Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Maven

(10,533 posts)
67. 'We stopped the Clinton ruthless ambition in 2008'
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 08:31 PM
Feb 2015

And instead installed someone who out-Clintoned the Clintons.

It's sad you still don't see the irony, AK.

Suffocating? GeorgeGist Feb 2015 #1
It's true. The Wall Street Democrats are trying to suck all the oxygen out of the party Warpy Feb 2015 #4
+1 daleanime Feb 2015 #17
Ansolutely spot on. hifiguy Feb 2015 #25
And if she doesn't win, which I doubt she can, they still win. A Simple Game Feb 2015 #54
She's the Bob Dole of the Democratic party. hifiguy Feb 2015 #61
That is simply not true! juajen Feb 2015 #70
Of whom Andy Stephenson, who was a preogressive, anti-Wall Street Dem, Ken Burch Feb 2015 #150
I don't think they care if they win or not, just so no liberals are allowed in the contest. Scuba Feb 2015 #32
Why do you use the word "allowed"? cheapdate Feb 2015 #34
Certainly. Chemisse Feb 2015 #39
True. cheapdate Feb 2015 #40
They have to have money to finance a campaign INdemo Feb 2015 #111
Thanks to the Robert's court Citizens United decision (5-4), cheapdate Feb 2015 #118
Correct Only corporatists candidates need to apply INdemo Feb 2015 #146
Exactly, keeping libeals out of power is their sole reason for existing Warpy Feb 2015 #35
+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #52
+100000 Party obsession is a scam for proles. woo me with science Feb 2015 #37
Or they want a "liberal" like Edwards was who they know they can out during the primaries... cascadiance Feb 2015 #132
+1,000s (n/t) bread_and_roses Feb 2015 #47
Perfect response! raindaddy Feb 2015 #48
Silly Egnever Feb 2015 #147
Silly to count on her when she hasn't announced yet, you mean. Warpy Feb 2015 #148
I'm open Egnever Feb 2015 #149
READY to come off? The Hillary Express is already sitting up on blocks. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #151
Not to me. Sounds spot on. Plus, there's more in the article if you read beyond the headline. n/t cui bono Feb 2015 #7
3rd Way does suck all the O2 out of a room. Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #16
Pissy and Snarky are The Economist's middle names. forest444 Feb 2015 #33
They endorsed Barack Obama for president in both 2008 and 2012 (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #84
Definition of PISSY demwing Feb 2015 #45
Pfft! Enthusiast Feb 2015 #53
Want proof? RedstDem Feb 2015 #140
I don't think of either Clinton or Warren as being too... Mike Nelson Feb 2015 #2
Nor do I but Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #5
Did you forget? Many thought he was too young and too inexperienced... Phentex Feb 2015 #9
I didn't forget Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #72
You don't think her candidacy would energize the women's vote? George II Feb 2015 #15
Intelligent women don't base their vote on genitalia. Divernan Feb 2015 #43
I doubt voters based their vote/non-vote on Sarah Palin because of her gender..... George II Feb 2015 #49
It's good you refuted your own post's argument. jeff47 Feb 2015 #125
No, I didn't refute my own post's argument, and what was "pointed out" to me was inaccurate... George II Feb 2015 #130
Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender. jeff47 Feb 2015 #133
"Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender" Where? George II Feb 2015 #141
Excellent riposte. Yet men will vote erronis Feb 2015 #64
It would, but is that enough? Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #73
I do not. I don't think the majority of women support her hawkish, pro-war stances. rhett o rick Feb 2015 #110
I think a primary though with Warren would help focus an emphasis on issues... cascadiance Feb 2015 #134
All but 1 of the women in my immediate family are strongly anti-Hillary & refuse 2 vote 4 her under any circumstances. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #152
warren will be 67 in 2016; clinton will be 69. reagan, the oldest president, was 69 (a few weeks ND-Dem Feb 2015 #30
Do we have any reason to believe they would have been better Presidents winter is coming Feb 2015 #69
well, reagan wouldn't have had alzheimers. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #75
I'm not sure that would have been an improvement, though. n/t winter is coming Feb 2015 #76
you may be right in reagan's case. fact remains, warren and clinton would be significantly older ND-Dem Feb 2015 #78
Jerry Brown is 76 (77 in less than 2 months), and just starting his second term as governor. deurbano Feb 2015 #104
Reagan was already an ass when he was governor of California Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #144
true. but he didn't have alzheimers. that we know. and i'd guess that the reason whh & zt died ND-Dem Feb 2015 #145
If the Dems can't cough up an alternative to HRC's left, HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #3
If it is the circumstances of the party then we are in a lot of trouble because not only do we have jwirr Feb 2015 #10
I'm not in wandering diaspora mode yet. June to Oct is typically the time for announcing HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #13
If Bernie champions where you think the country should go you should vote for him anyway! Dustlawyer Feb 2015 #108
I will in the primary. But I will not help the Rs win in the general. jwirr Feb 2015 #112
what cannot be said DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #138
However it has come about, the inability of Dems to field a progressive candidate is bad HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #142
IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides. woo me with science Feb 2015 #6
I would agree with you IF I thought that most peope in America even know what an Oligarchy is. jwirr Feb 2015 #11
This nation is learning about "oligarchy" whether people know the word or not. woo me with science Feb 2015 #14
Really? So the 99% does not know who they are up against? What ever. L0oniX Feb 2015 #82
I live in a normal community and I come To DU to talk to people who actually understand what we jwirr Feb 2015 #88
Thanks, Woo. "Not as Bad" is losing its credence by its own acts. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #18
An just listen to the language demwing Feb 2015 #66
Very depressing. Glad I don't keep guns. rgbecker Feb 2015 #41
Sure if the list was accurate but it's not, no big surprise there. Agschmid Feb 2015 #50
Surprise to me. Care to point out the inaccuracies? Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #80
Here we go... Agschmid Feb 2015 #89
Nonsense. Of course individual Democrats speak out in favor of liberal policies. woo me with science Feb 2015 #92
Notice that last one about "Senate Democrats"... Agschmid Feb 2015 #93
Nothing you wrote there, including your failed "gotcha" attempt, changes my point. woo me with science Feb 2015 #94
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Feb 2015 #42
It's hard to see it any other way. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #57
The ugly truth. But there it is. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #55
Nominatimg Hillary guarantees a Repug win. The Dems can't be that stupid; I refuse to believe that. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #56
I wouldn't go so far as to say it guarantees a GOP win. The GOP field winter is coming Feb 2015 #96
+1, it's a scam harun Feb 2015 #91
the differences are there to get people to vote for the similarities ... MisterP Feb 2015 #95
! DeSwiss Feb 2015 #103
I fear that's true and that the winner is Jeb - TBF Feb 2015 #106
^^^What. Woo said ^^^ hedda_foil Feb 2015 #116
Award-deserving post, AFAIC pablo_marmol Feb 2015 #129
Elizabeth Warren is emerging as the soul of the Dem Party. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #8
What's sad is they don't have 10 more like her fbc Feb 2015 #20
Well, if the "Oligarchy meme is correct, juajen Feb 2015 #68
Ask Rahm Emmanuel that when he funded conservative dems in primary battles when heading the DCCC cascadiance Feb 2015 #137
Bernie Sanders 2016. woo me with science Feb 2015 #21
I am with ya, woo. hifiguy Feb 2015 #26
'We stopped the Clinton ruthless ambition in 2008' Maven Feb 2015 #67
There is no irony; it was a clear choice. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #74
The Right is for rethugs. RiverLover Feb 2015 #12
Another anti-Hillary Clinton (aka Hillary bashing!) article appears! George II Feb 2015 #19
Hooray!!! fbc Feb 2015 #22
Notice that the excerpt (can't be bothered with the rest) doesn't have a scintilla..... George II Feb 2015 #24
I'm younger than Hillary by a few years.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #31
Physically fragile Clintons are wrapped in protective cocoon of 5 star luxury, 24/7. Divernan Feb 2015 #90
And none of the other candidates will have similar entourages if elected? George II Feb 2015 #122
I don't speak argle bargle. Divernan Feb 2015 #123
Ageism at its best. Agschmid Feb 2015 #51
Age can have a suffocating presence, can't it? George II Feb 2015 #59
Because we think Clinton's too old to be head of state, we have nothing to live for? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #79
It's sarcasm did you see the tag? Agschmid Feb 2015 #87
aka Republican bashing. nt RiverLover Feb 2015 #23
Pile it on!!!! George II Feb 2015 #121
and written by a Cato Institute creep OKNancy Feb 2015 #120
More importantly, a destructive presence for the 99% LittleBlue Feb 2015 #27
Absolutely. woo me with science Feb 2015 #29
Won't begin to be able to turn the trend around until '24 if HRC wins in '16. stillwaiting Feb 2015 #60
I'm still trying to figure out when it became acceptable for two families to monopolize the presidency whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #28
Shit is truly fundamentally broken. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #58
Very true davidpdx Feb 2015 #101
see my signature line Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #109
So some nameless guy from Tennessee writes a letter to the editor trying to scare Dems off pnwmom Feb 2015 #36
Just thinking about Rose Siding Feb 2015 #44
I know! Such AUDACITY from those proles woo me with science Feb 2015 #71
The "prole" in question is a reader of a business magazine -- not your typical prole. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #81
Really? How does that work, exactly? woo me with science Feb 2015 #85
Conservative and libertarian magazines. Since the magazine openly promotes deregulation and privatization, pnwmom Feb 2015 #136
What a bizarre and disturbing argument woo me with science Feb 2015 #143
It appears to me that perhaps no Democratic candidate would satisfy many Democrats olegramps Feb 2015 #114
Thanks for the very thoughtful post. pnwmom Feb 2015 #135
Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose. blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #38
Warren is not remarkably younger and does not seem it. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #46
Suffocating? AKA Overly Maternal? Sounds sexist to me. No man would be called "suffocating". libdem4life Feb 2015 #62
Suffocating as in quickly and painfully extinguishing life. F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #99
Thanks, but I know the definition. It's a commonly used phrase to refer to a "smother mother" and libdem4life Feb 2015 #115
Point taken F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #128
Oh, pleeeeeze. None of us are assured of waking up in the morning. Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #63
I am trying to imagine for a second that such a thing would be written about a male candidate dsc Feb 2015 #65
"insufficiently voted for" wyldwolf Feb 2015 #77
She lost to Obama. So she gets to run now? Dem's settle for a 2nd place looser as the front runner? L0oniX Feb 2015 #83
LOL. She's INEVITABLE!!!!!! woo me with science Feb 2015 #86
she's more inevitabler than ever AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #98
Of course she gets to run now. winter is coming Feb 2015 #97
Anyone can run. joshcryer Feb 2015 #100
While yer reading into what I said here's something that could help you... L0oniX Feb 2015 #107
There's also the issue of ascension. DeSwiss Feb 2015 #102
*Petitions For 2016 Progressive Candidate For President* TYT RiverLover Feb 2015 #105
Bush and Clinton - the rich and corrupt have nothing to fear from either one. whereisjustice Feb 2015 #113
yet another Republican from the Cato Institute being posted at DU OKNancy Feb 2015 #117
I'm Concerned About Her Viability to Win ProfessorGAC Feb 2015 #119
. stonecutter357 Feb 2015 #124
Must throw the Economist Under the Bus, to join in all those other dubious sources! 2banon Feb 2015 #126
"dubious sources" are those that aren't "Ready for Hillary". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #127
For the record, the author who wrote this is not a Republican dissentient Feb 2015 #131
Was the writer of this article as concerned when Reagan ran? Beacool Feb 2015 #139
Why not jump over Hillary JEB Feb 2015 #153
kick woo me with science Feb 2015 #154
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary Clinton's suffoca...»Reply #67