Do you think that Chelsea will have any empathy for the 99% or any understanding of what the problems are???

And no matter what she could/would say otherwise, the answer is not only No, but Hell No!

It is not I who cannot give up the ghost.....

And that ghost appears routinely here in the refereces to old Primary arguments.....raised sometimes obliquely by former Hillary supporters...

Truman, as I indicated; and Bush I, as I indicated.  I would also count Gore, as I indicated.

How many two term Presidents were not followed by a third term of someone in the same party?

Just once:  Ike/Nixon  (again not counting Gore.)

So, three out of the four were followed by a President of the same party.  Or, if you don't count Gore, it is 2 out of four, or 50%.  And the 1960 and 2000 elections were very, very close....

Another way to look at it is how many times has the party of a defeated incumbent reclaimed the Whitehouse the next cycle?  First, how many defeated incumbents do we have?   LBJ/Humphrey in 1968.  Carter in 1980.  And Bush I in 1992.  The defeated party did not reclaim the Presidency in any of those instances.  O for 3. (You could count Ford as a counter example, but that is a very odd case--he was never elected and Watergate and Nixon's resignation is sui generis.  If you do count Ford, then it would be 1 for 4-still not good odds, just 25%.)

So, the win by losing scenario loved by many here has no historical precedent in modern times.  Doesn't mean it won't happen, but just no precedent for it.

Going by the above, a Democrat is much more likely to be elected in 2016 if Obama wins in 2012. (At least 50% chance if Obama is re-elected v. at most 25% if Obama is defeated.)

The logic behind this is that if the country elects a President for two terms it has decided that they prefer that that party hold the Presidency.....If, on the other hand, it defeats the incumbent, they won't go back to that party any time soon.

She only had four more years in the Senate than Obama.  As to time in elective office, Obama had more.

But wait, are you wearing your feminist hat today?

My take: experience is overrated generally.

Someone else disagrees with you.

You know, I am a believer in ... in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. Uh, and I think that if I were seriously to consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there may be some people who are comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people.

I don't think it is fair to pretend that the rich are a monolith of evil while the 99% are a purest of the pure.

Have you ever watched the Making a Difference segment on NBC's nightly news broadcast?  If you did, you would know that it typically features someone of average, and even of less-than-average means, sometimes even a child, who sees a need in their community, and then goes about doing what he or she can to address it.  The ones I see don't usually feature Lord or Lady Bountiful bestowing a big check on a community program, but people like the woman in a small southern town who remembered what it was like to go hungry as a child, and when she heard there would be no lunch program for children in need when school was not in session, somehow managed to pull together a program to make sure those kids had at least one good meal a day.  

I suspect, though I could be wrong, that these are the kinds of contributions Chelsea Clinton will be featuring - people whose efforts didn't come with the stroke of a pen on a check.

I am reminded every day, via the proliferation of half-page and full-page ads in my newspaper from Bank of America, Wells Fargo and so on, that the 1%-ers make significant contributions to the local community, but I've come to think of it as cheap and easy PR, designed to paint - white-wash? - these monoliths as paragons of good will and good works.  Not that their contributions don't help people - they do - but these are not the kinds of contributions being featured on NBC's broadcast.

But I freely admit that every time I see a B of A ad, and think about all the people who got screwed over, I want to throw up.

At a time when state, local and federal governments are cutting services right and left, at a time when the need for services is just increasing, I think it needs to be shown how those cuts affect ordinary people.

And I believe Chelsea Clinton sees that, too.

... and they're not even from Arkansas ...

The Carter era
In December 1977, President Jimmy Carter nominated Hillary Rodham to the board of directors of the LSC,[8] for a term to expire in July 1980.[8] Rodham, an attorney with Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas and the wife of Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton, had a background in children's law and policy and had worked in providing legal services for the poor while at Yale Law School. She had also done 1976 campaign coordination work for Carter in Indiana.[9][10] This was a recess appointment, so Rodham took her place on the board without immediate Senate confirmation. Rodham was nominated again in January 1978 as a regular appointment.[11] In mid-1978, the Carter administration chose the thirty-year-old Rodham to became chair of the board, the first woman to become so.[4] The position entailed her traveling monthly from Arkansas to Washington, D.C. for two-day meetings.[4]
During Rodham's Senate confirmation hearings, she subscribed to the philosophy that LSC should seek to reform laws and regulations that it viewed as "unresponsive to the needs of the poor."[12] Rodham was successful in getting increases in Congressional funding for LSC, stressing its usual role in providing low-income people with attorneys to assist them in commonplace legal issues and framed its funding as being neither a liberal nor a conservative cause.[13] By her third year on the LSC board, Rodham had gotten the LSC budget tripled.[14] Opposition to LSC during this time came from both Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who favored a "judicare" approach of compensating private lawyers for work done for the poor,[14] and Conservative Caucus head Howard Phillips, who objected to LSC representing gays.[14]
LSC funding was at its highest-ever mark, in inflation adjusted dollars, in fiscal 1980,[10][15] with a budget of $303 million.[16] Some 6,200 poverty lawyers filed suits using its funds on behalf of 1.5 million eligible poor clients;[17] the lawyers won almost 80 percent of their cases, which mostly involved divorces, evictions, repossessions, and interrupted payments from federal agencies.[17] For fiscal 1981 it was budgeted at $321 million.[18]
In June 1980, Carter renominated Rodham for another term on the board, to expire in July 1983.[19] Sometime between about April 1980[20] and September 1980,[21] F. William McCalpin replaced her as chair of the board. He would remain chair through late 1981.[

He made a point.... (I guess) that nepotism is an equal opportunity occurrence.

And I agree!

Though how he knew about all those FNC people I don't know since I thought he never watched anything not from the NBC brand.