Hillary And The Fight For Women's Rights


Hillary Clinton has fought for women’s rights around the world. But who would have dreamed that she would have to fight for them at home? “Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me,” she told an adoring crowd at the Women in the World Summit at Lincoln Center on Saturday. “But they all seem to. It doesn’t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress. They want to control how we act. They even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies. “Yes,” she continued to applause, “it is hard to believe that even here at home, we have to stand up for women’s rights and reject efforts to marginalize any one of us, because America needs to set an example for the entire world.”

MoDo muses that the GOP War on Women will lead to a Hillary in 2016 campaign. I already predict that (and believe it will be extremely beneficial to the Dem Party), but if this is the rationale necessary for that, I'm good with that.

Speaking for me only

< Crocodile Tears For Bill Maher | Boulder DA to Feds: Back Off Medical Marijuana Dispensaries >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What a pleasure to hear HRC speak (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    on the subject. More of that, please.

    Modo: "But who would have dreamed that she would have to fight for them at home?" Please.

    2016? Who knows. I would welcome it in some ways, dread it in others, much like may attitude pre-2008.

    Who would have dreamed otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    who witnessed the 2008 campaign?

    And after that, who would have dreamed otherwise who had read Faludi's Backlash?

    (Anyone here who hasn't read it and seeks an explanation for why now? -- it's answered there.)


    What I want to know is... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 05:31:14 PM EST

    Didn't Maureen even join that bandwagon?


    Good to See (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    Someone getting some press over this.  There's been bits and pieces, but to me this should be front and center.

    What I will never understand is the women on the right falling over themselves to defend the comments and the legislation.

    And have said it before, I really regret not supporting Hilliary in 2008.  Not that it mattered in Texas, but I have serious buyers remorse over Obama.

    Some have, many haven't (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:08:07 AM EST
    The supportive voices you hear from women on the right are the ones the TV picks to show off because their position on this is inherently controversial and jarring.

    If you're a non-Evangelical woman, even a conservative one, you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to excuse this stuff.  I rather think most ordinary women voters have not.


    And there's clearly (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:09:02 AM EST
    a whole lotta people on the left and semi-left with buyer's remorse about Obama. Too late. At this point, it's him or the abyss.

    First Althouse and now Dowd? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    Alice in Wonderland.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    yeah, trippy! (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:53:14 PM EST
    Want some Trippi? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:55:15 PM EST
    I detest him so it will be a slam.

    OMG NO!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    Now, we both know 2008 is so over, (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    but look at what you started.  

    but, but...it was an Alice in Wonderland (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    mushroom reference!

    What Hillary did in those excerpted (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    comments was attach the "extremist" label not just to those in "other" countries who seek to control women, but to those in this country who are doing the same.

    And it's about time someone painted that picture for all to see.  That someone called BS on those who want to hide in the Bible and distort the Constitution.  I would love to hear her discuss all the new regulatory efforts that are being made to effectively make abortion unavailable to many women in this  country - and probably make a significant dent in the availability of general health care for women.  Somehow, I don't think it's lost on her that conservatives who keep kvetching about the intrusiveness of government welcome that intrusiveness on the matters that are the most personal and private.  

    I don't know whether Hillary will have it in her to run in 2016, but I hope that if she does step down as a member of this administration, she will be a force for women's rights and issues going forward, even if it may ultimately serve to highlight how poorly the current president has been handling these things.

    She would have been so much more effective than Kathleen Sebelius, it almost makes me want to cry - but we all know that she would never have served Obama's domestic agenda, and that's why she ended up at State, where her views were a better fit.

    I may not agree with her views on foreign policy, but I know she would have been a force for good on the domestic front, and I hope she gets a chance to do just that - in whatever capacity she chooses.

    Hillary is a good soldier (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    that's why she ended up at State

    Hillary's great contribution (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    as Sec. of State has, IMO, been her insistence that the entire department, at every level, in every country, recognize the needs of women and the contributions of women.

    Hillary was a speaker at the Women in the World Summit which was  recently held in NYC. And she gave another spot on speech about women in the world. She was introduced by Meryl Streep whose intro was funny and charming and to the point.

    Both Meryl's intro and Hillary's speech are well worth the time it takes to watch them. So, follow this link to videos of both. Meryl's takes about 14 minutes, but watch all the way. You won't regret the time. And, the last 2 minutes are pretty great. Hillary is, of course, brilliant, as she always is when talking about the rights of girls and women.


    The Meryl (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:42:44 PM EST
    14 was great and definitely worth it. Loading 26 minutes of Hillary now.

    Thanks, those were great (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:03:45 PM EST
    Very inspiring.

    Thanks for links (none / 0) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    both truly worth watching

    i think you've hit on it Anne (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by smott on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    How does Clinton be a real force on women's issues withOUT naturally exposing how poor Obama has been?...

    Very diplomatically (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:40:27 PM EST
    Turns out (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:12:28 AM EST
    she's brilliant at that very thing.

    Hillary as a force. (none / 0) (#74)
    by norris morris on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 06:23:00 PM EST
    Hillary wasn't exactly marginalized as Secy Of State. it's not exactly an unimportant job.

    Hillary's ideas on healthcare were not exactly those of Obama's, and were President it would not have been dealt with out of the box as Obama did while facing a monumental econmic disaster.

    I doubt  she'll run again and will probably turn her efforts towards the World Bank, or the Clinton Foundation.  We'll see, but there's no doubt  Hillary will always champion women and children's rights as she has done all her  life.

    As for Sibelius she's the worst choice for Sec'y health, welfare, etc. She has lacks warmth,verbal skills, or the empathy and clarity needed in such an important job.   Sibelius is a remote person & terrible choice for the job.

    I was for Hillary all the way...and still am.  


    As far as Sibelius is concerned: (none / 0) (#76)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    Mr. Zorba works for an agency under Health and Human Services, and we have lots of friends who also do, in various agencies under HHS.  Nobody likes her.  They all think that she's stupid, incompetent, and clueless.  She's a hack.   :-(

    PUMA (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    The Dems successfully blackened the term PUMA just as the Republicans blackened the term "liberals".  If you don't join the "party" you're a bad person.  All your base are belong to us....or else! Whatever happened to independent thinking?

    Clinton will not run in 2016.  She will be much older and she will still be wearing pant-suits.  Of course, if she wore skirts and high heels the skirts would most definitely be too short and the heels too high. If she knows what's good for her health and well-being, she's better suited running for president of Norway or New Zealand, or other less right wing countries.

    Giggling at your blackened pumas (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    The new black panther

    The body of Hillary's work, (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:06:54 PM EST
     from adolescence to today, is so full that I simply can't bring myself to advocate her submitting herself to the hell of running for the Presidency, let alone the hell of being the President for four, or eight years. At this stage of her life she, also, just doesn't deserve it, the hell part, I mean. And, since age is relative, that's not it either.

    But, there is one role I could see her filling......Op-ed writer for something like the New York Times. Think about it. No grueling elections, no debasing partisan bickering, a platform that could prove more powerful than any elective office, and an audience the likes of which has probably never been attained before.

    It would give her the influence and power to advance the issues she feels strongly about without most of the downside of being a politician.

    I think it makes sense for her.

    Agree re the presidency (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    as I can't handle the misogynist cr*p again, either, and especially from allegedly librul men.

    The guys had better start looking for their guy, since what they want -- breaking! -- is a guy.

    As for Hillary, I see her doing the Bill thing in the foundation world, but for women.

    Or being our Ambassador to the UN! and getting to follow in her (and my) hero Eleanor Roosevelt's path as author of the Declaration of Human Rights, which Hillary already rewrote, anyway.

    Or, this being Hillary, both.


    Those positions would be fine, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:12:01 PM EST
    and I realize I'm engaging in a little fantasy trip, but I don't see any elective, or appointed, position giving her the influence that the Bully Pulpit of an Op-ed Base would give her.

    Look at what a microphone has given Rush Limbaugh. No Republican, elected official dares whisper a position that Limbaugh doesn't approve of. The Quaking and groveling is so debasing, and demeaning, and yet they're willing to cuckold themselves to that sub-human mutant simply because of his audience.

    Hillary could do the same. Imagine the pressure she could have put on the Administration during the ACA debates regarding the Public Option.

    Like I said, it's my fantasy, but I sure would like to see it tried.


    For the extraordinary, powerful woman (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    That is Hillary Clinton, what makes sense for her is what she ultimately decides.  If she decides to reenter the 2016 presidential fray, all the more power to her. (As for me, I'd be proud to pick up my ole' self & work for that great endeavor.)

    Op Ed??? (none / 0) (#75)
    by norris morris on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 06:47:55 PM EST
    Like Op Ed for the Times is a job for Hillary?

    She can contribute anytime to Op Ed whe wants to.

     Hillary after a well earned rest will forge her destiny in a way that will make a difference. If she becomes involved in running and strategizing for Clinton Foundation she will help enormously, and there are other major efforts awaiting Hillary Clinton.

    Hillay makes things happen, so I wish her luck whatever it is.

    Women are being hit on and used as political
    issues for the right wing in the most clueless assault on women's rights I've seen in a long time.

    It's time we all get together and let the right and left wing talking heads know that it's NOT alright to sexualize and marginalize women whether we agree we their political positions or not.

    The sewage that seeps out of the collective media minds of both sides about women as sluts,c...., bimbos,hos,bitches, etc has to stop.

    Now we see the clock rolled back 50 years as election memes and themes by the GOP regarding contraception, and of course every other right women have to determine their destiny.

    Our culture has become corrupted by the use of sexual terms to diminish and control women. Both left and right wing media find it impossible to criticize or disagree with women on an equal playing field.

    I am waiting for the Republican Party to suggest women lose the right to vote.  And I am waiting for all men to agree or disagree with women without demeaning and marginalizing them by using derogatory sexual connotation.


    Funniest comment yet re: HRC candidacy (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 02:00:17 AM EST
    Was reading the SLOG (The Stranger Blog) and, in response to a post with a poll on whether people would support a Hillary 2016 run, I found this:

    I was a Hillary delegate at the precinct level in 2008, so he[[ yes. And I don't care if she's 100 you age-ist f*cks, she could still place Putin in a headlock and smash his face against a urinal repeatedly. She's bada$$.

    (Dirty words altered by me, for the sake of TL's filters.)

    However good she is on women's issues (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:32:09 AM EST
    She is the biggest hawk in the Democratic Party, rivaling McCain in the enthusiasm to bomb whoever dept. I am sick of these warmongers and would not vote for her just as I will not vote for Obama in 2012.

    And like Obama, she & Bill have made their peace with supply side economics & will not do anything to upset that apple cart, no matter how rotten the apples get.

    New faces, new ideas, new direction in 2016, and there are plenty of Dem women to lead that effort.

    I second! (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:57:56 AM EST
    Though a HRC presidency just might be what it takes to once and for all end the myth that the Democratic Party is part of any remedy to our most pressing issues, and get a party started for peace and economic sustainability, instead of a grifter war party in love with incarceration and criminalization.  

    Too bad we can't give her Obama's second term and speed this process up!


    Obama's doing pretty well on his own (none / 0) (#63)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    at dispelling any lingering nostalgia that the Democrats are the party of working folks or anti-war (not that the latter was ever more than the leftist fringe).

    No Doubt.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    he took Bill Clinton's "Republican-Lite" ball and ran with that sh*t...but many Democrats are under the impression a Hillary Clinton led Democratic Party is the answer, and the problem is Obama.  

    I think the party is the problem, and who the party nominates for pres is rather inconsequential.


    Ah, but (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    Remember gems like this?

    I wonder (none / 0) (#8)
    by smott on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    If anyone asked Clinton what she thought about Obama's Conscience Exemption cave to the Catholic Bishops over birth control coverage, and how that has opened the door to a congressional onslaught of bills attacking women's reproductive rights.

    Such as the object-rape bill in texas....now being explored by Trudeau in Doonesebury...

    that door was already open (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    Obama's Conscience Exemption cave to the Catholic Bishops over birth control coverage . . . opened the door to a congressional onslaught of bills attacking women's reproductive rights

    but Obama didn't have to walk through it


    or kick it down (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by smott on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    But he's been pretty clear on this subject for awhile.

    I'm waitng for the mandatory invasive prostate exam before a man can fill his Viagra prescription! ;-D


    I didn't go quite that far discussing (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    tutoree's op ed supporting a woman's right to choose.  But was tempted.  

    opened the door? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CST on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    all that was already going on.

    If anything the whole brou-haha with the Catholic church brought in some much needed sunshine on these types of bills which have been coming down the pipeline for a while.  Like the one that was passed in Oklahoma in 2010.  Or the one that passed in North Carolina last year.


    Or Texas (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:10:40 AM EST
    The Cave on Abortion Rights (none / 0) (#77)
    by norris morris on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    No doubt the Catholic pressure exacted on two democrats, Rep.Stupak and Sen. Nelson to enact very tough and unjust abortion legislation.

     Hillary?  Where was Nancy Pelosi the Speaker? Where was Obama?  Where was the women's movement [out to lunch]?  The Democratic Party leadership did nothing, nada.

    We got thrown under the bus by those in charge that we voted for to protect our rights. Rights that have been settled law for over 40 years.

    Where were the Obamabots?  Pelosi? Obama?  The leaders of the so called Democratic party?
    Hillary did not mess with this as Secy of State this was not her call.

    Obama offered no leadership and the fix was in.

     Now women have to be pre screened prior to abortions in a way that makes it easy only for the
    connected and well off women who can take the time and money  arranging for this additional step arranged by Catholic Church interference in State matters and  is clearly unconstitutional.

    The Democratic Party Leadership is a total disappointment.  Obama has not been a strong leader and what we see happening to women is a result of our image growing weaker and more vulnerable as our own Party has deserted us.


    I'd like her to replace Biden as VP (none / 0) (#11)
    by magster on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:22:49 PM EST

    I'd like not to relive 2008. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    Party (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    pooper. Nice way to kill the race to 200.

    don't worry (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:38:39 PM EST
    unless you find a time machine, you won't

    I'm confused about this comment though, does this mean you don't think Hillary should run in 2016?  Because it was too painfull the first time?

    I think people are too focused on the personal stuff.

    It's only the future of our country at stake.  Do you think Obama shouldn't have run because 50% of Republicans think he was born in Kenya?  If anything, that's one of the reasons I'm glad he did.  Same goes for all the Hillary cr@p.  The best way to win this fight is to win.


    i think it was a culinary reference (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    (red meat . . . set out for big cats . . . )

    now I'm even (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:45:07 PM EST
    more confused.

    oh dear (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by smott on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    Perhaps you've heard of the large cat named Puma?

    the back-and-forth banter (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:01:19 PM EST
    is about the suspicion, well founded or not, that BTD's post is in some sense "red meat" in that, with or without BTD's conscious intention, it may serve in part as a "cat whistle" to (alleged) P^MAs who enjoy reliving the 2008 primaries & thus completely filling up all available space in the comment thread ("the race to 200")

    I don't think she will run. Why? (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    Because she will be, as a female, considered to be "too old."  

    Disclaimer:  I am not a PUMA.  


    I look forward (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    to voting for her again, just as I did in the meaningless 2008 Florida primary.

    Disclaimer: I am not a Puma...have always been an Asics runner.


    Y'know, there's a first for (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:13:51 AM EST
    everything.  If she has the energy and the will, she's good to go.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    The only people I've heard complaining about her age seem to be people who otherwise support her but worry it will be used against her.

    Also, that strikes me as a reason why she might not win, not a reason why she might not run, unless she feels physically or mentally restrained by her age.

    Disclaimer: I am also not a PUMA.  Last I checked I was decidedly human.


    Could we please (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:15:03 AM EST
    stop with the "Not a PUMA" disclaimers?  Talk about something being too 2008.

    Nobody, here or anywhere, needs to apologize for being an HRC booster, IMO.


    You are probably correct. (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    Something about my doctor, who has started saying "because of your age."  

    You need to switch (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:15:31 AM EST
    doctors.  That's just unacceptable unless you're 80 or so.

    It's ok. Head nurse sd. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 12:36:38 AM EST
    I was the one up and walking the halls, despite my age.  

    Ha. I'm 50, and when I saw a (none / 0) (#56)
    by observed on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 01:45:08 AM EST
    Kazakh doctor about a joint complaint (related to a fall on the ice in November), he said I'm too old to run. In fact, he said I should exercise like a girl from now on.

    Good one. What did you say? (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 02:12:22 AM EST
    Too Old? (none / 0) (#78)
    by norris morris on Mon Mar 19, 2012 at 07:13:07 PM EST
    Why?  A man would not be considered too old.

    We have elected Presidents who were older than Hillary will be in 2016.

    Our country is backward and mired in sexism as men cling to power and continue to weaken and marginalize women.  It's still the boys sandbox and they want women in bed and the kitchen.

    But we will be a huge earning force for a long time to come...and things gotta change.

    Oh yes, Hillary cannot be president 'cause she wears pant suits and her ankles may not be perfect. That's because men are perfect. We are in the middle ages here.


    me too (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:34:34 PM EST
    Game change!

    Especially if Santorum is GOP VP (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    candidate. I would actually pay to watch those debates. Too funny.

    If I never have to see Joe Biden (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    blinding us with his super-white teeth it will be too soon.

    Reminds me of the Friends episode where Ross whitens his teeth to the point where they glow under the black light...

    I would pay to see Hillary deconstruct Rick Santorum's nether regions; he so deserves that.


    Not if Romney (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:58:46 PM EST
    is the nominee. He has labeled Santorum as not conservative enough to be VP.

    So he says now. We'll see. (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:43:10 PM EST
    Who else is going to run in 2016? (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 07:48:09 PM EST

    Nader (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:29:00 PM EST
    LOL.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    We can hope!

    Regret I didn't vote for him when I could have (none / 0) (#64)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    The last 10 years of Rep/Dem politics has only confirmed Nader's most cynnical observations.

    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:55:57 AM EST
    we should call him Nader-damus.  

    "amus" (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 07:18:49 PM EST
    I am tempted.....

    If she would like to my President in 2016 (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    I would be honored.  And I would do all that I could to make that happen.

    SITE VIOLATOR! n/t (none / 0) (#68)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 10:40:05 AM EST

    Oh man, I hope so... (none / 0) (#73)
    by masslib on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 09:04:58 AM EST
    I think the Dem Party will win regardless because the GOP is now clearly the party of lunatics, but yeah, it certainly would bring me back to actually having the slightest enthusiasm about electoral politics again.  Make it so.