General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary will be the nominee two years hence. Not Warren. Not Sanders.
Deal with it: I'm older than most of you, having been launched from my mother on the same day Sputnik I was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Meh.
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)HRC will mop the floor with whomever the GOP nominates!
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, waitaminute. I think I get it: You want purity.
Sorry. Maybe you'll have better luck in your next life.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)What is it that poster wants?
merrily
(45,251 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)Not having Hillary confirm that damned super pipeline of death
Not going to war with Syria OR IRAN, nor threatening to
NOT supporting the gutting of public education by charter schools,
Yeah, that make me pure...
Do you ever stop and think about the fact that for all the loyalty Clinton supporters show, they are among the first to get kicked to the curb, be they an aide, or a voter?
MADem
(135,425 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)for charter schools and the toxic Canada pipeline? It would be hard to wash Hillary's fingerprints off of those I suppose. And of course, , saying "assad must go" is not conducive to any peace treaty, is it.
If Hillary wanted to be a liberal, she could be, but she has not been, nor will be. If you are fine with that, admit that, but do not wonder why she will get lukewarm support from the people who know her well, and know that she will stab us in the back.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your conspiracy theory/fingerprints/stab in the back stuff is just not supported by facts, but go on with "Harridan Hillary" themes. Says more about you than you realize.
I know her well and she'll get my full support. Go vote for whatever fringe candidate you'd like, though, I'm not even going to try to convince you, you're so invested in her as an evil character in a playlet of your own mind that you wouldn't listen, anyway.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)“I stand behind the charter
school/public school
movement, because parents do
deserve greater choice within
the public school system to
meet the unique needs of their
children."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/05/american-petroleum-institute/do-bill-clinton-and-george-bush-support-keystone-x/
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/10/clinton-tips-hand-favor-transcanadas-massive-pipeline
but then again, thinking she is is liberal says a lot about her supporters, more than they realize.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not sure where your "ah ha" moment is, there. If cheap ass states with no tax base refuse to invest in schools, what are parents to do?
The federal government cannot force states to invest in public education. And public education is a state and local endeavor, by and large.
Are you saying you want an "Every little sparrow" federal government? You'd have no problem with a President Bush sticking his beak into the educational processes of your state or local government, then?
Allowing parents to get the fuck AWAY from schools that think it's "OK" to give equal time to creationism or for the Christians to do a little praying before the football game, to my mind, is a "liberal" attitude.
YMMV.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)I am in Florida, where the Bushes still do stick their beak in, because the corporations that control the Right wing pretty much ripped the teeth out of government. BY the way, these are the same folks who DO put creationism and other crap into schools, because frankly, they know Religion is good for keeping the slaves stupid.
And if you cannot force cheap ass states to invest in education (which Europe does) than at the very least you get on the bully pulpit and denounce the cheap ass states.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)Your Mileage may vary,...well, I think Hillary's car has the mileage set back, because Bill and Wall street are trying to sell it as the new model. by the way, welcome to ignore.
merrily
(45,251 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)So, they go nowhere at all without the President.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)I wouldn't wipe my ass with them. Not substantive enough to do the job.
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)Math! And Warren does NOT have the appeal of an Obama.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)She lost to Obama in 2008, she'd lose again if she ran and that's probably why she isn't running.
zonkers
(5,865 posts)chill out and enjoy being a grandma. That's what I would do.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Hardly anyone believes otherwise
hack89
(39,181 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 12, 2014, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)
To critical primary states, what other evidence do you have that she is not running?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)a political powerhouse named Bill Clinton....she has a massive ground game in place....She has the support of the Ladies of the Senate..and she will likely inherit Barack Obama's secret database...not to mention a FULL coffer ready to go...
What the fuck would make you think she won't run?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)what she supports doing after she is elected.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't know about you .....but I want to win.....a win by Republicans would be FAR WORSE!
Even Bernie Sanders said "We must protect the progress we HAVE made"
jwirr
(39,215 posts)candidate who gets the nomination because the bosses in the party want him/her or it is him/her turn and to hell with the people's wishes.
I also want the candidate to commit to policies to deal with issues. To say "I will....". Does it not bother you that the issues she has espoused so far are pro war, for TPP, for the keystone pipeline (big oil) and a bunch others that will not help the 99% at all? Yes, I like her stance on women's issues, minorities and the poor. But those are in common with the other candidates.
And as to your "too bad" - you sound very much like her supporters in 2008. Rude.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If you answer to that is no....then what you just said is bullshit.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)voted Democratic in every election since JFK and I am not about to stop now. How about you?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I always vote for whomever wins the Primary....will YOU vote for Hillary if she wins it?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)By the way Bernie Sanders was on the Ed Schultz program when he first started thinking about running. He was asked what you are asking and said he would not run as a third party spoiler. I believe him. As to Elizabeth I think she knows that she is our power in the Senate and will stay there. But like Bernie I think she feels that Hillary needs challengers in the primary in order to get the issues on the table.
Now answer my question. How are you going to vote?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)PBO wasn't my first choice.....but I voted for him after the Primary.
So I guess that makes BOTH of us Democrats! Unlike some here who REFUSE to vote for Hillary yet claim to be....and they are why I ask this question at all!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)R will bring on a really bad disaster. Worse than what we have now.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and I was trying to separate the wheat from the chaff!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and the Chaff shouldn't be telling the Party what to do!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
Let's have an alternative to Bhillary so we can have a real choice.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)But if only we knew for sure that Bill would call the shots behind the scenes I would vote for her. That would be great, as she is totally unfit for the position and he has proven hes good at it
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)DOMA, DADT for just three quickies. The failure to get National Health.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)I agree with you there. But in my defense I said "good", not "great"... still waiting for that great one 
Tweedy
(1,284 posts)Election season crowds out governing these days. It is ridiculous.
President Obama is a great transformative president. Health care reform has finally come thanks to his efforts just to name one truly transformative thing. Health care reform eluded everyone from both Roosevelts, right up to president Clinton. Stop buying the gop insanity.
If we hold the senate, the GOP may finally get a clue and actually think about where it went wrong, instead of ceaselessly blaming every problem from the beginning of time on president Obama. Who knows, if we stop bellyaching, we might make real gains in the house.
If senator Clinton chooses to run, she has to win the primary like anyone else. This is the United states of America. Nobody is entitled to elected office. I seriously doubt senator Clinton enjoys this sort of nonsense when we have an election with serious consequences facing us in a few weeks.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Comes to campaigning......ask anyone in the business
Stellar
(5,644 posts)and she will likely inherit Barack Obama's secret database...not to mention a FULL coffer ready to go...
Just hope the Clintons can get enough enthusiasm to get the Black Community to help her. Their is no love lost between the A.A. community and the Clintons.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3907239.ece?Submitted=true
From The Sunday Times
May 11, 2008
Hillary Clinton's suicidal gamble with race poison
Andrew Sullivan
(snip)
The more working-class white voters actually saw and heard of him, the more their fears of the unknown seemed to subside. He won only 27% of white voters without college degrees in Ohio; he won 29% in Pennsylvania and 34% of them in Indiana. And when you look at age, the effect is even more striking. In North Carolina, a southern state, Obama won 57% of white voters under 30 and 45% of white voters under 40.
In the Clintons' morphing into a crude version of racially angry Reagan Democrats, you can see an almost Shakespearian tragedy. Bill Clinton has a long and admirable record in civil rights; and was on the right side of the struggle in the South in his youth. He has an effortless rapport with black Americans, and they were his core final constituency of support in the darkest days of impeachment.
But like any southerner, Clinton also knew how to navigate racial resentment. In 1992, he interrupted the primary campaign to return to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of a mentally retarded black man. He made a point of attacking the radical black hip hop artist Sister Souljah in his first campaign. He signed off on welfare reform. His genius was in holding together a coalition that included enough Reagan Democrats to win, while never losing wide and deep black support.
But he never ran against a black candidate and neither did his wife. They are used to loving and supporting minorities – as long as the minorities know their place and see the Clintons as the instrument of their salvation. Obama broke that dependency and that relationship. And that was why the Clintons had to do all they could to destroy and belittle and besmirch him.
But in that venture the Clintons are destroying themselves and their legacy and their capacity to bridge the very gaps they now must widen to stay in the race. It is a Clinton tragedy – and one that most Americans seem slowly, cautiously but palpably determined not to make their own.
The Times On-line link is outdated, but another link that connected to it gives the gist of it. http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/05/poisoning-the-racial-wells/216831/
Logical
(22,457 posts)
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)
marble falls
(71,932 posts)may seem to have now.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The majority of Democrats like Hillary Clinton......including thr Ladies of the Senate...
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Senate I was speaking about.......you know that right?
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The Democratic Primary......there is nothing for ME to BE disappointed about!
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Logic tells me to pull for the candidate with the highest poll rating...who has a massive ground game in place ready to go.....she will likely inherit Obama's "database" she is married to one of history's greatest campaigners...she has full coffers already and the support of the Ladies of the Senate....AND to top it all off.....she polls beating every single Republican contender known to date....and that is why I support her....because my objective is to WIN!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
Well done!
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It doesn't matter how old you are.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)I don't want these last few votes of my life to be for the lesser of two evils. The party just keeps drifting right and taking more money from Wall St. and other corporate interests. Makes me sick and sad and weary.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)running for major offices such as Senator, Representative, President they receive large amounts of money from corporations, this is where the campaign money comes. Senator Warren spent $42 million to get elected as senator, this is in a state wide election, multiply this times 50 states. Corporations donate to candidates, fact of life.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democrats to become president.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)it could be forgotten. Even Bernie will have to have corporations donating to him and this is something many needs to understand.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)still appeal to an enormousness number of voters. I would like either of them, but IMO in the big picture I think they would be a hard sell to many Americans.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that's why...
jeepers
(314 posts)Because Unless a person taps into that Citizens United honey pot they can't win. The big money men have to like you or you can't play.
But keep asking the question.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the ONLY reason Bernie needs to become one is because he needs their Money!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He runs as Democrat or independent. He could get the campaign money and a lot from someone else.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are you kidding me?
JEB
(4,748 posts)jeepers
(314 posts)can afford to win this election isn't that the whole point of citizens united. Elections for sale?
JEB
(4,748 posts)the political system in general from the grasp of corporate money. I am not an expert, so I hope there is a way to regain our Democracy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Or at least campaign financing is reformed there will be a need for really big dollars for a campaign. I tend to think the SC justices thought "they would make it impossible" for Democrats to raise large sums of money but along came a fellow by the name of Obama who ran a grass roots campaign, worked on getting voters out and Democrats had enough of Republicans ruining our country their plan may have worked.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)and doesn't need the expensive snow job.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Whats stopping you hmmmmm?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Just go there and get all the names you want.
JEB
(4,748 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)
Lochloosa
(16,735 posts)I'm ready for Hillary . She is running.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)makes you a seer? Well, I was 7 and half when it launched and I don't know who the Democratic Nominee will be in 2016. That's because it's more than 2 years away and nobody can predict the future. You may be right. But then again..........
former9thward
(33,424 posts)but the primaries start about 18 months from now and the process to get people on the ballot starts less than a year from now.
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)don't take place until the convention. In 2012 that was in early September. And to my knowledge, the Democrats still haven't even selected a city for next one. So if history repeats, that means 23 months from now. I missed it by a couple months. I'll get over it.
Response to Mister Nightowl (Original post)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
But for all their blustery fervor, they weren't enough to save the SS Clinton from sinking last go, so they held their breath til they turned blue which is as close as they come to representing the Democratic Party.
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)HA! 
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)he who laughs last and all that
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)This time, he won't be. And if the base is pissed with Obama, how do you think it'll react to another first-term Senator from academia?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Two things, the first a correction. The base is not pissed at Obama. By base I mean majority. Second, just like with O, people are coming to ralleys to see Elizabeth. Her poll numbers are creeping up as she becomes better known. She's lightning in a bottle. She's got nowhere to go but up. Hillary OTOH has a ceiling of support baked in because she's a known entity as a corporatist, a friend to Wall Street. She & hubby have promoted the TPP and told Democrats to embrace the Keystone Pipeline. Elizabeth speaks to and for the 99%. No contest. She would invigorate the base in a way the Clinton Machine cannot. Inevitability got turned on its head in 2008. Remember that the next time you try to convince people here that resistance is futile.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)Than they would be for the person they rejected last time.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)as in Blue Dog
as in "I am willing to kill my own brain cells because I do not want these pink liberals to breathe."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You do realize that the Blue Dogs have been essentially neutered by the last Midterm right?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You know she has to sink TO Somebody!
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Should be easy to answer.....since YOU know a "real" Democrat when you see one....come on tell us how many Democrats you "like" and all. Since you pronounce Hillary Clinton not one, surely you can enlighten us as to who IS one...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Fortunately, my ballot will have more candidates on it than the Repug and the 3rd Way, ambitious, hawk.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Ted Cruz would make people happy, if you are TP.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, is your admiration for her limited to her membership in the Democratic Party?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)But she has experience on a presidential cabinet, she has met world leaders and though many do not realize it she has advocated for increasing minimum wages, advocated for women's rights, was a strong advocate for civil rights while in college, the list goes on and on, you can find where potential candidates by searching by their name and including "on the issues". She isn't anymore "corporate" than other candidates listed on DU, this is a myth, all candidates needs corporations to be elected.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Did she entertain the bigwigs at Goldman Sachs, and get $400k for doing so, because she's so anti-corporate?
Did she vote for, and support, Bush's wars because she's a dove.
She won't get my vote.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Yes, Hillary gave speeches to Goldman Sachs and made money doing it but you have to admit they paid her to listen to her, how many others gets a chance to do the same.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I rather doubt that Goldman Sachs would approach Bernie Sanders or Kshama Sawant to do a gig for them and pay for it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, why are they willing to pay her for it so extravagantly? Her charm? Her affability? Her banking skills? Or, her ability to be bought?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Support her......even the Ladies of the Senate....thats why. I trust judgement before yours ...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bring it!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)With no strings attached, of course.
rofl: :
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Think that money he needs will be coming from?
Again who do you have that is getting elected for free?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Do you think that the corporations that finance Hillary expect nothing in return? Do you like the idea of corporations, or those beholden to them, running our government?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You cannot getelected in thid country
without money......lots and lots of money.....THAT is the reality on the ground idealist...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'm not "feigning" anything. I'm fully aware that the establishment parties are dependent on, and in thrall, to the corporations. It appears that you are the one being naive if you think there's payback expected and received by the corporate "contributors" (sounds so much nicer than "bribe"
to politicians.
But, hey if our candidates take bribes.. what the hell. It's just politics-as-usual and everyone does it. Kinda like tax evaders.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that's what I am trying to get you to grasp.....reality.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)What's yours?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Primary ELECTION because I am a real Democrat.....how bout you?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I didn't marry the party when I joined and don't owe it any allegiance.
Nor did this Democrat:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.
Or, this one:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Skeowes28
(62 posts)There will never be true progressive no one will be happy with who we nominate anyway
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Who knows what will happen in 2 years?
2 years ago I thought that ISIS was ices....things change. I don't know where I was when Sputnick was launched, but when Alan Shepard when up in space I was standing in a Navy Dept. supplies room, coffee, a forerunner of the internet machine that a lady named "Lucy" was in charge of ...... with every employee in the department listening to the radio...
That was a good time. Hopefully, the US will have more.
arthritisR_US
(7,810 posts)too readily.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Look, we all know about Bill's serious, progressive heart disease and HRC's "fainting"/blood clot in the brain episode. I stopped by the library yesterday and saw Ed Klein's bombshell new book about the Clintons and Obamas, Blood Feud. The book was displayed in pride of place near the checkout desk. I started to page through it and ended up sitting down and reading for a good half hour.
Trash Klein as much as you want, but I truly doubt he would have published statements regarding HRC's health without factual backup - risk of being sued for defamation. First of all, I believe a campaign would risk her health, and her husband's. Secondly, I have no doubt that her health would be an issue she'd be forced to address were she the nominee. Here's what Klein had to say:
“The true story of what happened to Hillary, was radically different from [Hillary's personal spokesman Phillipe] Reines’s version [that Hillary had a stomach virus and was dehydrated]. Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was treated at the State Department’s infirmary and then, at her own insistence, taken to Whitehaven to recover. However, as soon as Bill appeared on the scene and was able to assess Hillary’s condition for himself, he ordered that she be immediately flown to New York-Presbyterian Hospital in…Manhattan. When Reines subsequently released a statement confirming that Hillary was being treated…it naturally intensified speculation about the seriousness of her medical condition.
While she was at the hospital, doctors diagnosed Hillary with several problems. She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her brain and skull…
To make matters worse, it turned out that Hillary had an intrinsic tendency to form clots and faint [Klein goes on to recount several other past fainting spells].
…According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed that Hillary’s tendency to form clots was the least of her problems…Put into layman’s language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way.”
The book also described earlier fainting spells from such blood clots. In 1998, she was treated for a blood clot in her leg. She fainted during a 2005 speech in Buffalo, N.Y., broke her elbow in an unexplained 2009 fall in the State Department garage, and collapsed while boarding a flight in Yemen in 2011.
Given their precarious states of health, if either of them truly cared more about the other than about political power, and/or if their daughter cares about how long they live, HRC will NOT run.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)from a newbie. Imagine that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)imagine that!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)That one was stolen by Obama (yes, people on DU are still making that infantile claim)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)bosses and media pundits pick for us?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"underground" forum to boot!
mmonk
(52,589 posts)my expressions are not meant to be confined? Real change never takes that route.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so I suggest you start your own!
mmonk
(52,589 posts)or incapable of understanding it.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)What do you tell everyone else not jumping with glee over the prospect of a Hillary candidacy? "Go start your own club?" Fuck that. I guess you're not familiar with the term "big tent".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the rest of the party pretty much agrees that Hillary is the frontrunner.....by a LONG way!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but tell me who do YOU have that can compete with her?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Take your snotty attitude and stick it in a tail pipe.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And, since it looks like you have not been here very long, Warren and/or Sanders would be great, but some of us just want a candidate who is not as corporate, hawkish, or Third Way as Hillary. Not a personality cult. Deal with that, too.
Geez I should just follow you around and +1 all your posts. No..no..just kidding.
kysrsoze
(6,446 posts)Oh wait... she was supposedly anointed last time too. I don't care what the percentages are. Things can change, and I would like to see LOTS of true progressive ideas coming out in the primaries and perhaps pushing her further left on issues. Her positions are not much different than those of Obama - aside from some of the civil liberties areas, she's a moderate Republican.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Then how do you expect to be able to elect?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Being admonished that only a Third-Wayer can get elected, and then when they get elected, telling people to STFU because that is who they voted for.
Farcical. That center just may not hold very much longer.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This seems to be a problem of knowing who is corporate and who isn't.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Here is a simple test - for me, anyone who pushes the TPP is corporate.
And to call the TPP a pony of any sort is really wrong. It affects everyone.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)since that is your ONLY interest!
djean111
(14,255 posts)And it is the height of ridiculousness to infer that I would vote for Rand Paul, it is deflection and an attempt to marginalize.
That's like saying that, as a woman, I will naturally vote for a woman - would I vote for Carly Fiorina if she was the only woman candidate? Um, nope.
Simplistic, and for the life of me, I cannot imagine how this sort of thing would sway a single voter to vote for Hillary.
Oh, and being against a "trade" agreement that gives corporations power over a country's laws if those laws affect their profits - that would be a damned fucking fine single issue, if there WAS only a SINGLE issue.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)^^^ that is NOT Third Way now is it?
djean111
(14,255 posts)In any event, I believe Hillary has all the uncritical support from DU that she is likely going to get.
All this angry posting after people who do not like her does more harm than good, IMO.
Are you of the opinion that we don't even need primaries? That anyone supporting any other possible candidate is Not a True Democrat?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)That chart isn't based on Hillary taking the related quiz, it's based on where someone feels Hillary would score. It's reflective of the biases of that author, which is to say it's exactly as valid as the one I could make and assign Hillary a bright red dot on the lower right corner of the moderate square.
So, don't bother continuing to post it, it reflects nothing.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)vote for her. Waffles that day!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)No one polarizes people like someone who is known to the group. Hillary has too much of, eh, biography for people to forget. The mass media, on the whole, serve the same interests as Jebthro. They'll put out billions and billions in free advertising to help remake his mass murdering warmongering family of traitors into genuine American heroes. Worked for his zero of a brother going up against Al Gore and John Kerry -- and a whole lot more GOP crap artistes going back to Nixon in '72.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)Kerry and Gore-PFFFT
The Clintons are the best street fighters in Democratic politics since the Kennedys...
Tweedy
(1,284 posts)Here I was hoping we would finish this election and WIN it. If the Clintons are the best street fighters and you like that, get street fighting for the senate, the house, governorships, town councils and etc. Then we can focus on the next election right? We have got to keep street fighting-- of course, under your scenario there is precious little time for governing. Thank goodness, president Obama took time to govern even though that is so dangerous politically. Much better for poll numbers if you street fight all day long and accomplish nothing of any lasting worth, ya think?
So weary of this nonsense. Just because much of the media's ratings are based on soap operatic political street fights full of sound and fury signifying nothing, does not mean we have to be.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)The Clinton Presidency: A Historic Era of Progress and Prosperity
Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
Tweedy
(1,284 posts)And president Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, signed Doma and did not shift the culture wars toward progress. Yet, I agree overall, he was a good president. President Obama is a transformative president and I can list pell grants, student loans & etc. for both of them. Remember president Obama and his 3 month supermajority rid us of banks profiting on student debt. He and democrats made extraordinary investments in our future with the stimulus (with help from a very few republicans) and finally brought us health care reform. He also won with the largest majorities since president Eisenhower which helped him achieve great things. That short supermajority is dang important. Yet, this debate is misplaced here since both are democrats and neither will be on the presidential ballot again.
The point is we have an election right around the corner and it is not the presidential election. Use those street fighting skills you like to win this one please. Then perhaps we can get some more problems fixed after the GOP loses before returning to street fighting again. Success in elections and then in legislation will shake this right wing fever free, and that success will be much harder to achieve if we lose the senate. All over this country, people tell me they want to see problems fixed. The only problems we fix by ignoring this election in favor of the next
all belong rightly to the Republican Party.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... kid, you'll see that making stupid predictions tends to backfire.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Yet another Baby Boomer.
Yea.
They have served our nation so well.
I am overjoyed.
Our country is in the best of hands.
Huzzah.
This is real hope and change.
Happy days are here again.
Can't wait.
navarth
(5,927 posts)So you think all 'baby boomers' are the same? Really? Do I have to educate you on that? Shit. And you with a Coltrane icon, I would expect more intelligence. Get up off that shit, man.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But then I'm sure one can find plenty of individual differences between any two given grasshoppers. Doesn't mean you want to ever see a whole swarm of them come near your cornfield.
navarth
(5,927 posts)please.
your response is not much of an improvement.
a comparison of people my age and grasshoppers swarming your cornfield.
this is not useful or helpful.
how's this: 'I wouldn't want a bunch of millenials running my government.' Is that fair, or even intelligent?
No.
it's tiring dealing with this kind of shit.
tell you what: want to be prejudiced against my generation? go on with your bad self.
we're done here.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)So by your standards that gives me a lot more insight than you. And I say it ain't gonna happen.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)Even if that push comes from others
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Nothing convinces people like that kind of rhetoric...
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)or caucuses - they are just a waste of time and money - since it has all been settled.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)All settelled by Third Wayers Wall Street hawks.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Anything against Hillary or for anyone else - flying cow patties are launched to try and stifle, marginalize, ridicule, reduce to hilariously simplistic terms. With charts. No seas of blue linkies as yet, just long lists of stuff.
It is not working, I believe.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Warren has said again and again and again that she's not running. I take the one-time Republican of questionable Native American heritage at her word.
I was born around the time of Gemini IV.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)He was the prophet who tried to warn the US about the rise of the military-industrial complex.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)I mean, is there a certain year where we cut this off? If so, I can guess where certain people will place it.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)John Lindsay of NY was a liberal and so was Nelson Rockefeller. This was an era when Republicans included liberals and George Wallace was a Democrat.
And I don't care who anyone supported when they were still in high school, living under their conservative parents' roof (which was when Hillary supported Goldwater).
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Here's the difference: she was 17; she had not yet been to college; she was not even old enough to vote. Contrast that with an academic in her 40s, and consider who the Republicans in office were at the time Warren was a Rethug.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Nice RWNJ talking point. Really inspires faith in the rest of your analysis (especially since you are "taking her at her word" .
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Indian Country Today Media Network tried several times to contact her and tell her side. She wouldn't do it.
That's neither right wing nor left wing. That's an issue she's ducking.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but even if it weren't, got a link?
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Here's a piece from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-is-part-native-american
There are countless others from conservative, moderate, and libera sites -- each with their own take.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)end she will lay the groundwork for another R takeover. There are things that have to be fixed and if they are not fixed we will be in a worse situation than before. She shows no signs of even knowing about these things.
So I am supposed to get over it? No I will vote for her if I must but I will not like it.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)including the age thing.
AngryOldDem
(14,180 posts)The fact that she is already being pronounced as the nominee just shows how much the system is broken -- that we can't even consider people like Warren and Sanders without being tarred as being traitors to the party, or other some such bullshit, or that we can't recognize and accept reality (whatever the hell that is).
And people wonder why some just don't vote. I will vote, but it's getting harder to do so and still feel good about it.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)From what I read here, she IS going to be the nominee and she WILL defeat ANY GOPer challenger, even going as far as "mopping the floor" with him. So, screw it. Why bother? It's a done deal.
Logical
(22,457 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)A lot of things can happen in that time. A lot of things WILL happen in that time.
We just don't know...
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)FDR was President when I was born & I remember Sputnik very well. The money for science education equipment came pouring in from a panicked US government just as I started high school. On a much smaller scale, my friends & I lived October Sky.
All that said, I don't know if Hillary will get the nom. Barring some unforeseen events, she likely will. And if elected, she will continue on a hawkish, 1%-er, Wall Street & Walton-informed course, somewhat to the right of Obama on many issues. And that will be too bad.
On the other hand, I don't know that either Bernie or Liz would stand much of a chance in the General if nominated. Just too much money and an actively hostile Mainslime Media against them. After the betrayals of the past 2 decades from the FCC and the more recent Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, I don't know if any sort of leftward movement is possible within the American political machine any more.
I guess about the only way to effect radical change in the world of today is through radical means, and I don't see that happening until economic and ecological conditions reach the breaking point and the great mass of the world's people realize that they have nothing left to lose.
In that context, I am reminded of Niccolo Macchiavelli, who carefully advised "the Prince" that he must leave the peasants enough crumbs so that they had something to lose if they arose against the Crown. Our modern oligarchs seem to have forgotten that lesson, and that failure might yet prove to be their downfall: "This time is different; we don't need to leave anything for the peasants because they will shortly all be dead while we sail away in our floating kingdoms, with just enough of them--carefully selected--on board to see to our every need."
jwirr
(39,215 posts)liberals remember Macchiacelli. He probably is not in their new laundered curriculums.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
This is just about enough to et me off on another rant.
Education is not the same thing as vocational training. Beginning in about 1972, educators began to forget what they were about. Horridly inappropriate business models were imported into education, and education became a caricature of itself. It all became about measurable goals & objectives, with absurd results. The real purposes of education, which have to do with laying the groundwork for wisdom, understanding, compassion, and public morality (which has little to do with religion), in short, of making us more fully formed humans, are not easily operationalized or measured. Because these purposes resisted "objective" codification, they were abandoned in favor of largely trivial ends whose only real virtues were, first, their ease of measurement, and second, the degree to which they prepared young people to fit into place as cogs in the great machine.
All of education has become a matter of "teaching the test." Unfortunately, "the test" is not a valid measure of the original purposes of teaching.Commercialized education has responded to this dilemma, not by scrapping the test, but by rejecting the original humane purposes of education in favor of simplistic and, in the worst sense of the word, immediately utilitarian objectives. Where once we sought to teach people to question "Why," we now at best provide them with some skills related to "How."
jwirr
(39,215 posts)too bad because we were right. A lot of things are still reverberating from that era to this. And our children are paying for it. They are not going to be thinkers instead they are being prepared to follow the leader wherever they want to go.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The campuses were the focal points of the antiwar movement precisely because they had succeeded in their goal of fostering the development of questioning, sophisticated, compassionate human beings.
The bureaucracy always gave lip service to those goals of liberal education and made it possible for veterans to go to school after WWII, but the system was unprepared for the broader social consequences of expanding access to good university educations to children of the working class. The response has been to try to shut down the portals. The "goals & objectives" bit was maybe the first strike. Then Reagan shut down free access to the University of California system. Tuitions escalated around the country. For-profit "universities"--really, glorified trade schools--sprang up everywhere. There is no longer a market for a liberal education. Our kids grow up with no sense of where they stand in the grand human cultural endeavor that extends across the millenia.
Ask not who burned the books at Alexandria. It was us.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)not and it will not be good to have less educated people to face these changes. Things like climate change, energy shortages, disease, water shortages, draught and food shortages etc. are going to force this change. If we cannot deal with them intelligently then all hell will break loose.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)probably tried to step on it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)What, are you trying to encourage people not to take interest in the primary? Why are you trying to stifle the vote?
I'll "deal with it" if and when Hillary is the nominee. As if I'll just take it as a given before we even know who is running.
JEB
(4,748 posts)the only possible nominee because she has the most corporate/media support. Oh yeah, that fires me up. Go MIC.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)did you ever come back down?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Must be in a fairly stable orbit.
Oh, crap. Forget I said "stable."
Response to Mister Nightowl (Original post)
Post removed
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)How was that wisdom thing working all that time?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Is she running for a third term?
She was inevitable in 2008, and I keep on wanting to start a thread where I explain I went into a coma in January of 2008 and have just now awakened, and since of course Hillary was going to be the nominee, I came right here to find out how she's doing, because surely she'd be in her second term by now.
I find all this "Hillary is the only possible one in 2016" stuff I read here to be somewhat scary. Surely there are other Democrats who would be a better choice. Other than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom I respect tremendously and either of whom would probably make a wonderful nominee and president if only the would run, almost no other names ever come up. It's as if the Democratic Party has dwindled down to three people.
And I'm another one who is about a decade older than you are.
customerserviceguy
(25,406 posts)The 2016 Presidential election begins the day after the midterm elections (unless there is a significant distraction from Louisiana) and three and a half weeks out, I don't see anyone who's laid the groundwork to overcome Hillary. Even the grandchild was timed perfectly for this.
You're probably old enough to remember the last time a Democratic frontrunner was overcome by a candidate on the left of the party, and that was 1972. Ed Muskie would have been a completely viable candidate against a second term of Richard Nixon, and Nixon's complete trouncing of George McGovern no doubt added to his feeling of invincibility when Watergate started unfolding. That prolonged the agony for about a year or so, screwing the economy up in the process.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Despite the EnthusiasticBeanExtract's corrosive and hostile certainty and El Flambaito's OP. Talk about a recipe for disaster.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Because a lot of people, including myself, associate the Clintons with so much "third way" compromise, it might as well be voting for the GOP.
I want to see a woman in the White House, but not another 4 years of "triangulation" that amounts to *right* of center compromise.
So would not turning out to vote mean the GOP might take the White House. Meh. What's the big diff? Every signal Hillary gives tells me she would be GOP flying under Democratic colors.
A Hillary nomination would be a recipe for apathy in the coming election.
If Hillary cares about the Democratic party at all she will realize this and start prepping/promoting another viable candidate now. She will hand over the whole war chest. She will turn a dark horse into the new Inevitable Horse. She will help light a fire under the Democratic party that will sweep the nation in the next election.
Because if Hillary runs, we aren't going to win. The voters will stay home, and continue to feel disempowered about what has been foisted upon them and generally depressed about life.
BooScout
(10,410 posts)But I'll be damned if I'll hang around this place and put up with the same amount of misogynist remarks as last time.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)many of us are still here after all the racist remarks that were here last time.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)What I remember about 2008 isn't a whole lot of misogyny, it's a metric shit-ton of Hillary supporters screaming "misogyny" in response to any legitimate criticism of Clinton in order to shut-down debate and further their meme of Hillary as inevitable. Then, lots of Hillary supporters screaming "misogyny" when she started to lose because...well...frankly...she's a terrible candidate far from the mainstream on many issues. Then, lots of Hillary supporters screaming "misogyny" when it became inevitable that she was not going to win and we began to suggest that she should end her candidacy for the good of the party and the immediacy of a unified opposition to the destructive agenda of the GOP.
Nearly 8 years and I see nothing much has changed. Hillary is still a terrible candidate and her supporters still consider any deviation from the Cult of Clinton Adoration to be "misogyny."
Perhaps we can get through a primary without a civil war after Hillary's electability goes nose-and-toes-up again if more people opted to not "hang around this place" under such circumstances.
BooScout
(10,410 posts)....all those 'Obama supporters' screaming about 'racism' in response to any legitimate criticism of Obama in order to shut down debate.
Pot meet kettle. 
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Since you say so. I'm younger than have witnessed bullshit from the so called "adults" around me all my life. 
2banon
(7,321 posts)She'll be the U.S. version of Margaret Thatcher. We know.
Besides saying Eff U to those of us who warn against her coronation, what's your point?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)That being said, the chest beating is unbecoming.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)4 out of the last 5 presidents from two political families. Who is next? Jeb? Then Chelsea? It will be the greatest gift to anti-government types since Ronnie Rayguns.
This is anti-democratic and undermines the belief in the legitimacy of democratic government. Our country's youth are dangerously turning toward libertarian ideals, if not outright supporting whackjobs like Paul for lack of any viable alternative to the corporatocracy.
Her election will be largely supported by the 60 and overs, and in 20 years the rest of us will be left behind to live in a world where kooks like Paul have power. My generation is falling to the belief that government is hopeless, and the Hillary/Bush crowd is fueling it.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)...Dems to oppose her in the primaries.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Exactly what the corporations want.
polichick
(37,626 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts) JEB
(4,748 posts)better have a fucking batshit crazy asshole for their is they expect me to vote for Hillary.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)in the Republican party is close to nil.
And that still doesn't make me want to vote for Hillary.
JEB
(4,748 posts)greatlaurel
(2,020 posts)When I volunteered for her campaign in 2008, I was shocked by how popular she was in my state. Rural people, who often vote against their self interest (voting for the GOP), were all for HRC. These people will turn out to vote for her again in droves. I am saddened by the HRC hatred, because it weakens the Democratic Party, which is exactly the Rove strategy of divide and conquer our party. It worked for the GOP in 2000. I hope it fails in 2016.
Right now though, we need to GOTV for 2014. The anti-Clinton arguments only serve to help the GOP. If you want a different candidate to run for POTUS, then please work for them during the primary season as hard as you can. Pushing anti-Clinton GOP talking points only weakens the Democratic Party at every level. The best thing to do for the party and democracy in general this fall is to work to GOTV this election.
My only criticism of you post, Mister Nightowl, is we need GOTV this November 2014. The campaign for president needs to wait until after this election is over.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)
calimary
(90,021 posts)But I still have you beat by four years!
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)I was born the day the Japanese signed the surrender papers on that US battleship.
I agree HRC will most likely be the Democratic nominee in 2016.
My only doubts are what will be the difference?
And, yeah, Warren is not going to run and Sanders is not likely to make much of an impact on the nomination process if he runs either.
So it'll be HRC and again, what difference will it make? This old guy would like to know before the coastal cities end up underwater.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Any ideas about the 2015 Grand National?
jeepers
(314 posts)If there is no doubt about Hillary wining the Democratic nomination then the only real question is will Bernie Sanders run a third party challenge?
Neither the democrats nor the republicans have an argument that will stand up against Bernies populist call for social reform, economic justice, opportunity and jobs. Neither does either party have a candidate who can speak to these issues believably.
Many democrats and republicans feel abandoned by their governments endless foreign wars, bank bailouts and corporate subsidies on the taxpayer dime. It is commonly understood that both parties favor the wealthy elite, and that the majority of citizens have no say and no representation in congress , in the white house, or on the courts.
If Bernie can fashion a message that appeals to both dems and repubs who are dealing with the same sense of disillusion and abandonment by their parties, then it becomes a question of should Bernie run not to split the democratic vote giving the victory to the republicans but to beat them both and win the presidency.
Victory or defeat here is clearly in the hands of the democrats. A failure to heed the left wing of the party and to incorporate their demands, treating them like fucking retards could be fatal for Hillary. The dismissive arrogance that I have seen expressed by the democratic party loyalists here does not bode well for Democrats.
Sen. Sanders will not run as 3rd party candidate because he fears Republican't rule.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)until morale increases, which translate to "you will let Walmart eat your jobs and LIKE IT!, because drunk old Alice Walton is a friend of Hillarys!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It didn't turn out that way. And you know what happened in 2008, when Obama got the nomination and Clinton didn't?
A lot of Clinton supporters went completely fucking batshit insane, started swinging from the light fixtures, howling the most hideous, racist crap and proclaiming Sarah Palin to be the savior of the country. These people had, up to that point been consider "good democrats," and then they went, well... I can't really say they "went bonkers," they just showed us what was really going on in their heads.
Now, we fast-forward six years. Hillary Clinton hasn't broken any new ground, made any great achievements. She's the same Hillary Clinton she was in 2006 - and 2008. That being the case i find it really dubious that she's picked up a fresh wellspring of support. I suspect that the same people cheering her right now are the same ones who went Orly Taitz in 2008.
Just with new usernames.
I'm not a big fan of Clinton. I'm a leftist, she's a right-centrist. But whatever, there's been worse democrats. But it's the fan club that makes me extra-wary. I mean a chunk the Clinton camp turned into a fucking Klan rally after the Convention in 2008. What is it that those freaks are seeing in her? Whatever it is, I don't want any of it
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Like I said, she's the same Hillary Clinton she was in 2006 and 2008. She failed to get the nomination in 2008. There's nothing since that could give her a winning boost for 2016. Unlike the republicans, our field isn't barren, it's just fallow because we've got a fucking year and a half to go before candidates start popping up.
Clinton's not a "front runner," you can't be a front runner before the fucking race starts.
area51
(12,691 posts)we don't need a republican like Hillary in the white house.
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)democrank
(12,598 posts)until then I`m thrilled we can hear from inspiring leaders like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Stellar
(5,644 posts)I found months ago that I wasn't as old as most people around here, and I was in junior high school when Sputnik was launched.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I had no idea that Sputnik gave its generational progeny the powers of prophecy... 
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Hillary will not be the candidate.
DFW
(60,186 posts)I'm pretty sure the DNC didn't eliminate that step, but I'll ask them just in case I missed something.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Doesn't anyone else need to announce they're running fast?
DFW
(60,186 posts)I don't think Martin O'Malley would be making trips to Iowa if she had told him, "I want it."
I definitely don't think she has decided yet, and still give it no better than a 50-50 chance she announces.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)DFW
(60,186 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...because she's politically saavy enough to know that the longer she waits, the harder it is for an alternative to get up to speed if she decides not to.
FWIW, I saw her speak two weeks ago...she's running.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Which means it's double-plus true, I guess.
Besides, she's not running for anything next month, so like everyone in the country I won't be voting for her.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)tuhaybey
(76 posts)Sanders is openly running just to try to make sure issues that matter to liberals are raised in the debates and whatnot. He's basically doing like Ron Paul did in the GOP primaries. Warren is probably not running at all, but if she did, it would likely be for the same reason.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)deal with it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It was a round metal ball that did nothing but beep, sort of like Henry Hyde... Other than that I dont see the connection, oh supposedly aged and wise one.
She MAY be the nominee, however we do have a primary process. And in case you didn't notice, grand demands and proclamations around her being "inevitable" didnt work out so well for her, last time around.
Far be it for me, whippersnapper Baby of the Apollo era, to offer political advice, however IF one is actually a supporter of HRC, I might suggest maybe considering better selling points than "inevitable, deal with it"
Logical
(22,457 posts)tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)We'll all have to deal with it. And you're not older than most of me, not that it means anything.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Once it starts. Nothing is set in stone.
JonLP24
(29,929 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Just go straight to the convention and nominate her if she has it so "in the bag" so to speak.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)If I assume you are the god of politics, and can't be wrong, I can just go home now.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Until then, I'll work to get someone good to be the nominee.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's been obvious to me for about two years that the PTB wanted her to be the nominee, though. And did not want a contested primary.
Never thought the Democratic Party would be so very undemocratic. It's a shame.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)Sputnik I was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, that is the one thing you may be certain of.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)
1) lauding Omaha Steve, a committed liberal who works relentlessly on behalf of labor...while Hillary's pro-corporate, pro-bank, pro-TPP, pro-TISA agenda viciously assaults labor and working Americans on behalf of banks and corporations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025662784
and
2) lauding Glenn Greenwald's journalism to expose mass government crimes against Americans...while Hillary sides shamelessly and consistently with the criminal NSA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014915528
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The list of names being floated as potential candidates keeps growing, which would seem to undermine your point. 
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Neither one will be the nominee. I don't think that Warren wants to run at all and Sanders is a Socialist in his 70s. It's only wishful thinking by some on the Left to think that either one will be the Democratic nominee in 2016, let alone win the presidency.
Response to Mister Nightowl (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed