notice something else?  Nowhere did Clinton's plan say Medicare would be opened up, just that there'd be a public plan similar to Medicare, and guess who else had that in his plan?  Obama:

                            * Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.
                            Obviously we didn't get a public option, which was a great disappointment, but there's no guarantee a President Hillary Clinton would've gotten it done either, and in fact I'll bet that a President Clinton would've passed a health care reform w/o such an option if insisting on it would've killed the whole thing.  Because she had seen health reform go down with her own eyes before and probably didn't want to see it happen again.  

                            And here's the rest of Obama's 2008 plan:

                            * Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.
                                 * An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.
                                 * Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan.
                                 * Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.
                                 * Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives.
                            In other words:  sounds exactly like the plan Clinton was proposing, except without an individual mandate, which ended up being included in the ACA.

                            So could you please stop the hair-splitting BS, there was virtually no difference in the reforms that Clinton and Obama proposed in 2008.  And if you wanna blame someone for rural areas getting the shaft in the ACA, blame people like your Republican Governor who refused to expand Medicaid or set up a health exchange.  Because in rural states where the governors actually decided to make the law work like Kentucky and West Virginia, people are getting help.  

                            I'm not Obama's biggest fan, and in fact one of the things I dread most about the next few years is that instead of dealing with a bunch of Obamabots impervious to reality and logic, we'll be dealing with a bunch of Clintonbots (like you) who are impervious to reality and logic.  But facts are facts: the ACA, as imperfect as it is, is essentially the same damn thing that Hillary Clinton proposed in 2008.  And my reservations about the law aside, I can see with my own damn eyes that it's working and that real, actual human beings are getting help through it, and I'll be damned if people like you who haven't gotten over a primary that took place 6 years ago are gonna trash it with falsehoods, all because you're holding a silly-ass vendetta.

                            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                            by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:02:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I said (0+ / 0-)

                            that she was offering Medicare which was superior to what Obama was offering. That was my main point. People would have had options and I knew Obama's plan was never going to fly with anybody because it didn't have mandates and peopel could just buy insurance when they were sick.

                            Obama could have opened up Medicare but he chose not too.

                            If Obama had opened up Medicare there would not be the problem in the rural areas. Yes, to some extent you can blame the GOP for not expanding Medicaid but in essence that is a state program and he had to know that some of these whackjobs were not going to go along with it. Medicare is federal and there is nothing they could have done to stop it.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:38:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For the last time, she was not offering Medicare (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Silina

                            stop making things up.  

                            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                            by puakev on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:26:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  here (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                            Offering a public plan where there would be NO NEW bureaucracy is not like Obama's at all.

                            She also was going to auto enroll people in Medicaid which would have bypassed the govenors in red states.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 08:29:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Obamacare originally made Medicaid expansion (0+ / 0-)

                            mandatory.  Then the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.  You were aware of that, right?

                            And Obamacare does not create a new bureaucracy.  There is no special department of Obamacare.  It is all run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

                            Not to mention, if Obamacare or any other health reform included a new public plan, it would necessarily require some form of bureaucracy to administer it.  Medicare doesn't just run itself, it requires people to handle paperwork, set rules, administer them, and so on.  But Obamacare didn't involve public plan so such bureaucracy was created.  So I don't know what your point is.

                            For someone who claims "It's the policy stupid" you're pretty stupid on matters of policy.

                            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                            by puakev on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:52:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Come now, be realistic (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you really think that the president could have gotten a Medicare for All plan through THIS congress? If you do, then, I have a bridge in Ft. Lee, NJ that I will sell to you!

                          •  NO (0+ / 0-)

                            Hillary did WANT a Medicare for All. However, the Repubs hated the idea and came up with GUESS WHAT? Yep, the same plan as the ACA and the Right wing Heritage Foundation supported that plan!  NOW, well, President Obama put it on the table,  as  that was the best plan he could get through this nasty congress,  NOW, the Heritage Foundation disavows it.  Go figure.

                      •  carter won 50% in 1976 (0+ / 0-)

                        50.1% to be certain.

                    •  Bush was a great politician. Horrible president. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      greenbell

                      Compare the craziness he passed, and the House/Senate he passed it with, to the weak tea Obama passed, and the much more favorable Congress he passed it with.  Remember 2006 elections?  And Bush still got the new Congress, elected by an anti-war country, to pass a... surge!  

                      He had his way with Dems in ways that Obama can only dream about...in pursuit of horrible fucking policies.  That's what a great politician can do.  Can you imagine what Bush could have done with Obama's 2008 majorities?  

                      Any idea who held House and Senate when HillaryCare failed so miserably?  

                      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                      by joesig on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:43:45 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I would agree (0+ / 0-)

                        with you about Bush. You're right about his being a good politician. The problem is that conservative policies just do not work but he was ace at getting those bad policies through.

                        It's the policy stupid

                        by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:53:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thank you. It's amazing how so many... (0+ / 0-)

                          don't recognize he was the greatest politician of our time.  Complete craziness....but even Obama, given the chance, wouldn't let his insane tax cuts expire.  Even the Dems have embraced the Patriot Act and support to Wall Street looters.  I don't think Kerry and Clinton and Biden are stupid--but he scared them so much they couldn't think straight.  

                          In my lifetime, voting since Carter, no one has ever been as effective at having his way with the American people and a Congress he didn't control.  Had he supported good policies, he could have been a great president.  

                          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                          by joesig on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:32:07 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joesig

                            and in all honesty I don't think a lot of people really understand what a good politician does. And that's the reason why I don't think Obama is a very good one. Getting policy through is what the goal is.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:41:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  She wasn't even going to compete in Iowa (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oh yay another commenter

              Exactly.  She thought she was entitled.  

              •  I think it had (4+ / 0-)

                more to do with the fact that she knew she was going to lose there and nothing with entitlement.

                I mean a lot of candidates have not competed in Iowa in the past namely Bill Clinton.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:09:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Shhhh, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ga6thDem, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                  they're trying to build a myth of a woman who wants to be King, when in fact, she's one of the most qualified people the Democrats have to run for president.
                  Let's put 'em all in the primary and let the voters sort it out.

                  Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                  by skohayes on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:23:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  By "most qualified" (0+ / 0-)

                    I assume you're referring to name recognition?  I don't see why she's more qualified than Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, Joe Biden, or Brian Schweitzer.

                    •  She's definitely (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dr Swig Mcjigger, skohayes

                      more qualified than Warren since she's only been in the senate for a few years but I would not say that about the others. Nobody seems to like Scweitzer though because of his support of fracking.

                      It's the policy stupid

                      by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:54:26 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  She's more qualified (0+ / 0-)

                      than any Senator, she's been in the White House before and was also First Lady of Arkansas, plus of course her SoS experience.
                       I would say her foreign policy creds and executive experience as Secretary of State make her as qualified as any governor running (although, again, she was First Lady of Arkansas and 8 years as a Senator, so she's dealt with domestic and foreign policy at this point).
                      So yes, she's very qualified.

                      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                      by skohayes on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:59:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  So, the winning campaign wasn't great. Losing was. (0+ / 0-)

              Got it.  

              To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

              by joesig on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:37:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't (0+ / 0-)

                have to be great to win a primary. You just have to be good enough. I mean do you think McCain or Reagan or anybody else out there over the past 30 years or so ran a great primary campaign? Certainly you could say that Reagan ran a pretty bad one in 1980 to the point of having to fire his entire campaign. Obama did have to have the super delegates to win. That's not indicative of greatness in my book.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:46:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  He won one primary, two generals. Great? (0+ / 0-)

                  Of course.  It's about winning.  World Cup and Olympics are every four years too.  Win gold in consecutive Olympics: you're great.  Same team wins the World Cup consecutively: great.  

                  It doesn't have to be pretty.  As Al Davis used to say: "Just win, baby."

                  To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                  by joesig on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:36:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

                    but so did a lot of other people. I'm mostly commenting on his primary campaign that people seem to think was just so awesome and magnificent when it really was just a matter of his strategy and the super delegates.

                    He can campaign to win when his behind is on the line but he sure doesn't put that much effort into getting good policy.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:46:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Um, 16 others, I think. In about 225 years. (0+ / 0-)

                      Without Google, so don't slam me as long as I'm close.  16  Americans out of maybe 600 million over that time?  Pretty exclusive company.

                      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                      by joesig on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:59:03 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  No offense, but that sounds like PUMA shit (0+ / 0-)

                      It had nothing to do with the super delegates. Obama was well ahead in delegates before the convention. It wasn't even close, unless you were Jerome Armstrong unskewing numbers.

                      Obama will he the first to say, and has said repeatedly, that people think he ran a super duper awesome primary campaign because he won, when in fact, they made many mistakes.

                      The problem was, Clinton, with her faith in the wrong people, made many, many more mistakes.


                      ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

                      by NoFortunateSon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:30:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The super (0+ / 0-)

                        delegates decided the nomination did they not?

                        I will agree that Clinton made mistakes but that doesn't make Obama mistakeless either.

                        It's the policy stupid

                        by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:41:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, not really. (0+ / 0-)

                          Most of the super delegates gave their support to the candidate who got the most pledged delegates. If there were no super delegates (or if they evenly split their vote), Obama would have won. Clinton would have had to receive a sizable majority of super delegates to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates. Yes, he needed some votes from super delegates to reach the total number he needed, but it's a stretch to say they "decided the nomination".

                •  But Clinton's was atrocious (0+ / 0-)

                  Thanks to her faith in Mark Penn, who didn't even understand delegate apportionment in CA.

                  I hope she has learned her lessons well since 2008.


                  ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

                  by NoFortunateSon on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:26:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Umm, no. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          puakev, Laconic Lib, chuckvw, TFinSF

          The superdelegate votes were consistent with their state's primary results.  None of the flipped, although HRC made noise about doing just that.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:27:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. But you're talking inside baseball (0+ / 0-)

          and most here don't understand anything about how the party works or care to learn.

          Proud to be a Democrat

          by Lying eyes on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:09:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That campaign was not (6+ / 0-)

        run incompetently. Obama's was just run better.

        though one serious black mark on the campaign was the apparent tolerance of playing off Obama's race.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:32:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  See my comment above (4+ / 0-)

          and the fact that Clinton had to engage in subtle racial politics there at the end highlights what I'm talking about.  She went from the clear front runner running on inevitability to having to resort to desperate moves like making overt appeals to "hard working white people" and pushing the Jeremiah Wright thing.  And remember, she thought the race would be won on Super Tuesday and thought the caucuses were no big deal.

          I sure hope Clinton has learned from 2008, because given her structural advantages going into that race and given how it played out, it's clear her 2008 campaign was a debacle.

          "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

          by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:36:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So (0+ / 0-)

            if you think she was using race do you also think Obama was a sexist saying "you're likable enough" in a condescending way?

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:52:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Asked that about Romney, he (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              puakev

              probably would have said the same.

            •  False equivalence. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              puakev, TFinSF

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:02:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So apparently (0+ / 0-)

                sexism is okay but if you think it's racism it's not. Yes, this is exactly what I fear if she runs--rampant sexism from all quarters.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:04:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Keep punching that strawman (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  puakev

                  but that's not what I said.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:10:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  "You're likable enough" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TFinSF

                  is something that can apply to male or female.  For instance, I don't feel that Mitt Romney was likable enough to win the presidency, which is part of why he lost.  But if women felt that was sexist when directed at Clinton, then clearly Obama should've strayed from that sort of remark.

                  However, there wasn't anything sexist that Obama said that was as overtly racial as when Clinton made reference to "how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

                  So as the commenter below said, it's a false equivalence.

                  "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                  by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:13:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I'll give the commenter (0+ / 0-)

                    that it was a dismissive comment that could be reasonably interpreted as sexist.

                    But it's not a defense against the shit the HRC campaign tried to pull on the "inadequate black man."

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:23:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                    his dismissive tone when he said it is what made it so bad and it's probably one of the reasons he lost the NH primary.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:31:33 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  hard working (0+ / 0-)

                    americans and/or white americans is a classification of working class voters, all working class voters whites included. You know, I seem to remember Obama promoting the fact that he grew up on food stamps or some such. Maybe he was overly senstive about that fact?

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:34:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay, what does Obama being on food stamps (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TFinSF

                      have to do with Hillary Clinton's remark?  Again, your derangement is showing, and I'd say that the food stamp remark about Obama might be delving into race-baiting territory.

                      "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                      by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:43:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't (0+ / 0-)

                        know. Why did Obama talk about it? I mean he did not have to mention it.

                        You have to remember that Obama attacked these same voters.

                        It's the policy stupid

                        by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:51:07 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Hillary Clinton made that remark (0+ / 0-)

                          about "hard working white voters" without any prompting from Obama.  She was asked a question about her chances to win and she basically spat out, "Well, I've got the white vote".  All Obama did was say that many white voters cling to guns and religion.

                          In any case, pointing out how Obama was on food stamps isn't the best way to defend against charges of race-baiting.

                          "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                          by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:58:22 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, (0+ / 0-)

                            the Obama campaign did more than insult the people about thier guns and religion. He also called them racists or his campaign did. So do you think Obama was doing some race baiting of his own when he called people racists?

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:05:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Point to a quote where he called them racists (0+ / 0-)

                            I dare you.  I double dare you.  I triple dog dare you.  

                            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                            by puakev on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:04:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Donna Brazile (0+ / 0-)

                            went on CNN and said Bill was a racist. There's one example. His campaign hurled numerous comments about them being racists. You even gave an example above when Hillary talked about working class white people. The campaign called the voters of West Virginia racists.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:22:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can't come up with a single quote, can you? (0+ / 0-)

                            Donna Brazile is not Obama, she didn't even work for the Obama campaign, and you can't even produce a quote of Brazile supposedly calling Bill a racist.  Your derangement is getting pretty pathetic.

                            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                            by puakev on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:30:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You (0+ / 0-)

                            don't remember the whole fairly tale thing where people from the campaign were calling Bill a racist? Apparently not. You know, there was a reason they did not speak for years and why Obama had to call him and make amends for him to do the nominating speech in 2012.

                            Stating facts is not derangement no matter how much you want it to be.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 08:27:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here (0+ / 0-)

                            you go:

                            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                            a whole memo from the Obama campaign to make everything that was said into racism.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 08:32:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Don't. (0+ / 0-)

                        That "Derangement" shit is not kosher.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 03:40:49 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

              It shows how weak your argument is if you have to assert that "you're likable enough" is sexist.

              ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

              by TFinSF on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:36:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  It was the worst campaign since Muskie... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        puakev, LordMike

        ...and she still almost won.  So I no longer have confidence in her ability to run a campaign, but it sounds like she's so popular and the other side is so discredited that it might not matter.

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:45:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  She was up against (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        puakev, raptavio, skohayes

        the most gifted natural politician in a generation. I agree that her campaign people (Mark Penn in particular) were awful, but I'm sure she's smart enough to go with a better team if she wants to run in 2016.

        Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

        by milkbone on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:18:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She's already hired Obama's people. I don't think (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MS103127

          she'll screw up in the same way again.  But who knows, there's definitely a Greek tragedy-like aspect to her & Bill.

        •  Why (0+ / 0-)

          has Obama not been able to accomplish a whole lot if he's so naturally gifted?

          Actually I think he bought his own press on that and that's why he's shocked that the GOP did not bow down to his "awesomeness" and go along with whatever he did.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:55:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You ask why Obama hasn't been able to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lying eyes

            accomplish a whole lot if he's so naturaly gifted? What a dumb freaking question? You don't think a congress having a lower approval rating than Chavez has anything to do with it?

            Where have you been these past 5 years? Obviously you have tuned out. Expecting Obama to get the GOP to agree on anything is like ummm STUPID...

            •  You (0+ / 0-)

              see he's the one that thought there were reasonable Republicans not me. Instead of fighting for the best possible outcome with policy he bent over backwards trying to get crazy people to go along with what he was doing.

              Only after how many years did he finally realize that they were never going to go along with anything he did? I don't call that being a very good politician.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:48:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you trully think Obama was that naive that he (0+ / 0-)

                thought the GOP would one day come along? Obama attempting to build consensus was what helped him win a second term, which is why he reached across the aisle over and over.....He knew exactly what the GOP was up to.......

                Obama knew right after the stimulus fight that the GOP would be unreasonable....Going full throttle on progressive policies would have earned him even less votes including amongst democrats. And who knows being a full throated progressive may have impacted him winning a second term. You see he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Which, exactly is the reason
                we must pin this crap on the GOP....

                •  Yes, i do. (0+ / 0-)

                  He kept doing the same thing over and over and over. I mean if he thought they were that crazy why would he keep up the same failed strategy. I think he believed his own campaign rhetoric that he was so awesome that they would do whatever he wanted them to do.

                  If he knew they were going to be unreasonable after the stimulus why in the heck did he keep doing the same thing over and over?

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:31:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Replace stupid with naive (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              voteearly

              and you'll find me in agreement.  Much of the madness here has to do with a complete lack of actual political experience.  

              Proud to be a Democrat

              by Lying eyes on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:22:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I said he was a naturally gifted politician (0+ / 0-)

            not that he was a naturally gifted executive.

            Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

            by milkbone on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:27:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Are you kidding? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Portlaw

      Her 2008 campaign was (I'm happy to say) effective only  in that it allowed the underdog to win the prinary.  That race was hers to lose, and she lost!

      Sherrod Brown would be my choice.  I love Warren but she should stay in the Senata a while longer.  But if Brown won't run, I hope she will!

    •  Like HillaryCare and 2008. Damn effective. (0+ / 0-)

      Like she ran DoS in Afghanistan.  Damn effective.  Iraq war supporter: damn effective.  

      Or are you saying she's effective only when it doesn't count?  In that case, we're in complete agreement, and I apologize.

      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

      by joesig on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:35:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What is a BENGHAZI?? (6+ / 0-)

    What is a BENGHAZI anyway??

    If we did a poll most americans wouldn't know.

    If you went on social media and told people that a Benghazi is a flaky pastry with a chocolate filling -- you would get tons of LIKES.  People would claim to have eaten a Benghazi for breakfast.

    Republicans are using it as a coded SCARE word - oh horror of all horrors BENGHAZI oh death and destruction BENGHAZI oh nuclear winter BENGHAZI oh end of the world BENGHAZI oh we will be overrun by brown people BENGHAZI oh gay marriage destroys families BENGHAZI.

    What they really mean to say is -- I hate Hilary BENGHAZI.

    What actually happened in the actual city of BENGHAZI - well, that is completely irrelevant.  

    Tikkun olam. Repair the world.

    by sarvanan17 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:12:27 AM PST

  •  I guess (6+ / 0-)

    Bengahzi didn't work.

    Anyway I keep explaining to my conservative friends that four people dying in Benghazi is nothing compared to the thousands that died in Iraq under Bush.

    To me it seems conservatives are just flinging mud and hoping something sticks but they need to realize that after saying things like there is no differece between Whitewater and Watergate and making other laughable statements that they have completely discredited themselves.

    It's the policy stupid

    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:13:48 AM PST

    •  Fascinating. Is there anyone so feckless as to... (0+ / 0-)

      be connected to both Benghazi and

      the thousands that died in Iraq under Bush
      ?

      Now that would be a politician with no electoral future, wouldn't you say?

      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

      by joesig on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:14:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can we talk about Reagan's divorce now? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:16:45 AM PST

  •  Spare me (13+ / 0-)

    Popular only in the way the cult of celebrity makes anybody popular.

    She is the reagan of our time, a popular figure who will bludgeon us economically, smiling all the while.

  •  Maybe she is. With some people. (13+ / 0-)

    But I don't want to spend two full years listening to Republicans screech about her, have her elected in a backlash, and then have a massively disappointing term of her office in which NOTHING gets done -- just like the last six years. Our country can't take it.

    What is she going to do? What are her priorities? Will she put the country back to work or hand out more goodies to her already wealthy friends? What are her plans to help the country? How is she better than anyone else?

    I haven't had a job since the Bush II administration. I STILL don't have any health insurance or care, because I live in Texas. My kids can't afford to go to college and have lousy future prospects.

    What will Hillary do that will make a difference to me and my family?

    I am a woman and nearly 60, and I would like to see a younger person -- male or female -- take the reins next time. It needs to be someone who has a fresh perspective on getting the country back to work --not the same old neoliberal crap recycled for another century.

    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:21:12 AM PST

    •  Well (6+ / 0-)

      I guess you'll see.

      The reason why I supported her in 2008 over Obama was because she actually offered solutions that would help the middle class like an HOLC that Obama said "couldn't be done" and did not think that the GOP was the "party of ideas" and that Reagan was "transformational".

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:32:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan wasn't transformational? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        Dude, seriously?

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:33:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          I guess you think so. Have at it.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:56:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Transformational (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orlbucfan, joesig

            To begin with, he kick-started the growth of inequality by changing the tax code to reward wealth rather than work.  The top marginal rates were slashed under Reagan.

            He perfected the GOP strategy of winning white blue collar workers with tribal appeals founded primarily on racism.  They began voting against their own economic interests under Reagan.  

            Union membership sharpened it's decline, and Reagan summarily fired public employees on strike (air traffic controllers), beginning the demonization of public service.

            He introduced the strategy of deficit spending to cripple domestic programs.  Ever since, when a democratic wins the presidency, his agenda is neutered by colossal deficits.

            The era of GOP dominance began in 1980.  Ever since, even when dems are in power they advance GOP goals such as welfare reform, health insurance mandates, austerity, etc.

            He introduced the strategy of regulatory capture, or putting industrial leaders in charge of regulatory agencies.  James Watt to head the DOI, etc.  

            I could go on for pages.  Reagan marked the beginning of the rightward shift in American politics.  It probably began with the civil rights act, but the shift wasn't dominant until Reagan took power.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:50:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reagan (0+ / 0-)

              more or less rode what already existed into the White House.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:06:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, so you're contention is that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                orlbucfan

                presidents are merely the product of their times, that no president is truly transformational.  The times would have transformed regardless of who was president.

                It's an interesting historical debate.  I think sometimes the "great man" view of history puts too much emphasis on certain individuals, but conversely, I don't agree at all that individuals do not matter.  They do, and sometimes there are historical inflection points ripe for a single figure to exert a transformation influence.  1980 was one of those times.

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:14:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  To help yourself, can you move? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shmuelman, WisVoter

      You shouldn't have to, but considering the Red State/Blue State disparity in Obamacare benefits alone, it's something to think about.

      Maybe Wendy Davis can change things if she gets elected.  If she doesn't and TX remains Red, I'm not sure there's all that much any Democratic President can do when it comes to things that are decided on a state level.

    •  I think it's cool how the example of Obama's... (10+ / 0-)

      ...non-transformational presidency is now used against Clinton, who warned in the primaries that Obama would not deliver a transformational presidency.  

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:46:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting point. (8+ / 0-)

        It's ironic how Hillary was pilloried on her health care plan with a mandate - "Why don't we just tell the homeless to buy homes?" and then what did we end up with? - healthcare with a mandate.

        “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

        by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:14:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, irony (4+ / 0-)

          abounds and the thing is she was at least going to open up Medicare for people who did not have jobs and people who did not want to buy from an insurance company.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:18:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Healthcare was and has been my most major (3+ / 0-)

            issue for a long long time. I preferred what President Obama represented as his healthcare program with no mandate, a public option and drug re-importation. I feel that I was played big time especially since all of that was traded away in early days. This was the falling of the scales from my eyes that what politicians say in public and what they do behind closed doors are two very different things - the education of a naive and trusting voter

            If I had the same level of insight and cynicism back then as I have today, I would have voted for Hillary in the primaries because I think I would have understood that she had a far better understanding of how the game is played and would have overall been a more effective President.

            Since the 99% remains comatose, any pathetic gains they might make will be due to some candidate who cares enough about their historic legacy that they might attempt to do something for the "little people" as opposed to simply cementing their own place within the 1%.

            “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

            by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:37:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              atana, Jackson L Haveck

              I thought his program would never work and very little thought went into it. It frankly made no sense. Why set up a whole another entity when you could just open up Medicare?

              I knew Obama was not going to do any of that because frankly he seems disinterested in policy and even said he was not interested in policy back in 2008.

              I knew that there were going to be mandates if anything passed. I just thought Hillary's and Edward's for that matter health plans were better because they gave people more options to consider.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:48:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Except that her understanding of how the game is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw

              played lead her to abandon healthcare, abandon Arkansas, move to NY, run as a war hawk, and polish her resume at SoS rather than risk it in the less glamorous but more critical job at HHS.  

              If Hillary was still focused on healthcare, she'd have my vote locked up.

              •  Seriously? OMG, lol................. (0+ / 0-)

                Bless your heart, you try so hard.  

                Proud to be a Democrat

                by Lying eyes on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  hawk (0+ / 0-)

                What candidate do we have that is a dove?

                Warren said "We need clear goals and a plan to achieve them" with regard to bombing Syria which is not a dove position.

                The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                by GideonAB on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:47:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Apparently we need more candidates (0+ / 0-)

                  if we haven't found the right one yet.  

                  But seems to me peace is a goal and wouldn't it be something if we had a candidate who wanted to achieve it in Syria and elsewhere.  I've never considered Obama a hawk.  He goes along to get along and is too deferential to the SMIC but he's not going to start a war just so he can get his face on Mt. Rushmore which I wish I could say about HRC.

      •  Perhaps she was right on not delivering I hate to (0+ / 0-)

        say.

        This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

        by swtexas on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:22:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How about Paul Ryan? (0+ / 0-)

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:46:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing gets done 'like the last six years'? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, common green, sweatyb

      A statement like that makes it impossible to take you seriously.

    •  She could bring in some (6+ / 0-)

      Goldman Sachs alumni to deregulate our way to prosperity.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:32:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I like how Obamacare is pretty much (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DMentalist

      Hillary's health care plan from the 2008 primaries.

      Yeah, she never would have delivered.

      (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

      by TrueBlueDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:46:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Brooke, this reminds me of the movie[RANT] (0+ / 0-)

      "Game Change", when that guys says(paraphrased): "I would love to see this country elect the next Thos Jefferson or the the next A Lincoln.............I don't remember the rest.  Unless they are super stars they don't have a chance! Imagine someone who looks like John Adams with a loud mouth too or James Madison , who was about 5'1", Howard Taft who was as big around as a damn Volkswagon bug(don't know what kinda pres. he was), running for office now.LOL!  So who's fault is that? But in a perfect world, maybe we would have elected someone between Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich.  But it was  Hillary and Obama before the damn primaries and became STFU and accept it.  I don't know.

      This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

      by swtexas on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:15:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think she will be a great president (6+ / 0-)

    and I think the Benghazi-Whitewater circus noises we are hearing do make clear how clear the Republican's are on her appeal.

    Likewise, I hope people who would prefer someone different realize that no serious politician with long term ambitions is going to waste their time on campaigning against her in a primary since the end result will likely be debt, loss and up to eight years in the wilderness.

    Its almost as if some on this site and the left generally want to see her popularity and obvious credentials for the presidency as an unfair move on her part. How dare she be such an overwhelming favorite!

    Remember to kick it over.

    by sprogga on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:23:33 AM PST

    •  Are you sure you aren't describing Putin? (12+ / 0-)
      Likewise, I hope people who would prefer someone different realize that no serious politician with long term ambitions is going to waste their time on campaigning against her in a primary since the end result will likely be debt, loss and up to eight years in the wilderness.
      I find the combination of the BFF popularity meme incompatible with the ruthless intimidation meme. And while I fear some will think that this woman is being sexist when I say this, I keep getting reminded of the most popular middle school mean girl and all her BFF's bullying any other girl that dares infringe on her turf.  

      If Hillary is so over the top popular she doesn't need to bully Warren or other candidates out of speaking about the issues and helping frame the debate for 2016.

      •  Who the hell is 'bullying' Warren? (6+ / 0-)

        She urged HRC to run ... and Hillary hasn't even announced yet or made a peep.

      •  I don't think Elizabeth Warren can be bullied. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sprogga, atana

        What specific examples can you give of Hillary actually bullying her?

      •  There is a big difference (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana, DMentalist

        between being an intimidating opponent and intimidating an opponent.

        Hillary being the former doesn't give grounds for accusing her of the latter.

        Remember to kick it over.

        by sprogga on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:36:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  God damn that's silly. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana, sprogga, DMentalist, cpresley

        I'm really tired of the purists who think that there's something wrong with being popular per se, and pretend that being popular in itself somehow bullies others.

        It's going beyond the usual backflips to be contrarian and is being against democracy.  

        The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

        by Inland on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:48:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When all the women in the Senate are pressured (0+ / 0-)

          into endorsing Hillary 2 years before the primary, I call that bullying.  

          This woman thinks for herself.

          •  How do (0+ / 0-)

            you know those women were bullyed and not doing it of their own choice like you are?

            Elizabeth Warren was giving Hillary's list to help her win the MA Senate seat. Since she's not interested in running for Prez it makes sense that she would endorse Hillary and Gillibrand is Hillary's protege in many ways. She's even nicknamed "Little Hillary" so why wouldn't she endorse her?  I mean it's not rocket science. The only people who are not endorsing her are people like Cuomo who are thinking of running themselves.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:09:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OMG, "Litttle Hillary"?! (0+ / 0-)

              How do I know all the women think exactly alike?  Well, I don't happen to believe that ALL women think exactly alike so I think the idea that spontaneously all the women decided 2 years before the primary season to all get themselves together and do a BFF letter is just not credible.

              But "Little Hillary", oh, my.  

              •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

                that's the nickname she has. It was not give by me. Well, have you ever considered the fact that Warren simply does not want to run for president? You know, that's not something that some people want to do. Like I said you've provided no evidence that they were bullied. You're just assuming that they were because they signed a letter.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:59:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Ruthless! Benghazi! (0+ / 0-)

        It's all mean girl stuff.  Geezus, DK is back in high school.

        Proud to be a Democrat

        by Lying eyes on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:39:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  She'll be great if you like fast tracked trade (8+ / 0-)

      deals and Wall St deregulation. I'd like to see where she stands on marijuana legalization. For some reason I think she'll do a "protect the children" appeal to  soccer moms, but I will give her a chance on the issue.

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:44:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  so why did Obama run against the (3+ / 0-)

      inevitable Clinton in 2008

      no serious politician with long term ambitions is going to waste their time on campaigning against her in a primary since the end result will likely be debt, loss and up to eight years in the wilderness.
    •  I think she will be an average president (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanAnt

      We only ever elect corporatists these days and if Hillary gets hit by a meteor we'll elect some other corporatist democrat instead.  Because of this I can't really be too down on Hillary- she's the kind of candidate that our system produces.

      But personally I think it's way too soon to jump on the HRC bandwagon.  A more liberal candidate like Sherrod Brown absolutely is capable of winning the presidency, and there's no reason not to support a candidate that better represents your views in the primary.  Like the vast majority of my fellow democrats I'll be holding my nose and voting for the corporatist dem in the general, but I don't see any reason to pre-knuckle under to the establishment two years before the election.  

      •  No need to knuckle under (0+ / 0-)

        I like Hillary but if I didn't there is nothing to stop me trying to persuade my favored candidate to run against her.

        My view that no standard bearer will emerge to challenge Hillary isn't based on my feelings about her candidacy, it just seems like such a very long odds bet with so much downside for someone to take her on that I don't believe anyone will do it.

        Remember to kick it over.

        by sprogga on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:59:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  More than just a popular President (9+ / 0-)

    If she runs, she could sweep in more Democratic senators.  We could be looking at 60 + Dem senators.  Wouldn't that be awesome?

    House.  She sweeps in 30-50 new House Members giving her a huge margin in the House.

    That is how progressive legislation will get passed.  We are looking forward to unbelievable times.

    That is what has the Republican Party up in arms.  They know it.  Every political pundit knows that this could be the end of the Republican Party.

    Republicans===the party of the 1% rich people in America. Or in other words..The Party of NO!

    by jalapeno on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:30:57 AM PST

  •  Hillary Clinton is very popular. (16+ / 0-)

    So? So are soft drinks and corn dogs. Just because someone or something is popular does not convince me that I should like it too and that it's good for me.

    I'll wait to hear what Hillary has to SAY about her policy stands and then I'll make my decision.

    This whole trumpeting of Hillary the Inevitable, Resistance is Futile, that all she has to do is show up, is going to backfire in a big horrible way. For one thing, you will convince a number of Democrats that if they don't like her policies, it doesn't matter because she will be carried into office on the shoulders of an adoring populace and a few grumpy populist/liberal/New Deal Dems can just go suck eggs.

    Why not just have Rahm Emanuel as her spokesperson come out right now and get the alienation out of the way?

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:39:13 AM PST

    •  Yup, some healthy tension and criticism (9+ / 0-)

      would be sound advice for the Democratic party. I'm all for the Republican party fading into the darkness, which betrays one of the obvious overtones of an inevitable HRC win. Sure, it would keep Republicans out of the White House for 8 years. Would her presidency still get us either here or there? Do we move anywhere on inequality? On climate change? On a generally peaceful, well-insured existence? I have concerns about HRC that I clearly share with a lot of kossacks, and simply getting someone in the White House on the basis of the now—that HRC is so electable, any alternative at this point would perform terribly in comparison—does little to boost our long-term commitment to the things we care about. It's superficial. Sorry, but the White House is the means to the ends, not the reverse.

      So as a community I would say: Vet HRC's credentials. Seriously, honestly, meticulously evaluate what kind of person she is, what is she thinking, and what the expectations should be based upon. Simply tuning your viewpoint to a preconceived notion on her electability is unhelpful and not reassuring.

      "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~Edward Abbey ////\\\\ "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois

      by rovertheoctopus on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:48:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  For the good of the party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kareylou

      There needs to be at least one strong primary challenger that lasts until Super Tuesday.  I agree that Hillary can't allow herself to be viewed as entitled to the nomination or above the fray.  She is best when she is fighting.  Hopefully Schweitzer, O'Malley, and whoever else sticks their neck out is able to push and make her fight.  And hopefully her biggest challenge in the primaries isn't from the right (Cuomo).

    •  I pretty well know Hillary (0+ / 0-)

      I am familiar with Bill/Hillary.  And Hillary was a favorite amongst Democrats in Texas when she was competing against Barack.  I already know Hillary.

      I was an Edwards supporter before he collapsed in scandal, and then moved to Barack because he was more liberal than Hillary.  I was a delegate to the state convention.

      Hillary is going to win the Democratic nomination in 2016.  It is just a matter of who the Republican is.  No matter who the Republican is, I am going to be a big Hillary supporter.  I already know the other side also - whom ever it is.

  •  I am not a fan of thw DLC neoliberals BUT (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter, LordMike, catwho, DMentalist

    I love the terror she induces in Republicans. After the personal attacks against her and Bill, some may be worried about payback. She also has no naivete about how far they will go, unlike the learning curve for Pres. Obama. So, she has that going for her.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:39:51 AM PST

  •  Popular, yes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream Puff, Portlaw

    but popular enough to be elected President?  I think she'll eventually decide not to run for the same reason Ted Kennedy decided not to run after 1980 ... she's too much of a lightning rod for the other party.  Let a younger woman run ... perhaps Senator Gillibrand.

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:50:31 AM PST

  •  I'm ready to go full-on canvasser for her (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, Radiowalla, TrueBlueDem, sukeyna
  •  So she's down 10 points since leaving as SOS (6+ / 0-)

    even before the campaign begins. And is still less popular than Powell was after he lied us into a war. Frankly, with so much praise after being in a non-controversial position for four years, her numbers should be higher.
    This post is upbeat spin, but objectively, Clinton should not be happy about her rapidly dropping approval. The decline will likely continue if she runs.

  •  She hasn't said a word on policy issues. (7+ / 0-)

    So, of course she's viewed "favorably".  She's mum on anything of import.

    And, perhaps it is too early to do so.  2016 is a long way off.  But these "favorability" polls are pretty much worthless when the person being judged is not even giving public policy speeches.

    NSA?  What's her position?  Spying on the very heads of State she had to deal with while Sec'y of State?  Nada.

    So, all we have to judge her by is her illustrious career as SoS.  Arab Spring?  Embracing the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi, who are now being hunted down as terrorists?

    Oh yeah.. she's my first pick!  Geeez.

    But.. but.. she's "inevitable"!

    I've said it before.. no more dynasties..  and we need fresh, younger blood.  She should retire already.

  •  Not here she ain't ... at least among the loud (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, atana, cpresley, Matt Z

    Anyone visiting the Kos would think she has cooties and will lead us to a Goldwater-like defeat, fitting because FIFTY YEARS AGO she was a Goldwater Girl, which proves she is a GOP mole.

    Oh yeah warmonger.

    •  Wrong. (5+ / 0-)

      My primary problem with her is that she is a neoliberal and a warhawk. Neoliberal economic policies have been a complete disaster for the middle class, working poor, the vulnerable, and the poor. Those policies (deregulation, trade deals that place supplant the sovereignty of democratically elected governments in favor of corporate dominion, privatization of public services, cuts to social safety net programs) have disproportionately and in some cases, singularly helped the 1%.

      I've already seen the aftermath of a Clinton presidency. Don't need to relive it again.

      So she's popular? Great. But for the moment she's playing like she's a cipher and we already know what she is all about.

      The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

      by cybrestrike on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:03:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not ready.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana

    for a female candidate in 2016 says M. Bachmann...that wraps it up for me and should wrap it up for all of us...if that complete failure comes out with such a moronic statement it tells the world what we already know: the r's have no one and they are absoulutely in seizure mode over HRC running...they know they cannot win. Never has this happened 3 years before voting takes place. My prediction is that the gender gap will exceed 20%..do the numbers Limbaugh, Hannity, rove, Preince, et.al.

  •  Secretary of State. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hooper, Portlaw

    Largely non-partisan position, enjoys broad-based support. Once she actually starts campaigning, her approvals will fall. The huge leads she has against some potential R opponents are mostly due to her near-universal name recognition, and the relative obscurity of the others.

  •  Hillary is a fighter... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JackND, katesmom, Dr Swig Mcjigger

    I always have had a great deal of respect for her.

    Looking at the provided photo though, I do think someone should have told her to lick her teeth before the photo, as it looks as though her lipstick got smeared some, or maybe she needs a good teeth whitener.

    I know, shame on me for pointing that out, but I'm a gay man and we notice stuff like that.

    Love the woman anyway.

    Rule the Day, Let not the Day Rule You.

    by fidlerten on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:25:14 AM PST

  •  Popular ! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fidlerten

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:26:15 AM PST

  •  If the teapublicans keep attacking her (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, fidlerten, sukeyna

    ...she may hit a 99% Approval among Americans.

    Similar to what happened with Bill.

    "Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?" - General Jack D. Ripper

    by wilder5121 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:26:47 AM PST

  •  Meh, SpongeBob SquarePants is also hugely (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fidlerten, Portlaw

    popular (including with myself!!).

    Yet that is hardly qualification for a groundswell of support for becoming POTUS

  •  People still forget that Bill had a 57% approval (5+ / 0-)

    rating when he left office even after all the shit republicans threw at him. You can only attack people so much before others either see it for what it is or even worse for the shit throwers it begins to actually benefit that person. I'm not a Clinton fan. I hope a strong dem candidate comes along to at least push her leftward but I honestly think Hillary may have been in inoculated against most of the shit republicans could throw at her. They are the boy who cried Benghazi at this point

  •  Ah, 90s era blow jobs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fidlerten, sukeyna, Matt Z

    What man in his mid life doesn't remember fondly 90s era..

    Ok, that stroll down memory lane out of the way..

    The reality is that Hillary will be popular in part because the people in this country look at what she actually has done in comparison with a party that promises to do nothing and it's a no contest.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:33:30 AM PST

    •  Remind me - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Portlaw

      What exactly has she done?  Compare her record to Sherrod Brown's.

      •  You mean outside of (6+ / 0-)

        Being credited with work on Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act, work on veteran's affairs benefits as a senator, funding for NYC rebuilding projects in relation to the WTC, Global Hunger and Food Security, the Turkish-Armenian accord and being the first secretary of state to establish an on the ground presence in 18 countries?  

        I guess not much.

        Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

        by Chris Reeves on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:05:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well.. maybe... BUT... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmservo433, Matt Z

          Sherrod gave some AWESOME speeches on subcommittee hearings in the Senate.  More then ONCE!  AND he's assured us he hates the NSA like we do!

          So take that!

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:51:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I stand thoroughly rebuked (0+ / 0-)

            And here I'm not even a sure fire Hillary supporter, but I guess that says something.

            Touche, my good man.

            Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

            by Chris Reeves on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:07:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  "Yes she can!" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fidlerten

    "Yes she can!"

    "One of the boss' hangers-on sometimes comes to call, at times you least expect. Tryin' to bully you, strongarm you, inspire you with fear--it has the opposite effect."--Bob Dylan, "Floater"

    by oldmaestro on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:34:08 AM PST

  •  Regarding the 37% disapproval number (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    katesmom

    a recent poll of the approval ratings of recent Presidents showed that Nixon is approved by 31% of the population.  So having Hillary's disapproval number only 6% higher than the hard-core Republican base is not too bad.

  •  tired of neo-liberal policies? Then she'd be a bad (8+ / 0-)

    choice.

    More of the same, then she's the choice for you.

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:35:26 AM PST

  •  populist Hillary = 400+ electoral votes (5+ / 0-)

    I'm  hoping that Hillary aims high, for a sweeping mandate and coattails in the 2016 presidential election.  If you're Hillary, what's the best way to flip states like West Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, even Georgia, from red to blue?  Economic populism.  Real improvements in education.  Strengthening the ACA by adding things like a public option. That's what I'm hoping for.  My 'realistic' dream scenario has Hillary winning all of the Obama 2012 states plus the following:

    North Carolina
    Missouri
    Indiana
    Georgia!
    West Virginia!
    Kentucky!
    Montana!
    Arizona!

    That's 403 electoral votes and the end of the Republican Party as a national force, with Texas maybe flipping in 2020.

  •  Sigh... (0+ / 0-)

    1. Don't start running too early.
    2. Do not, repeat, do not, hire the same (obnoxious to a person) campaign team you had last time.  They will ruin you (again).
    3. Don't start running too early.
    4. Be humble and don't act like it's yours already.  That just annoys people.
    5. Don't start running too early.
    6. See how many senior Obama campaign team members you can hire.  They know what they are doing and they aren't, as a general rule, obnoxious.
    7. Don't start running too early.

  •  I hope she is the next President (7+ / 0-)

    Things might actually change permanently for the better if there were two Democratic presidents in a row.

  •  I deeply and sincerely hope not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw

    She's paid all the dues and demonstrated the ability to move in the requisite circles.  She's complex and formidable and brilliant.

    But also, the headline brings to mind the song from "Wicked".  

    I guess democratic dynasties are a thing all over the world.  To me having people from the same immediate family running the country says, in the most profound way, that we are run on rank, and the needs and aspirations of those who have less or are outside the system are less than nothing.  I think this is something implicit in her potential candidacy, and -- popularity aside -- seems like her biggest visceral negative.

    It's also true that people who are totally steeped in privilege are sometimes the ones to overthrow it -- FDR, Gorbachev.  But making another Clinton our go-to seems like a huge tin ear in many ways.

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:48:03 AM PST

  •  Some here are Rand Paul operatives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sukeyna

    ...to judge by their "commentary" of throw, smear, and hope something sticks to most prominent Democratic female politician in history.

    Kinda sickening really.

  •  I think it is a multi-pronged strategy for GOP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catwho, DMentalist

    1. Try to intimidate her into not running- she looked so tired when she left State. They are showing now how relentless they will be in an effort to make it seem too exhausting to take on. Not saying it will work, just saying this is one strategy
    2. Setting stage for young voters who don't remember 8 years of investigations. Lots of trash to unfold. Some are saying they are rolling it out too early, but there is so much nonsense to reacquaint people with.
    3. Setting stage for midterms by reminding the base how sleazy Democrat (sic) values are. They depend on turnout being low for Dems and high for GOP. They have their voter intimidation, voter ID shenanigans to depress Dem voters in the midterms. Now they need something to fire their own voters up. The specter of Hillary in the White House makes it URGENT to take the Senate and keep the House in the midterms
    4. Fund raising. We are running against a she-devil-who-must-be-stopped, they cry.
    5. Contrast GOP attitudes toward women with Democrat (sic) attitudes toward women (they actually believe they win on this)
    6. Reinforce the stereotype of the Feminazi who is too unattractive to get a man so must resort to destroying the lives of good, clean, attractive women with traditional values.

    I don't think they will be effective except around the edges in the Presidential race. But I think they will continue to make following politics so unpleasant that the Dem base will stay home in the midterms and the GOP base will show up in droves.

    •  Let them waste their time on that (0+ / 0-)

      Any time wasted on bashing Clinton is time not spent promoting their own candidates.

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:02:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with 2 (0+ / 0-)

      I think 3 would be an express concession that HRC is a lock on the presidency, but it might be there.

      5 and 6 contradict each other, but that doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

      And as for 1....who the hell would ever campaign for president anyway?  

      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:28:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course 5 and 6 contradict each other (0+ / 0-)

        It is the hallmark of the GOP that they will contradict themselves on a regular basis, sometimes in the same conversation.

        As for 3, it has little to do with the 2016 race. It is bear baiting. You have to vote in the midterms to block the liberal agenda. Why? Because if you think Obama is bad,  remember the Clintons.

  •  If I may.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMentalist

    I think it's a bit early to start up the "center-left" vs. the "left" ultimatums right now (for the record, the "left" may have their legitimate issues and concerns with the Clintons, but I think it's safe to assume that they don't HATE them like the arch-conservatives hate President Obama).  

    I think we need to know what the political climate will be amongst Independents (I consider the Tea Party to be a splinter group, so I will place them here for my sanity lol), Democrats, and Republicans from all ideologies in 2015-2016.  Equally important, we need to know exactly WHO will have the nominations during that timeframe as well.

    Say hypothetically, it's "Clinton/Dean" vs "Paul/Rubio," I think that's a no-brainer, and perhaps some from the Progressive-Democratic Wing can sit this election out if they really, really, don't like the roster.

    However, also hypothetically, if it's maybe "Clinton/Kerry," "Paul/Rubio" (maybe Christie by some miracle), AND "Dean/Warren" -- and "Dean/Warren" wins the nomination -- the polling results might be much, much closer.  Therefore, all factions of the Democratic Party might need to unite (it's not like they're not united now, but perhaps even more closely) in order to win.  

    I for one don't want to see Rand Paul and/or Marco Rubio with their feet up on the Oval Office.....brrr I just got a chill.... :D  

  •  Thus we see the failure of a two party system (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw

    when captured and owned by the 1%.

    Maybe 8 more years of ever-rising income inequality under Hillary will finally wake enough Democrats up that their party is starting to stink on ice and has little relation to their historical party platform.  Although it will probably be too late on a whole host of issues that could have been fixed without a neoliberal at the helm.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:15:59 AM PST

  •  I'm sure she'll be a great friend of labor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oh yay another commenter

    during the campaign... maybe...

    Has she spoken sternly to the big money super-pacs that are withholding money from 2014 to insure her coronation in 2016?

    All this hagiography so early in the process - with a critical election coming up in the immediate future - is kind of disturbing.

    It always seems impossible until its done. -Nelson Mandela

    by chuckvw on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:24:48 AM PST

  •  Hillary is popular with a lot of GOP women (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMentalist, Dr Swig Mcjigger

    And a LOT of them are going to vote for her once just to break the glass ceiling.  

  •  What A Lark (0+ / 0-)

    Once again Laura Clawson remains one of my most favorite and entertaining writers. This was just plain fun.

    Collect Different Days

    by Homers24 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:36:46 AM PST

  •  Give it some time. (0+ / 0-)

    I believe that HRC's popularity is (at least in part) due to the fact that she is the only Democrat currently perceived by the general public to be running for POTUS in 2016.

    There is a big window of opportunity for some as yet unknown candidate to sweep us all off our feet with a strong populist message.

    Remember that by 2016 we will be dealing with an economy that has been in the toilet for 99% of Americans for eight full years. This is due not only to Republican intransigence, but Democratic inaction as well.

    The right candidate could capitalize on this by painting HRC as the establishment candidate that would only continue the destructive status quo. This won't be hard to do given her record, and while she is taking hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches to Goldman Sachs.

    There is a groundswell within the Democratic Party that is waiting to be triggered, and it won't be in HRC's favor.

    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

      you're saying that they are going to have to run against Obama then to win?

      I would think that HRC or a govenor would be able to make the case that they had nothing to do with OBama's economic policy choices but that would rule out anybody who has been in the senate for the last eight years.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:00:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not against Obama, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oh yay another commenter

        against the establishment that Obama has served.

        The dark horse candidate that I'm imagining wouldn't have to directly criticize Obama or his policy decisions. However, you are kidding yourself if you don't believe that a Democrat that comes out of the corner swinging against the banks and Wall Street wouldn't get a HUGE bump in support from the Democratic base, and this could be very threatening to HRC.

        •  That would (0+ / 0-)

          still be running against Obama in my book.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:37:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If (0+ / 0-)

            running against the abuses and crimes of Wall Street and the banks is "running against Obama" then our party truly is lost.

            We should be able to trust those on "our" side to at least be able to take a stand against the theft of working people's homes and livelihoods; if not, what's the point of any of this?

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              frankly how are you going to explain all the money Obama took from Wall Street without running against Obama too? And remember Obama was a big proponent of bailing out the banks. So while I understand where you are coming from policy wise I also see it as you are going to have to run against Obama and pretty much make him the bad actor along with Wall Street and the banks.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:48:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Oh Lord help us, it's begun again already. (0+ / 0-)

    There are some here (my hand is up) that left this site for almost a year during the 2008 primary over the bile that spewed forth.  I didn't believe that Obama would or could possibly live up to the expectations heaped on him, and he pretty much hasn't.  In full disclosure, I voted for Hillary in my state primary in 2008, which she won, but it was by then too late for it to matter.  I felt that I owed it to her.  I then went away to mourn quietly for a bit, then squared my shoulders, walked inito my local Obama/Biden office and worked my ass off to get him elected.  That's what good Democrats do.  

    The calls are appearing once again, even this early on, for Anybody But Hillary.  I failed to see then and I fail to see now what is so awful about her that she is to be dismissed out of hand by so many on the left...

  •  hillary primary voter here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, kareylou

    i voted for Hillary in the 2008 Connecticut primary. bumper stickers and all. as a African American male i caught some flack from family and friends but i stuck by her until she dropped out in June of that year.  i happily voted for Obama in both elections.  2016 nomination is not a given to Hillary. i made the mistake of believing she was a shoo in in 2008. never again. she has to work very hard for it if she wants it.

  •  I won't vote for Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    She's too cozy with both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Christian Dominionists. (I've seen some fools indignantly point out that those two groups are opposed to each other, as if that proved anything. A power-hungry politician might still think she could make use of both -- while they're making use of her.)

  •  Seems to Me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    That the large number of Hillary haters on this site are just as afraid of her as the Republicans.  Too bad.  If she runs she wins and opens a new chapter in American History.  Oh, and by the way, you guys were wrong about Obama last time.  He's made a terrible President, an organizer, not a leader.  This eight years will be known as another lost decade.  And, by the way, I thought Guantanamo was supposed to be closed and the Afghan war was supposed to be over.  At least with Hillary we won't get some doe-eyed dreamer who has no idea how to make government work or how to take on the republicans.  Here we sit in his last mid-term election and it appears that Obama will sit on his hands once again and not nationalize this election and win it for the Democrats.  What a surprise.  We wouldn't want to hurt the Republicans feelings.

  •  If Hillary runs, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill W, KJB Oregon

    she will probably be elected, and if she is elected by an overwhelming landslide, as I suspect, then she can pretty much set her own agenda. She won't have to kowtow to her monied backers because she has the majority of voters on her side.

    If she plays it right, she could be one of the greatest Democratic presidents in history. But she will need help with that, which is why it is important to have more Democrats in the Legislature.

    She actually seems to be in a better position this time around than during her first bid.

    I realize that she is seen as a centrist, Third-way, DLC Democrat, and that has been a problem for me, but I'm hopeful that she has seen that this is a bankrupt path, at least for the majority of Americans, but it will also force her to play the game until she is elected, and while doing so, she may lose the trust of many of us.

    This is her moment to make history. Will she want to be remembered as the President who saved the American Dream or the President who finished giving the country to the Banksters. She doesn't need fortune or fame, why would she want to go down in history as the second coming of William Howard Taft.

  •  Hillary Clinton as Presidential candidate (0+ / 0-)

    Random thoughts on why I can’t bring myself to support Hillary Clinton even though I’d LIKE to see a woman elected as POTUS, regardless of the candidate's age:

    * Elizabeth Warren is better. On every single issue.
     * Hillary is in the pockets of the military industrial complex. She was a hawk on the Iraq war, supporting it from the beginning. She is only too happy to consider the use of the military in the Middle East and elsewhere. She's never spoken out against the culture of Permanent War, as President Obama recently did.
     * Hillary is an unabashed corporatist. She’s gone on the record during her Secretary of State tenure browbeating foreign governments against their will to accept Monsanto’s GMO Frankenfoods products. Her health care reform proposals in ‘93-’94 were even more corporate-friendly and more complex than the current Affordable Care Act.
     * She’s a former Goldwater girl. In her heart, she knows she’s right - WAY more right-wing than the average non-Republican. We will never, EVER see her support FDR’s Second Bill of Rights.
     * She has not spoken out against bills in Congress which would:
     - subvert diplomatic efforts to control nuclear non-proliferation in unfriendly countries like Iran, making war more likely.
     - give Monsanto more power to prevent farmers from using their own seeds at the end of each harvest (Monsanto regularly sues farmers for not buying new seed from Monsanto every year; using seed left over from harvests is a time-honored successful practice going back thousands of years.
     - limit consumers rights to sue for medical malpractice and for deceptive practices by businesses.
     - make it less likely that U.S. college undergrads will ever have free tuition, unlike their counterparts in many European countries.
    - codify the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that massive concentrations of money are the same as free speech.
     - make it more likely that whistleblowers, like Edward Snowden, could be prosecuted for disclosing wrongdoing by our government.
     * Incredibly, she supports the existing cap on Social Security taxes, which prevents the wealthy from paying their fair share of Social Security taxes on all of their income above $106,000. Amazingly, she considers removal of that cap a new tax on the middle class. She actually considers individuals making more than $106,000 per year to be part of America's middle class. Go figure.
     * She continues to support the death penalty.
     * She opposes legalization of cannabis.
     * As recently as 2007, she opposed legalization of gay marriage.
     * She’s never spoken out strongly against the culture of Wall Street - a culture which (per an NPR business report) results in Big Pharma investors being unwilling to invest in cures for major diseases. The unabashed capitalist investor doesn’t WANT to see cures; the investor wants continued development of maintenance drugs. Drugs that cure mean a one-and-done payment. Maintenance drugs ensure ongoing monthly profits virtually forever…meaning, don’t expect cures for diabetes, antibiotic-resistant super bugs, AIDS, arthritis, etc. anytime soon.
     * She’s spent far more time currying support among Hollywood celebrities than among the supporters of progressive organizations which oppose the Wall Street-backed culture of unfettered greed.
     * She's continued to support the Constitution-unfriendly Patriot Act.
     * She ACTIVELY OPPOSES single-payer health care.
     * When she was an attorney representing Wal-Mart, according to ABC News, she never once rose to the defense of the role of unions during meetings with Wal-Mart.
     * She supports the continued embargo against Cuba, meaning U.S. agriculture and other businesses can't export their products there.
     * She's threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran in the past if Iran attacks Israel.
     * She was an ardent supporter of union job-killing NAFTA.
    * She’s never said she’d decline to accept corporate campaign contributions; she’s never promised to specifically limit the influence of corporations, including dirty energy (oil, coal and nuclear) corporations, on any campaign she has or on her administration if elected. She's never, EVER given any support to the idea of limiting ALL campaign contributions to $100 per person, a popular item among most progressives.
     * News reports earlier this year disclosed that she's kept an "enemies list," a la Richard Nixon.
     * She’s never specifically pledged to oppose the groundwater-destroying practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for natural gas production.
     * During the 2008 campaign, she actually tried to sell herself as the candidate less likely to be assassinated, implying Barack Obama's status as an African-American President would make him a likely assassination target.

    I could go on, but, hopefully, readers get the idea.

  •  The GOP has been... (0+ / 0-)

    terrorized by ghosts for the last 40 years and they sold their soul to the Tea Pod Party, only to be stabbed in the political back by supreme idiots!  Now they're alone on an island and Hilary owns the world's boats!  What a shame!  You go for it, Hilary 2016!  And you WILL win, with the rest of the Democratic candidates for the Congress!

  •  Id never vote for her… (0+ / 0-)

    Ill never vote for a Centrist, Corporatist, repub-Lite 'dem' again, hence not her. Regretfully, because its time for a woman president, and God knows shes tough and competent. But we need a tough and competent populist Progressive President, woman or man, not another DINO. Otherwise, I really do like her personally!!! Dayumn!

  •  I see a comment lower that Appalachian women like (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary! Cultural? Im an Oklahoman, an Okie, whose cultural ancestors come from the Appalachians: we are a sort of Hill-Billy who done got too far west and run outta hills…

  •  Nice to see a Positive Diary about Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    It's pretty clear the HRC-haters are working overtime to create an anti-HRC backlash among members of DailyKos, Move-on Etc. in hopes of stifling her support should she decide to run.

    Anyone who disagrees should always speak up, or by sheer effort and # of replies it will make it seem like the consensus opinion on such sites is rabidly anti HRC.

  •  RE THE HILL (0+ / 0-)

    I really want to like Hillary for President as I respect her enormously as a human being.  The problem is she is a GLOBALIST and I doubt she would do squat to protect U.S. food security; U.S. jobs; dig in hard to turn our failing nation around and I don't mean by uttering empty phrases and feel good sound bites.

    This country is a disaster domestically and in negative arrears internationally having long ago burned the once indisputable respect by most nations of the world for the U.S.A.  gone, gone gone... squandered beyond repair...

    What will Hillary's position be on the push by the global elite to destroy all vestiges of the nation state and blend Mexico, the US, and Canada into one big North America, with a common currency, the Amero????????????? Will she lead this next wave of shock and awe or will she work on our, the people's behalf?  Will she seek justice and have a Dept of Justice that will serve criminal bankers sentences for crimes committed or continue the perverse civil law avenue against white collar bully global criminals??????? Too many questions and no answers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site