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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton's suffocating presence/The Economist [View all]George II
(67,782 posts)122. And none of the other candidates will have similar entourages if elected?
I guess you forget that Bill Clinton WAS President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
154 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's true. The Wall Street Democrats are trying to suck all the oxygen out of the party
Warpy
Feb 2015
#4
I don't think they care if they win or not, just so no liberals are allowed in the contest.
Scuba
Feb 2015
#32
Or they want a "liberal" like Edwards was who they know they can out during the primaries...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#132
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
I doubt voters based their vote/non-vote on Sarah Palin because of her gender.....
George II
Feb 2015
#49
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" Where?
George II
Feb 2015
#141
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
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
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 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
However it has come about, the inability of Dems to field a progressive candidate is bad
HereSince1628
Feb 2015
#142
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
I live in a normal community and I come To DU to talk to people who actually understand what we
jwirr
Feb 2015
#88
Nonsense. Of course individual Democrats speak out in favor of liberal policies.
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#92
Nothing you wrote there, including your failed "gotcha" attempt, changes my point.
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#94
Nominatimg Hillary guarantees a Repug win. The Dems can't be that stupid; I refuse to believe that.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#56
Ask Rahm Emmanuel that when he funded conservative dems in primary battles when heading the DCCC
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#137
Notice that the excerpt (can't be bothered with the rest) doesn't have a scintilla.....
George II
Feb 2015
#24
Physically fragile Clintons are wrapped in protective cocoon of 5 star luxury, 24/7.
Divernan
Feb 2015
#90
Because we think Clinton's too old to be head of state, we have nothing to live for?
ND-Dem
Feb 2015
#79
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
So some nameless guy from Tennessee writes a letter to the editor trying to scare Dems off
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#36
The "prole" in question is a reader of a business magazine -- not your typical prole. n/t
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#81
Conservative and libertarian magazines. Since the magazine openly promotes deregulation and privatization,
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#136
It appears to me that perhaps no Democratic candidate would satisfy many Democrats
olegramps
Feb 2015
#114
Suffocating? AKA Overly Maternal? Sounds sexist to me. No man would be called "suffocating".
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#62
Thanks, but I know the definition. It's a commonly used phrase to refer to a "smother mother" and
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#115
I am trying to imagine for a second that such a thing would be written about a male candidate
dsc
Feb 2015
#65
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
Bush and Clinton - the rich and corrupt have nothing to fear from either one.
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#113
Must throw the Economist Under the Bus, to join in all those other dubious sources!
2banon
Feb 2015
#126