Hillary In 2016

Lambert writes about the silly rumor running around that President Obama might tap the Secretary of State to be his running mate in 2012.

This is ridiculous for 8 million reasons (most of all Biden really has not mattered), but it got me to thinking about my own pet theory - that the Democratic Party needs Hillary as its Presidential candidate in 2016.

Some folks have taken the Secretary of State's discouraging statements about running in 2016 as the end of the story. I do not. After Hillary leaves the Secretary of State job in early 2013 (yes, she will), she'll be 64 years old. She won't be going back to the Senate and of course she could ride off into the political sunset. But she will know that the 2016 nomination is hers for the asking. But more than that, Dems will need Clinton to have the best chance to hold the White House in 2016. After 8 years of a Dem President, "change" won't be a card Dems can play (Brian Schweitzer could do it if change would be a viable theme for Dems, but it won't be.) Assuming that President Obama is reasonably popular in 2016, Biden will be 74, too old and frankly, he is not good enough of a pol to win. In the Dem stable, only Hillary can do it. Consider the stakes with me on the flip.

In 2016, the health care debate will be in full swing. Fighting that battle will be critical. Hillary Clinton is clearly the most capable Dem for that fight.

In 2016, the Presidency will likely be facing the retirement from the Supreme Court of Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. For that alone, the retention of the Presidency by a Democrat will be critical.

Of course climate change, tax policy, Social Security, and every other issue you can imagine will be in play.

The 2008 election was incredibly important. The 2016 election will be at least as important.

The Democrats' best bet will be Hillary Clinton. For the good of her country and her Party, she must run for President.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Was "Gibbs-Gate" About The President's Men? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    you sure know how (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    to toss the red meat out there, BT.

    I don't deny it (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    But I also believe every word I just wrote.

    so you dont think it would be (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    good or even possible that Joe and Hill could swap jobs?

    just askin.  I dont really but some of the talk lately has been interesting.


    Bad politics (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    I don't like Biden for State anyway.And I doubt he would do it.

    He would be rightly offended. He does not deserve this.


    well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    Wilder and others who I have heard talking about this go out of their way to not offend him.  trying hard to make it about who would be the best positioned to run in 2016 and all.  and mentioning, in passing you understand, that he "always wanted to be SoS".

    I actually do think Hillary (and Bill) could do a lot more for him with the democrats he has lost than Biden ever could.  

    on the other hand, Im not sure Hillary would do it.
    after all why should she?  she will still be pretty damn well positioned.


    I guarantee you (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    there is no way in hell she wants to do it.

    She wants Biden there.

    Especially if she wants to run in 2016. Biden won't ruin and can not beat her if he did. Hell, he would do her a favor as she could be independent of Obama if he did.


    interesting and true (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    but Biden will run dont you think?  I agree he cant beat her but I would be amazed if he doesnt run.

    No I don't think he will (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    Hillary will be 69 in Nov 2016 (none / 0) (#40)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    Hillary's dob 10/24/47.

    Why play musical chairs - why not have new blood, new ideas, get term limits, get rid of those crooked people who have only self-interest in mind.  Let the GOP keep dancing about those 'so-familiar (and not liked) faces'.


    We have term limits. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    They are called elections.

    Cuz we need to win (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    A new face is not the answer for 2016.

    Are you sure... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    it is "we" that win when Team D wins, and not Goldman Sachs?

    I'd kinda like Hillary to be pres to prove once and for all that it never mattered who won the nom in '08, and maybe prove once and for all the people have no party.  

    Nah, who am I kidding, come 2018 they'll say "if only we had nominated Chuckie Schumer" while President H.R. Clinton gives away what is left of the store.


    you are wrong (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    Hillary would not be the compromiser we have now.

    If Bill's 8 years... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    are any indication, it is you who are mistaken my friend.

    Though I suppose Hillary could be what I pipe-dreamed Obama would be...a stealth reformer...but highly unlikely.


    "Bill's 8 years" (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    those of us who actually know the Clintons history have always known she was the smart tough one.

    she is the one with the go for the juggler instinct.


    And you're sure... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    that's a good thing?...what if it is our jugular she is after?

    I know the Clintons more than I care too...the worst thing to happen to my people since Anslinger.  No freakin' thanks.


    An instinct for juggling is a good idea? (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    I know multi-tasking is good but....

    could not resist.....


    "Go for the juggler"! (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    I love it.  Marvelous.

    or course (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    she goes for the juggler.  how else do you explain Bill.

    Oh (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    I have no illusions. If I could pick the President, Russ Feingold would be sitting in the Oval Office right now.

    lol (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:10:47 PM EST
    So much for being representative of "the center".  

    Feingold is the Center (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    Or so I constantly say.

    I See (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    Well if you repeat it enough it will be true.

    That's my theory (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    The Beltway kept saying Lieberman was the Center and everyone believed it.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by NealB on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    But in 1970, six years before he was elected, no one knew who Carter was. In 1986, six years before he was elected, no one knew Bill Clinton. And of course, no one knew Obama back in 2002. A new face could appear.

    I hope Hillary runs in 2016. (Hasn't she already said it's unlikely?) But it's not hard to believe a newcomer will come along in the next year or two. We may get a "hot" keynote speaker at the 2012 convention. Maybe 2014's version of Howard Dean will catch fire and stay lit.

    Or, maybe we'll get a "new face" that's older than Hillary. Maybe Jerry Brown, in his second term as Governor of California will decide to run again for president with bragging rights about the miracle of California's recovery. Governors of CA have a pretty good track record winning the presidency.

    Why doesn't Hillary run in 2012? She could beat Obama then, I think, depending on how badly things go over the next two years for Obama (and his prospects for a bad two years look pretty good right now).


    Unless Biden as VP succeeds to the office (none / 0) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    that's the risk she runs.  But I don't think she'll be in contention in 2016 for reasons I outline below.

    he wont (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    succeed to the office unless something unthinkable happens.  there will be an election.  and a primary.

    Saw it (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:32:20 PM EST

    Makes sense (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    and most likely scenario....

    I read about the rumor a few days ago (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    and it made a lot of sense to me too.  I think it is likely more than a rumor.  First of all, Joe Biden is not viable to run in my opinion during or after a trying time for America.  He says the dumbest most offensive things off the cuff....he's forever a verbal loaded water cannon always hosing someone down but not meaning any real harm :)

    Second, it is perfect.  A lot of people see Hillary as the anti-Obama, which is funny as hell really considering the bang up job she does serving her President and her country right now :)  But I suppose this could make a big difference in 2016 to those who will be completely fed up with Obama and his lack of bold moves when he had the capital to spend and the political will to do.

    She will fix what is so wrong with healthcare reform.  She can run on it, win on it and do it then, and then it could become a joint shared legacy in a sense.  He set the ball and she spiked it over the net.  But I'm sick and twisted to harbor such bizarre thoughts in this tiny little humid brain :)

    There are a couple of things to (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    consider here, any and all of which can or will be factors.

    First, the Democratic party - and by "party" I mean the heads of the DNC, DSCC and DCCC - has to decide which Democratic party it is, whether the party it became is the one it wants to be, and, if fewer people buy what it is selling this November, whether it can be successful selling it again in 2012.  Until we get over the hump of these midterms, I don't think we're going to know what happens next.

    Deciding which party the Democratic party wants to be, thinks it is, or how it is portrayed by the media, will determine, to a significant degree, where Hillary is going to factor in: will she be on an Obama ticket in 2012, a viable candidate for 2016, or just a great speech at one or both conventions, and out doing her own good works in the world community?  

    Second, what kind of Democrat is Hillary?  There will be people who will argue that Hillary is closer to being in alignment with the ND (New Democratic) Party than the old, but on domestic issues - which I think are going to loom even larger in 2016 than in 2012 - she is definitely old-school - or at least she has been in the past: is that what the party poo-bahs want - or will allow?  

    Third, I don't see her running as VP to Obama, but I also don't see her staying on as SOS if Obama somehow manages another grand bamboozle and wins in 2012.  What she decides to do after she steps down may tell us something about what she sees in her future.

    Finally, it still all comes down to how the Democratic Party is going to identify itself, if it believes the turn to the right it made, beginning in 2006, is working, and whether they have the humility to admit it if it isn't.  I don't hold out much hope there; I don't see either Obama or Rahm Emanuel as particularly humble individuals.  

    I guess we'll see soon enough how this all plays out, but I would be very surprised if Hillary will be part of the Democratic Party's future plans - but then again, there are a lot of us who have been so turned off by the party that we are unlikely to be part of those plans, either (which does NOT translate into voting Republican).  Especially when, via the president's spokesperson, we have just been told in no uncertain terms that we don't matter.  That's going to be a problem the party may never recover from - and maybe it shouldn't if that's the kind of attitude and thinking it wants to institutionalize.

    Thoughful but I take issue with rightward (none / 0) (#154)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    turn of Democrats in 2006.  I think they went left, certainly playing up opposition to the war.

    To me then the question is whether they think the turn to the left, slight as it has proven to be, is not working.  They need a hard turn to the left but I question whether that is even possible in this day of Citizens United.

    Ultimately turn to the left will be seen as the only road not yet taken, so what the Hell?  Nothing else will have been proven to work so we'll finally "gamble" on a New New Deal.  I think that happens in 2016.


    There were too many Blue Dogs and (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    "new" Dems elected for the turn to be anything but to the right of center; I don't consider the anti-war position to outweigh the significant rightward movement on a lot of other fronts.  Taking into consideration the hardening of Bush policies from the Obama administration on matters related to the war, and I don't see how that adds up to "leftward."  At all.  From any conceivable angle.

    Look at where we are, and what's been done - and not done - since 2006, and most especially since 2008; this is not a party that has moved left; the disdain and constant disrespect for the left from within the party, from the president and the people who speak for him - on the record, as Gibbs did, or anonymously - is not consistent with leftward movement.


    It was interesting to see, in Europe (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    where I felt safe wearing a Hillary 2008 t-shirt again (I had packed it just to wear for pj's, but then it turned out we did not have the promised washing machine and dryer), how many favorable comments it got -- including from Americans.  

    But I consider it a warm and fuzzy artifact from a fantasy land that doesn't exist, not in this land, not after what we witnessed in this land of the free.

    we witnessed (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    her winning 18 million votes.  In a primary.

    I think people are confusing the media with the voters.  At the end of the day she connected with the voters.  Which is what ultimately matters in these things.  Had she connected with the voters before the end of the day, she would be president right now.


    We witnessed the rules changed (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    so that a woman had won the most primary votes ever, more than any man, still would not get the nomination.

    At the end of the day -- May 31, 2008, the day I quit the party, as changing its rules meant changing its charge and charter, so it did not exist anymore -- that is what mattered.  

    And the leadership of that former party has gotten even worse; witness the treatment of her delegates at the convention of that former party -- where the rules changed yet again, so that my delegates never even got to cast a vote for the nomination.

    The voters will not get a chance.  It's all done long before election day.


    stuff like that (none / 0) (#197)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    only matters if it's close enough to matter.

    Voters have a chance.  They just have to speak loud and clearly and with enough of a margin to make a difference.  The problem in this case being that Obama also got a ton of votes.

    It's like the Bush vs Gore thing.  If Gore had won more voters, a few hundred gone wrong in Florida would not have mattered.

    I guess I just don't see her having another challanger like that in 2016.  I think 18 million will be enough by then.

    But my point is, it's not like Hillary got crushed here.  And I wouldn't expect her to do any worse in 2016.  I know a lot of people who would have happily voted for her in a heartbeat absent an Obama.  She was the second choice of most of the Obama-voters I knew.

    People are not campaigns, and campaigns are not people.  2008 was not as bad for people as it was for campaigns.

    I'm not surprised Americans liked your Hillary shirt.


    You still don't see it (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:50:49 PM EST
    since your evidence is erroneous.

    Gore did win more voters in 2000.

    But that actually bolsters my argument.  Even when the voters do get a chance, the rules will be changed to make sure that votes still do not matter.

    Only power matters.  And the party powers still are males, still misognyist, as are the media powers.

    I really hope that Hillary does not run again, if only for the sake of our daughters.  I know several who now have abandoned plans for politics and even for public service.  We lost some of our best and brightest in 2008, and I don't just mean Hillary.  We just will lose more if young women are subjected to witnessing that again.


    my evidence is voters (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    my point about gore being - he should have won by more.  You win by enough, and all the shenanigans in the world won't matter.  That stuff only comes into play on really really close elections.

    Power can be won or lost.

    I am not worried in the slightest about younger women.  We're fine.  We'll be fine.  If we really want it, we'll take it.  I know several who only started to get involved in 2008 and are turning it into a career.  Personally, being subjected to such things only makes me want it more.  I think you underestimate younger women.


    The Hillary profile I prefer (published post-2008 (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by lambert on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:55:28 PM EST
    Via HuffPo:

    The night before Haverford, I was fidgeting in a Pennsylvania school gymnasium while waiting for Hillary Clinton and weeping over a dog. Senator Clinton, of all the candidates, brought out the pet-mania in a supporter. Canine attendance at her events was a phenomenon of the trail, and I had begun to take photographs of the various dogs, all wearing Hillary regalia, many squeezed into little Hillary costumes. On the evening of Monday, April 14, however, I realized that this penchant signaled more than enthusiasm. It was a sign that here sat a room full of losers--their loss magnified by their obliviousness to the reality that their candidate also was a loser. By April, despite Clinton victories in Texas and Ohio and a likely upcoming win in Pennsylvania, no one in the press, except for those prone to Super Delegate conspiracy theories, believed that Clinton would get the Democratic nomination.

    (See the map here for 2008 D primary vote distribution.)

    But this was the time when Hillary Clinton, nourished perhaps by the respect she had received in the poor Hispanic communities of Texas, began to get her voice and a receptive audience--always now in a town's meaner streets and not, as only a season before, in the nation's professional enclaves, which had begun to drift into the Obama camp. Here filling the gym risers at the Bristol Borough Junior-Senior High School, listening to John Mellencamp's "Small Town" and chanting Hillary-Hillary-Hillary! were the working class folk who would stick with her until the end in South Dakota because she, more than any other candidate in decades, was finding a way to speak to the many and varied losses in these Americans' lives.

    We're in a depression. This is the chart you need. If the Ds can't speak to that, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose.

    let me see if i have this right: (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by cpinva on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:43:10 PM EST
    hillary clinton should run, in 016, because the dems need her to save them?

    i agree the dems need someone to save them, but hillary clinton owes them absolutely zero. the DNC rewarded her loyalty and work, by drop-kicking her in 2008. agreeing to be obama's secty of state easily pays whatever(and it was, at best, nominal) debt she owes the party. she'd be well right telling them to go take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut, come 2016.

    "Assuming that President Obama (3.50 / 2) (#23)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    is reasonably popular in 2016"  That's a rather large assumption.  What if he's not "reasonably popular"?  I still stay she's the Democrats only shot, especially because Obama has been such an incompetent, and the Clinton brand is synonymous with competence.

    What do you think if Obama isn't re-elected in 2012?  Then what?

    then she has (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    as even better chance.  after 4 years of Palin, Barbour et al, I could probably win.

    "middle finger to scratch his nose" (2.67 / 3) (#205)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:52:57 PM EST
    that's really just laughable. An observation on the part of semi-paranoid people constantly on the lookout for sexism the way the operators of the Hubble telescope search for distant galaxies.

    Of course, from the beginning, it was always a  given that any man who ran against HRC had to be sexist, it was only always a matter of how much..

    All of this assuming the President Obama (none / 0) (#5)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    is still popular in 2012, not 2016. Don't put the cart before the horse.

    as bad as it looks right now (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:08:11 PM EST
    I would bet he get a second term.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    in a sense, Capt., but if he does win it will be in a Harry Reid way in that his opponent is so bat-guano insane that he'll pull it out in a close election.  

    But remember, the Regressives can't govern, but they can campaign really well.  After the the most radioactive elements of the Tea Party losers get their butt handed to them, they will be purged from the Party and they may well put up a supposedly moderate empty suit (I honestly don't mean this as an insult, but Obama has proven a thin resume doesn't matter) to be their standard bearer.  They won't let Newt or Mama Grizzly anywhere near the nomination.  Romney is a possibility, since Obama already put his Republican Health Insurance Reform in place, but they'll find some quiet Mid-Westerner to put up, perhaps someone not even on the radar right now.

    If Obama does win, Obama will squeak through a narrow Bush-like thin majority in '12 and basically get nothing accomplished afterwards, just like Shrub won but really lost as he couldn't turn his self-termed "political capital" into any significant victories.

    But I'm fully preparing myself for a Obama loss in '12, if this country could re-elect Shrub, it is capable of anything.  I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that the Regressives remain under the control of their Tea Party idiots.



    I agree with everything (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    but the Palin, Gingrich thing.  we made fun of Reagan.  we made fun of Dubya.

    do not underestimate the craziness of the american electorate.


    Please note (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    my last paragragh, I agree with you, you just never know.  If they do put up one of those two, I think they're crazy, but of course I think they're crazy anyway, and who knows.  I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I give him great odds over either of them.  Let's hope we're both wrong and we get pleasantly surprised.



    I just cant imagine (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    the republican base going for Mittens.  I just cant.
    but then I would not have believed they would go for McCain either.

    McCain won so that Obama (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:29:12 PM EST
    would win; the powers that be in that party knew what was coming at the economy and us all.

    If they want to win in 2012, they will pick a winner.


    Only Romney (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    could possibly beat him imo.

    I bet that is what Team Obama thinks too.


    Team Obama THINK? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:57:58 PM EST
    Now that would be unusual.

    He seems to be the most likely (none / 0) (#82)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    candidate. Palin isn't running and wouldn't get too far, Huckabee is a bit of a dud, Newt is Newt.

    If they were like Nixon (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:07:10 PM EST
    They would have their own Segretti running around doing dirty tricks to try and insure they got to run against Palin.

    how do you know they (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    are not.  she is gettin lots of press.

    Romney would have to run against his own (none / 0) (#145)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    health care plan.

    It won;t happen, his GOP primary opponents will hang that around his telegenic head.  He'll be  out after NH.


    yes (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    add that to the whole "wrong god" thing and . . .

    is that toast burning?


    God forbid. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:13:45 PM EST

    why? (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    you have to (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:17:40 PM EST

    or was it rhetorical?


    no really (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    why is it a bad for her to be pres in 2016?

    or was the god forbid for something else?


    Did you observe (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    what happened during the recent primary battle? I wouldn't want to see a repeat of that myself. And it will all happen again, no question.

    And, of course, I think she doesn't have a chance anyway...


    I think that is (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    100% up to Hillary if she wants it, she can more than handle it.

    I also think another time around will be very different.  That stuff loses it's effectiveness over time.  Think about the trajectory of the primary.  I also think that she has a very very good chance if she wants it.


    Well, of course it's up to Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    I don't share your opinion about the next time being different, however. It was surprisingly effective for this time period in history. Which makes me think a few years will not matter much. It will still be effective.

    not that effective (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    think about how well she was doing towards the end of the primary vs the beginning.

    She did better as it went on.


    yes, a bit better late in the primary, true. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    But not for that reason I don't think (i.e., not because the left suddenly came around to rejecting the sexism directed at her).

    But, also, I should have added another reason:  I actually would prefer an actual liberal become President. She is not really that liberal in many ways.


    the left establishment (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    no.  the voters yes.  I guess that's my point.

    Fair enough on the liberal president.  But I don't see anyone in politics right now who has a better shot (it is still a ways away I grant you).  And frankly, I don't really see a real liberal winning, unfortunately.


    It is worth noting that while 2016 is a ways (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    away, not that many new Democrats are going to be popping up on the scene in the next couple cycles. Democrats are going to get creamed in 3 months and likely do poorly in 2012 so we won't have that much new blood out there.

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    If GOP wins in 2020 (none / 0) (#146)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    what is you believe they will accomplish that will make them so strong in 2012?

    I think if the GOP wins Congress it is the surest road to a more progressive Congress in 2012.  They offer no solutions to any of today's problems.

    A GOP Congress might be the one thing that kick starts Obama into being a fighter.  Note, I said "might."


    If GOP wins in 2010 (none / 0) (#147)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    what is you believe they will accomplish that will make them so strong in 2012?

    I think if the GOP wins Congress it is the surest road to a more progressive Congress in 2012.  They offer no solutions to any of today's problems.

    A GOP Congress might be the one thing that kick starts Obama into being a fighter.  Note, I said "might."


    Out of curiosity (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    Who would this "real liberal" be? Based upon votes, deeds, actual actions, etc.....

    That's a good reason (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    What won Obama the Democratic (none / 0) (#42)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    primary in large part was being able to splinter off a huge faction of the Democratic base, African American voters.  I think chances are that approach can not be replicated in 2016.

    Sure it can (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    By Hillary.

    Hillary will be as old as Reagan was (none / 0) (#77)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:54:21 PM EST
    and for a woman, that's really older.

    Maybe there will be a third party with fresh faces, new ideas, and for the people and by the people.  We can dream...


    Women live longer than men (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    BTW, John McCain was 72 when he ran for President.

    And how many times and ways (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    Was his age mentioned as a handicap?  I recall several around here and other "liberals" calling him "Grandpa" and other such childish names...

    Childish? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    He was/is handicapped because his brain has calcified. Hillary is, on the other hand, not remotely comparable. She is sharp as a tack, and make McCain look like he is completely demented.

    right (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    and if not for the financial collapse he would be president now.

    Not why he lost (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    they miscalculated (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:18:14 PM EST
    on how much they could get away with insulting the intelligence of the electorate (they were cocky after 1980 and 2000) by picking Palin.

    another discussion (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    you dont think it was his age do you?

    and McCain showed he didn't (none / 0) (#111)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    have a clue (mainly due to age and too many face-lifts) as to what was going in the world around him, imo.

    How did Obama get to be President when he was only introduced to the national scene in 2000 or was it only 2004?

    I still feel he is an excellent good choice and will get a second term.  Once he has found his legs, he will get things done!


    McCain NEVER had a clue (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    Being 72 had nothing to do with it.

    No one with an "R" next to their name (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:33:41 PM EST
    had a chance. He just happened to be the unlucky one.

    Well, duh. That's my point. (none / 0) (#141)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    I was responding to Dr. Molly.  Who in 2016 is going to pocket a huge piece of the base over Hillary.  No one as far as I can see.

    Absurd (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    Politics is a blood sport for one, and sexism is a boil that needs to be lanced. The more "ugliness" the more pus can be drained from the festering infection.

    And to be honest, I did not see how this campaign was anymore vicious than any other. Racism and Sexism abounded, but what else is new.


    I assume you are talking (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    about the Obama Clinton primary battle.  why on earth would that happen again?  you think Michelle will run?

    and I will take that bet.  Hillary will be president.
    she might even have a better chance if Obama is  a one termer.


    Why on earth would that happen again? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    Well, because I don't think that deep-seated sexism simply disappears in a few years. I have no idea what you mean about Michelle...

    It's a reference to the rampant misogyny, (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    that was on such vivid display during that primary. Do you not remember that? The ugliness was made all the worse because most of it came from the so-called progressive/liberal wing. You know, that very same wing of the party that sees nothing wrong with Obama's continuing erosion of women's reproductive rights.

    Like everybody else, I have no idea what Hillary Clinton will decide about 2016. But if 2013 comes and she graciously leaves public life, who could blame her?


    Sexism is a problem (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    But the last battle will make the next one less difficult.

    Haven't we been saying that (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    for an awfully long time?

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:04:38 PM EST
    But Hillary's was the first serious run for President by a womman.

    But why would it be less difficult? Most of (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    the same players will still be there. The caucus system (which I think to a degree works against all women, not just Clinton) will still be there.

    That's true. (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    And I believe that first serious run exposed some pretty ugly truths about the left's true attitude towards women in power. I'm just not sure it cured any of it; just shone a brighter light on it than we have seen before.

    After all, most on the left still deny it ever happened, or that it was out of the ordinary.


    I remain unconvinced on (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    how much of that resentment towards women in power was actually coming from the left. Very unconvinced.

    If I were a Machievellian Atwater-Rove type that's exactly how I would've played it; to drive a wedge through the Dems.

    And of course, it was completely coincidental that the 'Thugs picked Palin to run with McSame just at the time when all the charges of rampant sexism were reaching a fever pitch..


    See what I mean? (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    It didn't really happen. The Left is truly feminist and didn't do anything. It was all the right wing's fault.

    Um, I believe that BTD (and many others) wrote about 100 posts or so exposing the sexism of the left.

    Until hard realities are actually acknowledged, they can't be fixed. Hence my original comment.


    "Sexism of the Left" (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:23:21 PM EST
    was always a dog whistle here for let's circle-the-wagons-Hillary-supporters..

    The number of threads dedicated to the topic here doesn't automatically make the characterization accurate, any more than those Reverend Wright threads were about some  disinterested, objective assessment of Obama's judgment.  


    Alternatively... (5.00 / 6) (#174)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    the conflation of calling out sexism vs. 'circling-the-wagons-Hillary-supporter' was always a dog whistle for the let's-pretend-the-sexism-isn't-happening-crowd (both on this blog and many other places).

    Apparently YMMV.


    you say ee-ther (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    and I say  eye-ther..lets call the whole thing off.

    Opposing Sexism On the Left (2.67 / 3) (#165)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    Or anywhere, is an entirely different statement than:

    And I believe that first serious run exposed some pretty ugly truths about the left's true attitude towards women in power.

    Must be hard to be so angry that Hillary lost, and that people were mean to her.


    What's hard, as a woman, and as (5.00 / 6) (#176)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    someone who believes in equality, is to see just how entrenched the sexism is within the Democratic party; that's the issue and not who was specifically the target of that sexism.

    What it showed us was that, if they were willing to sacrifice that principle in the name of politics to keep one particular woman out of the White House, they would find us  - all women - expendable and fair game for whatever the next fight was.  And I think we saw that in the health care whatever battle: this administration used women as a bargaining chip to "win" something.

    For you to reduce this to people being "mean" to Hillary - which you have done before, and usually when you just want to jab at someone with the specific intent to get a rise out of them - tells me that you have more than a little sexism percolating under your skin than you think.  Or that you have little control of your not-so-inner brat.


    You Get What You Give (2.33 / 3) (#186)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    For an obviously disgruntled Hillary supporter, to utter such a ridiculous sentiment that the ugly left is sexist, deserves a response that is barbed. Sexism, racism and bigotry are embedded in our culture, and people on the left are not immune. But to paint with a broad brush that an entire group of people, some whose entire focus has been feminism, is absurd, and hateful.

    And, as far as you go, once you acknowledge the racism that went on in the campaign, I would call you an honest broker regarding your calling out the rampant sexism that arose during Hillary's campaign.

    For the record, I have been harsh on sexism, racism, bigotry across the boards, but it particularly irks me when hypocrisy is shrouds a principle.


    I would challenge you to find some (4.33 / 6) (#192)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    evidence that the insiders who developed the Obama campaign strategy, or Obama himself, who uttered a raft of unscripted and highly offensive and sexist comments, ever had any focus on feminism, much less an "entire" one.

    I won't address your charge of racism in the campaign, because it was manufactured out of whole cloth at a time when Hillary was picking up momentum coming out of New Hampshire and she had to be shut down; they did, and the media pitched in to help.

    As for the rest of the baloney you posted, find a couple slices of rye bread and you'll have a sandwich; bon appetit.


    Racism--this comment from Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:05:29 PM EST
    pollster Sergio Bendixen ticked me off to no end:

    On the morning after Clinton's victory, I talked to Sergio Bendixen, one of her pollsters, who specializes in the Hispanic vote. "In all honesty, the Hispanic vote is extremely important to the Clinton campaign, and the polls have shown--and today is not a great day to cite polls--that even though she was slipping with women in Iowa and blacks in South Carolina, she was not slipping with Hispanics," he said


    But he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: "The Hispanic voter--and I want to say this very carefully--has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

    Got that?  Latinos will not vote for a Black candidate.  From Hillary's top Latino consultant.  Total trash.  Totally wrong.  And there was talk that Latino gangs and Black gangs fought each other in prison.  So what?
      You treat people like animals they will of course rever to the most basic form of tribalism.

    This is what Hillary had to say herself:

    Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when Clinton's veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates."

    That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base, but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, "In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone."

    But not in Hillary Clinton's. During the Jan. 15 debate prior to the Nevada caucuses, where the Latino vote was important, NBC's Tim Russert read the Bendixen quote and asked Clinton, "Does that represent the view of your campaign?" Her response was chilling: "No, he was making a historical statement."

    Asked whether Latinos will refuse to vote for him, Obama got a laugh when he replied: "Not in Illinois. They all voted for me."

    So, Hillary reinforces this racist notion--that Latinos are racists and will not vote for a Black candidate.  Total trash.

    Many of the Hillary supporters in the Primary dismiss with the wave of the hand some very nasty racial politics on their side....Since Obama won, there has been none of the recriminations that you hear from the Hillary side.....But there was some not so nice things out there...


    Like I said (3.50 / 4) (#194)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    red meat..

    What was this "raft of unscripted and highly offensive sexist comments uttered by Obama"? Examples please.

    Meanwhile, racist comments were "just manufactured out of whole cloth"..

    A dichotomy of perceptions that borders on hilarious in it's embracing of the moral high ground and demonizing of the other side.

    Face it Ann, you love this. All that suffering and martyrdom gives you the moral high ground forever.


    I don't know (4.00 / 3) (#199)
    by hookfan on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:52:26 PM EST
    "Sweetie". Maybe you can help think of some and "periodically" let us know. Although it might lead to the bearing of the "claws" by some of Hill's supporters. Perhaps Hillary would be better off  serving Tea, than taking Obama's crap when using his middle finger to scratch his nose, or pretend to brush her off his shoes. No?

    The Left? (1.40 / 5) (#162)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    What a load of crap.

    Poor Hillary died for your sins.


    "unconvinced on how much" (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:26:36 PM EST
    isn't saying "it didn't really happen". Im talking about matters of degree, not whether something happened or didn't happen; as if it were all black and white (so to speak)

    so (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:14:47 PM EST
    what are you saying exactly.
    that women should just give up ever being president?

    No, not that. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    I just don't see the point right now. We (the country) clearly aren't ready for it. Until I see some evidence that people (and by 'people' I mean at least the so-called progressive left for crying out loud) are:  a) ready to accept/support a woman in the most powerful office, b) interested in working on issues affecting women and children even though it's really hard stuff, and c) ready to stand up against sexism 100% of the time (even if they don't support that particular woman for office), then I think it's just tilting at windmills.

    It is so much worse still than I ever would have imagined. And the denial of reality is still so much worse than I ever would have imagined too. Sorry.


    and for all that (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    Hillary still almost won the primary (indeed some people think she did win), and would have won the general election.

    I honestly think if Obama had not run she would be our president right now.  And if she had not picked Mark Penn to run her campaign, she might be our president right now anyway.

    I'm not saying those things don't exist.  Just that I don't think they are the death-stroke that a lot of people believe them to be.

    There was a whole lot of (effective) racism going on in 2008, especially in the general election.  But we still have a black president.


    I really think you took (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    all the wrong lessons from the 2008 primary.
    first, Hillary was expected to win.  by everyone. inside and outside washington.  the Obama people took them on using that.  the presumption of winning.  the entitlement.  it was rather brilliant actually.  but you fret far too much about the rough and tumble.  I guarantee you Hillary did not take the same lessons from the experience.



    because (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    its hard?

    If your name is Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#116)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:17:15 PM EST
    then the answer is 'yes'.

    So, I'm not saying that they should give up. (none / 0) (#117)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    I'm just saying that it's unlikely for them to make it.

    wasnt directed at you (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    but I disagree.

    Ugly Truths? (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:18:28 PM EST
    Do you think that is a valid stereotype?

    Pretty irresponsible of you, imo, to be painting with such a broad brush, particularly considering that your agenda appears to be breaking down sexist stereotypes.


    Where the loss helps (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    in the case of the 2008 primaries is the manner and style of what happened. I think many people (including a percentage of earlier Democratic naysayers) were quite surprised by her strength and transformation during the course of that run.

    Recall that a number of her detractors--apart from the sexism on display--questioned her background in many ways, arguing that she felt entitled/dynastic/whatnot. The power of the run together with the almost universally acknowledged grace with which she emerged from the run left an imprint, a positive imprint. One could say that she has been transformed from a regular or normal candidate (earned-the-stripes) by the process. That is a comment which I've heard from a variety of sources. Then, the stint as Secretary of State (and the teamwork and observable interaction with the President) adds to the ever-emerging power persona. It is fascinating, and uplifting, to watch.

    Still, six years is a long way away.


    Hillary has put to rest (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:39:03 PM EST
    the idea that she is an elitist....She did well as the champion of blue collar America....She showed everyone (again) she is no quitter....unlike someone else.  She is proving that she can be a team player.....

    She is showing that her foreign policy experience and expertise are her own and not derivative of Bill....

    These change the dynamics.....

    Sexism will exist....but she will be stronger....She did almost win last time....

    And who would compete with her?  Mark Warner?  Not even close.  Maybe Howard Dean (again) from the Left--now that would be interesting....

    There really is no one else....But next time, ditch Mark Penn and run as the economic, blue collar populist that she is....and Voila! she will win...


    Less difficult for her, maybe (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    but maybe not.  I am done attempting to estimate the intelligence of the male (and too many female) American voters and especially of the male media.

    But I cannot handle another one like that, even remotely like that.  I have to teach this stuff, I have to get evaluated on it, and I sound like Jack Nicholson, but -- they don't want the truth.

    Forget it.  Let p*nises have the presidency.


    Hillary did not lose the election (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    because of sexism and misogyny.  she lost the primary. what was done to her in the primary would never work in a general election.  

    Respectfully, not so sure about that. (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    I remember thinking to myself, after seeing that primary, that if she had actually pulled out the nomination somehow, the sexism we observed would be 10 times worse during the general election when she would be fighting against the right. Just think what the newts, mitts, and hucks would have pulled up out the sewer to use against her. We would have been hearing about the dangers of PMS, her overemotionalism, and all that ad nauseum.

    it might very well be worse (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    it would also be far easier to counter.  with no worries about splitting the party she would rip the republicans guts out for some of the thing team Obama did.

    She lost because of her vote on Iraq (none / 0) (#173)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    that's my view.  Who wanted to nominate ANOTHER candidate to oppose Iraq who had voted for it?

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    I think she lost because of Mark Penn. Iraq was only unpopular for a small segment of the US, namely the left.

    After she fired him, her public image changed, and she became more appealing. Too late, though.


    Both the sexism and Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    vote could have been overcome by Hillary if only she'd run a smarter more dynamic campaign (obviously, sans Penn at the helm) with someone sober and experienced in charge daily of campaign expenditures (unlike that idiot PSD she chose).  She was like the overconfident heavyweight champ who trains only for two rounds because that's how he's won before and an early knockout was what the experts had long predicted.

    I was very disappointed with how her campaign was run largely by loyal but not competent people, while some very smart folks (Grunwald, Ickes, maybe one other) were not given dominant advisory roles.


    Biden will be a one termer (none / 0) (#12)
    by pitachips on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    I never believed he would be there for the long haul. He was chosen for one reason - to counter Obama's perceived inexperience in the eyes of the voters. That will be a non issue when Obama is running for his second term. I think Obama will want a bigger say in who follows him. That very well could be Clinton - I don't doubt for one second that she still wants to be president at some point.

    sure she does (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:24:24 PM EST
    who doesnt.  politically speaking.  that doesnt mean she wants to be Vice President.  in all of history only four times have we elected a president who was vice president:

    John Adams
    George Bush
    Thomas Jefferson
    Martin Van Buren


    You forgot Al Gore (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    my (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:26:51 PM EST

    Nine times (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    Have former VP's been elected to the top spot:

    T Roosevelt


    no (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    Truman, Roosevelt, Coolidge and LBJ became president by succession.

    Nixon was VP but not when elected president


    That's not what you said (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:00:59 PM EST
     in all of history only four times have we elected a president who was vice president.

    thats right (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:06:39 PM EST
     in all of history only four times have we elected a president who was vice president.

    when elected (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    You have to count Tricky Dick (none / 0) (#137)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    maybe Biden will run in 2024, perhaps by then he will have learned to engage brain before opening mouth.

    Shame Dan Quayle never got the chance (none / 0) (#140)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    perhaps his post op self Sarah Palin will.

    pfft (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    so thats what happened to Dan.  who knew he had such great legs.

    you are correct (none / 0) (#150)
    by pitachips on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    but she may conclude that it will be an easier path, as opposed to a primary against a VP that many might consider to be the presumptive nominee.

    Wow, after posting that I think I need a break from politics lol. Can't believe we're sitting here talking about what might happen in 6 years.


    What's advantageous to (none / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    a sitting VP looking to move up in the next election is the tendency for the nomination path to be largely cleared, unless the incumbent VP is too old -- Biden -- or considered not strong enough to command party unity for the nom -- again, Biden.

    Remember, Hillary went through a long 18 months or so of primary campaigning --brutally tough in the final 9 months.  She may not want to repeat that exercise and might prefer sitting in the cat bird's seat as VP.


    Way off base (none / 0) (#18)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    First, no other Dmeocrat will emerge over the next 6 years?  Highly doubtful.

    Second, the country in 2016 will still be mired in the 8th year of a Japan-like slump.  That will largely have been because of Obama's weak tea and self imposed constraints on policy initiatives.  Let's face it, Obama not only recognizes Reagan's transformation but accepts as limits on his own initiatives the status quo economic and political environment set in place largely by Reagan.  

    In 2016, Democrats, if not the entire country, will be screaming for real & effective change in how the government approaches economic policy.  Clinton does not & never has represented that.  Like Obama, she & Bill made their peace with some form of supply side economics being a fact of American politics.  That should have changed already; it will of dire necessity change in 2016.

    The only real question in my mind if whether Obama can win in 2012, or is he, like Gerry Ford, a President doomed by his willingness to play only on & within a playing field defined by the  opposition party.  After a strong primary challenge from a no holds barred conservative, Ford almost beat Carter and he was coming on strong in the final week of the 1976 campaign.

    And it was the no holds barred conservative who ultimately won election and, regrettably, set the political debate for the next 30 - (we shall see) years.   I think a similar candidate, only this time from the progressive wing of politics, will win in 2016, and that is not HRC.  

    Constrained as he is by his acceptance, if not support, of Reagan's tranformation of the country, Obama is unlikely to act boldly enough to materially improve the economy, whether he is in power or not.  A Republican will only make matters worse.  By 2016 the country will be hungering for, as Monty Python would put it, something completely different.  And, again, that is not HRC.

    Why is that important? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    How does that in anyway preclude someone emerging from the pack over the next 6 years?

    I also think that the general level of economic satisfaciotn with Bill Clinton did not lead people to look for a new person.  That is not the case today , nor is it likely to tbe the case over the next 6 years.  The times suck and are likely to keep sucking, or get worse (GOP win in 2012) for as far as the eye can see.

    I also forgot to mention that by 2016 the country will, in my opinion, be thoroughly disgusted with the war policies since 2001.  HRC hawkishness will not be, again IMO, in fashion.  I sure hope not.


    Because (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:41:38 PM EST
    the President's party shuts out new faces.

    Look at the GOP in 2008? McCain was the nominee - the known quantity.

    A new face can't break through. It just does not happen.  


    Colin Powell did not run (none / 0) (#61)
    by me only on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    as was speculated for several years.  Maybe he doesn't want it.  Maybe there are other reasons.

    Colin Powell (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    was talked about when Bill Clinton was President.

    I strongly believe a progressive primary (none / 0) (#72)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    challenger to Obama in 2012 will be setting him or herself up for successful 2016 run.  The Left and OBama are growing increasingly estranged.  With propsect of lingering malaise through at least 2016, some liberal will follow the Reagan 1976-1980 path to the Presidency.  Unlike Reagan, there is not just idealogical differences on the economy but also over the wars.

    there will be no (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    serious primary challenge to Obama in 12

    I got $5 says there will be AT LEAST (none / 0) (#101)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    one anti-war challenger.  

    And I suspect, by that I mean not surprised by, a real liberal challenger who has two things.  First, disgust with today's Democratic Party establishment.  Second, the drive to be President.

    Maybe it's me but I got to think there are millions of Dems or people who vote Dem who will ultimately, unenthusiastically vote for Obama in Nov 2012.  I know they'd also love to vote for a leftist primary challenger.  Nature may abhor a vacuum, but with nowhere near the intensity that politics does.

    There is a growing demand for a real, unapologetic liberal and someone will explore that opportunity in 2012.

    We all have our pet theories.  Mine is OBama is the last Democratic President to accept the playing field as defined by the Republicans, in the same way Ford was the last GOP President to feel confined by the New Deal.  

    Eisenhower, Nixon both accepted the New Deal and only attempted to change things on the margins.  Nixon was positively liberal compared to today's GOP, establishing the EPA signing the Clean Air Act etc.  I think Clinton and Obama both feel they must not take on Reaganism, call it free market theory or supply side or whatever, too directly.

    That changes in 2016.  It will have to.


    I hope there is a challenger (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    And I am for the Afghan War.

    Primaries are essential.


    there may well be (none / 0) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    a Kucinich.  I said a serious challenge.

    Teddy Kennedy challenged (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter during a horrible downturn for the country when Carter played things much the same way Obama has.  Kennedy was a serious challenge, and this time of crisis is even deeper and more serious.  Two years down this road, there is going to be so much more pain experienced too by the little people and still not many real solutions.

    Interesting precedent (none / 0) (#161)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    I think it supports the idea that Obama will face a "serious" challenger.

    Unlike Reagan challenging Ford though, Kennedy;s challenge was within the existing paradigm, he saw himself as defending & upholding the New Deal.  Unfortunately for us all, the New Deal, rightly or wrongly, had been successfully cast as the problem not the solution.   So Kennedy's challenge was a Pickett's charge, it wasn't going to change the outcome.

    I think a 2012 liberal challenger would be more like Reagan in 76 - offering a completely different approach to governing at a time when the existing paradigm is increasingly viewed as having failed.  This challenger will be cast as radical and scary as Reagan was in 76 (and to less effect obviously in 80).  I do not think a challenger can wrestle the nomination away from Obama, but I do think the challenger would be well positioned for 2016.



    Kucinich would get a lot of protest votes (none / 0) (#149)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    he might be the Gene McCarty that lures in a big fish.  If he is the only alternative he gets my vote.

    sure (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    but no way in heck would win.

    I don't think 2-time (none / 0) (#157)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    candidate Dennis K. is even McCarthy Lite.  Not a dynamic personality (well, like McC there), doesn't project strength or gravitas (unlike McC).

    DK is just not a serious contenda.  He's your 5% protest vote, not much else.


    Reagan ran in 68 and 76 (none / 0) (#163)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    Humphrey ran a few times

    If DK is the only challenger I think he gets 30-35%.  My positions line up with DK but I never vote for him b/c he never appeared as a "serious candidate.  

    I am sick of the media/establishment annointed serious candidates & henceforth am voting my positions.


    Reagan was gov (none / 0) (#187)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    of the nation's largest state, twice.  HHH was a successful mayor then successful and popular and substantive senator for MN for 12 yrs before running his first time.  Both these candidates, like them or not, had significant experience of the type normally that positions someone to seek the presidency.

    Just repping one rather liberal district in OH is not quite the same thing.

    When he's run and won for senator or gov, maybe he can develop some serious chops in FP or DP and use that as a basis for a serious run to the top.  Otherwise, he's just a small fellow with some nice positions on war and ufo's that I happen to agree with.  

    Beautiful wife, too -- let's not forget that.

    And yes, I am a little jealous ...


    I think it is 50/50 possible at this time (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:15:33 PM EST
    Kucinich--maybe Dean (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:44:41 PM EST
    but they will get no traction....

    Me too (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:03:29 PM EST
    We agree on that but disagree (none / 0) (#103)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    as to the likelihood of the 2012 challenger's ultimate success in 2016?

    Yes (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:14:48 PM EST
    Not sure I can survive even this (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:18:31 PM EST
    partial agreement BTD :)

    I am after all a die hard Sox, Pats, Celts, Bruins fan.


    All from Kentucky too....n/t (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    Well, one face had too much botox (none / 0) (#85)
    by Untold Story on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    The guy who ran for President in 2000? (none / 0) (#54)
    by me only on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:42:59 PM EST
    the guy who was (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    one of the worst candidates in the history of politics?  that guy?

    He was the Vice President (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    Making my point.

    Unless you are positing Biden as the candidate for 2016.


    I sincerely doubt that. (none / 0) (#28)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    I think competence will trump some dramatic change in ideology in the next couple of election cycles.

    Personality politics is the name of the game (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    If the voters did not choose competence in 2008 after experiencing the results of the Bush administration, I hold out little hope that they will choose it in the next couple of election cycles.

    They took it as a given that any Dem (4.40 / 5) (#136)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:31:37 PM EST
    would govern competently.  That illusion has been dispelled.  Personality was the last election.

    I guess we will agree to disagree on (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    this. With the help of our infotainment media, IMO the majority of voters are seeking a hero to come riding to our rescue or woo us with their performance (via AI) rather than an employee with real qualifications hired  to do the job.

    Competence implies we only need an administrator (none / 0) (#59)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    to watch over a successful or livable situation.  That's not what we have today and all indications are there is nothing on the horizon likely to improve upon things by 2016.

    As I am sure you are aware, the economy blows.  All indications from the current administration are that they either have no answers, or no hope Congress will support doing anything about a real 15% or higher unemployment rate.  

    I think we can all agree GOP wins in 2010 or 2012 sure won't improve matters for most people.

    So in 2016 a politican who has been around the national stage as a  moderate (and hawkish)  Democrat will be elected?  I don't see it at all.


    Competence (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    is also a very subjective word. The fact that one disagrees with someone/can't stand someone/wants a different path than someone offers does not make that someone "incompetent."

    In fact, one measure of "competence" is meeting totally (or at least partially) the specific goals --stated & verifiable--by the end of one's stated period. E.g., working with Congress to achieve legislative goals or working with the Executive Branch to implement or further those goals or obtaining confirmation of your nominees, executive and judicial, etc.  

    Sorry for my bit of contrariness, but certain words like "competence" (or "efficiency") often reflect our own emotions primarily. Maybe there is another word or term?


    Maybe it is just examples (4.50 / 2) (#171)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:27:53 PM EST
    but approval of that Deepwater HOrizon rig using BUsh's MMS procedures, lecturing progressives as to the failure proof high tech rigs of today, and cajoling BP to cap the well and allowing BP to police the Gulf Coat was pretty incompetent.  I fear Afhganistan policy is being incompetently developed and implemented.  I would suggest the White HOuse has displayed major incompetence on the issue of unemployment.

    Now sure I can give you a many more examples of Bush's incompetence.

    Katrina, Iraq, Tora Bora, 9/11 itself and the 8/6/01 PDB, dismantling of regulatory oversight are some that spring to mind.

    Still, I think Obama has opened himself up to questions of comeptence.


    In my 27 years with EPA (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    I do have some understanding of the "evolution" of permitting...in the gulf or otherwise. The situation blew up; and, it surprised everyone. It isn't that they were all incompetent; rather--for a lot of political reasons dating to the early 1980s--there arose an attitude of a kind of comfortable-ness. (Similar to what we all do in our home and work environment. Even in a car...we say "sure, the brakes only take this long to work," and we get comfortable in assuming a mechanism will work because it always has. You know, "its ok to leave the Christmas tree lights on overnight" or "its ok to run the motor in winter when stalled in order to keep warm." No excuses. Thats what happens.)

    You are correct, of course. It should not have happened. But, the question of "competence" isn't on whose watch something happened, but how it all plays out after if does. Already we see changes in permitting approaches, changes in MMS, etc. That, to me, is one indication that this Administration is "competent" enough to respond forthrightly to events on the ground.

    As for employment & competence: That would be a good discussion. For example: What are the standards for correcting the situation that we faced in early 2009? What were the steps that should have been taken in the following months--specifically--that were not taken? I personally believe that Paul Krugman was correct in foreseeing the dilemma created by "stimulus" legislation not large enough.  But, there were different schools of thought on the correct path to take at the time...so, if he (or we) choose one path when the other might have been better, does that go to "competence?" Or, is the question really the total responsiveness (readjust/renew/etc.) over time?


    Uh, I don't think so... (4.20 / 5) (#164)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    This isn't abput disagreeing with him on policy.  It's about thinking he's not a very good executive of the federal government.  His weak and often seemingly uninformed response to the oil disaster, for example, demonstrated real incompetence.  That's not just a personal obervation.  His response hurt his standing with voters.  Their confidence in him went down in the polls.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    We really are talking about policy disagreement here. Not the ability or inability to accomplish what one sets out to accomplish. (BTW, the basis for my pique is grounded in the learnings from a 30-yr govt career wherein I would listen to individuals tell me about someone else's "incompetence," and--most times--it turned out that the speakers really displayed their own atttitudes. Seriously, those emotion-laden words lead only to circular arguments. Better to state the specific expectation, the conclusion, and the specifics for the conclusion. Also: The word tended to be used more often than not when it was directed at minorities and women or people of a different persuasion. Anecdotal only.)

    No, I'm talking about incompetence, NOT (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    policy.  His reaction to the BP oil spill isn't a matter of policy, it's a matter of competence.  

    We've had two consecutive (3.00 / 2) (#138)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    incompetents in the WH, and it shows.  I think people will look for tried and true competence.

    That's actually funny (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:31:40 PM EST
    HRC isn't a viable candidate in 2016 because of the policies of Robert Rubin in her husband's administration 25 years earlier.  Good grief.

    Well HRC supporters seem to point to (none / 0) (#44)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    the then seemingly successful economic policies of Rubin/Clinton as a major reason for her political viability in 2016.  

    Your Crystal Ball Is Working Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    I think that it is a great argument, 2016 is perfect timing, imo.

    As far as the veep idea, dead in the water for all the reasons you suggest and more.

    The surprise element will be a major factor. If Hillary were to replace Biden as veep it would be obvious that it is positioning her to run in 2016, and kill her chances.

    Great point (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    on the "wanting it" being a negative.

    Better to be "coaxed" into it.


    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:39:56 PM EST
    As NY Senator she said, unequivocally, that she was not going to run for POTUS...  

    To be fair (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:44:12 PM EST
    I beleive that promise was only about her first term, in other words she would not run in 2004, and of course she didn't and kept her word.



    No (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    She was elected to her second term as NYS in Nov 2006.

    She clearly did not run as anyone but someone committed to NYS and her job as Senator.

    December 2006:

    Turning her attention to the 2008 presidential race, she said Mrs. Clinton would not be pressured into hastily announcing her decision about a presidential run, despite the intensifying jockeying among the other Democratic presidential contenders, most notably Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

    "She has her own timetable," she said. "We won't be rushed by the media, and we won't be rushed by any other candidate."


    She announced her run for Dem POTUS Nominee  in Jan 2007...

    Here is a good profile by the New Yorker just after she won in 2006. Nothing about POTUS... the hype to get her to run was external.... she played it cool.... IOW,  whatever her private ambitions, were her public stance was tempt me...

    As her steps pick up speed, I ask one more question, to the back of Clinton's expensively blonde head: If I'm a mainstream Democratic voter, why should I hope she's one of the candidates running in '08? Hillary Clinton laughs, loud and hard. "Oh, I'll talk to you about that if I ever make such a decision," she says. "Good try, though! That was clever!" And then she's back inside the black van. Protected, and removed, by the bubble.

    god (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    we are so pathetic.

    but you are right of course.


    My first rule of politics (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    Politics is stupid.

    I maintain that 1) No Dem can win in (none / 0) (#68)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    2016 2) She will still have a problem winning the primary 3) She's too old (both in the bull$*^@ political sense and the very real governing sense).

    Anybody can win against the current (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    brand of Republican.  The only thing they stand for now is BURN IT TO THE GROUND.

    Blessing or curse? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    Is it better to be in opposition to the nutbags & offering sensible progressive solutions, or to have in power a half-hearted progressive whose weak tea fails as a matter of policy & leaves liberal ideas open to continued GOP ridicule - anyting liberal or offered by liberals is by definition foolish?

    That is what irks me so much about Obama.  Krugman & others explained how and why a weak stimulus would be worse than no stimulus at all back in March 2009.  It wouldn't do the job because it was too small and it would allow the GOP to discredit the idea of further stimulus by saying, "Look, we tried that it didn't work."

    And here we are.


    I disagree with your #1 (none / 0) (#81)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    agree with #2
    disagree with #3

    She will not be what a desprate people will want after a decade of at best economic maliase.  People will demand a complete overhaul of government policy, of the type some of us, naively I admit, thought we might be getting from Obama.

    To be fair to myself, I did not think Obama certain to deliver change in the economic policies of the US government.  I did see him as the most likely of the candidates to do so, accepting as given the unlikelihood any of them would actually WANT to try.  I thought that he might be more open to radical change, reverse Reagan, if events (as they do) demand it, even if only out of desperation.

    I don't think that any longer.


    Well, that Hillary-Sibelius primary (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    should be loads of fun.

    I think Sibelius is who Obama is teeing up for 2012 if Biden gets replaced on the ticket, and 2016 in any case.

    Man in the sky forbid :) (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    Yeah - if I am right, then BTD is also right (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    that Hillary will be needed to save the party and the country.

    I'll vote for her in 2016... (none / 0) (#144)
    by magster on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    so that I can guage just how big a mistake it was for me to be an Obama supporter and state delegate in 2008.  

    2 wrongs won't make it right (none / 0) (#155)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    she and Obama are two peas in a pod philosophically.  Maybe she's a better politican, more resolute, maybe not.  It won't matter if her policies are not materially different.

    We need a dyed in the wool liberal ASAP.


    Dean would be only one (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    out there....

    Who else would it be?

    Dean has strayed from White House dogma on Health Care--and has publicly dissed the mandate just recently....

    You have to to have plausible too--not just liberal....


    wow (none / 0) (#193)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    almost 200 comments and hardly any name calling.

    kumbaya indeed

    I think everyone got that out yesterday (none / 0) (#196)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    Change might still be a viable theme for Dems... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Addison on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:54:31 PM EST
    ...in 2016 if Obama keeps managing to get modest policy gains in exchange for massive political setbacks. Then we'd be pushing up against a GOP president again.

    Does anyone view his re-election in 2012 as a sure thing? Far stupider things are happening this election cycle (notable the selection of crazy people over establishment people) than I would have imagined in October 2008.

    That said, the theme for Dems needs to be the economy, and that doesn't have to wait until 2016. That can start now.