Hillary Clinton: Rich Aren't Paying Their Fair Share Of Taxes

Via CNN:

Hillary Clinton struck a strong populist chord while wading into territory secretary of states rarely go Thursday: Domestic policy. [. . .]

"The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [like the U.S.] whether it's individual, corporate or whatever the taxation forms are," Clinton said after clearly stipulating that these were her opinions, no those of the Obama administration.

[. . .] "Th[is] formula [. . .] used to work for us, until we abandoned it, to our regret in my opinion," she added.

Three thoughts. First, go Hillary! Second, is this appropriate for a Secretary of State? Honestly? I'd say no. Third, I think she will run for President in 2016. And win.

Speaking for me only

< "Top Kill" Stems Oil Leak....For Now | AZ Immigration Protests Set for Tomorrow >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    At sixty-nine years old? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Cassandra7 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    While female?  I'd love it, but I don't think it will happen.

    I keep hearing this (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by CST on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:36:30 PM EST
    over and over.  I really don't think it's as big a deal as people think.  For a few reasons.

    A) Women can live a long time, she'd be younger than some other candidates.  I really don't see the age factor having anything to do with her gender, they are seperate issues, and the age one can easily be dismissed.  Honestly I feel that older women command MORE respect, especially when they start entering the grandma ages.  No one disrespects grandma.

    B) I think the fact that she ran such a public campaign in 08 will actually make the female thing easier.

    C) I think she has only gained in stature and public respect since 08, across all party lines.


    The last 3 older people to run for President (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:54:35 PM EST
    were McCain (laughing stock), Dole (laughing stock) and Reagen (who seems to have developed dementia sometime during his second term, which is a good argument against an older candidate). I don't think those results show good odds.

    Anyway, I'm not sure she'd make it past the primary next time either. If she lost Iowa again (which seems fairly likely to me) the "loser" drumbeat would start anew.


    TOO OLD?????? (none / 0) (#122)
    by norris morris on Mon May 31, 2010 at 09:53:55 PM EST
    And men can be old and in office and women can't? Another mysogynist myth.

    We live longer than men, perform on many levels taking care of everyone all our lives, and we still are treated as second class citizens, bimbos,and models of behavior that are created by our cultural prejudices.

    Women can rule effectively at 70 if they are effective women in charge of their faculties. I had more energy at 75 than I did at 35, and as a late bloomer went on to have a rewarding career and a business in my 40's,50's,60's.

    Hillary Clinton is an energetic and brilliant woman who can do it.

    You go Hillary!


    I'd like to believe your (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by brodie on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    rebuttals, and maybe the media and the contrarian anti-Clinton left has softened about her.

    But I doubt it.  

    Though what could have been worse than how she was treated by the above two groups in the 08 cycle?

    As for the physical appearance matters, I'd still recommend she seek out the appropriate highly skilled physician-surgeon-dermatologist who can do the seemless artistry work, if needed 4-5 yrs from now, on the facial area.  I'm talking subtle stuff, not the obvious glaring awful jobs some cee-lebs (e.g., Cher) have had done to them.  And I said only if necessary -- right now, she looks fine.  


    Plastic surgery (none / 0) (#88)
    by Radiowalla on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:46:02 PM EST
    is ritual mutilation of the wealthy.  I hope that Hillary Clinton is better than that.  

    Facelifts (none / 0) (#123)
    by norris morris on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:00:44 PM EST
    I have met Hillary Clinton at fundraisers and she really looks great. Beautiful skin, big blue eyes, and wow so alert, so with it.

    She is charming, funny and outgoing.

    Why can't we accept women as they age gracefully? Look at Pelosi!  She looks like a mummy. Most facelifts leave women looking ghastly. Really mummified and weird. It would be nice to want a man or a woman who looks like a real human being, but most of all is an inspired and effective leader.


    I am going out on a limb here (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by hairspray on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:32:37 PM EST
    She may be pressed into service in 2012.  The people I know who voted for Obama will not do so again.  These are Democrats or Independents who think he is spineless and does not know what he is doing.  If he is tanking in 2011 we may be looking at a different scenario than wrinkles and old age.

    Well, permit me to saw it off. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by oldpro on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:52:35 PM EST
    We may be looking at a different scenario but not a different electorate...remind me of the importance of the black vote to a Democratic candidate and how that fits in these 'ready to dump Obama' scenarios.

    Please.  People.  Let's try to stay in the realm of reality, difficult as that is.


    Thank you, I was getting ready to say the same (none / 0) (#59)
    by mogal on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    thing.  The dem's may be ready to "draft" her.

    Hairspray (none / 0) (#124)
    by norris morris on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:01:50 PM EST
    I'm with you.

    Golda Mier was 71 when she became Prime Minister (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by esmense on Sat May 29, 2010 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    of Israel.

    I think it would be very doable -- especially if Obama's presidency is considered successful. Clinton would be seen as a continuation -- and, I think, a much more popular choice to succeed Obama, among Democrats, than Biden.  


    Plus, having an ex-Wal-Mort (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Sat May 29, 2010 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    board member for a President will dovetail nicely with the fact that Wal-Mart is now the largest single employer in the U.S..

    Well ya got to think out of the box (none / 0) (#105)
    by Rojas on Sat May 29, 2010 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    Perhaps if we leverage those wal-mort ties we could outsource our current military entanglements to some ex Chinese official who would provide peasant children to do the job on a piece work basis. This could free up the resources required for us to put a few hundred thousand cops on the beat.

    She was on the board of Walmart? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun May 30, 2010 at 12:52:58 PM EST

    Yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Sun May 30, 2010 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    From NYT 2006:

    But if her circumstances made her a natural choice for the board, her often liberal beliefs did not and she struggled to change the rigid, conservative culture at Wal-Mart, achieving modest results.

    Early in her tenure, she pressed for information about the number of women in Wal-Mart's management, worrying aloud that the company's hiring practices might be discriminatory.

    The data she received would have been troubling: by 1985, there was not a single woman among the company's top 42 officers, according to "In Sam We Trust," the 1998 book about Wal-Mart by Bob Ortega.

    John E. Tate, who served as a director with Mrs. Clinton from 1988 to 1992, recalled that by her third board meeting Mrs. Clinton had announced "that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here."

    Mr. Walton appeared relieved to have a woman on the board to deflect criticism, telling shareholders during the annual meeting in 1987 that the company had a "strong-willed young lady on the board now who has already told the board it should do more to ensure the advancement of women."

    Still, the board's discussions did not translate into significant progress. By the late 1990s, after Mrs. Clinton had left the board, Wal-Mart had added a second female director, but the number of women in senior management remained paltry, according to company records. (Today, 23 percent of Wal-Mart's top 300 corporate officers are women, but the company is fighting a class-action lawsuit claiming sex discrimination filed on behalf of 1.6 million current and former female employees.)

    Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up the environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the company's board.

    When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign -- Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart.

    Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features.

    Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental "eco-store" in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.

    One executive derided it as "Hillary's store" because it was more expensive to build than the average Wal-Mart, but several of its features, like the skylights that cut energy bills by reducing the need for artificial lighting, were widely copied across the industry.

    "We were on the leading edge of something that is being mandated now," said Bill Fields, the head of merchandise at Wal-Mart in the early 1990s who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton on the environmental project.

    For Wal-Mart, the largest employer in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton's presence had obvious advantages: on matters big and small, the company had the ear of the governor's wife.

    For Mrs. Clinton, being a director at Wal-Mart gave her access to several of the state's most powerful business executives. In the early 1980s, for example, Mr. Walton was instrumental in building support for a corporate tax program, pushed by Mrs. Clinton, that financed a major education overhaul in Arkansas, a signal achievement of her husband's governorship.

    Though she was passionate about issues like gender and sustainability, Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, board members said. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics -- like allegedly firing union supporters and spying on employees -- that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company.

    A special team at Wal-Mart handled those activities, but Mr. Walton was vocal in his opposition to unions. Indeed, he appointed the lawyer who oversaw the company's union monitoring, Mr. Tate, to the board, where he served with Mrs. Clinton.

    During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart's stance on unions, said Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.

    "She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one," Mr. Tate said. "It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position."

    Yeah, ... I know (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Sun May 30, 2010 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    Heard the True Progs expressing they're righteous indignation about this issue so many times during the primaries I could repeat it as easily as Jondee.  Sorry ..... should've included a snark tag ...

    Now, if I really wanted to continue in the fine tradition of the Jondee argument (i.e. "But, but, BUT ... CLINTON ...!!!"), I would wonder why they never expressed such indignation when it came to Michele Obama's Walmart connection.


    As long as Im-alright-Jack (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Sun May 30, 2010 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    who cares who many jobs go to China and Mexico?

    And people now wonder what happened to the "old Democratic party"..


    Continuing the tradition ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Sun May 30, 2010 at 05:34:27 PM EST
    ... of making the argument that no one is making.

    You're getting quite good.


    Obama May Be One Termer (none / 0) (#125)
    by norris morris on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:07:22 PM EST
    If Obama continues to screw up and remain detached he very well may be a one term president.

    I know many who simply will not vote for him again and feel gulled by his promises and his performance as president. They feel as I do that he is not a leader and is a definite lightweight.

    Some of the stuff he hasn't known how to handle is politics 101.   He's also has been less than candid or competent.  I don't know what this means about Hillary, but I somehow don't thnk Biden can get elected.


    I agree (4.00 / 3) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    My gawd - we've already heard about her laugh, and her ankles.  Imagine the pictures we'd see and the comments about jowls and wrinkles and orthopedic shoes!

    oddly (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    I think that stuff only works until a "certain age" then its just considered mean.

    anyway, it never stopped Maggie Thatcher or Golda of the one large eyebrow.


    This nation is far more sexist (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat May 29, 2010 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    Look at the treatment according to other female political figures.

    America Leads In Sexism (none / 0) (#126)
    by norris morris on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:14:08 PM EST
    regarding leadership.    So many women have led throughout history.  And still do. Most have been amazing leaders and historically important.

    But we remain a very hypocritical country in how we regard women as leaders. We give lip service, but all those red blooded american men feel uncomfortable at the mere thought of a woman in power.

    We're far behind in this area and it's holding America back. We are the Second Sex.


    Maggie Thatcher (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    Won with a plurality of the vote and was on her way to being booted when the Falklands War started.

    She was never very popular.


    You're on a roll today (4.25 / 4) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    with non sequiturs.

    Really? (1.50 / 2) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:02:31 PM EST
    Maggie Thatcher wasn't that popular - comparing her to HRC's chances doesn't make sense.

    But, I see you've adopted the method some use around here to not make a point.  Too bad - usually you have interesting things to say, but this is a couple of times now.

    Must be an off day.


    off day (4.25 / 4) (#22)
    by CST on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    defined as a day when one disagrees with me :)

    I think the point is, whether or not she was "that" popular - it sure didn't stop her.

    And also, I believe Bill Clinton only won with a "plurality" of the vote as well.  FWIW...


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jbindc on Sat May 29, 2010 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    Since neither Maggie Thatcher nor Golda Meir were actually elected by the people (instead by their parties), it's not the same thing as running in America. We may have the electoral college, but people here actually go into the voting booth and actually check a box next to the name of the candidate - not so in Israel or England, where they vote for the party.

    But you knew that.


    Voting For Women (none / 0) (#127)
    by norris morris on Mon May 31, 2010 at 10:17:28 PM EST
    I guess you never heard of Germany's current leader, or the other women Presidents and Heads of State who are actually voted into office. Google. You'd be surprised.

    I think (none / 0) (#83)
    by Natal on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    more than anything at this time she wants to be a doting grandmother rather than seeking higher office.

    Not In Her Cards (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:35:14 PM EST

    If I could redo 08, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by dkmich on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    she'd be my pick.  

    It's her husband I have the problem with. (none / 0) (#102)
    by dkmich on Sat May 29, 2010 at 05:42:51 AM EST
    Here he is in LA supporting Lincoln like he did Lieberman and running off at the mouth about "libruls".   NAFTA, deregulation, media consolidation and the morals of an alley cat.  He is an anchor on Hillary's ass, and he is why I didn't support her in the first place.  If she runs, she needs to divorce him first.

    You didn't support her ... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun May 30, 2010 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    ... because you didn't like his Presidency?  Yeah.  A lot of people kept conflating them during the '08 election, and a lot of them now wish they could change their vote.  Then again, ...

    ... most Democrats know better than to blame her for his "sins".


    Who cares if technically (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by brodie on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:46:19 PM EST
    tax talk is out of her bailiwick.  It was one of those inconvenient truths that needed to be said, though it would have been better if Obama and/or Biden had spoken out first.  

    This type of populist pol Hillary I like.  The other one, the hawkishly inclined SoS who's buds with SecDeaf Gates, well it appears she never fully worked all the Goldwater '64 out of her system, and I wish she would hurry along a bit in that process.

    2016?  I can't even predict if we're all going to make it past 12/21/12 intact as a planetary species, let alone predict a race 4 yrs after that ...

    I wonder if this will be the last time (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Anne on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    Hillary goes off the reservation and opines in conflict with a president who's trying to bring Reagan back from the dead.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    You cannot help yourself. Hillary's comment may have been strange coming from SOS, but it was in no way contrary to Obama's position on Taxes.

    Obama does not share the same tax ideals as Reagan did, no matter how much kool aid you drink.

    The content of the two presidents' agendas differed greatly, of course. Mr. Reagan cut taxes, most sharply for the affluent. He also deregulated energy markets, dropped an antitrust case against I.B.M. and settled one against AT&T. Mr. Obama has raised taxes for the rich, cut them for everyone else, expanded health insurance, increased college financial aid and pushed for tighter Wall Street oversight.



    like (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:23:11 PM EST
    complaining about the sun rising in the east

    I Guess (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:25:51 PM EST
    The campaign has begun, as if it ever stopped... lol

    agh! (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    that really bothers me.  As my favorite beach in the world faces east.  I am often there around sunset.  But I am NOT gonna wake up in time for the sunrise.

    Someone should really do something about that...


    check out this pic (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:45:24 PM EST
    Today??? Brrrr... (none / 0) (#101)
    by oldpro on Sat May 29, 2010 at 02:48:47 AM EST
    Then I guess you will have to explain (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    to me - if you can - why, if Obama's doing such a good job of raising taxes on the rich, Hillary felt it necessary to say that the rich are not paying enough in taxes.  Shouldn't she be  lauding him for his tax policy instead?

    I never said it was strange coming from Hillary; what she says makes all kinds of sense, but if you look at who has benefited the most in all of Obama's so-called reform efforts and tax changes, it sure as heck isn't the people who need the money the most.

    And you know that.


    Now, as in today (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    But if the Bush tax cuts expire as Obama wants, then we go back to the Bill Clinton rates.

    They are the same on taxes as far as I can tell.


    He could have rescinded the tax (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hairspray on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:35:35 PM EST
    breaks sooner by simply advancing the date in which they were to expire.  Why didn't he?  

    You would have to look at (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    The totality of their terms.  Maybe so far Obama hasn't touched middle class taxes, but the story is incomplete.

    Don't forget things like the health care penalites, which will be included on people's tax forms.  Whether or not it really is a "tax increase" doesn't matter - all that matters is what voters perceive it as.


    If I were to say the sky is blue (4.25 / 4) (#45)
    by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:52:03 PM EST
    would you say, no, it's not all the time?

    I have heard of being a contrarain but, sheesh, this is ridiculous....


    Pot, kettle (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by jbindc on Sat May 29, 2010 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:58:00 PM EST
    Please show me where Obama has emulated Reagan's tax policy? Trickle down? lol

    Seems to me that his tax policy is trickle up not trickle down, but you knew that.

    And as far as Hillary's accurate statement about the rich not paying their fair share, neither Obama nor Hillary as POTUS can act like a king and set the taxes to whatever level he or she wants.


    I often wonder what the difference (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Coral on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:13:02 PM EST
    would have been between a Hillary Clinton presidency and the current Obama presidency.

    She would have had the same tough fights in Congress. She would have had more negative treatment in the media.

    Could she have gotten even the mediocre health insurance reform through Congress? I think she would have tried for more.

    Could she have gotten bigger initial stimulus through?

    I think foreign policy would have been similar. After all, she is Sec. of State. But she could have used Bill very effectively to spread good will.

    And I think she would have done a better job--at least in media presentation in the current BP disaster.

    I think she might have shown a bit more verve and good humor at press conferences.

    I would really like to see a president who holds frequent press conferences.

    not sure Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    would have necessarily held more frequent pressers

    I think we would have had (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by brodie on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    certainly no less than the half loaf of healthcare reform Obama delivered -- and in half the time.  No wasting it trying to court uncourtable Repubs.  Hillary was always keener about handling the GOP than either Obama or her husband.  FP about the same, alas.

    As for pressers, again hard to see how she would hold so few (a big mistake by Obama, imo, and totally unforced error on their part).  Wide open frequent pressers should be part of the job duties, and she would have done quite well with her command of all topics.


    The handlers get worried when he (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    goes off teleprompter.  It frightens them more than Biden firing from the hip.

    Hillary would have shown more leadership (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by klassicheart on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:45:31 PM EST
    Her first articulated priority was jobs.  Once she got the economy going, she would then focus on health care.  She was clear headed about where the focus should be.  But the Very Serious People had a different agenda.  Hillary was sabotaged by the very same people who are currently making the bad decisions.  We have a political problem in this country, with both Democrats and Republicans.  And it is very damaging.  And it is structural.  No one knows for sure how effective Hillary would have been.  But we do know that Obama has a leadership problem, as do the Dems in leadership positions. And it doesn't bode well for the country...because the Republicans have a leadership problem as well, and they're even more misguided than the Dems.  But it is not reassuring that in a crisis, Obama sounds and acts like a bureaucrat. Hillary acts like a leader...although foreign policy is a real mess right now...it's difficult to know who is calling the shots...or if group think is in charge..or if, as with everything, Obama just tries to compromise away everything.  BTD's earlier comments about negotiation strategy apply.  Obama is incompetent at it.  And that is frightening.

    She wouldn't have (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    Tackled health care in her first term - she would have focused on jobs, jobs, jobs.  That would have been the big difference.

    I think foreign policy would be different - only to the extent that she's a different person.

    I think she would have handled this gulf spill better.

    And no one knows, of course, but I think Dems wouldn't have lost so many seats in off-year elections because there would have been a) different candidates, and/or b) the Clinton machine would have made better cases for the candidates.


    This was a conference at Brookings (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    on national security, and in that context it seems relevant for Secretary Clinton to address the interrelationships among national security, employment and taxing in a fair manner--be that ours or, as she stated, any nation facing employment issues. Indeed, the economic policy of Brazil and its success, in her view, was cited.   However, I do believe that cabinet officers and key advisors cannot distance themselves from the administration they serve with claims of personal views, only.  Besides, that is not necessary, we expect these officers to have expertise and experience that will be duly considered as broader policy is formulated.

    I do not know about the rest of you (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:52:17 PM EST
    But I am heartily sick and tired of discussions about "what Hillary would have done."

    Who the eff knows? Who the eff cares?

    As for a 2012 challenge, that is just insane, imo. I wish we would not hear that stuff. Just makes for stupid insults.

    I DO find myself quite interested in whether Hillary would run in 2016.

    If she chose to, how could she not take the nomination? Who could beat her?

    As for a GE, her candidacy would be staked on a successful Obama Presidency.

    There is a reason imo that Obama has felt comfortable with Bill and Hillary - in a way, they are now tied at the hip.

    I also think Obama and Bill Clinton are pretty close ideologically, for better or worse.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:02:34 PM EST
    Hillary running in 2016 would be smart, if things continue as they are...  Hard to tell where we will be then, but she does seem as if she will be in a prime position to be a top contender, and her popularity will only increase, imo.

    Why is the 2012 question (none / 0) (#47)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:55:16 PM EST
    out of bounds?

    Will again harken back to 1980.  Very similar parallels.


    To each his own (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    I believe the idea is insane.

    To each their own however, (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:19:58 PM EST
    the Clinton's have just as much political drive and chutzpa as the Kennedy's.  IMHO, they envision themselves as the standard bearers for a new Camelot of dem. politics.  They just don't have the depth of family bench.  Again, IMHO, there is a "sense" of entitlement that runs through their meme.  Same with Teddy.

    If the economy and Afghanistan, and who knows what else the future holds, hasn't changed dramatically, then she has absolutely nothing to lose with a 2012 primary challenge.

    Even I as a conservative could write some of her ads and stump speeches.


    Although one of the recent books on (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    Obama presidency has the President saying he might only want one excellent term as President.

    Yeah "Excellent" (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:00:44 PM EST
    That would be the second term.

    I gotta say (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    I have said this from before the GE, that I thought it was very possible Obama would do only one term.

    If it happens, remember I said so!  (If it doesn't, well, never mind...)


    I do remember you writing that here. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Sat May 29, 2010 at 01:51:16 AM EST
    I'm a big ol' Hillary lover, but (none / 0) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:45:15 PM EST
    I cannot envision any likely scenario that has Hillary challenging Obama in 2012. Hillary is very loyal to the party (despite how it treated her), and Hillary is smart. And a smart politician knows that a primary challenge to President Obama is a non-starter. Let's not forget that challenging Carter in 1980 did not make Teddy any friends.

    If Obama were to pull an LBJ ("I shall not seek, nor will I accept...") then maybe she's in the race. But in what parallel universe does Obama choose to step aside?

    2016? Who know? Bill Clinton has opined that one should  never think about any campaign beyond the current one, and I agree.


    Only in Rush's "Operation Chaos" dreams (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    I'm sure Republicans would love a repeat of 1980....

    Hillary and Bill are smarter than that.....If Obama loses in 2012--while they were ardent supporters, then Hillary is fine for 2016.


    Obama would have to have Charles Logan (none / 0) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    (24 character) levels of scandal for anyone to try a realistic primary challenge on him. The idea is indeed insane.

    No similarity to 1980 (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:54:28 PM EST
    whatsoever.  Good grief.

    As to how she could lose the nomination, (none / 0) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    she seemed like a shoe in 2 years prior to the 2008 election. And she lost. I think she'd be weaker as a 69 year old woman then she was 2 years ago so you wouldn't need a phenom like Obama to defeat her. Most of the same factors would be alligned against her and she'd be 8 years slower.

    Coming in 3rd in Iowa (and doing poorly in all the other caucus states) killed her and I don't see what factors would change in 2016.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:39:51 PM EST
    8 years slower.... ageism much?

    Same factors?  .. hardly, SOS is a nice feather in her cap, and who knows maybe Sec of Defense.. She will be in a different league by 2016...

    I do not see age being a negative in the least.


    I don't think it's ageism, just realism. (none / 0) (#72)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    I don't think she's qualified to be Sec Def and I don't know how that rumor got started.

    Reality (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    Give me a break. Many people in Hillary's class, which is super smart, ambitious people, find that after 65 they are in their prime.

    It may be a reality for you, but certainly not Hillary as POTUS.

    And how qualified to you have to be to blow up 100,000's of people and decimate millions of acres of land.

    I would take Hillary as SOD way before Rumsfeld.


    I doubt that Hil will have a platform (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:22:54 PM EST
    from which to run in '16, even if she wanted to do it...which I very much doubt.  Taking her at her own words, it sounds like one term as SOS and no more and her "No!" to the question of running again was emphatic and unequivocal.

    I can't see it unless Biden drops off the ticket and Hillary fills in with a glidepath to the nomination in spite of the Dem Party insiders who knifed her in the back last time.  She'll never give them that chance again.  And besides, there is STILL a substantial unpaid debt from her last campaign...

    And yes, 2012 is insane and 'not gonna hoppen.'


    One term and out in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    for Hillary gives her two years to rest up and get ready, and then two years to run....

    It seems very, very likely she could run in 2016.

    If you wanted to run in '12, you'd have to be running right now--as is Romney, Palin and Pawlenty....  


    In 2006 She Said No (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:36:30 PM EST
    Things change...

    And as for the SOS it is a one term thing...

    Hillary will be much stronger in the eyes of all America by 2016.

    Interesting idea 2016

    Biden will never be POTUS, imo.


    Im betting that as soon (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    as she finishes her political memoir/future 50 cent yard sale dust catcher, "A Time of..(something or other)", she'll be hitting the 100k a pop speaker circuit, and the part-time lobbyist/consultant, Nightline quest commentator rotation. And never look back.

    Even deeply caring, tireless, uncompromising champions of the rights of the voiceless and relentless fighters for world peace sometimes need to rest their steely resolve after all those years of being invested with all those hopes and dreams that would otherwise continue to lie dormant in suburban America.    


    Not if (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 29, 2010 at 12:04:39 AM EST
    you think you have a good chance to be the history-making pioneer (ie, first woman pres.)

    That said, she looks incredibly exhausted to me these days.  My guess is she hasn't ruled 2016 out, and what she does will depend on how she feels in a couple of years.  She's an energizer bunny, and it may well be a couple of years on the lecture circuit will recharge her batteries to the point that the lure of having another shot might look very appealing to her.

    SoS is maybe a more exhausting, stressful job than pres in many ways-- half your life or more spent on airplanes for one thing, and having to faithfully carry out somebody else's policy in the most delicate diplomatic situations is enough to wear anybody out in a couple of years.  Being pres. and in charge and free to curse up a storm at will in the Oval Office is aging but energizing.

    I don't think she'll know whether she has the juice until she's been out of the SoS job for a year or so.


    Yes...she looks exhausted...drained. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Sat May 29, 2010 at 02:41:39 AM EST
    Or academia. Or think tank. (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:35:23 PM EST
    I hope she does not run (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    Hillary has given enough.   The woman has been tireless in working for civil rights, women's rights, all human rights.  And basically she was kicked to the curb by the male dominated mass media, right and left who apparently cannot help themselves when it comes to sexism.

    It assumed by too many that Hillary thinks as conservatively as Bill.   I do not believe she is and given the chance I believe she would be much more progressive than Bill or Barack when it came to domestic issues.  

    But I can't prove that.  No one can.  Hillary was loyal to Bill's presidency and is loyal to Barack's presidency.   I think she deserves to retire and just enjoy life.

    I agree that Hilary was kicked to the curb. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by hairspray on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:45:51 PM EST
    But it wasn't just the media, it was the Democratic establishment as well.  If you ever google "Caucuses and Primaries" and added up the red caucus states that Obama won with wildly inflated numbers you would understand that.  I will never become a Democrat again until they rid themselves of that cancer.  Of course, voting Republican is out of the picture, so I often stay home.

    I agree w/your first sentence, irrespective (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    of caucuses.  Why doesn't she just drop out already?  Let's give Obama some of Clinton's delegates from Michigan.

    Well (2.33 / 3) (#82)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:29:08 PM EST
    Just because you would love that, because it would mean that she flipped the finger to Obama, from your perspective, doesn't mean that it has anything to do with Hilary and her ambitions.

    Identity politics has serious drawbacks.



    Your comment has no relationship to mine. (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:40:20 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:45:25 PM EST
    Seems to me that you would take great pleasure if Hillary dumped Obama, and resigned.

    Many of the fan club seem to want to rescue Hillary. She, on the other hand appears to be doing quite well, and in no need of a rescue job.



    How about the Green Party option? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    You think she looks at (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 29, 2010 at 12:06:16 AM EST
    this as a tiresome duty and not something incredibly empowering that she craves?  Please.

    It would warm my heart if Hillary Clinton, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    at age 69, won the nomination and the GE.  But I doubt it.  First, she is still anathema to many.  Second, the general public does not view the age of 69 the same way for a female as for a male.  

    Truly (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 29, 2010 at 12:08:52 AM EST
    I don't think we know that.  We've never had a woman in that position before.  And we also don't know what kind of shape she'd be at that point.  She's no Kay Bailey Hutchison, for example, a woman who's seemed old and worn out for many years now.

    I really don't think the ordinary "rules" apply much to Hillary.  She's sui generis.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sat May 29, 2010 at 12:12:56 AM EST
    She is a rock star.

    I sincerely hope you are correct. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Sat May 29, 2010 at 12:18:26 AM EST
    Many and the general public indeed. (none / 0) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:33:29 PM EST
    We sometimes forget that the real World is a vastly different place than TL, the blogs and the Beltway.  

    Emma says (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:26:25 PM EST
    anything Hillary says is appropriate.

    and I think you are correct about 2016

    Any thoughts as to whether (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    she takes up the Secretary of Defense job after Gates?

    I'd like to see it, so long as (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by brodie on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    she's being brought in over there to oversee some fundamental change, and not just in the DADT area.  

    I'd really like to see some downscaling of that enormously overstuffed sacred cow that is the Pentagon, and it would take a strong and popular leader to manage that treacherous undertaking -- even if (as seems likely in this Goldilocks admin) the overall cutbacks are actually rather modest in size.


    well I know Gates (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    has been ticked off about this as well that congress refuses to cut their "sacred cows" in the defense budget despite the fact that he thinks they are useless.

    The fact that the head of the Pentagon is asking for less money, and congress won't give it to him, is pretty astonishing.

    But you know, we can't spare any money for any jobs programs.  We have to PAY for that.


    I just don't see any Democrat wining in 2016. (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    This country has fallen into a pattern. Give one party 8 years no matter how bad the President is, then give the other party a shot. Reagen 8 years (Bush I is an exception), Clinton 8 years, Bush II 8 years.

    Not quite right (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:06:25 PM EST
    Bush v. Gore is what gave us Pres. Bush, not the votes of people who wanted a change. (And Gore's reluctance to run on the Clinton-Gore record is, imo, why it was close enough for the SC to have the final say in the first place.) So I think that Pres. Obama being re-elected in 2012 is not a slam-dunk; but if he is re-elected, a Democrat could still win in 2016.

    Global Corporations run our country (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lora on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:50:48 PM EST
    Maybe not so far out of line after all.  I'm betting that the filthy rich who aren't paying their fair share of US taxes are part of the global hegemony.

    She and now Bill with his Sestack (none / 0) (#19)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    Obama bidding now have their noses far enough under the tent that this could be a repeat of the Kennedy/Carter primary challenge of 1980.

    Be still my beating heart.  ;-)

    Not a chance (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    Their wagons are hitched to the Obama administration as much as ever.

    And how (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    Hillary defending Obama on domestic issues.....He inherited a mess, she says....

    Bill working behind the scence with Obama to talk to Sestak.....

    They are working together, thank God, and I hope it continues.....


    What/where was that BTD (none / 0) (#61)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    thread about "Pols being pols"???

    Anyone who believes for a NY second that HC is loyal to Obama is not willing to deal with political realities.


    "Loyalty" is her ticket (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    right now.  No other way....Otherwise, she is a spoiler.....

    Being loyal puts her in a very good position for 2016.  Being loyal is simply in her personal self-interest right now.  

    Who could challenge her 2016?  Warner?--he has zero personality......

    Clinton/Crist v.  Huntsman/Ryan?  Would that not be a Donnybrook?  Crist gets Hillary Florida--if there were any doubt.  

    But, closer to home, in 2012 it will be Obama/Biden v. Romney/Palin.  Palin will run kinda/sorta run for President in the Primary but be too lazy to really make a long term race of it, and Romney will need to placate the rabid right...Palin already told a reporter she would take a VP slot with Romney.

    Obama/Biden win by 8-10 points--so long as Afghanistan does not implode....


    Palin is a non-starter no matter (none / 0) (#74)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:05:57 PM EST
    how much the dems would like to see her on the ticket.  "We" ain't going there.

    Kennedy was also a spoiler.

    There are many many irons in the fire at the moment and Obama is just as divisive as Carter was in '80.

    As for Crist, that makes me laugh.  Are you serious to think the dem party would embrace a former R as VP after Lieberman?  

    In addition to the possibility that Afghanistan is still an issue in '12, the Iranian's are not going away nor are the N.Koreans and the Russians.  That's just from a foreign policy perspective.

    HC has a much better chance to play to the Independents who, IMHO will will be the deciding group in '12 but my bets are on them swinging to fiscal conservatism.


    Bill and Hillary Clinton are falling on (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    their swords as point persons for the President.

    I'll take your prediction over Bowers's (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    That said, this strikes me as being way out of line for a Secretary of State. Whether we ought to have different standards for cabinet members is a different question.

    Don't you think the Obama WH sent (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:56:10 PM EST
    her out w/this trial balloon?

    Not 2016 (none / 0) (#34)
    by klassicheart on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    If anything...2012...as stated in an earlier comment...a la Carter/Kennedy.  But Clinton may be too loyal to oppose Obama, even if it is in the country's best interests.  And that is her Achilles
    heel. Her loyalty to individuals led to her losing primary campaign... Right now, I like Ed Rendell. Hillary won't challenge Obama...and by 2016, who knows what the landscape will look like.

    Bwhaaahhhaaaa (none / 0) (#36)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    But Clinton may be too loyal to oppose Obama

    "I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there"
    - Larry the Cable Guy


    I think you have no clue (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:46:46 PM EST
    how the Clintons work.

    Carter/Kennedy isn't the right comparison (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    It's Reagan/Bush IMO. (Though that's unfair to Obama and Clinton).

    Bush never challenged Reagan (none / 0) (#41)
    by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    as a sitting POTUS.  They both ran in the 1980 primary to then run against Carter.  Bush pulled out early.

    What's unfair?


    Bush, however (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:51:46 PM EST
    as you surely must know, given the great authority of your opinions, maintained an active political operation and circle clearly in opposition to Reagan, even throughout his vice presidency.  These were people who were somewhat ideologically to the left of Reagan, but even more were motivated by scorn for his uncouth background compared to the patrician Bush's.

    The Clintons have done no such thing, not even a hint of it.  Every one of "their" people has morphed into a loud Obama defender (OK, Carville's gone off the reservation).  Bush's people, in contrast, carped and sniffed about Reagan throughout his presidency.


    Agree that Carter/Kennedy (none / 0) (#106)
    by The Addams Family on Sat May 29, 2010 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    is not the right comparison.

    Disagree that it's Reagan/Bush I.

    More like Bush II/McCain: you fail to win yur party's nomination, you play good soldier for four or eight years, and your loyalty ultimately gets you nothing because your time has passed.


    Rendell is 66 yrs old now (none / 0) (#39)
    by Radiowalla on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:34:38 PM EST
    which doesn't exactly put him into the youth brigade.  He also happens to be Jewish which has never been an advantage in a national election.    But, hey, he isn't female so it's OK to be old and wrinkled.  Don't know if he has fat ankles, though.

    I disagree heartily that it was Hillary's loyalty to individuals that led to her losing the primaries.  I can't imagine who you have in mind.  


    Mark Penn (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:53:18 PM EST
    Oh, God! (none / 0) (#107)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 29, 2010 at 10:17:11 AM EST
    I forgot about him.  What a terrible memory you have resurrected!

    That's whats so marvelous (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jondee on Sat May 29, 2010 at 10:27:22 AM EST
    about Hillary: even her "mistakes" are the result of an overabundance of virtue..

    Can Hillary beat Huntsman? (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    Huntsman is everything Romney wish he were:  able to reach moderates, empathetic, warm and conservative....

    It would be a close race....

    Huntsman is fabulous (none / 0) (#111)
    by klassicheart on Sat May 29, 2010 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    Even I would vote for him....but by accepting the China ambassadorship, he took himself out of the running.  2016 is too far away to calculate now.  And the foreign policy is a mess and powder keg...as is the oil disaster.  And we don't even have the result of the midterms....lots more ahead to calculate

    Not 2016 . . . 2012 !!!!! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Doc Rock on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:45:00 PM EST

    absent some compelling (none / 0) (#113)
    by cpinva on Sat May 29, 2010 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    work by obama, she may run against him in in 2012 and win. the only thing that separated them in 2008 was the african american vote in the south. after 4 years of him in the oval office (again, absent radical change), i wonder if he'll do as well with that demographic again?

    "he's one of us" only goes but so far, when you're unemployed and desperate.

    2012 and beyond : DEMOGRAPHICS (none / 0) (#114)
    by pitachips on Sun May 30, 2010 at 10:19:00 AM EST
    heavily favor democrats.

    define fair share (none / 0) (#121)
    by diogenes on Mon May 31, 2010 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    47% of households in the US don't pay any income tax at all.  European countries with higher unemployment than us also have higher marginal tax rates.  
    Hillary is talking populist pablum, although I suppose that when 70% of the people figure out that they can change the law to vote in candidates who will loot the other thirty percent then we will have the ultimate democracy.