Is Hillary Really Done With Politics?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated her now oft stated intention to step down after President Obama's first term:

"I think I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the President nominates someone and that transition can occur," Clinton said at a "town hall" forum with State Department employees Thursday morning. "But I think after 20 years—and it will be 20 years—of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am."

But what comes next? Previously, Secretary Clinton has said she would not run again for President, the only plausible political office she would seek. This time she said:

I don't want to think about what might come next, because I don't want me or any of us to divert our attention," Clinton continued, adding that she plans to "work as hard as I can to the last minute I have the honor of being Secretary ... to support all of you.

My view is clear - the Democratic Party needs her to run in 2016. After 8 years of a Democratic Administration, it will be tough for the Dems to hold the White House. Hillary is the candidate who can do it (for a variety of reasons, including the distance she has from Obama due to her 2008 run.) I hope she runs and I think she runs. And wins.

Speaking for me only

< It was Fun While It Lasted | Constitution Project Report on Proposed Cybersecurity Programs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:11:20 AM EST
    we'll see but she'll be needed even more in 2016 if Romney wins in November. She fortunately will not have a record of voting for anything Obama (economy wise) has proposed during his term or terms.

    Her saying "I have to find out (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:07:25 AM EST
    how tired I am" is the first indication she's given she hasn't totally ruled it out.  I sure hope that's the case.

    She IS tired.  You only have to have seen a picture of her, never mind video, in the last year or so to see how utterly exhausted she is.

    Actually, running for pres. would be a vacation compared to what she's been doing for the last 3-plus years.


    I was (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:30:04 AM EST
    just saying the same thing the other day to a friend. She does look tired. I hope she goes home at the end of this year and sleeps for a month.

    I hope she does (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:17:48 AM EST
    And after this four years as SoS I would want a four year freakin break.

    If things play out differently though....who then?

    this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    "find out how tired I am"

    sounds like she's not that tired yet.

    I'm down for Hillary 2016 if she is.

    I take her at her word (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Allison on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    The Dems don't have a strong history of nominating candidates who've lost previously. And 2016 will be an open primary much like 2008. There will be ambitious Dems who won't shy away from running just because Hillary is in the field. She would have to fight for it just like last time. And I don't think she wants to go through that again. Can't say I blame her though. Its always better to go out on top.

    I hope that she is done (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:42:16 AM EST
    because she has taken more than enough cr*p from foe and "friend" alike, and so have we.  Pols and media that were not ready to behave better in 2008 will not have grown up in only eight years.  Their learning curve is a lot steeper, since the behaviors have been the same for centuries now.

    And if the public re-elects a Dem in 2012, it is likely to swing back to a Repub in 2016, anyway.

    I will amend this to say, though (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    that it would be great to see her on the Supreme Court -- she's plenty young enough for that post -- although there would be the hurdle of the nomination hearings.  And that brings back memories of the Hill-Thomas hearings.  (Biden. . . .)

    As a lib I'm not sure (none / 0) (#94)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    I'd be in favor of that.  Two reasons:  her age and my strong preference to match the Repubs' age game of putting people on the Ct who will stay there for decades, and the sense that the cloistered life of a Scotus justice is ill suited to someone of her public advocate nature.  I doubt if she would enjoy the experience and so might step down fairly quickly.

    I might be in favor if, for instance, the CJ position opened up in the very near future along with a lib majority, but that won't likely happen with Roberts, given his age, until at least the first passby of the planet threatening asteroid Apophis in 2029.  And he probably won't step aside until that celestial body is scheduled to slam into Earth in 2036, according to some concerned Russian scientists, at which point there won't be many people left to care.


    2016 is far away (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by koshembos on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    We had the opportunity to vote for Hillary, but we opted for a clown instead. Sudden we need her; whom are we kidding?

    No one has a clue what 2016 will look like. Let's not waste time on that now.

    Why is dissappointment in Obama (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    automatically viewed as pining for HRC?

    It is not.


    Maybe because Obama now has (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sj on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    a record of his own to stand on?  And maybe because talking about President Obama and talking about SECRETARY Clinton are really two different discussions?  Which they are, despite the efforts of some Obama supporters who are determined to conflate the two.

    And why are you so reluctant to give "Mrs." Clinton the honorific she deserves?


    I see her (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    Doing things like working with and mentoring young Democratic candidates, especially female candidates.

    That in addition to working with causes to make things better for women all over the world.

    Good Gravy Man (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:31:41 AM EST
    Now were calling the 2016 election, and even though I agree, namely because the current state of the republican party won't allow a decent candidate, I still don't want to think about it.

    And I have big time voters remorse with Obama, Hillary would get my vote if I had a Delorean and could go back to summer of 2008...

    I really wish the party would have at the very least toyed with a primary candidate this year.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Sweet Sue on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    I hope that she is done with politics.
    After the way the Democratic poobahs treated her in 2008, she -and her husband-owe nothing to the Party.
    No floor vote, really?
    If I were Bill Clinton, I'd fake a heart attack to keep from having to stump for Ohblahblah.
    Here's hoping that Hillary starts the HRC Global Foundation that concentrates on the state of women and girls around the world.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    do people really think this is about the Democratic party?  Or personal vendettas?  It's about whether or not she wants to be President.

    Well, do we know for sure whether (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    Biden has any aspirations for the Oval Office?  Assuming he's on the 2012 ticket, which - at least at this point - it appears he is, and Dems get four more years.  Because I think there's no way she dives in if Biden decides he wants to run.

    It may be that once she steps down as Secretary of State, and spends some time assessing the landscape, we will have a better idea based on where and on what issues she decides to focus her time.  But...here's the problem I think she's going to have: given her long history of interest in domestic issues and positions that were arguably well to the left of where Obama is and has been on many of them, how hamstrung is she to direct her efforts there in what would be her traditionally more liberal approach, without undermining Obama and being seen as disloyal, ungrateful and damaging to the cause?

    Because the thing about Hillary is that she is and always has been a loyal-to-the-party Democrat, and if she is more or less forced to lay the groundwork for a 2016 run by being a cheerleader for current Democratic policy, what's the point?  I would be looking for a Democrat to run who actually believes in partisan Democratic policy, not someone who's just going to advocate for more of this right-of-center muddled-up mush - I want Democratic policy wrapped in a Democratic package, not GOP policy wrapped in a Democratic package.

    I truly don't see Hillary as being the savior of the Democratic brand, and I wouldn't' expect any campaign she might run to be much to the left of where Obama is going to leave things, assuming he gets another four years.  If Obama loses, I think the door opens for her in 2016 - she'd have more ability to be her own person, instead of dutifully being handed the baton and carrying on as her predecessor.

    Not sure that's going to be in the cards, though, or, if it is, that it would be any easier than what she went through in 2008.

    Biden (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    Has already commented that  he'd like to run in 2016.

    And who (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    is his constituency? People whose number one concern is Darfur? He never seems to go anywhere in the primaries but maybe he thinks running as a sitting VP would be advantageous.

    no one (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    if Biden runs unopposed in 2016 the Dems will almost certainly lose.

    Frankly if Hillary, or any other serious politician wants it, I think they'd be really stupid to step aside for Biden.


    And, if Hillary will be too old at 68 to run, (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    then surely Biden, who will be 74 in 2016, will be too old to run. Right?

    Let's hope the Dems have some other candidates lined up for a run in 2016, whether Obama wins this year or not.


    The Democrats have alot of potential candidates, (none / 0) (#79)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    but the only 2 I know of who are the right age historically to get elected are Booker and Gillibrand.

    You must think governors! (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    Senators don't win.  2008 was an anomaly.

    too bad Jennifer Granholm (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:52:22 PM EST
    was born in Canada

    I agree on Granholm (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    She was my governor.  My sister worked for her and I met her a couple of times.  A refreshingly genuine and caring  political figure.  My mother considers Jennifer a saint.

    I know one Gov... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    who has got his eye on the White House....Andy Cuomo.

    Booker (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    Hmm. I don't care for him. Too much Harold Ford in him.

    Gillibrand does not have the chops for it YET imo.


    I don't see much of Ford in Booker. But then, (none / 0) (#93)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    I haven't looked overly closely and know little about his policy positions (because he's too low down on the pecking order to have expressed them). He seems pretty liberal. From the outside looking in, he seems to have been a decent proactive mayor of Newark. But he needs to run from the Governor or Senate seat, and Christie might be harder to beat then I thought last year, if he's willing to risk it. The earliest he could be Senator is 2014, too close to the presidential election

    Gillibrand will be too old if she waits to get chops. But she'll have been a Senator from New York for 8 years by 2016, which is better then Obama was. Of course, Dailykos is already revving up to hate her.


    I should add that I don't think Gillibrand will (none / 0) (#96)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    run if Cuomo does (and has any where near his current popularity).

    Stop Cuomo!!! (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    I'm not as down on Cuomo as some other (none / 0) (#105)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:30:40 PM EST
    dems. I just like that he's comptetent. I don't love all of his policy positions (he had some bullshit DNA testing thing early this week that annoys me) but I like that he gets things done.

    I can certainly see the Iowa caucus stopping him. But I bet they'd eat him up in New Hampshire.


    Because? (none / 0) (#144)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:59:50 AM EST
    Not in terms of developing (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    national figures.

    Nothing is going to happen on the Dem side as long as the President is a Dem.

    This is a major point imo.


    I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    Other candidates at least have a constituency in the party even Kucinich.

    "almost" (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:18:52 PM EST

    Cops? (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    Drug Warrior Biden and all...nah, they're voting Republican anyway.

    I have read (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    where Biden plans to run in 2016 and why not? He's run a bunch of time already so I guess it's nothing for him to run again. That being said, exactly what constituency does he have within the party? He doesn't have one that I can figure out. With Hillary, you already know who her voters are but Biden? I really have no idea.

    And i'm kind of with you. If Obama wins reelection, probably no Dem is going to win in 2016.


    Joe Biden says..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." --Joe Biden, speaking at a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, Sept. 10, 2008

    Biden... seriously, Biden? (none / 0) (#148)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:33:00 AM EST
    Outside of his own state, no one would vote for him. Hillary would have a fighting chance.

    Is there a "sweeps" week for bloggers? (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:51:08 PM EST

    Ha (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    my first thought was...200 comments is a lock on this one. But so far it's been mellow other than kdog stirring it slightly.

    That being said, I agree with BTD. Obama wins now. The economy continues to improve. And Hillary rolls to an easy win if she wants it.


    Actually, BTD's reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    seems to be less about whether she wants it and  more about the Dems needing it.  

    That's an interesting commentary on the party  leadership and whether it is fulfilling its role to cultivate future leaders.


    It has seemed to me for some time now (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    that the party pooh-bahs decide what is best for "the party" and expect the party membership - the voters - to just go along; further, it seems like the party's real goal - and function - is to do whatever is best for those at the highest levels of public office to retain (or obtain) hold on the office, as if the office was about that person, and not about the people he - or she - is supposed to represent.

    The phrase, "what is best for Obama," or "what is best for Hillary," just grates on my nerves, because this is all supposed to be about what is best for us.  It's supposed to be about "the party" reflecting the wants, needs, ideology and philosophy of its members, and supporting and encouraging the candidates who best exemplify and embody those things.

    I'm not sure I can stand another long, drawn-out election season where Democrats lecture us about our responsibility to do what's best for the candidate, instead of lecturing the candidate on his or her responsibility to do what's best for us.


    I just wrote (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:59:56 PM EST
    essentially the same thing, as you will see.  I could have saved the blog a clog by counting on you to do so, and to put it better, as usual.

    Although you are usually more concise. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:05:03 PM EST
    Well.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:00:03 PM EST
    It's like in any other type of organization - private business being the best example, I suppose - when an employee, particularly a CEO, is hired the entire focus of the organization and everyone in it, as well as all of the businesses customers, is supposed to be what is best for that employee, right?

    Never mind the customers or what they want, they are only there to shut up, supply money, and do what they are told.



    My agreement is (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    if she runs she wins.

    Got it: thanks (none / 0) (#75)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    for the clarification.  (But I disagree . . . or at least I cannot agree now as to what will happen so many years from now, in such a transitional time.)

    Heh (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    It's more a laziness thing than a "sweeps" thing.

    Carry on, please. Nice to have you back. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    One problem I have is (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    this GOP primary does not interest me in the least.

    Then please, post away (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by sj on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    The GOP primary doesn't interest me at all either.  I don't think I'm the only one feeling some BTD withdrawal...

    AMEN! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:39:59 AM EST
    I mean, um, no, you're not.

    "Citizens United"? (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    yes...that would be a good post (none / 0) (#113)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 05:04:29 PM EST
    including the amendment to the Constitution being proposed in Congress now...is that the right strategy? the only answer? ...and if money is speech and therefore protected, doesn't that mean that a poor person is being denied rights to free speech?...can't the challenge be there?

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    except that it's Secretary Clinton or Madame Clinton now.

    I'd be surprised (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    If Sec. Clinton runs in 2016, I'd be very, very surprised. For all the pundits continually asserting what she really thinks, or what she really means when she says X, she's surprisingly straightforward about her plans. Once one gets past trying to read the tea leaves to discern her "real" meaning, and listens to what she's saying, and it's pretty simple to figure out what she means.

    If I had to predict what she'd end up doing, it would be relax for a small stretch of time, then start up a global initiative, along the lines of what Pres. Clinton has done, but focusing on the development of women and girls. It seems to be where her heart lies, and would be an extension of the work she's done all her life and only intensified in her role as Sec. of State. I don't see her leaving policy work, but I would be surprised to see her re-enter politics.

    A safe prediction is that whatever she does end up doing, she'll continue to be a lightning rod. Probably even more of one than her husband.

    Once one past tryiing to read the tea.,, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BTAL on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    Well said.

    For others, WORM must be a very difficult syndrome to overcome.


    I don't think she will (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:36:52 AM EST
    She'll be what?  68?  Can you imagine the comments?

    But if she does decide to run, I think she'd stand a better chance if Romney is president.  If Obama wins a second term, voters will have Democratic administration fatigue, and it's always easier to challenge as a member of the party on the outside than the one in power.

    Her mom lived to be 92 (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    And feisty, happenin, not backing off back much all the way from what I saw.

    Oh sure (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    But remember how DEMOCRATS were commenting on her hair, her "cankles", her cackle, her tears, etc.

    Can you imagine say, Chris Christie running against her?? (Although, he would be an easy target for also inappropriate fat jokes).


    Since becoming SoS (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:07:54 AM EST
    Sec. Clinton has had the strong support of the media -- even Chris Matthews has sung her praises.  She is now the most popular politician in the nation.  I don't think that the Hillary hate of yore would gain much traction in the future.

    She's acceptable as SoS (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    in a subservient role to a guy.  That's different to the sort of mindset that sees the world that way.  <cough, Tweety, good Catholic guy, cough>

    Maybe (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    the party has learned something since then but again maybe not.

    It was a good fight (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    We tend to forget how down the wire it went.  It was one hell of a good fight.

    I'll never forget! (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    Well, you answered it yourself (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    Big Fat B*st*ard Chris Christie is not someone to ridicule anyone about cankles, or cackles, or Low T brainfog rage (heh, I just made that one up), or the perkiness of the male breast over the female breast :)

    said it before (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:04:08 AM EST
    saying it again: you are a freakin poet, MT



    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:13:18 AM EST
    I cannot imagine Christie being tolerable to anyone outside NY and NJ.  In addition to the really grotesque obesity, his crude in-your-face style is comfortable to NY and NJ, but not the rest of the country.  Yech.

    Heh (none / 0) (#22)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    Low T brainfog rage

    always so dialed in to the male afflications you are.



    I'm getting low E brainfog rage (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    And one of our friends, he gets all passionate too about some "issues".  He is my best Friday martini friend.  And he has to get injections for low T right now because it is crazily affecting his overall health.  His T is way too low, so where is all this passion coming from :)

    "Afflication" ? (none / 0) (#27)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:59:46 AM EST
    • a typo ?
    • a new word I don't know?
    • or merely the result of brainfog?


    heh again (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:49:45 AM EST

    68 is not that old (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    and the only people I see bring this up are the ones who say other people will put her down for it.

    Maybe you're right but I don't see it.  And frankly, who cares?  If she wants it I think she can win, and speaking for me, if I wanted something like that, no amount of anyone talking about my cankles would stop me.  I have a feeling Hillary is similar in that regard.  It remains to see if she wants it, but if she wants it, I think she has a good shot at winning (even if Obama does).


    For a Democrat, it's quite old. The oldest (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    candidate we've nominated since the 1800's was John Kerry at 61. The oldest non incumbent elected Democratic President since the Civil War was Wilson at the age of 56 or 57. We mostly like candidates in their 40's. This party doesn't do old.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    but the population is older now and I'm sure a lot of people thought Reagan shouldn't run at 68. I don't know that age is quite the barrier it was at one time but then being female might make a difference.

    I consider Reagen to be the exception that (none / 0) (#58)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    proves the rule.

    He had dementia during his last years in office and every older candidate since him has been generally looked down upon. Dole and McCain suffered for their age.


    The job DOES age the presidents (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    Yeah. There are honest, not just age bias, (none / 0) (#61)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    reasons to think an older President is not a great idea.

    Especially for a woman (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    If the voters reject an incumbent President (1968, 1980, 1992), the Counrty does not go back (1972, 1984, 1996.)  

    A third term for the President's political party is just as equally possible--Bush I won in 1988 and Gore won the popular vote in 2000.  1976 and 2008 were different (Watergate and the Great Recession.)

    Americans tend to like incumbent Presidents and their party.

    So, if you are a Hillary supporter, her best shot is for Obama to be successful.


    Clever attempt at a trap, but (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    that I was a supporter of Hillary for president hardly has to mean that I am a supporter of Hillary for president now, or in 2016.  This is politics, not (as it seems to be for some here) plighting one's troth 'til death do us part.

    That said, I also do not care if pols do well for their sake; that's straight out of the ABG playbook (although I think that is only careless writing on his part).  

    I care if the country does well.  To put it another way:  I ask not what the country can do for pols; I ask what pols can do for the country.  I do hope, of course, that the pol now in the presidency is successful -- but, again, for the sake of the country.  That means that I hope that he becomes a successful president.  If he does so, he will be a successful candidate . . . which is a far different thing, as well.

    (That he is set for life is fine, too, but for the sake of his  daughters.)

    As for your plotting of presidential incumbency, I do not make the mistake of confusing all Americans with Democrats and those whom they can sway, at least for a day.  I could plot the recent past differently, based on that different assumption, but that is a discussion for another day.


    Very, very well said, Towanda (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    If I could, I'd give you a "10."

    While we may disagree as to the (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by BTAL on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    ways and wherefores of achieving success for the country, I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    First of all, the media exposure nowadays is very different, but the only one you list there that had a 2 term president follow with a winning candidate of his own party was Ronald Reagan.

    Say what you want about Gore - he didn't win and didn't take the White House.

    Americans absolutely do not like administrations of 3 terms of the same party.


    I know your comment wasn't directed to me, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:48:10 PM EST
     but here's the thing (and speaking only for myself): I have no idea if the Hillary who ran in 2008 is that same Hillary today, much less if she will be that Hillary in 2016 - or, if we consider when the 2016 campaign will begin, in 2014.

    If she is, and she decides to run, and her positions are to the left of where Obama is, what message does she send that doesn't sound like a criticism of what Obama's done/is doing?  If he's still in office, he will have two more years to govern - can a more leftward message from her actually push him in that direction - will he move with her in his effort to boost her chances to keep a Democrat in the WH?  What if Biden's hat is in the ring, what if someone like Mark Warner steps up?  I don't expect she's going to get any help from the WH in terms of policy - she's going to end up looking like she's running against him.  2008 déjà vu - who wants to go there?  Yeesh.

    And if she would run on a platform that looks a lot like Obama's I won't be able to support that.

    So, I don't know.  I'd like to see some real effort to get a more liberal nominee, or at least have one in the primary mix so we can have a discussion about the benefits of more liberal policy.

    I guess we'll see.


    Hiullary? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:37:21 AM EST

    I'd hope she'd consider Vice President this next. (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:38:51 AM EST
    term if the Dems need a bump in enthusiasm to get over the top this fall. Rather see her as VP over Biden in any event, notwithstanding my appreciation of Biden comedy gold.

    VP is a total waste (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by sj on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    of her talents.

    And, if she does decide to run in 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:11:58 AM EST
    as VP she would be tied to Pres Obama's policies.

    How MUCH is that doggy in the window... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:50:19 AM EST
    People are not going to buy Biden... no matter how much corporate money is dumped on him. My dream team is Hillary/Gore. No, never going to happen? Okay... Hillary/anyDem.

    yesterday's news and a saber rattling, (none / 0) (#13)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    eager for war candidate is the absolute last thing the Dems need in 2016.

    BY 2016 progressives will have had more than enough of third way, DLC types.  And the country as a whole will have had more than enough of supply side economics and the Democrats like the Clintons and Obama who have facilitated it.  Policies designed to cut social support programs, fund wars and keep the rentier class from ever having to even think about taking a haircut on their loans will do nothing to address unemployment and the plight of underwater homeowners.  Four more years of it, which is what we will be subjected to whether it be Obama or Romney (difference if any economically is in degree not direction), will make the failure of supply evident to even the most ignorant devotee of Fox News.

    I wish her a wonderful, long retirement and look forward to new generation of Democrats who neither cower in fear of the Reagan legacy, worship at its altar, or feel the need to demonstrate their USA, USA, USA bona fides by discussing in and/or engaging in wars in a very serious "adult" way.

    Well I think the past 3 years (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    have proved this wrong:

    BY 2016 progressives will have had more than enough of third way, DLC types.

    If DLC is packaged right, progressives will bite.  

    I don't know if Hillary will run or not, but I can't think of anyone who might run that would be exciting.  Please no Tim Kaine, Mark Warner etc.


    Maybe Chelsea is preggers... (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:25:41 AM EST
    ... and Hillary wants to devote time to grandmahood. I hear grandparenting is a pretty fun gig.

    There is NO better gig (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    on that we can agree (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:12:26 PM EST
    And you write something like this (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    And a switch flips in my head, that I should check Booman in 36 hours for that getting high on laughter thing I'm addicted to.

    That seems like a long time to wait in internet years, but when he a does a writeup more factually based it takes less time to compose.

    See? See? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    I didn't wait 36 hours.  I had to check now because I'm pathetic like that, and at 10:26 am Booman announced to the world he had some writers block going on.  That's cuz he had just finished reading this, and well....Ka Boom.

    I hope and pray she runs... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    and wins, that way when it is same sh*t different day in 2020 we'll be that much closer to getting a third party to represent left-leaners.

    Right now people are under the illusion things would be going differently if only Mrs. Clinton had won the '08 primary.

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:26:18 AM EST
    one thing is for certain Hillary had none of the delusions about the GOP that Obama has/had. There would have been none of this PPUS crap and she would have proudly proclaimed herself a Democrat instead of the head of a party called Obama for America. I guess Obama for America is the national version of Lieberman for Connecticut.

    I don't know what... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    proudle proclaiming ones self a Democrat even means...that you'll lay down in front of a sword for Wall St?  Indefinitely detain without due process?  Send the DEA out to perpetrate home invasions across America?  

    A proudle (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    A cross between a proud democrat and a poodle :)  Hey, we don't shed!

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    she did vote against renewing warrantless wiretapping and Obama voted for renewal. Obama was Wall Street's guy in 2008 not Hillary.

    They're all Wall St's guys and gals... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    like I said, I hope she is president...it will open eyes imo.

    Then again, maybe not...Bill C. is still worshipped despite his corporate centrism and bad news on the civil liberty front.  Maybe there is no convincing some Democrats their party abandoned them long ago.


    My thing (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    was the economy. Obama promised to be better on civil liberties but I knew that he would vote present on it when push came to shove. Obama does not have a clue when it comes to the economy.

    My top priority, too (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    and it was so maddening to see so many people putting priority on anything and everything else, until the last minute -- as must have been planned by the deciders of these things to allow time to first do in Clinton and then do in McCain.  But early on, I had looked into Obama's reliance on the U of Chicago school of economic thought, and I could only shudder at what could happen.  So, of course, it has happened.

    She MAY NOT have been (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    We will never know, only suspect :)

    She was also (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    Opposed to the use of military contractors AKA Blackwater.

    Not to say that she wouldn't have changed her tune on that....


    Hillary could take two (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    years to recharge her batteries, read, write and reflect.

    Then, in 2014 she can begin to run.


    We can (none / 0) (#150)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:55:38 AM EST

    i hope i buy a lottery ticket and win. (none / 0) (#36)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    I hope she runs and I think she runs. And wins.

    i believe my odds of winning the lottery are better.

    secty. clinton will be 8 years older than in 2008.
    she'll also probably be a grandmother by that time, and wanting (as do most grandparents) to spend time with the grandkids.

    realistically, all the loony tune right-wingnuts that loathe her now will loathe her then. after (most likely) 8 years of obama and (also very likely), 4 years of a democratic majority in both houses of congress, those same loony tune right-wingnuts will have hurled themselves into the abyss. the tea party, as we know it, will be dead, having evolved into simply a way for its "leaders" to glean cash from the rubes. however, egged on by limbaugh, beck, hannity, coulter, et al, those same rubes will be even more dangerous to anyone exhibiting the least sign of intelligent life.

    given all this, why on earth would secty. clinton give even two seconds thought (two seconds she can't get back) to running for pres. in 2016? the idea begs credulity.

    btw, while we're on the subject of really unlikely outcomes, what's your bet on the superbowl BTD?

    Except (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    Many of the "loony tune" wingnuts actually a) worked with her while in Congress and respect her and b) we were willing to vote for a Democrat in 2008 if she was the candidate.  I think she would have actually built bridges with them all except for the completely insane.

    Oh my (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    By her persona alone, she would make the Republicans reasonable?  Where have I heard that before?

    And Obama supporters get bashed here for believing (as some of them but not all did) in 2008 that he could bring people together???


    The difference is (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    She actually did it. (You know - that d@mn experience thingy again)

    And, in fact, John McCain once publicly stated that Hillary would make a "good president". The commercial would have written itself.

    Kinda hard to all rabid and hellfire on someone you've publicly worked with.


    Her work as Senator (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    at bipartisan legislation has absolutely no relationship to her ability to bring sides together as President.

    Obama was respected by both sides of the aisle as senator in congress (and before that in IL).

    Once you become president, the target on your back makes the things that worked in congress impossible.


    Redundant (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:18:22 PM EST
    Once you become president, the target on your back makes the things that worked in congress impossible.

    According to you, once Obama became President, pretty much everything became "impossible".


    I'm so sick of lame excuses from and for (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    our "Democratic" president and our Congressional quasi-Democratic caucus; the concept of principled leadership has apparently whimpered itself to death, opening the door wide for a lot of terrible policy.  

    It didn't start with Obama, he just capitalized on a Congress that couldn't even bring itself to hold Bush and Cheney and their minions accountable for anything.  With his overwhelming need to please those on the other side of the aisle, and a Democratic caucus that sees loyalty to the president as a higher priority than service to the people, he had his way on a lot of stuff.  A lot.  And not much of it recognizably Democratic.

    The President of "Yes We Can" is supported by an awful lot of people who prefer to tell us "Why He Can't" than hold his feet to the fire.

    Truly pathetic.


    Well, at least (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:32:35 PM EST
    he can say he didn't fail.

    In order for that to occur he had to, at least, have tried to succeed.


    Uh....there's a difference (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 06:13:19 AM EST
    Most of the Senators barely KNEW Barack Obama, since he was only in the Senate for a very short time, and half of that time he was running for president.  While Hillary Clinton was not there for a ton of time, she did serve a complete term prior to her running for office AND she worked with some of her (and her husband's) fiercest vocal critics (and those who actually led the charge for her husband's impeachment) and won them over with her grit and knowledge and determination.

    It's one thing to say Barack Obama was respected by his colleagues - sure, the Senate is a collegial instiution.  But they did not KNOW him.

    And as for the target on the back of the president - if she would have won, of course there would have been a target.  But she would have had the relationship with many of the same people targeting her, that it would have been neutralized. She also had the experience as to how fight back.

    Do you really not understand interpersonal dynamics and how much more difficult it is to attack someone you've worked with compared to how easy it is to attack someone you barely know?


    your comment answers itself: (none / 0) (#142)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    I think she would have actually built bridges with them all except for the completely insane.

    taken a peek at the republican primary campaign lately? all republicans, by definition, are insane, according to einstein. they expect the same failed policies to somehow produce different outcomes, every time they try them. if that isn't the definition of insanity, it is, at minimum, the definition of stupid.

    this is exactly what any democrat confronts, at all levels of government. having "worked with them before" doesn't change that outcome.


    Under 55 (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    is what I'm thinking, plus heads on the coin flip.

    Under Gronkowski on the TDs also.

    Aaron Hernandez will have the big game. Go Gators!


    I don't understand the (none / 0) (#106)
    by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    under 55 (assume it's a betting thing)

    But does this "Aaron Hernandez will have the big game. Go Gators!" mean you are rooting for the Pats?

    Tebow!!!!!! (unrelated, just wanted to write that)


    i'm assuming you're talking total score. (none / 0) (#143)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 05:13:19 PM EST
    based on the conference championship games, i'm inclined to agree.

    i'm taking ny, because they have a slightly better pass defense. by 3, at the end of the game.


    Rubber chicken circuit. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    She would make as much as Bill.  Per plate that is.  

    Yeah, true, but (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:38:13 AM EST
    she doesn't need to.  Bill now has more money than they'll ever need.

    In case you never happened to notice, money has never been a critical motivator for the Clintons.


    She may very well decide to run. But (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    will she ever be nominated?  

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    it seems that no one can come up with any names outside of Andrew Cuomo. So yeah, if that's who she has to beat, she probably could win the primary an if she gets the most delegates, the super D's won't be picking the nominee this time.

    About the party's nomination process (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    -- that is another reason why it is not possible to make a prediction worth a d*mn, anymore.  We now have the precedent of a sole committee alone contravening the convention vote to change the rules.  (Not just to interpret the rules based on the rules per se, on the intent of the convention that made them, and precedent in interpretation of the rules, all the charge of the committee, but actually changing the roles contra precedent, past interpretations, etc.  This was the very dangerous move made by Brazile, et al.  Of course, it also was so sad, considering the long struggles of the delegates in past to reform the party and the process by winning those rules.)

    Short answer: They did it before; they can do so again; the precedent for doing so now is there.  


    Purpose of the Super D's (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    Why did we even have this entity...."Super Delegates?"

    The idea was supposed to be that they were a group of Democratic "Elders" .... experienced, rational, non partisan. They were to play the role of gatekeepers, and were empowered to intervene if some extemporaneous event, or situation, occurred that required a decision. In other words, they were supposed to insure that the Primary results were "In the best interest of the Democratic Party."

    If the Primaries were conducted fairly and one of the candidates amassed the necessary votes, he/she would be the winner and there would be nothing for the Super D's to do. If, however, something crazy was discovered about the "winner," something like an undisclosed criminal record, an act of treason, or acts of moral turpitude then the D's could step in and change the outcome of the elections "In the best interest of the Democratic Party."

    How the Super D's actually acted, under the mandate they were supposed to be guided by, is the unsolved question, and a subject requiring further scrutiny.


    I think the super-D's (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:43:45 AM EST
    like too much of the rest of the D's, thought exactly they were doing the best thing for the party.  They were dazzled by visions of all kinds of things, not least legions of young people forever committed to vote D for the rest of their lives.  Hah.

    IOW, they deluded themselves, like a lot of other people.


    Exactly (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:36:03 AM EST
    They were supposed to keep their heads when everyone else were losing theirs. Instead, they allowed themselves to be hynotized by the razzle/dazzle just like the legions of naive, idol worshipping groupies did.

    Simply put, they failed in the very responsibility they were created to insure.

    More simply put, they weren't Super Delegates, they were Super Dolts.


    Towanda, I'm old enough (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    to clearly remember the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, the protests, the police response- very ugly time.  Up until that point, the conventions were full of back-room deals and all kinds of intrigue.  The '68 Convention led to the McGovern-Fraser Commission that led to the primary system we have now, first by the Democrats, and 4 years later by the Republicans.  It was even worse until then.  It seems as though, however, that both parties would like to go back to those earlier times, and have done everything they can to foster the appearance of "democratically chosen" nominees, while in actuality controlling the whole process.  I despair of ever seeing any meaningful change.   :-(

    So am I. And that's part of the past (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    that led to rules changes then, as you say, that then were watered down by creation of the Super D's -- and were watered down further in 2008.  That's why what's left of that party is not my party anymore.

    I absolutely agree, Towanda (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    I don't even recognize the Democratic Party any more.

    I'd have been happy (none / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    if the committee didn't change the rules. Same outcome.

    You'd have been happy (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:43:45 AM EST
    if the committee didn't change the rules and  if it resulted in the Same outcome.
    If it didn't, you'd be here screamming and pounding the table 24/7, "Outrage! Fix! Racists!"

    You have an MO here now, ABG. Who are you trying to kid?


    Glad that we agree (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    that changing the rules was bad.  Ramifications will resonate, and in bad ways, for years to come.

    But we disagree on the outcome being predictable.  Not at all.  The committee's action in May had ramifications for months afterward that had major impact on the momentum -- and yet Clinton still amassed more primary votes.

    Perhaps more important was the impact upon the once-sacrosanct convention voting, calling that off so early in the alphabet.  Delegates whom I know who never got to vote in states that never got called still are ticked about that.  It will be interesting to see ramifications from that strong-arming (and that term is used by delegates whom I know) at the next conventions to come.


    Have you tried telling the delegates (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton agreed to calling off the voting?  But they probably know that already.  (snark.)

    Snark, it is, as the delegates (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    told me about the strong-arming that forced the call-off of the full roll call.  They still are furious at the treatment that they received, invasion of their hotel rooms, etc.

    Most delegates work hard to get to be delegates, and most go to conventions at their considerable expense, and the roll call is a big thing for them, the moment for which they dream.  So the ones I know still are furious that it was called off -- and they know exactly how, why, and by whom it really was done.  The rift may be irreparable for them.  


    Why are you so confident the Super Ds (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    won't again rule the roost?

    Because (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    if someone has the delegates then that is who the nominee is going to be and I guess the super D's could try a stunt like overriding the voters but that sure would make for a sure loss.

    There's O'Malley, Schweitzer, Warner, (none / 0) (#116)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    Warren (who might be pushed into a run by her internet supporters who have already more or less beatified her) and I'm sure a couple others who don't come to mind but plan to run.

    Warner (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    won't run against Hillary again I don't think. O'Malley I don't know anything about and Schweitzer has seemed to manage to tick off his biggest supporters it seems though I'm not sure why.

    Go have a look at O'Malley (none / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:45:10 AM EST
    He's a very appealing guy, more centrist ultimately than I would like, but articulate, with a quiet charisma and no fear of directly confronting right-wing garbage.

    I've seen him interviewed on a few shows, and he's impressed the heck out of me.


    Will (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:29:18 AM EST

    Schweitzer (none / 0) (#118)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    I wouldn't be surprised to see him run. And it would be an interesting run, too. My folks live in Montana, and we'd expected that they'd relocate to be near me in Milwaukee as they reached an age where they'd need more active support. But with Schweitzer's health-care push in MT vs. (ahem) the current situation in WI, it's hard to say!

    Michigan (none / 0) (#151)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:09:18 AM EST
    ...because Harry R & Nancy P worked so hard to steal it from her there... esp Harry. My honest answer is, I don't know. After Michigan, what do our votes mean anymore. It would be difficult. She would have to have overwhelming support because the Demo leadership -- I think -- are afraid of what she might expose... then again, maybe after all she's been through she wouldn't now.