NY Magazine: Decoding Hillary

New York Magazine has a 7 page interview with Hillary Clinton. The magazine attempts to decode her ambiguous answers on whether she will run for President.

I’m both pragmatic and realistic. I think I have a pretty good idea of the political and governmental challenges that are facing our leaders, and I’ll do whatever I can from whatever position I find myself in to advocate for the values and the policies I think are right for the country,” she said. “I will just continue to weigh what the factors are that would influence me making a decision one way or the other,” she added.

But many Clinton friends and confidants interviewed for the article agreed that the former first lady would ultimately run.

In the interview, she describes what she and husband Bill do for fun: [More...]

“We have a great time; we laugh at our dogs; we watch stupid movies; we take long walks; we go for a swim.”

The cover photo of Hillary is one of the most flattering I've seen in a long time. Inside, there's another photo that is far less flattering. Neither photo is dated. Midway through the interview, there is this description of her and Bill at a speaking event last spring:

Onstage, the former president looked older than in the past—thinner, stooped, more subdued, his hands trembling while he held his notes at the podium. Haloed in blue light, he spoke about the “still embattled American Dream” and then introduced his wife as his new partner in the foundation, the woman who “taught me everything I know about NGOs.”

Her appearance made for a stark contrast. When she emerged from behind the curtain, she appeared much more youthful—smiling, upright, beaming in a turquoise pantsuit; she received huge applause and a standing ovation that dwarfed the response to Bill.

The article discusses the evolution of the Clinton Foundation into the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and briefly mentions Benghazi, her relationship with Obama, her tenure at State.

It also describes Hillary as the obvious front-runner, if she chooses to run. A recent CNN poll suggests this is true.

I doubt Hillary's age will be a persuasive argument against her. Republicans conveniently forget Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and John McCain. They also need to be reminded that baby boomers are the largest voting block, women vote more often than men, and older voters vote more than younger voters.

The Daily Beast last month had this article listing 16 reasons Hillary would win if she chooses to run. Among the most persuasive reasons:

Akin to the movement that elected the first African-American president in 2008, the “Madame President movement” will be propelled by the mainstream media, Hollywood, and social media. Together they will build momentum and coalitions across all platforms, while reveling in their awesome social and cultural significance. You will hear the “triumph of the ’60s feminist movement.” You will hear that you will be “voting to make history.” And you will hear that your vote will be used as a “hammer to break through the glass ceiling of the Oval Office.”

Warning: Prepare for the onslaught, because it is coming your way.

Ready for Hillary is also gaining steam. The longer Hillary delays making a decision, the greater the clamor will be for her to run. Any formal decision is unlikely before November, 2014 or January, 2015. I think it's clear she will run unless something unforeseen happens between now and then to change her mind.

I've been chronicling Hillary's political campaigns online since 1999, when I created a "Run Hillary Run" section for Hillary's senate campaign on my first website, CrimeLynx. Will I do it again? I haven't decided, but it hardly seems necessary. Candidates no longer need bloggers to champion their cause. Social media is far more effective. On the other hand, social media is superficial, and there will always be readers who want in-depth analysis and a place to express their opinions in more than 140 characters. I'm glad I have a year to decide.

< NFL Sunday Open Thread | Sunday Night Open Thread: Breaking Bad >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The cover photo (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    The cover photo is heavily photoshopped.  Look at Hillary's chin/neck area.  They blurred and cloned out all contours, and did a pretty awful job of it too.  Yick.

    I'm a decent photographer, but when I do a shot for someone (for love, not money), I warn them ahead of time that while I'll get rid of zits and a little of the girth if they'd like, I think wrinkles are fantastic.  I do.

    I think the inside photo is more flattering because it's HILLARY, not some artist's rendition of a barbie doll version of her.

    I love Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    and I like both photos.  But I can't help but point out photos of male candidates seldom get evaluated this way.  Just sayin'.

    I was responding (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    to Jeralyn's commentary about the photos.  

    sorry Teresa (none / 0) (#84)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    comment was not directed at you personally I should have made that clear.  And I'm glad you like wrinkles--I've got plenty of them.

    Meh (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 04:14:31 PM EST
    Hillary revealed all you need to know about her when she went after Edward Snowden, echoing the establishment wretchedness. So, to her, the American people are also the enemy when it comes to transparency regarding state sponsored mass murder.

    IOW, yawn, F her, and Bill for that matter. Give me genuine leadership with at least a smidged of free American imagination.

    Is that REALLY too much to ask for in, supposedly, the greatest nation on earth?

    Is it????

    Would any U.S. Secretary of State refrain from (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    going "after" a person who obtained and released U S. Dept. of State internal and external communications?

    "State sponsored mass muder" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 06:54:28 PM EST
    Snowden has revealed the NSA spy program.

    What state sponsored mass murder?


    We both like our college sports (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    but have few similarities in politics. I was happy to vote for Hillary in the Florida primary in 2008, and hope to vote for her again in 2016.

    a statement and a question (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    Statement: Snowden is a gutless weasel.  In his ignorance and self importance he could have (and may have) done damage to US intelligence and diplomacy.  If he were a hero of any sort he would be here fighting for what he feels is right.  He would be here fighting for his ideals.  Instead he is hiding in Russia, home of all that he supposedly hates. F him and his a$$hat father.

    Question: Who can you suggest who is a "real" leader with free American imagination?


    Agreed (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    She went after Snowden because she too was a 'victim' of a mass leaking that made her and her department look... less than stellar/professional.

    IMO she is Obama Redux on foreign policy and I think she would have bombed Syria, having the one thing Obama doesn't, self confidence in her abilities.

    She might be better than Obama at home, but nothing of any significance beyond several social issues and probably won't nominate the worse possible candidate to every post.

    Plus there is a huge grudge, and again unlike Obama, I don't believe she would bow down and take it from her sworn political enemies.  Not sure that is a bad thing, but it's not worthy of giving her the Presidency.

    I would like to know where she stands on the Social Security, Health Care, and the Deficit/Budget.  We don't need to elect any more democrats who think the New Deal was a bad deal.  That our military and overall view that we are the Earth Cops and that will finance any law enforcement agency who wants to arrest people on other continents.  But that is not Hillary, nor does she seem real concerned with the NSA and what it's doing right here at home to it's own citizens.

    We need a D whose has real D beliefs who can turn them into traditional D policies.  Policies that help the people who need it the most, and reign in the folks who have too much money and power, aka Corporate America.  But I fear the D's have forgotten who they are and believe that R-light is who we should be.

    If the R's but up a candidate who is sincere is putting a harness on the enforcement/fascist side of our government the D's are gonna be in trouble.  Because right now I think a lot of voters would love to get behind that with enthusiasm, regardless of party affiliation, myself included.

    But I doubt that will happen and just like 2012, our choice will be a crappy D or an even crappier R.  And HRC will win because the R's keep doubling down on crazy.  

    I don't know who she is kidding, with this meandering, of course she will run, people don't pass on that job.  Reminds me of one of my friends who is in sales and who is always ridiculously late.  I once asked him why and he said something to the effect "Whose gonna anticipate my arrival if I show up on time ?"

    I like Hillary enough, but come, we are losing out way and HRC isn't the person to help us find it.


    Using her age against her candidacy (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    The Republicans will most certainly use her age against her, and her sex, and any other cr@p they can throw at her, just to see what sticks. It's what they do. Let us not forget that the Citizens United case was brought to us courtesy of the vile front group fronting their "film" about her in the last election.

    And many of the same misogynistic idiots in the press and the Democratic party who used her age and sex against her last time will do so again, albeit in more creative ways.

    Cankles, anyone?

    I would prefer that she not run. I want new blood, and less war-talking candidates to lead the way. It's not about chronological age, it's about old vs. new ideas, and political approaches. As whip smart as I think HRC is, I'd rather she use her undeniable skills to greater effect at the NGO and foundation level. I don't look forward to another bitter, nasty election.

    I, too, think the cover photo is photo-shopped, and not even recent. The inside photo is who she is now. And I think she looks just fine.

    The Republicans (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 07:12:18 AM EST
    well, SOME Republicans anyway, will throw anything they can at her.  Shrug, that's the level we've stooped to in our national political dialogue.  We don't debate differences in political outlook or policy - we throw trash to see what sticks.  

    But considering that Hillary:

    1. Has already taken on crazy Republicans and not only won multiple times, she worked with many of them in her time in the Senate and charmed them.  It's going to be a little difficult to throw crazy stuff at her that will stick - I mean, she's already been accused of (gasp!) being a lesbian and of being a murderer. What else have they got?

    2. Being a seasoned political animal, she has a better temperament than say, Obama, in dealing with the Republicans.  Mr. Obama is great when he is being adulated, and I think he truly believed he could get everyone together and bring about compromise and set a more civilized tone in Washington. That was partially a good thing because it IS good to have hope, but for the most part it was really naiveté and inexperience.  That did not allow him to read the political winds that were brewing at the time - something many people overlooked when they went to vote - and something now that in some respects, we are paying the price for.

    3. There are many Republicans (especially women) who wanted to vote for Hillary in 2008.  There are many who want to in 2016.  If the crazies attack, I don't think it will be nearly as effective as you seem to think it will.

    4. The Republicans aren't nearly as organized as you think.  There is no clear frontrunner, and when they have their primaries, it will be a long, drawn out process where the crazy is on display, front and center, and next to each other. If Hillary decides to run, I predict it will be a short primary season, she will take the lead, other contenders will bow out early, and the party will coalesce behind her and will be able to have everyone out there speaking the same message, while the Republicans will still be battling it out.

    5. By then, Obamacare will be implemented, and people will be able to judge for themselves how they feel about it.  This might be a hitting point for the Republicans - to highlight the problems, but Hillary is a bit insulated from this since she was not involved in domestic policy. That goes for any of the lingering questions about other domestic issues or scandals.

    6. She'll get hit with Benghazi. We will have more information by then, and voters will move on quickly, unless something big is still hiding, and if so, I don't see her running.

    7. Duh - she's a woman.  We are way past time to have a woman president.  

    I want new blood, and less war-talking candidates to lead the way. It's not about chronological age, it's about old vs. new ideas, and political approaches.

    Who do you have in mind?  And is / are those candidates anyone who would stand a snowball's chance in he!! of winning?

    BTW - you HAD new blood.  His name is Barack Obama.  How'd that work for you?


    When it comes down to political (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:02:34 AM EST
    ideology, it is difficult to consider Obama as new blood. Also, it is hard for me to see a continuation of a government by the corporations, for the corporations as "winning" for anyone but the top 1%.

    Do you see Hillary as being (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:31:11 PM EST
    "by and for the corporations"?  I do not.  I think she is way smarter and way more populist than that.  We are not talking about Bill and we are no longer in 1992 when democrats had to find a way to win national elections.  I can't find a reason to believe HRC is WJC circa 1992.

    Barack was not new blood... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:08:08 AM EST
    But there was new blood on the ballot in 2012, and a woman no less...Jill Stein.  I hope she runs again in 2016 to have somebody you don't have to embarassed to vote for.

    He certainly WAS new blood (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    in 2008.  He had been around to get his 5 minutes of federal experience.

    When he got into office, however, and saw that platitudes, nice speeches, and slick marketing were not enough to govern, is when he became part of the old guard.


    Memory Lane... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    "The only bills that I've voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate, were introduced by Republicans or by George Bush."

    -- Senator Barack Obama @ 2min 18sec

    Nice Hack Job (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    So, what about Obama, Clinton, and McCain? Obama at 80% and Clinton at 82% are (1) not far apart and (2) among the least liberal Democrats. In contrast, John McCain at 9% is one of the most conservative Republicans.

    In CQ's calculation of party unity, which measures how often members vote with their party on bills where the parties split, Obama got a 97 percent rating last year. Ten Democrats had higher scores. On votes where Bush indicated his position, CQ found Obama supported the Republican president 40 percent of the time in 2007. That 40 percent rating put Obama in the middle of the pack for Democrats. In 2006, Obama voted with Bush 49 percent of the time.

    Context is everything... unless you have an agenda. Spouting out of context hyperbole to support your agenda effects your credibility.


    You're claiming he didn't say it? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    Good luck with that...

    This Is What I Said (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:23:00 AM EST
    Context is everything... unless you have an agenda. Spouting out of context hyperbole to support your agenda effects your credibility.

    It's just a verbatim quote. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    Not something I said. Interpretation of it is up to you.

    I suppose you could always hope he was lying to you.

    That shouldn't be too difficult to imagine.

    His lips were moving, after all....


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    Let's see what you said:

    lying to you.

    That shouldn't be too difficult to imagine.

    Edger lying?  


    You seem to be having trouble (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:46:30 AM EST
    with comprehension today.

    Predictable Response (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    At least you are predictable, if not reliable.

    I used to have (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    some respect for you.

    Yes I Know (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    You mentioned that the last time I questioned your thinking hoping to have a discussion with you.

    Questioning authority may be your point of pride, but questioning you is not allowed.

    Got it. You are an authority.


    Well, no (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    I'm not always right. I often make mistakes. Like I said, I used to have some respect for you. Now though, I have about the same amount of respect for you that obama obviously does.


    I guess it's time to go back to ignoring you.

    Deal with obama's statement anyway you like.


    Mischaracterization (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    Deal with obama's statement anyway you like.

    It is not a statement, it is a edited soundbite taken out of context, that leaves off either the question asked, or what he said before or after the clip. But you knew that.

    It is a dishonest hack job, and makes you look silly standing behind it as some sort of proof that Obama is just like Bush.  You may as well be defending birther and secret muslim conspiracies..  maybe you do...  


    Oh, for crying out loud....between you and (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    jbindc, it's like getting trapped in a never-ending "Who's on First?" skit.

    The TL Queen Has Spoken (1.43 / 7) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:22:19 PM EST

    And when Anne "speaks" (1.00 / 2) (#122)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    It's like watching Ted Cruz - someone who loves the sound of their own voice.

    Edger? Agenda? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    Shirley, you jest. ;-D

    Marketed as new blood, (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:30:46 AM EST
    funded by the Masters of the Universe and supported by the old guard up to and including the convention.

    Yes, to some extent (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:36:58 AM EST
    However, anyone who thinks they are going to get a candidate elected who has such fresh ideas and truly has no ties or allegiances to the power structure is kidding themselves.

    The Dennis Kucinich's and Jill Stein's of the world are nice little liberal fantasies, but are never going to hold higher office in reality.


    Indeed... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    just as those who think a candidate supported by the power structure can implement fresh ideas and new approaches we need are kidding themselves.

    Pick your delusion!


    Don't really hold on to any fantasies (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:46:13 AM EST
    We have become a solely owned subsidiary of the major corporations with little chance of that changing in the near future, if at all. All the rest is kabuki.

    I just don't have to continue to buy into the meme that it is anything else.


    Well, you maybe ready to surrender, (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    but a lot of us are not.  If nothing else, the presence of third parties and their candidates should be challenges to the status quo, but in a system where campaign finance, the media and the major party hierarchies  actively deny those third-party candidates a voice, it is extremely hard to make any headway.

    But that it's hard doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile, or desperately needed.  

    I don't suffer from many illusions; but it's important to understand that another of the illusions I don't suffer from is the one where we are being fairly represented and our interests and needs are being met to any acceptable degree by the two-party system.

    I'm pretty sure the 2016 race will be between two  bought-and-paid-for, power-loving, those-other-two-branches-of-government-are-irrelevant, military-industrial/security juggernaut-loving, major-party candidates, one of whom will be of questionable sanity, guaranteeing the election of the other one.



    Surrender what? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:09:41 AM EST
    I live in reality.  Unless, as you point out, we completely overhaul campaign finance, and even our whole structure of government, wishing a third party to win is pure fantasy. No one is telling you not to vote your conscience - and I don't care WHO the nominee is for the Democratic Party.  I feel fairly confident that your analysis is correct about being bought and paid for.

    However, I prefer to dance with the devil I know as opposed to the one I don't and not hold out happy-fairy dust illusions about the candidates as some are wont to do (AKA many Obama supporters, for example).


    As it stands, voting for any of the (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    major-party candidates is also an exercise in wishing and hoping and fantasy, isn't it?  I mean, wasn't Obama all about hope and change?  And then look what happened.  

    I've already been quite clear that I'm not suffering under any illusions, much less those that involve fairy dust; my vote is my voice saying, "yes - this is what I believe, too, and this is what I want."

    I no longer want to look at a list of a candidate's positions and find myself saying, "no, don't really believe that, no, I don't think this is a good idea, no, this is not how I think we should address this issue, no, that's not what you said before, and it's not what you did...but, golly...that Republican is a loony-toon, so I guess I'd better sign on to someone who doesn't really speak for me to make sure someone else who doesn't speak for me doesn't get elected."

    That, apparently, is your reality, and one you are willing to embrace, which is your choice.

    Always good to remember that "the devil you know" is still a devil; doesn't mean someone you don't "know" can't turn out to be a devil, too, but since my other two choices are guaranteed to be devils, do I really have that much more to lose - especially because, as you keep reminding us, that person doesn't stand a chance at winning anyway?


    I wasn't embarrased to vote for Stein (none / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    in 2012.  I will vote for her again if Clinton is not our candidate.  But between the two of them, come on.  Stein is not going to win and if by some fluke she did, she would be eaten alive in DC. She simply can not hold a candle to Clinton in any area, including policy foreign or domestic.

    Obama wasn't exactly "new blood" (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    but he certainly has shown himself to be  inexperienced and out of his depth as president. He's a tool of the corporate Dem establishment.

    Not sure I see any difference... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:29:26 PM EST
    between an inexperienced tool and an experienced tool...I'll take a non-tool of any experience.

    HRC, not a tool (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    you should get to know the real person and not the imaginary Hillary Clinton invented by fevered minds on the right and far left. I have no problem with being far left.  I just have a problem with people on the right or the left who follow the mob and repeat myths about H. Clinton (or Gore, or many moderate progressive democrats) that are false.

    The Real HRC? (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:25:43 PM EST
    That is funny, as she is a top politician, as professional as it gets. Her job is to make people love her by telling them what they want to hear, that is at least enough people in order to stay in business.

    Your version of the real HRC is certainly not who she is anymore that someone else's version. That is what a politician is, and she is no different.


    If she (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 07:22:53 AM EST
    runs I think the GOP will go so overboard with trying to throw the kitchen sink at her that it will backfire on them. Like you say, they have tried this stuff over and over again and it has not worked but they keep trying the same failed strategies.

    Are you really saying (none / 0) (#97)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:16:09 PM EST
    that she should not run because the republicans will be mean to her?  You think it will all be less nasty if someone else is the candidate?  And what makes you think Hillary is about old ideas?  We got "new" with Obama when we wanted (the majority of the country) Hillary and needed her experience smarts etc....
    Now her time is past?  I don't think so.  Find me someone better and make it a woman.  I'm not voting for men for president for the next 200 years or so and Elizabeth Warren, much as I admire her,  is not ready to run or to preside.  

    Try some reading comprehension (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:33:28 PM EST
    I didn't say "she should not run because the Republicans will be mean to her." I merely pointed out it will be a nasty, nasty campaign, and I'm sick of nasty campaigns. I admire Clinton for her mind and her skills, but she is, indeed, "old" blood. Apparently, you're the one looking for a perfect candidate who hits all of your specifications. Really, it HAS to be a woman or you wouldn't consider voting for someone else? Oh, but wait. Warren isn't the right woman, so let's forget her, even though you would vote for Stein again, who I also voted for last time, but doesn't have a chance of winning -- which makes your dismissiveness of Warren completely nonsensical.

    As for Obama being "new" blood, that's already been disected in above comments. Not really new. More of the same old Dem party politics. Inexperienced, yes, incompetent at negotiating, yes, and in bed with Wall Street, yes -- which is why I didn't support him in the 2008 primary or at all in 2012.

    Unlike you, I'd support Warren in a heartbeat. Or anyone else who's new on the scene and isn't beholden to the same old Wall Streeters and lobbyists in the Democratic party machine.


    I can't (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 06:50:03 AM EST
    speak for Teresa but for me Warren really needs more experience. As we've seen with Obama, not even completing one term in the senate really is not enough. Also some experience outside of the senate would be good too.

    Vowing to vote for Stein over Warren (none / 0) (#119)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    if HRC doesn't run makes no sense to me at all. And I believe Warren has a much firmer grasp on economics than Obama ever did or ever will, not to mention, the actual courage to take stands on issues. I'm not saying Warren is the only choice, I'm just saying I'd vote for her. But then, I'm also not the one who said she'd refuse to vote for anyone but a woman. Anyway, I think it's a moot point. HRC is running, and I doubt Warren is.

    You want heads to explode (none / 0) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    on Wall Street?

    Elizabeth Warren.....Treasury Secretary in a H.R.C. Administration.


    There's not much (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 08:48:25 AM EST
    to decode.

    She's doing the same thing as she has always done.
    Laying low. Concentrating on what she is doing now.

    She had no plans to run for President - but was going to concentrate on being Senator from New York...


    She knows that timing of her announcement is everything. Too soon she loses momentum. Too late, she faces the possibility of being old news by the time of the primaries. She also faces the possibility of someone coming from out of nowhere - as with Obama - as per Carter - as with WJ Clinton - to claim some sort of media frenzy.

    To me, there is no doubt that she intends to run.
    I can't imagine why she would have accepted to be S of S under Obama unless it was to keep herself in the public eye for the purpose of another run. I never saw any positive chemistry being those two.  I'm sure she's glad that's over with.

    I would not vote for her.
    For me, she's yet another right-wing conservative with an acquired veneer of liberalism. But, she's no liberal. And hardly a democrat in the sense of the word that once had meaning for me.

    Same goes for Kerry, whose latest flash in the pan has petered out and thank god for it.

    Can't we have a little fresh air?

    I would be interested in a Grayson candidacy.
    That would be at least engaging.

    Grayson (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:11:26 AM EST
    is best right where he is. He'd have no chance at winning a statewide vote for Governor or Senator in Florida, and would barely be be a blip on the screen in a Florida presidential primary.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 03:43:52 PM EST
    but what I said was that a Grayson candidacy would at least be engaging.

    I would prefer an Al Sharpton (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 02:00:30 AM EST
    candidacy.    Much more interesting.

    She took the SOS job (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    because she believed she could use the position to do good things for the US and the rest of the world.  If you do not understand that basic characteristic of Hillary Clinton, you do not know her at all. Service has been her prime motivator since she was a teen.  Disagree with her, I do at times, but don't misjudge her. She is a very typical example of a good Methodist girl, the smartest and hardest working in the class.  
    Assuming she is a hawk goes against everything she believes about lifting the lives of women and children as a way to solve the nations and world's problems.  Her vote for the bushes Iraq war, is not what people assume it was.  I would like to think people had seen her address to the senate on that vote...but most people can't be bothered.  That is why I have a hard time respecting the tired old talking point that she is a hawk.
    There is also no good reason to believe that she is a corporate stooge unless you believe that she is stuck in 1992 and is in fact Bill Clinton before he evolved.  It's not 92 anymore and none of us think the way we did twenty years ago.  Hillary has done nothing to earn the designation of being corporate or conservative.  Those are labels the left has assigned her out of ignorance, IMO.

    I'm trying to stay out (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    of the "Hillary debate" as much as possible since most people's minds are made up regarding who she is. What seems true though, is that almost everyone feels they know the "real" Hillary and anything, and everything, she says, or does, is not what it seems on the surface, but, must have some hidden agenda that only the poster can "see through."

    My personal feeling is an, admittedly, "gut" level, anecdotal sense that she is more good than bad, and, that she has learned, and evolved, a lot during her past several decades in public service. What I do think is unfair is the way that many people define her in single issue, one liner terms. But, she is much more complicated than that, and, once again, a blog discussion is not a fair venue for a comprehensive discussion of who, and what, she is.

    1.    She's a Hawk.
    2.    She's a Pol.
    3.    She's the same as Obama.
    4.    She's a Corporatist.
    5.    She's blindly ambitious.
    6.    She's one heck of a day trader.

    Any one of these topics, and many more I haven't listed, could take a semester at college to fully discuss. Unfortunately, that would take too much time, and would require too much study & research, so we're left with accusations, simplistic caricature descriptions, and, just plain mean spiritedness.  But, for me, while fully understanding that no one "deserves" to be President, I sure would like to see that happen. At least then we would see what she does, instead of "knowing" what she "will do."


    It's been said already (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    But if Hillary runs, the sexism, ageism, and anything else her opponents can throw at her will resurface, no doubt with some new nasty elements.

    Nothing every other Dem Presidential candidate (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    hasn't faced since at least 1992. She's tough. She'll handle it just fine.

    For Hillary's sake (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    I hope she doesn't run but, if she does, I believe she will surprise many people by turning Left and concentrating on domestic issues. Yes, she's wealthy now, and, yes, she's upset some people by advocating some Conservative principals. Some of that may have been because she truly believes it, and some for purely pragmatic, political purposes.

    But, let's be honest here. No candidate is going to satisfy those who long for the kind of Liberals who were active in the 60's. But, Hillary's agenda, I believe, is to advocate for social issues such as those that would aid women, children, the poor and, other items like education, health care, and the aged. It may sound like wishful thinking, but these things were her concerns long before she became the political powerhouse of today.

    After eight years of the boy/man Presidency, and eight more of what can be only be described as utter disappointment, any move away from the agendas of the past 16 years would be welcome indeed. And, since any candidate will be a compromise at best, I think the risk of Hillary taking the country somewhat away from the course those two men were steering it is a risk worth taking.

    I know no candidate "deserves" the Presidency, but, if anyone did, it would be Hillary Clinton. And, I believe she is completely aware of how much disappointment Obama's Presidency rendered to so many of us one time Democrats and, so, may  just feel an additional obligation to demonstrate what a real Democrat looked, and looks, like.

    I think she is a real democrat (none / 0) (#109)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:27:45 PM EST
    unlike the fantasy some on the far left have of a democratic party they THINK they remember from the 60s. That party and those candidates never existed.

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    sad but the one common thread through all of this is about what a disappointment Obama has been. IMO it's largely because he does not have a political compass and there's no issue worth advocating for he seems to think.

    Sad? (2.00 / 4) (#72)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    HAHAHAHAH...  either you love being sad, or you are FOS...

    One note song from you...

    I guess the silver lining is that you did not have to be sad for Hillary, or at least have your bubble popped when you realized that she is the same as Obama..  

    Mainstream Democrats not sure why anyone is surprised, no less sad. You are going to need a new fainting couch for Hillary..  all the nastiness (as if it is ever any different) and then when she wins..  


    Are you incapable of not insulting others (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 03:54:44 PM EST
    with every single comment?

    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    No, I know that Hillary is going to get the kitchen sink thrown at her IF she runs. No one should be surprised about that.

    I'm talking about Obama on a pure policy perspective. Seems like he demoralized a lot of people (of which I am not one).


    I'm thrilled beyond belief! (3.00 / 5) (#54)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    If she runs, we'll have the third election cycle in a row when the Democrats will cough up another token - a woman instead of a minority - who will do absolutely nothing other than continue to ratify and expand the crimes of the Bush/Cheney junta.

    Who could possibly want anything other than that?!?

    Cough Up Another Token ? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    While I agree what they will do, what does race/gender have to do with anything, and why are you using it to diminish them ?  Mask all you want, it's clear you have issues with race and gender.  You love to throw that kind of garbage around without any explanation, as if its a given.

    I would hardly call HRC a token, she's done her time and has as much government experience as any of the what I can only imagine you would call non-tokens.


    Thank you for conceding defeat so easily, (3.50 / 2) (#121)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    going right to the ad hominem.  Makes my life easier.

    The fact is, as TL noted in the main post, the big draw for HRC - as is being pitched now and as TL reports and expects will continue ad infinitum - is "vote for the woman".  If that isn't the definition of a token and tokenism....

    It's not that HRC doesn't have lots of good experience, hasn't had big jobs or whatever.  She has.  But that's not the pitch.  The pitch is "vote for the woman".  Setting that aside, I don't see a hair's breadth of difference between what will be her policies and practices, what are Obama's policies and practices, and what were the Bush/Cheney policies and practices.  So she's a distinction without a difference.

    And recall, too, that she was the one who gave us this classic as sarcasm.  If anything, she'll be even more cynical, vicious and dangerous than Obama.


    women are more than half (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    the population, calling Hillary a token is not just baseless, it is sexist.
    Now tell me what facts you have that make you believe she will carry on the policies of Bush.

    Yes, but (3.50 / 2) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    it could be worse. If a republican called a republican wins in 2016 and does that democrats all across the country would have to pretend to be opposed to it.

    A right wing republican calling herself a democrat would be much better. Somehow. Apparently.


    I'll assume the downrating there (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 06:04:02 PM EST
    means that they wouldn't even bother to pretend to be opposed to it.

    Meh. Who would have guessed? Lol.


    she is a right wing republican? (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    What's your evidence?

    Inside vs Outside photo (none / 0) (#2)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    Both photos strike me as "genuine" in a very meaningful way.  Inside, we see what the camera sees; Outside, we see what many of us find in her, in her glow of experience and wisdom and maturity. IMO, the Outside radiance <as seen on the cover> reflects a kind of truth about where she is on her journey today.

    Yes, I support Hillary ... very much.

    The Photos do not matter (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 10:59:19 PM EST
    to me.  Golda Meir looked way older than Hillary.

    And Hillary is looking pretty good imo.


    Then why didn't you (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    in 2008?

    Oh, dear Teresa, I did (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 06:00:34 PM EST
    support her ... worked phone banks, did canvassing, was the designated spokesperson for her at our caucus of approx. 200 people in 2008, and contributed the maximum $$ to her primary campaign.  Of course, I supported her.

    Then ... when her campaign ended, I channeled my support for a lot of the message into the Obama campaign.  As time went on, I came quickly to the realization that then-candidate Obama was the person for the position as President in 2008.  There is a time and a place, Teresa ... IMO and for a number of concrete results easily seen and numbered since the beginning of the first term, I support this President wholeheartedly.  

    Looking toward 2016, that will be another time.  And, if Hillary Clinton chooses to run, I believe and hope that it will be her time and the country's time for her.


    Less concern (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    about HRC age than Bill, his age and health will be issues, but I take nothing about the Clinton's at face value.

    Obama isn't going to walk off stage, he has control over the democratic machine that got him elected, and its doubtful that the winner of the primaries won't be his choice.

    If HRC runs expect the campaign to set new levels of division within the country win or lose it won't be pretty or get smoothed over.

    I don't think decoding is realistic, 2014 and world events will have a lot to do with who runs in 2016.

    I would think that you would be more (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 06:46:54 AM EST
    concerned about which one of your tea party politicians would be the Republican candidate.

    Division with Hillary? With one of your candidates the destruction of the middle class would be complete and the levels of insanity would go off the chart.


    People generally (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:48:59 AM EST
    on both the republican and democratic "sides"(sic) will cover their eyes and ears to shut out any reality in their determination to have a vicarious "win".

    Even when they have to lose to "win".


    The (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 07:21:16 AM EST
    GOP always pulls this "division" rhetoric. Yeah, the Clintons "divide" but it's 2/3 vs. your 1/3. I would really call that more unity that division and as a matter of fact Obama actually tried to work with you guys (which I think was a big mistake) and he even got called "divisive". What needs to be done is someone stomp the neck of the crazies and send them off into oblivion instead of trying to work with them. There's really no point in trying to hold hands with someone who will slap your hand when it is outstretched.

    First of all, by 2016, it will have been (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 08:43:45 AM EST
    16 years since Bill Clinton left the White House; if he is a factor at all, it won't be because of concerns about his age or his health, but possibly about his - and her - finances.

    Second, please do a little reading on the appropriate use of the apostrophe; here's a handy reference.

    Third, Obama's going to walk off the stage and do one or more of the following: (1) write a book, (2) make a ton of money from speaking engagements, (3) be named to the boards of big corporations where the directors' fees are more than most people make in a year, (4) get a cushy job on Wall Street - or all of the above.  I truly do not see him getting involved much on a partisan basis in issues that matter to Democrats, but I definitely see him offering his services as a unifier/mediator.  I can also see him joining forces with people like Simpson/Bowles and others who are antithetical to liberal/progressive causes.

    Fourth, the levels of division that are going to matter in the 2016 campaign - and to an extent in the 2014 mid-terms - are those that separate the sane from the insane.  And that's going to be more of a problem for Republicans than Democrats.  Much more.

    Finally, I have a case of Hillary fatigue.  I love her energy, I admire and respect her work ethic and her ability to learn and assess vast quantities of information, I support many of her positions on domestic issues - but - she's as corporate as anyone, she'd a hard-line hawk, and she hasn't shown much displeasure, alarm or concern about the massive data collection and intrusions into our privacy.  The things that follow the "but" are the things that will likely have me voting Green, again.


    It just occurred to me, Anne (none / 0) (#43)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:23:31 AM EST
    Maybe she has to be a hawk because otherwise people might say "a woman can't make the decision to go to war!"  Of course, that's crap, but you never know...

    Anybody who still says that ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 08:42:32 PM EST
    ... never heard of Margaret Thatcher. Her April 1982 decision to send that Royal Navy task force into the South Atlantic to eject the Argentine military from the Falkland Islands and restore British sovereignty was as gutsy a call as any male leader has ever made.

    The Ironing Lady can't be dead enough for (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    me. Not that there was ever any danger of her ever being fully alive to begin with. Eff Mrs Pinochet-Thatcher and whatever horse she rode off on.

    Her "gutsy call" was, from where I sit, primarily a cynical, cold-blooded act of Imperial grandstanding..a tawdry attempt to tap into whatever
    residual pride-in-Empire was left among the great English downsized and disaffected..

    As they used to say about Patton: her guts and their blood.    


    Ding Dong ! (none / 0) (#93)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    Just out of interest, so don't read me wrong, (none / 0) (#92)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:24:27 PM EST
    I don't know if the apostrophe has different in the US to in the UK but for over here the "handy reference" is incomplete in respect of plural nouns and personal names ending in an "s". And if we do go by the same rules then IMO The Oxford Dictionary guide is perhaps better and more complete.

    Oooops! (none / 0) (#94)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:30:21 PM EST
    Pls read "has different rules in the US to in the UK".

    You don't know Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#101)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    she is not a hawk nor is she particularly "corporate".  She's not Bill, she is not Bill, she is not Bill. Get to know her, not the lefty's imaginary version of her.  

    You left off the snark tag, Teresa... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    and if you were being serious, I give you the LOL Award for the day.

    Never said she was Bill, but she is a hawk, and if her donor list is any indication, she's got plenty of corporate running through her veins.

    I learned a lot about Hillary back during the 2008 campaign, when the blogs were eating her alive, and I felt an obligation to get my own facts straight - after which I spent most of my time defending her and debunking the garbage that was being said about her.

    I have a fair amount of respect for her, and I'm not saying that she isn't great on issues of women and children, and I'm not saying she's a  let-them-eat-cake kind of person.

    There are worse people who could run for president - and many of them will - but I'm just so over voting for the least bad candidate, and I'm not going to do it anymore.  Some elections, that may mean no one gets my vote - some it may mean I vote Green - it'll depend on who's running and what's important to me at the time.

    But, please get over the notion that you're the only one who knows who Clinton really is, and all the rest of us are just suffering under illusions and delusions.


    "She is not a hawk" (none / 0) (#111)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:34:25 PM EST

    I can't (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:01:06 AM EST
    understand why Bill's health would be an issue - unless Hillary were to cite it as a reason for not running.

    Obama isn't going to walk off stage, he has control over the democratic machine that got him elected, and its doubtful that the winner of the primaries won't be his choice.

    Obama is not going to walk off the stage, but he may be quietly ushered off once his eight years of fame has elapsed.

    In my opinion, Obama has no control of any democratic machine.
    It has total control over him. He does what the machine tells him to do. He doesn't do what the machine tells him not to do. It has worked for him.

    Of course one would expect that he will endorse, if anyone cares by that time, the designated heir or heiress presumptive to his mantle. But by that time, he may be in the same dustbin in which W. found himself by the time of the republican conventions of 2008 and 2012 during which he was barely mentioned.


    I believe he (none / 0) (#87)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:00:28 AM EST
    has control of the $ donated, the donor and voter lists and the machine.  I wouldn't count his influence or that of his supporters out so soon....

    he used to have control of all of (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    those things.  Not anymore. He may still control the campaign money but he will be forced to use it the way the 2016 nominee wants because the party has about had it with him.

    Obama is a Star Pol (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:04:04 AM EST
    And he is young, he is going to be around politics a looong time, imo.

    if he is not the candidate for the next (none / 0) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 04:56:09 PM EST
    big office, he could not care less about what is going on with democratic politics.  He won't be around...kind of like George Bush the lesser is not around.

    It won't be the campaign ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    If HRC runs expect the campaign to set new levels of division within the country win or lose it won't be pretty or get smoothed over.

    It will be the wingers who go there, and they will do it regardless of which Democrat is the nominee.  You can't let the crazies dictate the choice of candidate.


    Mikado Cat: "Obama isn't going to walk off stage, he has control over the democratic machine that got him elected, and its doubtful that the winner of the primaries won't be his choice."

    ... and have never attended a Democratic convention on a county, state or national level, you really shouldn't be asserting such assumptions about people you really don't know -- never mind believing that there is some sort of "Democratic machine" that yanks our strings like we're a bunch of marionettes.

    Democrats have a wide diversity of thought and opinion, and the biggest mistake that Beltway-based political prognosticators and pundits regularly make is to believe their own so-called "conventional wisdom" about what Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters will do at the polls.

    Trust me, if their conventional wisdom was really as reliable as they seem to think it is, Linda Lingle and Colleen Hanabusa would be Hawaii's U.S. senators right now rather than Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, and Christine Quinn would be the overwhelming favorite to become the next mayor of New York City instead of Bill de Blasio.



    The Obama machine, (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 10:52:05 PM EST
    if there is such a thing, will probably support Hillary as will most Democrats....

    Bill's age and health issues?  Why would such a thing matter to Hillary's campaign. I mean, I hope Bill stays in good health, but he is not running.


    What if Biden runs? (none / 0) (#13)
    by unitron on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 05:23:22 AM EST
    Will the "Obama machine" still support Hillary?

    The prospect of another Biden candidacy... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    ...is something I really loathe. Just the memories of him donning his Princeton baseball cap during the Alito confirmation hearings, and his dismissive treatment of Anita Hill during the Thomas confirmation hearings is enough to keep me wretching. The Repubs will go after him on the plagiarism stuff, no doubt. He's not a shoo-in, by any measure, and I think he would come across as wacky Uncle Joe against Hilary in a primary.

    There is no Obama machine (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    Biden will likely not run if Hillary does.....   Hillary has already run against Biden....



    Why are they "decoding Hillary"? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 10:21:19 PM EST
    Isn't that Fox News's job?


    She'll be (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 06:00:54 AM EST
    one of the status quo candidates.
    Imagine you are riding comfortably on a sleek train. You look out the window and see that the tracks end abruptly not too far ahead ... The train will derail if it continues. You suggest the train stop immediately and the passengers go forward on foot. This will require a major shift in everyone's way of traveling, of course, but you see it as the only realistic option. To continue barreling forward is to court catastrophic consequences. But when you propose this course of action, others - who have grown comfortable riding on the train - say, "We like the train, and arguing that we should get off is not realistic."

    Harlan Ellison (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    was probably right, I think...

    If she runs (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    I will vote for Hillary, not enthusiastically this time, but because she is typically the smartest person in the room.  If somehow she wins, it's going to be a nice change to have someone who can speak off the cuff without either a teleprompter or well, without sounding George Bush or John Kerry stupid.  None of the establishment candidates will get us out of the mess we're in, including Hillary.  The one thing we might have with her is that she's at the end of her run, so maybe the powers that be won't be as influential over her?  Maybe.

    My maternal aunt and grandmother died at exactly 67, 20 years apart of a most similar cancer (bully for the state of cancer research, LOL).  My mom died of un-natural causes (Reagan killed her in my mind.  Ask if you'd like.).  I figure I'm of the same genetics, so I have 16 years of life to go, and likely none of these establishment-ers will destroy the country completely in that time.  I have no kids, thankfully, so 16 years is the duration of time that I care about.  It's sad, it's giving up, but it's what this country and our "leaders" have brought me to.

    But Hillary will probably get us thru another 4 years.  And then she'll be too old, so who knows what.  But then only 9 years to go....

    Don't get too hung up on the age thing, Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 06:12:07 PM EST
    My mother died when I was 6 years old ... she was but 30 years young.  Melanoma does not respect age.  My dad -- who engaged in his favorite hobby, ice-dancing, the eve before he died suddenly of cardiac arrest -- was only 65 years old (per the doctor, a result of having had scarlet fever as a toddler, which emerged at 60 as cardiomyopathy.)  Of course, the "age thing" has weighed on my mind at times.  But, the reality is that "we never know" in any event; and so, the "age thing" means nothing.

    If Hillary Clinton is healthy, that is what counts.  We know she can do it ... and that is what really counts.  (BTW, I disagree strongly about any hint that President Obama is anything other than smart, astute, and a more than capable speaker ... with or without a teleprompter.  Cautious in terms of Presidential statements equates only with caution, which in itself has been quite a good change from the mouth-running GWB.)


    I have no doubt she could handle one (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    term, but we know the job ages everyone who takes it, so, would she run if she thought she'd realistically only be a one-term president?  Wasn't that one of the concerns about McCain - that he'd only last one term and then we'd have you-know-who waiting in the wings?

    How would being a lame-duck president from the get-go affect things?  Seems like it would put a lot of emphasis on who she picks as VP - and maybe that's the thing that tips the scales one way or the other.

    I don't know.  I'm pretty much dreading the whole process and hoping I have more grandchildren to distract me from the sh!tshow it's going to be no matter who runs...


    I don't (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    think the age thing is going to matter. I thought the concern about McCain's age was bogus and as we can see, he's still alive and kicking. Besides she's a woman and women tend to stay healthy longer than men.

    The ageism was always a cheap (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 07:15:34 AM EST
    substanceless Bill Maher-level red herring..

    What do they want? A tanned, impulse-buying President with pects and abs, just back from spring break in Cancun?


    Really? (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    You're worried about Hillary's age when she runs in 2020 before she's decided to run in 2016? I believe you already said you'd likely vote for Jill Stein again in 2016, so you should have no emotional tie in the next presidential election anyway. You can block the whole thing out.

    p.s. Wrote you a note on the NFL thread. Almost ready to concede to you that my preconceived Raven thoughts on the year were wrong.


    I'm not worried about Hillary at all... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    just musing about whether she'd truly want to commit to 8 years as president, which is like 20 years to the rest of us...

    And I think that will be a question that's asked of her, and I think it may affect her VP selection, that's all.

    I think, if I can be a little huffy, just because I will likely vote Green in 2016 doesn't mean I don't have an emotional tie in the election - although I like to think it's not "emotional" like teenage hero worship, but like damnit-I-care-about-this-country.  And I do - care, that is.  I think, as a citizen, I'm invested in the outcome, even if I'm not writing checks all over the place.

    [responded to your comment in the football thread; it's early in the season, so who knows what things will look like even at mid-season]


    Out of Touch Much? (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 03:20:14 PM EST
    she'd truly want to commit

    She was born to be president. You act as if she was not a hard core politician..  but I guess that is her charm, she makes you feel like she is a regular person..  

    Well she is not, she is driven.

    IMO, Hillary will be president for at least 4 years and will certainly run for the second term.


    I'm well aware of her drive; when she was (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    in the Senate, a friend of my daughter's interned in her DC office, and he just could not get over how much information they were required to compile and provide for her every day - her appetite for it was limitless, or so it seemed to him.

    And in the 2008 election, I became quite familiar with her background, her track record, etc., in an effort to debunk the garbage people were saying about her, and try to educate them as to the facts.

    So, please - don't lecture me about her drive.

    I have no illusions about her status as a hard-core politician - she lives and breathes that stuff - but she's also human, and not a machine.  And whether she runs or she doesn't, gets elected or doesn't, there will be no grass growing under her feet: she will get involved in areas that interest her and in which she thinks she can make a difference.

    Her charm?  I've never been the recipient of it, only an observer from afar, but I can assure you that "charm" is not what has put Hillary where she is today, with an array of extraordinary choices in front of her.  Oh, she's charming - or so it seems - but it's been good, old-fashioned hard work, top-notch intellect, a prodigious appetite for knowledge that have gotten her where she is.

    But she's not a machine; if she were, she'd still be Secretary of State, don't you think?  She had some health scares, appeared visibly haggard at times - so I don't think it's unreasonable to ponder whether she'd want to commit to 8 years in a grueling job.

    Oh, and as I mentioned in an earlier comment, the closer examination of Clinton finances?  It's here, if this is any indication:

    An in-depth piece on longtime President Clinton aide Doug Band has exposed the Clinton Global Initiative as a den of favor trading between Clinton family members and corporate executives. The article published by the New Republic titled Scandal at Clinton Inc. How Doug Band drove a wedge through a political dynasty, details at length how Teneo Founder Doug Band worked his way into President Clinton's orbit then built a lucrative network of clients for his company based off of leveraging Clinton's name.

    But within the lengthy piece is another interesting story - how the Clinton Global Initiative functions as a place to make deals, trade favors, and have politicians help Big Business assist with PR problems.  

    Welcome to the sh!tshow...


    Lecture? (1.50 / 2) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    You are the TL lecturer, in essay form that is..  

    As I said, her charm is that she appears human..  she is a master politician..  so it comes as no surprise that you and others would worry about her.


    I've been hoping HRC would be distracted (none / 0) (#70)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    enough by Chelsea giving her grandchildren in the near future to not want to go through another campaign.

    I suppose they'll (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    have to have a Romanov-like, multi-million dollar christening when that happens, as well..

    OK, that made me laugh! (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    But I have the impression that Chelsea is much more of a private person than her parents, and her hubby is Jewish, so...maybe or maybe not a christening...

    jeez, because she would be the first (none / 0) (#113)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:42:13 PM EST
    president with grandchildren.  Yup, just give a woman children or grandchildren and watch their professional drive disappear.  /annoyance

    Your intentional misdirections are tiresome (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    and they are certainly misdirections. Quit reading things into what people write. Seems you are taking this discussion way too personally

    The Clintons have never been (none / 0) (#112)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    "the establishment candidates". The establishment can barely stand them.  Obama was the establishment candidate in 2008.  He got more corporate and establishment support than either Clinton or McCain.
    The establishment is elitist.  The elitists have no love for the Clinton's.  I am always surprised when someone doesn't know that.
    The democratic party will embrace Clinton because they believe women and minorities will back her...but only if they can not knock her out of the race first.

    Who did they get all that (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 06:32:14 PM EST
    campaign funding from, the underground counterculture?

    I'm all Clinton'ed out... (none / 0) (#80)
    by unitron on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 05:12:07 PM EST
    ...but I'm sure the Republicans will find someone capable of scaring me into voting for her anyway.

    Well, the Republicans only have 2 kinds (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    of candidates: scary or stupid. And sometimes a combination of both.