Bill Clinton: Happy Whether Hillary Runs Or Not In 2016


“It’s entirely up to [Hillary Clinton],” Clinton told “Good Morning America” of ABC News. “I believe that she’s being absolutely honest with you when she says she doesn’t think she’ll go back into politics. But if she comes home and we do this foundation stuff for the rest of our lives, I’ll be happy; if she changes her mind and decides to run, I’ll be happy.”

As I have stated, I don't think it's optional from the Dem point of view -- she's our best hope to hold the White House (assuming President Obama wins reelection.)

Speaking for me only

< ABC Acknowledges Zimmerman Police Video Shows Head Injuries | The Demise of The Black Caddy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Spoken like a supportive husband (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    and deft politician who's quite skilled in the art of the non-answer answer.

    ABC News didn't really think it was going to get some kind of scoop, did it?

    Good Morning America... (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    ...is apparently now considered ABC News.

    That would make Matt Lauer and Ann Curry what, reporters ?


    No media outlet, whether (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    hard news, soft news or entertainment, is going to have Bill Clinton on and not hope to get something no one else has.

    And just FYI, Matt Lauer and Ann Curry are proud members of the Today Show crew, who are ever-so-proud to be joined on the couch tomorrow and through the week by none other than Sarah Palin her ownself.  If I didn't know better, I might think NBC is looking to stir things up - just watch for the humanization of Palin for a non-Fox audience who may not be as impressed by her.

    I hate pretty much all of this nonsense - including asking Bill if Hillary will run.


    I'm sorry - I misspoke; (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:04:26 PM EST
    Palin is joining Today for Tuesday's show, while Katie Couric will be co-hosting GMA all week.

    I'm with Bill. I'm also happy (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Towanda on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    if Hillary Rodham Clinton does what she d*mn well pleases, from her "point of view."  She has made the Dems' point of view her point of view for many decades, and they decided to follow a different one.  

    Opportunities for successful do-overs in the big leagues of politics are memorable because they are so few, as the Nu Dems now are discovering.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    I totally think that she can do whatever she wants to do.  I can see her in the future working for worldwide women's rights (and human rights overall).  She has nothing to prove, and she has no obligation to be "the best hope" for the Democratic Party.

    Right (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 03:55:38 PM EST
    now she seems like the "best hope" as we are sorely lacking with anyone who seems to have even the least little bit of leadership skills. Right now she also seems to be the one with the best chance of ousting a President Romney should there be one.

    However, I don't think the Dems are going to hold the White House in 2016 no matter who they run so I would think her running would even be less likely in 2016 should Obama be reelected.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 05:44:50 PM EST
    And Hillary agrees with you, thus she isn't running.

    It's nice and charitable to say that she's the "best hope," but if she does run, the same old demons will come out....on the left AND the right.

    And I'm sure there are plenty of guys who think they are better candidates....and no doubt the good old boys in the Democratic establishment will agree.


    Well (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:11:08 PM EST
    the so called OFB can be overruled I would think since they're the ones that thought Obama would be a great president. I think they've blown their credibility (if they ever even had any). But, yeah, I expect them to start cranking up the sexism to the Nth level should she run.

    And who cares what the right says. That was the selling point for Obama supposedly that the right wouldn't attack him and they would go along with him unlike Hillary. What a bunch of dupes is all I can say.


    The OFB (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 07:09:34 PM EST
    is still saying that Obama is the best president they've known in their lifetimes.

    They may have lost credibility, but not within themselves.  


    This remains (2.00 / 4) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    Hilarious to me.

    Obama the terrible POTUS.  Hillary the Great.

    Obama 2012

    Because haters gonna hate.


    To each his own (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 08:24:14 PM EST
    I have a nephew who thinks saying his name backwards is the most hilarious thing of all time.

    Obama is (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    no leader.

    That's why people are looking toward 2016 already.
    Obama v/s Romney is not much of a choice for those interested in civil liberties, or the issue of a president killing an American citizen, for example.

    This is not about "hate".

    This is about your comment being stupid and nasty.


    That's really childish. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 11:37:53 PM EST
    Do you really think that you're helping Obama politically, when you denigrate Democrats who happen to be critical of him?

    Not long ago, you were wondering aloud why some people here ridicule you as a tool. Remember what I told you, particularly the part about not rising to the bait?


    ABG wasn't baited, he was baiting... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:12:43 AM EST
    come on, Donald; we've seen the ABG show before, and he has a history of appearing in the middle of rational, reasoned, congenial conversations and throwing rhetorical bombs into them in the hope of getting something nasty going.

    Look at the time stamps on the comments, Donald:  no one took that bait - well, other than you, who saw it as an opportunity to wag your finger in ABG's face like he was a child on the playground; all that was missing was the "now, now, ABG..."

    And if you think that was "bait" ABG was rising to, that doesn't say much for what you think of the comments or the post that preceded ABG's comment, does it?    


    Bait? (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:41:03 AM EST
    All I see is a conversation.

    Conversation? (none / 0) (#55)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    There is no conversation.

    Some people think that Hillary Clinton is the "best hope" for retaining (or regaining) the White House in 2016.

    Mr. Guy comes on and calls them haters, and leaves.

    That's a conversation?


    I was referring to the comments (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    prior to ABG's remark. Yes, that is a conversation, not ABG bait.

    No, you're hillarious (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    No, you're hillarious if you think it's haterish to imply that Obama is a pretty mediocre president, and that saying he's the best president in your lifetime is ludicrous.

    Out here in the real world things are different than in your pretty little rainbow unicorn world, there on wall street and all.

    No, I'm not a hater.  I'm just being honest.  And I didn't even say Hillary would be better. I have been pretty unhappy with Hillary Clinton on the grounds of principles and I could care less if she's president any more than any of the other unprincipled characters in the Democratic establishment. What I said is that people in the Obama cult are not coming around to the fact that Obama is mediocre.  And you, my friend, are a case in point.

    And OMG, Obama's attack of the Supremes the other day is a fine case in point.  Does he even know what checks and balances even are? He sounded like a doofus. I don't care if you agree with the ruling, the principle on which he argues is MORE THAN ridiculous.  And it will fire up the wingers more than it will the Democrats.


    And BTW (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 07:10:23 PM EST
    Thanks for the red meat, BTD.  I was feeling a little protein deprived ;-).

    Just wait till 2013 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 07:54:51 PM EST
    it's time for the new generation to step (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 09:24:15 PM EST
    up to the plate, and i submit secty clinton is well aware of that. she won't be running for anything in 2016, except maybe grandma of the year. she'll take a well deserved retirement from public life, by the end of obama's second term, if not before then.

    the democrats should be grooming young blood, at the state level, now, for future national office. there are many well qualified women (and men), who should be getting the fiscal and mentoring support from the DNC, to help prepare them for leadership roles in the party and state/federal governments.

    Here's the (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:25:02 AM EST
    thing though: I don't think we are going to have any of those ready to be President by 2016. That's a worthy long term goal and something the party needs to shoot for but I'm not seeing anybody right now who'll be ready in '16 who is also "new blood".

    Don't want the blood (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 10:53:06 PM EST
    ... too young.  I want a history.

    Are you suggesting experience matters? (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 07:44:51 AM EST
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:32:49 AM EST
    Maybe also that one pig in a poke is enough.

    While well-discussed, (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    yet a road seemingly to bold to take, is the the vice-president position for Secretary Clinton in 2012.  The circumstances are very different from that of 2008,  and, of a significantly different character at the present time.   With the recent and blatant attack on women from the Republicans, such as the contraception issue, it would not only discern and display a needed re-commitment to women's rights, but also, be electorally wise.

    Mrs. Clinton would be an excellent vice-president and that post would position her well for 2016.  Joe Biden seems to be a neutral consideration,in large measure,  neither adding or subtracting from the ticket.  However, that is not good enough.  

    I believe she wants to retire (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    although, I do believe she'll be out there on the front lines where women's rights are concerned. And not hampered by being the VP  off in the background somewhere . . . .   ;)

    VP gets her nothing but a line in history bookd (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    It puts her out of the spotlight (assuming Obama wins - if he puts her on the ticket and loses,  guess who will get the blame for that?)

    She can't really shore up her own precinct captains etc. And she gets tied closer to Obama and after another 4 years, voters may be tired of the Dems in charge.

    Staying away from the ticket is her nest bet for 2016 if she wants to run for president.


    Her "best" bet (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    VP is a total waste of her talents (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by sj on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    You don't take a racehorse to the kiddie zoo for pony rides.

    Bringing Mrs C on the ticket (none / 0) (#8)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    at this rather late stage would create more problems than it solves, short of Joe experiencing, say, some serious medical issues that would force him aside.  Otherwise I'd foresee a huge media firestorm about the ruthlessness of both Obama and Hillary and a sympathy backlash for Joe that would damage the new ticket.

    It would look blatantly political and desperate and cause weeks of negative pub.

    Meanwhile Obama with a decently aggressive campaign constantly reminding middle voters and suburban R women about what regressive anti woman measures they can expect if the GOP wins should have a very solid majority of women voters on his side with the old ticket.  If he can't manage how to do that with all the gender advantage he's been handed, he doesn't deserve reelection


    It is not really the "late stage", (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    the Democratic convention is not until September so there would be ample time to roll-out a nuanced change.  I doubt that any firestorm would last very long before attention turned to the new vice presidential candidate---that is the nature of the media beast, particularly when Biden is not beloved by all, and  if Biden, is persuaded to go along.  

    And, charges of ruthlessness do not seem, to me, to be all that worrisome for either the president or Mrs. Clinton.  The issue of electoral desperation might have played a role in 2008, but this year, it could be presented as important to the honoring  of a critical sector of the electorate, an electorate under siege by the opposition.

    Vice presidents, in recent history, have played key roles in the administration.  Mrs. Clinton has served as Mr. Obama's Secretary of State and is already a part of the Obama team.  Biden's chairmanship of the judiciary committee during Clarence Thomas' nomination escaped major scrutiny in 2008, but that may not be the case in this year's environment.


    Actually Joe and his (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    attitude about liking his current job are a problem in your scenario, as is the fact that Joe helps Obama with blue collar types -- with whom the aloof O is on shaky terms at best.  So, how would O be able to pull off removing Joe from the position he prefers and not make it look like a brutal diss to someone who's been a loyal VP?  Especially with a mischievous MSM that is a) no longer swooning over Obama and b) has a long history of skepticism and hostility towards Hillary?

    I think the time to make such a move might have been a year ago, with Joe himself going out there opening up about the possibility of a job change or just retirement.  That would have more smoothly and organically opened the door for Obama and Hill.

    And probably thereby increased the enthusiasm for the Dem

    But a little late now and the downside factors are heightened as Joe is tossed aside apparently against his wishes.  And no one would believe the official assertions that this is just fine with Joe.


    And Joe has publicly stated (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    That he wants to run for the top job in 2016.  He's not stepping aside quietly.

    Oh, ugh...just shoot me now. (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    Given how "quiet" Biden has been, I hate to think of the river of bombastic, foot-in-mouth rhetoric that would be undammed by such a thing.

    Good god (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:36:24 AM EST
    What a disaster that would be. Hello President Rubio.

    If HRC were to go on (none / 0) (#17)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    ticket as VP in 2012, it might undercut any chances she might want to run in 2016, as she would be identified with all Pres O's policies, whether she likes them or not, and whether they are popular or not.  There have been real differences between them on foreign policy but it has been in the interests of both not to publicize them.  VP for Hillary has nothing but disadvantages for her -- and probably few for us.  

    Why would Biden's chairmanship ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    KeysDan: "Biden's chairmanship of the judiciary committee during Clarence Thomas' nomination escaped major scrutiny in 2008, but that may not be the case in this year's environment."

    ... during the Clarence Thomas hearings 20 years ago be a relevant and topical subject for discussion this particular election year? That doesn't make any sense. While we're at it, shall we revive the manufactured Whitewater scandal, too?


    Why wouldn't it? (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Towanda on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:14:52 AM EST
    Never forget.

    Never again.


    I would not equate the (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    Whitewater "scandal" with the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.   And, we are still, unfortunately, living with the outcomes of that hearing, as fresh as last week's Supreme Court arguments and as stale as Thomas' life span.

    Maybe the name "Anita Hill" (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:29:20 AM EST
    will jog a few of Donald's memory cells back to life.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been able to respect Biden since those awful hearings and the way he participated in the treatment of Anita Hill.


    You really want to compare (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by sj on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    the manufactured "scandal" of Whitewater to the Clarence Thomas hearings and the treatment of Anita Hill therein?  Seriously?

    I am, frankly, less concerned with (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    whether either or both of the Clintons are happy; their happiness is, strangely enough, not anything I'm losing sleep over or pondering how I can help maintain.

    I guess I'm more than a little tired of the way we elevate politicians to a level that is a cross between royal and Hollywood-celebrity status; it just doesn't help us out here in the real world of high gas prices, lower wages, moribund housing market, endless war, and constant and pervasive intrusions on our rights and privacy.  

    What would save the Democratic Party might be a tactic that is too radical and revolutionary for the brainiacs who are running it: listening to the people, responding to their needs, working on their behalf.  And by "people" I do not mean in the Citizens United way, but in the living, breathing, complete-with-DNA way.

    As if that will ever happen.  

    So, what we're left with is that we have been reduced to rearranging of the political furniture: we swap out this long-time Beltway politician for that one, we pluck people from one administration to work in another - all we ever do is perpetuate the same old strangulating power structure whose goals and agenda are antithetical to that of the people they purport to represent and serve.  And while that may be working for many of the elite, I think at some point it begins to feed on itself, and they on each other after they bleed the life out of the rest of us.

    So, at this point, that furniture being rearranged is deck chairs and the Party - and the country, for that matter - itself are closer to being the Titanic than anyone wants to admit - if the number of people I know who are thoroughly disgusted with it are any indication.

    I would happily have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008, for reasons that have been endlessly discussed; would I vote for her now, or in 2016?  I have no idea.  But I am tired of seeing the same old faces and hearing the same old songs.  We, the people, know all too well what the problems are in this country, but I don't see anyone in sight who appears to have our interests at heart.   I hate thinking about that, because it fills me with despair and blackens my mood.  I find that I am a happier person the more of my own life I embrace and live, and the less I think about the hopelessness of what's going on in Washington and in the corporate world.

    Today is primary day here in MD, and I suppose I will go vote after work; voting used to be something I looked forward to doing, but is now just part of the kabuki that used to delude me into believing I was making a difference.  I'm not, but I still regard voting as the responsibility I assume for the privilege of living in a free society; too bad I'm probably less free now than I was even four years ago, huh?


    Me neither (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:33:20 AM EST
    I think my view is clear - I'm for applying pressure on Hillary to run, for the Dem Party.

    IF for nothing else, the chance to name Supreme Court justices.


    What worries me are the nominations (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    that would or could be made in the intervening four years; while we know what a GOP president would do, no question, if we presume that Obama wins re-election, I don't think he could be relied on to replace a retiring liberal in like kind, nor do I think he could be relied on to change that 5-4 split to one that favors the liberal view if the open seat in a conservative one.

    Yeah, I know - Sotomayor and Kagan.  That was early on, and in my mind, Kagan is a question mark.  Almost four years in, Obama's got a much more vested interest in some of the matters that are or will be coming before the Court, and on a lot of them - and you know which ones those are - he is probably better served by the conservatives, not the liberals.

    As out-of-control as I think the Court is becoming, Lord knows what President ? will be facing in 2017.


    After ACA is overturned? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    I'm pretty confident on how Obama will react to that.

    Seems a little like closing the barn (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 03:11:15 PM EST
    door, doesn't it?  You're suggesting that if it's overturned, he'll show them, and next time he gets a shot at a nomination, it'll be someone who isn't a conservative, activist judge.

    Well, my lack of confidence has a lot to do with how he has governed, and how he thinks, in general.

    Here's Obama in his speech on the Ryan budget, as live-blogged by Jed Lewison (my bold):

    Obama continues hammering Republicans for moving so far to the right. "Cap and trade was originally proposed by Republicans ... now they say we shouldn't even be thinking about environmental protection." "The individual mandate ... originated as a conservative idea. ... Now suddenly this is some socialist overreach. So, as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it's important to remember that the positions I'm taking now on the budget and a whole host of other issues ... [20 years ago] would have been squarely centrist." It's Republicans that have shifted.

    And here are the nut grafs from David Dayen (also my bold):

    In another revealing moment in the speech - one the President actually said twice, once in the speech and another time in response to a question - he invoked the Bowles-Simpson recommendations for deficit reduction. And he said, very specifically, that his problems with Bowles-Simpson were that they raised too much money in taxes, and that they cut too much in national defense. This was the Democratic leader of the party staking out a rightward position to Bowles-Simpson. He didn't say he objected to the raising of the retirement age in that plan, or the Medicare cuts and global budgeting. He objecting to it raising too much revenue and cutting too much of the military budget. He also touted that discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP under him was "lower than it was under Eisenhower," and that he started "no big new programs to help the poor."

    So the President made a very cogent case against Paul Ryan's budget. Anyone can tell you that. And he made a very good case that, in a choice between the right and the middle, the middle position, his position, should be preferable. That this leaves out an entire side of the argument should be quite obvious.

    This Obama isn't going to nominate from the left, but from wherever the middle happens to be at the time he gets - if he gets - that opportunity, and I don't think that middle is going to give us reliably progressive-to-liberal justices.


    YES! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:10:31 PM EST
    I didn't feel like I could trust Obama on women's issues, like many Democrats and Liberals he seemed to believe that Conservatives would never get that crazy....but they have and yes they will.

    I trust Clinton to pick Justices with an eye towards women's rights as well as the basic healthcare needs of this entire nation and the needed security that that provides in general.

    As of right now, I don't know if my son will have any kind of health coverage after he is tossed off his father's insurance.  He is a walking pre-existing condition.  I am feeling horribly down watching ACA burn to the ground.  I know I'm sort of alone out here grieving it too, but I don't know that we will get anything to replace it......having it meant I could argue to improve it.....once it is LONG LONG GONE I have my doubts I will have anything like it again in the near future.  There will have to be much more suffering probably before we will be able to walk the country in that direction again.


    I actually agree with (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    the sentiments behind the Titanic metaphor*, pessimist that I am.  I think we probably are as a country on the verge of reaping what we've sowed and the result is going to be disastrous unless we quickly change our ways.

    And I too would like to see my party improve its farm system to produce more and better young blood.  But I see a problem in looking too narrowly just for fresh faces -- as in the Obama syndrome:  charismatic, exciting and new, but not necessarily well seasoned in the hard knock ways of the political process.  Sometimes the veteran pols offer the wiser choice.  I believe that would be true of Hillary in 2016, subject to an updated review of her evolved FP attitudes if any.

    * since we're coming up on the centenary of the Titanic going down, and with the recent Cameron movie being re-released in 3-D, right now normally shopworn Titanic metaphors are acceptable


    Does it matter whether Bill (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    Clinton is  "happy"?

    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:04:14 PM EST
    he meant to say that he just doesn't give a sh_t what she does.

    I hope he meant it's her call. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 04:49:20 AM EST
    I'm (none / 0) (#52)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:49:15 AM EST
    sure that's what he meant.

    But I will admit that I could care less about what makes him happy.
    And that's the way the statement was framed.

    I know that this is maybe semantics, but I think he is a very self-involved person - or else he couldn't have done what he did in the oval office. I often think that had he put the country - or his beloved spouse - ahead of his own "interests", Gore might have won and we might not be in Afghanistan and might not have invaded Iraq. Quite a stretch perhaps, but the election was close, and Gore had the handicap of being saddled with a good deal of the revulsion felt by many toward Clinton's behavior. And Gore might not have chosen Lieberman as a running mate - another drain on votes.

    I know.
    I'm exhausting.


    Good question (none / 0) (#18)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    to which I think he would reply in the negative regarding his wife's plans!

    to Bill? (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 05:55:06 PM EST
    Maybe it does to Bill. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 11:48:01 PM EST
    April fools was yesterday... (none / 0) (#20)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:01:21 PM EST

    change you can believe in! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Compound F on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    I need to find a decent third world country to flee to.  I can't take much more of permanent war, permanent looting, and permanent power grabs.  One can seriously question whether the US will even survive in its currently deranged state until 2016.  I'm morbidly fascinated by what Obama pulls out of his bag of horrors after he secures his final term.

    Emote hyperbole much? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 11:58:15 PM EST
    Compound F: "I need to find a decent third world country to flee to. I can't take much more of permanent war, permanent looting, and permanent power grabs."

    And speaking of surviving deranged states of being, you practically sound like you're one wave short of a shipwreck, yourself. I mean, really, "bags of horrors" -- that's just a wee bit over the top, don'tcha think?


    hmm. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Compound F on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:35:54 AM EST
    enjoy your bankruptcy. Phil Ochs was correct: ten degrees to the left in good times and ten degrees to the right when it affects you personally is the worst of all possible worlds.

    Where's the hyperbole (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    permanent wars? - check

    permanent looting? - hell even if we need an Act of Congress in 3 days timeto get, tax cuts for wealthy or Wall Street welfare enacted - check

    permanent power grabs - Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS,  Dick Cheney's VP, undeclared wars - big check.

    bag of horrors? - assassination at President's direction pursaunt ot Presidential perogative, ACA, renew Bush tax cuts, Afghan war, Iran war baiting, cuts to SS & Medicare - check


    There should be more candidates (none / 0) (#26)
    by koshembos on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:36:39 PM EST
    I supported Hillary all the way in 2008 and never thought much of Obama. It's a large country and we many excellent people; there should be younger, more charismatic and experience Democratic candidates that want to be president and can.

    HRC's best chance in 2016 (none / 0) (#29)
    by honora on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 07:10:32 PM EST
    is Obama losing in 2012.  Being on the 2012 ticket makes no sense for her.

    No. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 11:09:06 PM EST
    Her best chance is Obama serving a full term, since the economy will only get better and she'll avoid Gore's idiotic mistake. If Romney gets in and the economy improves, she'll have a decent chance, but not nearly as good as if the economy improved under the watch of another centrist Democrat.

    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:21:01 AM EST
    3 terms of the same party is not likely to happen.  Not in rhe environment of 24 hour cable news and the internet.

    Yep (none / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:30:17 AM EST
    I've said from the beginning that a Republican will follow Obama.  Either in 2012 or 2016.  

    But it has little or nothing to do with 24 hour cable news and the internet.


    I think they play a big part (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    We have had, in recent times, 3 or 4 terms by the same party.

    I just don't see it really happening again.  What's changed?  Well, the parties have, but I think a lot of those changes were driven by 24 hour cable news and the internet. For goid, bad, and the very ugly.


    I think this also depends a lot on what (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    the GOP look like in 2016.  Do they return to the center or do they double down on the crazy?

    If Rick Santorum is the nominee it will be a lot harder for them to win.  As BTD says - Demographics is destiny, and they are trending the wrong way for the GOP.

    George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative".  Romney will tack as hard to the center as he can in 2012.  But if they actually end up nominating someone from the right-wing of their party, and it seems like they are trending that way, I think that person will have a very difficult, if not impossible time winning in the general election.


    Just as (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    If the Democrats nominated someone from the very left wing of the party, they too would lose.  Most Americans are not far left or far right and like someone who (they think) holds middle of the road views.

    I also think that Republicans are much more disciplined and will fall in line to vote for whomever wins their nomination, whereas some Dems will do things like vote for a Green or other party candidate.


    I don't know if all the Republicans (none / 0) (#74)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    would "fall in line."  Granted this is a very small sample, but I know a number of older Republicans who are appalled by Rick Santorum.  They are more in the mold of the "strong on defense, fiscally conservative in other areas, but socially moderate" types of Republicans that seem to be vanishing.  I can't see them voting for a Democrat (at least not unless some Democrat like Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson rises from the dead and runs again), but some of them have discussed not voting for President at all if Santorum ever gets the nomination.  That's what they say, at any rate.  We'll see.

    Your (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    statement kind of exemplifies what has been going on the GOP--it's the evangelicals vs. the rest of the party. This split has been happening for about 20 years and I think this year they'll suck it up and vote for Romney but I don't think they are going to be able to continue this for much longer. I hear the evangelicals grumbling about Romney and the other Republicans grumbling about Santorum and nobody really likes Newt so he doesn't come into the conversation.

    I predict the party completely blows up in 2016 because the "elite" are going to realize that they are going to have to change their demographic base if they are ever going to win another national election. The GOP base is dying off.


    Well, it wouldn't hurt my feelings (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 06:57:58 PM EST
    at all if the Republicans blow up in 2016.  Or before.   ;-)

    If I thought there was a chance (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    a "far left candidate" would win the Democratic nomination, then I would share this concern.

    But I thought we were talking about Hillary Clinton :)

    Republicans may "fall in line" but there aren't enough of them to win straight up that way.  They need indies or a some D crossovers too.  And someone like Rick Santorum might even chip away at the R base.


    GOP 2016 (none / 0) (#73)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    Jeb Bush

    Yup. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 11:07:13 PM EST
    The only issue I'd have with a Hillary Clinton administration is that I would wonder about the bench they'd have to fill key positions, given that Obama's team are either very old Clinton retreads or not that impressive from a progressive viewpoint. Where would the new Clintonistas come from?

    This is not a very grave concern, however. Obama 2012. Clinton 2016. Good enough for me. I don't trust many other nationally-viable Democrats at this point.

    Best hope? Seriously? (none / 0) (#54)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    We're four years out.  Maybe, just maybe, folks will be fed up with foreign adventures/wars by 2016 and the last thing we need will be the party's chief hawk as nominee. Maybe, just maybe, folks will be sick of corporate lackeys like Bill and HRC's current boss and 100% of the Republican Party,and the last thing we need will be more of the same.

    Her experience is working in and among those who brought on the 2008 financial calamity, the Iraq debacle, the Iraq inhumane sanctions of the 90s, the Afghan quagmire and the current Iran war-baiting.

    We've all had enough of this sort of experience.

    Yes seriously (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    Indeed, denying it is the height of unseriousness imo.

    You can be against it for the reasons you mention, but you can not deny the truth of it seriously imo.


    Of course you can (none / 0) (#70)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    She couldn't beat first term Sen. Obama.  She is polarizing within her own party and that does not begin to describe her appeal among Independents and GOP.  

    Will she be the most recognizable?  Absolutely.  The best hope to win in 2016?  No way.

    People are sick of what has been going on with respect to Wall St, wars.  Obama is going to make people sicker with his second term grand bargain that degrades retirement benefits across the board.  An establishment, hawkish, corpocrat candidate who has long history of those things with which people are tired is not the great 2016 hope.

    New blood. If Warren wins in Mass she will have much more heavywieght experience than Obama did in 2008.  Formidable.  Schweitzer in MT.  Love to see Whitehouse run for the WHite House.


    "Polarizing within her own party"? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    Based on what?  Although her popularity among Democrats took a temporary hit during the 2008 primary because she dared to be mildly critical of Obama, her popularity/approval among Democrats has always been high (90%+) - currently 92%.

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    Actually, she DID beat him.

    Plus, she was actually able to successfully work with many Republicans during her time in the Senate - some of whom were her biggest critics - and win them over.

    Oh, and did I mention she's by far the most popular person in government?