A Group of Hillary's Advisers Are Ready, But is Hillary?

Politico today has an article, Hillary Clinton's Shadow Campaign, about a group of her supporters gearing up for 2016.

More than two dozen people in her orbit interviewed for this article described a virtual campaign in waiting — a term that itself makes some of Clinton’s supporters bristle — consisting of longtime Clinton loyalists as well as people who worked doggedly to elect her onetime rival Obama.

It says there's a group of insiders and ones not so close, and they don't always see eye to eye.

The article has some speculation about who might be at the helm of her 2016 campaign, and some details about the roles of Bill and Chelsea (who has hinted 2014 may be the year for a baby.)

In interviews for this article, just about every close Hillary Clinton ally, asked to describe who is at the top of her organizational chart, gives the same answer: Chelsea....But in terms of 2016, people close to the Clintons say it is difficult to divine whether Chelsea wants her mother to run.

The bottom line is that no one knows whether Hillary will run. I'm sure it's tempting, but I tend to think she won't run.

< DOJ to Spend $544k to Increase Presence on Linked-In | New York To Allow Limited Medical Marijuana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I Hope Hillary Will Run (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by john horse on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:53:03 AM EST

    I want Hillary to run for the same reason that I supported her over 8 years ago.  If anything her credentials are even stronger now than they were then, with her service to our country as Secretary of State.  

    Why do you tend to think she won't run?  

    UI extension just passed the cloture vote (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    A handful of Republicans bucked their party's stance.

    It's somewhat comforting to discover this (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    discussion hasn't yet reached 200 comments.

    NYT at least attempts to rationalize (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 10:28:22 PM EST
    relying on unidentified sources. The same can't be said re Politico here.

    Her potential supporters have (none / 0) (#2)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:58:08 AM EST
    been lining up as well as her detractors. She must be in a very strange political (and personal) position. MT recently cited NoQuarter about another subject and I checked in with that site. It used to be a pro-Hillary site but now is extremely anti-Hillary. It seems purely emotional - about her allying with Obama and the democratic party and they hate that. Their political  views seem to be merely a response to the emotional.

    I wonder if the extreme (apparent) divides in this country are just recent. I don't have a good perspective on that.

    I don't like the Clinton's (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:19:28 AM EST
    They are a concentration of everything bad about politics, and misuse of power. I doubt I will be consulted regarding her running, so what I think doesn't matter much, but it seems to me that Obama isn't going to just hand over the power structure within the Democrat party, and I think he has a pretty firm grip on it right now.

    What's in it for Obama if Hillary runs?

    Healthcare used to be her main focus, if elected she would be sure to rework Obamacare into her own vision. Not the legacy I think Obama has in mind.

    First of all (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:14:31 AM EST
    There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" - it's the "Democratic Party".


    ...but it seems to me that Obama isn't going to just hand over the power structure within the Democrat party, and I think he has a pretty firm grip on it right now.

    I disagree.  He has a few more months left and then he is a lame duck. And HRC is in a unique position within the party in that she has a base as large as, if not larger, than the "head" of the party, namely - Obama. She is not a governor, representative, nor a junior senator, where she needs to be "introduced" to the rest of the country, and will need the backing of Obama and the national party to do that - everyone knows her already.

    What's in it for Obama if Hillary runs?

    To start, it will help to ensure that his policies have a good chance of being continued, as she was someone in his cabinet and was privy to the inner workings of part of his administration.  But, other than that, the bigger question is:  Who cares what's in it for Obama if Hillary runs?


    You may not like "the Clinton's," but (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:22:15 AM EST
    I don't like people who don't know the difference between the possessive and the plural, or how to use an apostrophe.

    So there.

    Not really a fan of Bill Clinton, for reasons I've stated here on numerous occasions, and while I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary, the bloom is off that particular rose and I don't see myself voting for her if she runs in 2016.  Been over that ground as well, so not going to repeat it here.

    As for Obama, I predict that all you'll see of him after the 2016 election is a dust trail, that's how fast he will disengage in order to take advantage of all those great corporate connections he made over the last 8 years.

    I suspect that for Obama, 2016 can't come fast enough.


    So, Anne, how do you feel about (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    the plural vs. the singular, as in "A Group of Hillary's Advisers [Is] Ready ...."? Or does "group," as a collective noun, permissibly take a plural verb in your book?

    I believe that it should take the (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    singular "is" and not the plural "are."  "Group" is a collective noun, but it takes a singular verb.  

    You wouldn't say, "A Group Are Ready," would you?  But with the addition of "of Hillary's advisers," the plural "are" doesn't sound wrong to most people.

    There are a million rules of grammar that get mangled - and I'm sure I violate my share of them! - but the use of the possessive to connote plurality ("the Clinton's") is one that particularly sets my teeth on edge - and we see it everywhere.  


    On (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    the other hand, I have seen the audience "are", as well as the audience "is".

    I think the Brits are more prone to use the "are".


    Since you are a sports fan, here's a grammar segue (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    Regarding (none / 0) (#9)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    any possible (although unlikely) positive evolution of our system of government, 2016 can't come fast enough for me either.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    this is what people like Rush and Hannity are telling you but when have they ever been honest with the likes of you?

    You can't even say the party name correctly so do you really think anybody is going to take antyhing you say seriously? LOL.

    The only thing i can say is that when she's president you guys are going to long for the days of the kumbaya let's hold hands with the GOP Obama days.


    I am confident would prefer Mrs. Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:16:17 PM EST
    as caretaker, improver of the ACA as opposed to a GOP President elected on the promise to scuttle the ACA.

    "I am confident Pres. Obama...." (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    Nothing in it for Obama re Hillary. (none / 0) (#8)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    "...it seems to me that Obama isn't going to just hand over the power structure within the Democrat(sic) party, and I think he has a pretty firm grip on it right now."

    I have no such sense at all.

    The Democratic party is very ill-defined at this time imo. And Obama is in no position to "hand over" anything.

    Sometimes it behaves, even most of the time, like a continuation of the Bush administration. The intensification of the worst provisions of the Patriot Act being a case in point. The persecution and prosecution of whistle-blowers is another.

    Be that as it may, whatever the Democratic Party may be, I sense that it has a grip on Obama, rather than the other way around.

    If Hillary decides to run, I'm sure that Obama will put up at least an appearance of support for her - although it seems obvious to me that there is no chemistry between them whatsoever. He will act as a loyal partisan, and let the wind blow wherever it might before he begins the next phase of his career.


    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    Bill and Michelle will be happy to know that you see no chemistry whatsoever between Barack and Hillary.

    Oh my gawd, think of the media blitz were (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:43:40 PM EST
    this not true. [Reference point is our Pres. And Ms. Obama at Mandela funeral.]

    I think one of the primary motivations (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    for Hillary to run would be her disappointment in the type of Democrat Obama has turned out to be. I'm not saying she is a wide eyed raving Liberal (too bad) but, I believe that on the issues that most interest me: rebuilding the middle class, investing in the poor, re-aligning the income gap, and education for our kids, she would be more involved than the current, Mr. Aloof.

    You are correct (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    But good thing she isn't a "a wide eyed raving Liberal" because that kind of person would never get elected president.  Most people in this country are not "a wide eyed raving Liberals", but rather, middle of the road, so if you want someone to push for those things you care most about (such as your list), she might be a good candidate for you to consider.

    Lol, (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:04:08 AM EST
    I was hoping I could slip in a little hyperbole/poetic license, but, nothing gets past "eagle eyes," jbindc.

    Bernie Sanders would be my first choice, but, I haven't lost all touch with reality either.


    It wasn't really directed at you (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    But for some who hold out hope against hope that a "real librul" will actuall stand a chance.  :)

    I think (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:10:56 AM EST
    that a real librul does in fact stand a chance of winning the general election. A very good chance.

    The major stumbling block is the grip that the dems and repubs (tweedle dee and dumb) have on the process that gives us our choice between a lunatic and a phony.

    But if we had a chance to vote for someone who really cared about us - and was dedicated to improving our lives - we would.


    I think the real problem, and the reason (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:52:21 AM EST
    good candidates don't have a chance, can be laid at the feet of campaign finance - which was already a problem before the Citizens United decision, but has become even more of a stumbling block in the wake of that decision.

    The Koch brothers and their web of "fundraising organizations" raised over $400 million in 2012 - an they've gone to extensive efforts to hide the sources of those funds.  The money's there, the transparency is not, so you see or hear an advocacy ad and have no way of knowing who is really behind it.  Influence and power is what it's all about, influencing policy to ultimately put more money in the already-bulging pockets of corporate and wealthy interests.

    It's all about the money.  Not that there's anything particularly new about that, but it's reached a level where "greedy" and "gluttonous" seem like apt ways to describe it.  

    Lambert at Corrente has put forth a "12-plank platform," here:

    A living wage. It's ridiculous to have retail wage so low people have to work and (which is another kind of work, a tax on time, though more degrading) get welfare too.
    Medicare for all. Duh! Would be wildly popular, unlike this P.O.S. ObamaCare Rube Goldberg contraption.

    Tax the rich. Not for revenue, because taxes don't fund spending. But to prevent the rich from buying up the political system with their loose cash, and also to prevent the formation of an aristocracy of inherited wealth. Basically, this is shorthand for a steeply progressive tax system. Say, like Eisenhower's, with the 91% top rate.

    Post Office bank. It's ridiculous that there's even a category like the unbanked, or a "check cashing industry." It's also ridiculous for people to hand over their household money to the banksters so they can piss it away playing the ponies. So have a public bank where dull normals can put their money. As a side benefit, prevent the destruction of the Post Office by privatizing weasels.

    Jobs guarantee. Everybody who wants one should have a job, always. (I could be persuaded on a basic income guarantee, but haven't been.)

    Debt jubilee. If it can't be paid back, it won't be. Goes for student loans, especially.

    Net neutrality. We don't have a new media without this.

    End the wars. All wars, including the Drug Wars, and its concomitant, the militarized police. We've got two ocean and nukes. Fk the empire.

    Restore the Bill of Rights. Like Madison would want. That includes defining email and data on personal devices of all kinds as "papers and effects" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It also defines government installed surveillance software as "quartering of soldiers."

    Many co-ops. See Gar Alperowitz. A more humane workplace, a less vicious Gini Co-efficient.

    Few banksters. Few banksters, doing boring things. A return to the 3-6-3 rule: "[B]ankers would give 3% interest on depositors' accounts, lend the depositors money at 6% interest and then be playing golf at 3pm.

    Carbon negative economy. Better have a plan B when the fracking wells run dry! Also, very good jobs. And "a shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world.

    And it seems like it's time to start asking - loudly and often - questions like, "who are we?"  "Who do we want to be?"  "How much is enough?"  "What is the lowest standard of living we're willing to accept, for ourselves, for our families, for our neighbors, for our fellow human beings?"  "what kind of country do we want to live in?"

    The current system is working quite well for the few who are benefiting at the expense of the rest of us, which is why I despair of there being any significant change - at least in my lifetime.  So, whether others consider that to not matter or that it's "wasting my vote," I will continue to deny the major parties, who really are part and parcel of why the system is where it is, my cooperation or compliance with it or my acceptance of it by not being guilted or shamed or bullied into voting for whichever representative of the corporatocracy gets the nomination.

    Enough is enough for this liberal; it really ought to be enough for people across the political spectrum, but I can only speak for myself.


    If we (none / 0) (#56)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:06:29 AM EST
    don't support our real choices, or presume they haven't got a chance, they will in fact, de facto, have no chance.

    Gene McCarthy didn't have a chance... but at least his strong showing forced LBJ to smell the coffee and leave.

    I believe that a strong personality - someone who truly believes in what they are saying - can turn the tides and move mountains.

    Of course, they also tend to get assassinated...


    Schweitzer may run (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    and challenge Hillary from the Left.

    I don't (none / 0) (#55)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:02:06 AM EST
    buy the "most people are middle-of-the-road" meme.

    What does it even mean?

    Everybody wants a little more money in their pockets.
    Everybody wants a place to live.

    That's a good starting point.

    It is what the pols all claim they can deliver... and then they morph into Iran-bombers.

    Remember Biden in 2008 ... "It's all about a three letter word - J O B S".

    What is even a fringe position these days?
    Is NSA snooping, drone bombing to be considered mainstream?

    What is going on?


    "Middle of the road" (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:19:27 AM EST
    Most people in this country, in poll after poll, support social issues that side with the Dems - abortion rights, access to better education, immigration, gay marriage, etc.

    But those same people also (and in some cases, in contradiction to,) support things like lower taxes and more fiscal discipline by the government, a strong military and national defense, and (a subject that's really popular around here) things like more cops - AKA "law and order".

    A Jill Stein or Dennis Kucinich will never win the presidence.

    That's not to say that you shouldn't support someone that and force the mainstream candidate to at least address your concerns.  Part of the problem is, a candidate has to troll for the most votes while trying not to p!$$ too many voters off and instead of trying to be all things to everybody, they should explain it like, "While Green Party Candidate X has some good ideas about Y, here's why it won't work in reality."

    They treat us like we are stupid, and then we behave like we are stupid by stomping our feet and plugging our ears and saying, "Well, I don't agree with you on A, B, and C, so I won't vote for you even if agree with you on F-Z".

    It's a viscious cycle.


    Grr - typos (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:20:51 AM EST
    Would love a feature to edit after a comment has been posted on the new site.

    The way (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:58:15 AM EST
    of determining whether a majority of people support crap like a "strong national defense" is highly questionable imo.

    A lot depends upon how the question is asked.

    If people are asked whether they support being protected from godless heathens, they will probably say yes.

    If they were to be asked whether they would prefer that the government provide us with heating subsidies instead of new and deadlier drones, they might respond yes.

    I don't buy polling as a means of determining what the middle of the road is. It is all skewed by corporate media and corrupt politicians who are out to genuflect to the corporations who pay them to lobby in their behalf.

    What is stupid to me, to use your word, is voting for someone who is largely indifferent to our well-being. And lately, we have had no other choice provided by either party.

    If you want to hold your nose when you vote, that is your right. Perhaps you are doing the right thing - the intelligent thing.

    But I can't do it.
    At least, when I see the ineptitude on one side, and callous evil on the other side, I can say that I didn't vote for either of those azzhçles.


    Well, then (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:34:46 AM EST
    You will be disappointed in every candidate (not that I blame you - they pretty much all suck), and you will never be happy with the state of the world.

    It is your right not to vote for anybody, as I don't think there are any candidate who will appeal to you. But I'm not sure what you are holding out for - you think a "white knight" will appear and swoop in and save the day? I'm not sure why you don't believe people when they say they support things like gay marriage, abortion rights, marijuana legalization, but they also want a strong military and more cops on the street - many, many, many times over.

    Me - I'd rather vote for someone who agrees with me 75% of the time and even if they can't get everything done the way I want them to get done, at least makes an attempt of fighting for it.  I understand that our country and our government was founded on the very principle of compromise - so to expect to get everything I want would be ludicrous. I'd rather try to advance the ball then sit and wring my hands over how it's not perfect.


    Its (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    not that I want to get "everything I want".

    It's that I would like to vote for someone I can feel is at least genuine - and with the best interests of the people at heart.

    I'll give you an example: Malcolm X.

    We have made a big mistake, imo, in marginalizing this giant among people. It's true that his focus was on the fate of black people in this country.

    The mistake we make is in thinking that we are not black people in this country. If you don't have money - you're black.

    At heart, he was a populist. He cared for people.
    And he was honest. He spoke from the heart and from his intelligence. He was constitutionally unable to compromise when it came to principle.
    He was also flexible - not doctrinaire.

    There are many videos on Youtube of him speaking and you will get the sense of what I mean. He could speak SPONTANEOUSLY. He did not need to parse his words - even in the face of threats against his life.

    That is an honest politician.
    I think we have a right to hold out for someone like him - if that is even possible.

    I am not so much issue oriented as I am oriented to discern whether someone is real, or b.s.ing us.

    And another thing: Even taking what you said - you'd go with someone on issues if they agreed with you around 75% of the time. What if the 25% that you didn't agree with involved the targeted assassinations of civilians? What then? Would some issues outweigh others for you?

    Look: I don't disparage you or even disagree with your modus operandi. You are voting for the person you think will best represent you.

    When I find someone who I feel will represent me, I'll consider it.

    Until then, as I said, I'm glad I didn't vote for the incumbent or his opponent. It makes it a little bit easier to sleep at night.


    Yes, some issues would outweigh others for me (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    But, in all honesty, there are some issues which affect me and mine a little more personally than others.  I can't do anything about foreign policy, and frankly, sitting behind our computers, we have no idea of the entirety of the story of what's going on in foreign policy decisions.  I am much more concerned with domestic policy.

    [Personally, I wouldn't count Malcom X as an "honest politician" (especially being a convicted burglar and thief, and as someone who advocated for segregation), but that's just my thought.]

    Anyone who has a large following is lying about something to someone - you never know what is all real. I guess that's where I have always been different in my support of HRC in 2008, (and again if she runs), vs. many of those who supported BHO.  I'm not looking to fall in love with wonderfulness and awesomeness - I'm looking for someone who's willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work.  Are they going to disappoint me?  Yep.  Is big money a factor in many of those decisions?  Yep.  Is every decision going to be good for all people?  Nope.  But that's life. SOMEONE is going to be president. But what we've had in the latest couple of elections are crazy people vs. someone in over his head.

    And even if your perfect candidate would run and, my guess is, they would do many things that would disappoint you - out of necessity to compromise, out of better information than we peons have down here, and /or out of the corruption that comes with being in power.


    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    sorry - but your little comment about Malcolm is so ignorant I just can't continue this dialogue.

    Ignorant? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    You are being very kind here, lentinel. I would call it something else.

    Shrug (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:40:54 PM EST

    What is with people always referencing Jill Stein (none / 0) (#63)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:49:18 AM EST
    She's has been a perennial losing candidate dropping 5 of her 7 campaigns, winning only 2 town council elections.

    At least Kucinich has won something, although even he managed to garner only 2 delegates during two presidential campaigns.

    The TL folks pining for the Jill Steins of the world remind me of a line from English Poet John Cleveland: "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads".


    It's the platform more than anything, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    and Stein just happens to be the one fronting it.

    I don't expect anyone with any kind of real vision for a country I'm proud to live in to stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election as long as elections continue to be awash in corporate, special-interest money from anonymous donors.

    But I can get behind a platform that represents my interests - I gotta start somewhere.


    That is Absurd, IMO (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    Hilary and Obama are exactly the same type of Democrat, MAINSTREAM.

    If what you were saying were true, Hillary would have run against Obama in 2012.

    It never ceases to amaze me how some on this site see Hillary and Obama as apples and oranges. Weird.... but it does highlight a great human trait: Imagination.


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton, the incumbent Secretary of State in 2012, would have run against the sitting president of her own party. Riiiigggghhhhttt....

    Speaking of imagination......


    Yes Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    And a lot less absurd than this:

    I think one of the primary motivations for Hillary to run would be her disappointment in the type of Democrat Obama has turned out to be.

    If Hillary was ever unhappy with the type of Democrat Obama had become, it would have been at its height in the run up to the 2008 Presidential election.

    She would have turned down his SOS offer and run in 2012.

    What a load.. but not surprising around here.


    Except Barack Obama's presidency had not (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    yet begun during the 2008 Presidential campaign.

    Quelle Surprise! (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    Waiting for the rest of the Club to chime in to bash Obama and Praise Hillary as the ONE coming to rescue us from the big O disappointment.

    Just parsing your comment, which doesn't (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    make sense as written. I don't have a dog in the 2016 Dem. race as yet. Well, not Biden.

    It seems (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:17:42 PM EST
    to me that Obama and Hillary are on different sides of the same coin.

    They both appear to have values - but the sense I get from both of them is they also share an unbridled capacity to sell out.

    Obama is entirely self-involved. He's made it. He's rich. His career is winding down. He can have his own talk show or something if he wants. So charismatic, you know.

    Hillary is exhausted. She has been through the wringer. I believe she took the SOS job with someone she obviously despises because she wanted to keep herself in the public eye should she wish to run in '16. But like Jeralyn, I wouldn't be surprised if she says "no mas".

    She's rich. She can do as she wishes.
    What does she need with the presidency - and all the mumbo-jumbo about terrorist threats and the rest?


    Not to mention 4-8 years of dealing with (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    more or less the same lame Congress that Obama has been dealing with. I don't know why anyone with all of her other options would take that job - not only take it, but devote 2 years of her life to running for it. No thank you.

    In fact if she shows such poor judgement as to run I will have to wonder.

    She can do a lot more good for the world working for the Clinton Foundation. I feel sure that is what Chelsea will tell her.


    A catch 22. (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:55:29 AM EST
    If she doesn't run, you can't vote for her.

    If she does decide to run, it would show such poor judgement that you wouldn't vote for her.

    Works for me.


    Yes (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:08:43 AM EST
    What a load.. but not surprising around here.

    Describes most of your comments here.


    Would (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:02:03 PM EST
    that that were true.

    You may be right, of course, but Hillary, especially in foreign affairs, appears to me to be as hawkish as anyone. And distraction by foreign affairs - especially the cyclical need to appear "tough" and bomb someone or threaten someone - and with it the enormous diversion of our resources to military hardware spying technology, is something that she identifies with and is drawn to.

    So, whatever her sympathies may be, her propensity to go to the right would sink any possibility to accomplish the more lofty goals of economic equality, education etc. They would take a back seat and be lost - as has happened with so many other "liberals" who cannot liberate themselves from the gargantuan military-industrial-legislative-corporate complex into which we have become completely and inextricably mired.


    Given her previously-demonstrated interest (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    in legislation to improve health care availabilty in the U.S., and in the situations of needy children, I would expect Mrs. Clinton to make every effort, if she were elected Presiident, would use her power and influence to gain improvements in these areas.

    I believe (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    that she has previously demonstrated interest in the subjects you mention.

    That may be where her heart is.

    But, I seriously doubt that she is capable of not being distracted by apparent threats from terrorists, Iran, North Korea etc. - the darlings of the military-industrial complex - and the corporations from whom she is bound to take money to fund a campaign.

    And I also think that she has the urge to appear "tough".
    Whatever she may think about the NSA, and the treatment of Snowden, remains a mystery - at least to me.

    In brief: I don't know where she is. Just as I have no idea where Obama is. Or Biden. What I do know is that I would not be motivated to vote for her - no matter what she winds up saying.
    (And forget Biden as well.)


    Ummmmm (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:56:01 PM EST
    Well, that is exactly the problem I have, lentinel.
    But then, I am an old left-wing hippie, so what the heck do I know?  Nobody in the Democratic Party speaks to me now.
    And I also realize that nobody who is on the same page that I am has any chance of being nominated or elected.  
    What can I say?  :-(

    What (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:06:36 PM EST
    would be a step in the right direction would be to break the stranglehold that the dems and repubs have on the presidential debates.

    If that monopoly could be broken - if third party candidates were allowed - that could make a difference.

    That's how Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota. He was way behind until somehow he got into the debate between the "major" candidates - and he won.

    Maybe if we apply pressure somehow to the media to open the debates, we might get somewhere. Why can't the networks present their own debates - and open them to all candidates? To he!! with the two party monopoly and the unholy alliance with the corporate media.

    We have to figure a way around those corrupt relics.

    I also remember how Ross Perot shook things up.
    He was a strange and somewhat creepy duck - but he had a lot of money and he wound up in the debates. He withdrew after there were supposed threats to disrupt his daughter's wedding. More than likely, the threats were to rip his head off.
    So he withdrew. But for a while there, the two party system was teetering.  

    So maybe we can find a way.


    Ross Perot (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    was all about the deficit....Which was not such a problem.

    Ross Perot was also all about (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    being adamantly opposed to NAFTA.  

    I was never an advocate of NAFTA, (none / 0) (#101)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 05:24:49 PM EST
    And it may have been the only agreement I had with Ross Perot.      ;-)

    I am more optimistic than you that she would (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    be a President who will fight for some (but not all) of the principles I believe in. But, if Politico's unidentified sources are accurate, it doesn't appear she is heading the best direction re leaders of her campaign, if she decides to run.

    It's time for another bloggers' conference call!  BTD does this best.

    My unsolicited advice to Mrs. Clinton:

    (1)  Read Samuel Popkin's book "The Candidate," and
    (2)  make every effort to woo to your campaign David Plouffe and whoever he deems essential from Obama's 2008 campaign.


    I thought the (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    Obama people were already on board. Anyway I'm not sure David Plouffe is that great but that's just my opinion.

    The head of Obama's (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:41:50 PM EST
    field operation is....He would be the guy you want.

    Hillary is hawkish (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:50:07 PM EST
    but it may not matter.  Not even conservatives aside from Graham and McCain seem interested in more foreign adventures.....

    Maybe lessons learned--at least in the short run?


    Foreign Policy (none / 0) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:14:32 PM EST
    Where will HRC be on the issue of Saudi-Iran or Sunni-Shia split that is devastating the Middle East with proxy wars and creating huge problems for US foreign policy? Will she continue the balanced policy of BHO that has kept the USA out of another war in the Middle East or will she be influenced by her long standing personal relationships with ruling Sunni families in the Middle East as well as relationships in Israel to engage in another misadventure in countries like Iran, Syria or Egypt?

    I will be paying a lot of attention to what HRC says on foreign policy issues.


    Gotta love "questions" (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 06:15:49 PM EST
    ... phrased like this:

    Will she continue the balanced policy of BHO that has kept the USA out of another war in the Middle East or will she be influenced by her long standing personal relationships with ruling Sunni families in the Middle East as well as relationships in Israel to engage in another misadventure in countries like Iran, Syria or Egypt?

    "So when did you stop beating your wife?"


    So who do you think Obama will endorse? (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    Assuming he has such a firm grip on the power structure, which I seriously doubt.

    I received an email from General Wes Clark (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:45:01 AM EST
    yesterday urging me to get my free "Ready for Hillary" bumper sticker.  I don't think she'd let this kind of thing go out unless she had already made the decision to run.  Calculated ploy to drum up support then tell everyone she is running because soooooo many people said she's what the country needs. Yep, I'll vote for her anyway.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    I think she is going to run but it will probably be the end of this year or the beginning of next year that she will announce. I used to think that she would not run but I now think differently.

    And it's the perfect time to have a non Sarah Palin out there for women to vote for.


    My hubby (none / 0) (#35)
    by Amiss on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    Informed me that he ordered one of those for me. I just rolled my eyes.

    I will not be ordering one. I no longer support (none / 0) (#36)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:27:47 PM EST
    political campaigns after the DNC's behavior during the 2008 campaign.

    I haven't (none / 0) (#37)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    given to any political campaigns since then, either, Angel.
    The DNC, and other committees, keep calling me for money.  I just say, no.

    It's more fun to just laugh at them :) (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:31:37 PM EST
    Well, sometimes (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    When I feel up to it, I start a rant enumerating all the failings of the Democratic Party.
    They generally hang up on me at that point, though.     ;-)

    I don't (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:31:43 AM EST
    think Ready for Hillary is part of the DNC yet anyway.

    But I understand. I have not given them any money since 2008 either.


    No, they aren't, but it doesn't matter to me (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Angel on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    because I do not plan to monetarily support any political campaign or group ever again.  The DNC of 2008 put the nail in the coffin for me.

    The salient feature of (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:34:02 AM EST
    the 2008 Primary was how inept Mark Penn was in giving away the caucus states to Obama.

    The DNC in 2008 enforced the rules that Hillary solider Harold Ickes voted for.  

    This constant carping about the 2008 campaign is like the losing team in the Super Bowl complaining about the refs--years later.  Time to get over it.


    The main (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    thing that bothers people is the fact that Obama pulled out of the MI primary but yet he was handed delegates that Hillary earned because she actually had her name on the ballot. People see that as extremely unfair and most people do not like the caucus system anyway but apparently Obama's strategists had decided that he would never win the primary via voters and had to jack up the delegate count via the caucuses. Remember he also promised primary reform if Hillary's voters would vote for him but yet he did nothing to reform them and 2012 would have been the perfect time to do that because he had no opposition.

    No delegates were earned (none / 0) (#87)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    in either Michigan or Florida in the Dem primary in 2008. Voters in both states knew that going into election day. I didn't like it, but those were the rules going in for those two states for violating the primary rules.

    Any delegates handed out were gifts to appease the two states at the convention. None were earned by the candidates.


    In 1972, the most (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    egalitarian Democratic Primary, before Super Delegates, and what led to Super Delegates, McGovern secured the nomination by winning the winner-take-all California Primary.

    HHH complained about how unfair it was he earned no delegates from California.  McGovern said tough beans, them was the rules.  And that was how it stayed and ended.

    Harold Ickes voted for the rules in 2008 that would award no delegates to states that leapfrogged the approved schedule.  Hillary's own people voted for that.

    The compromise that came later was not required under the rules that would have awarded no delegates to Hillary at all.

    People should stop complaining already about the DNC.  The Hillary people in 2008 should look in the mirror and ask why they gave the Caucus states to Obama.    


    And what worked in 1972 (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    has become worthless if someone can work caucuses and secure the nomination that way. We need more primaries and less caucuses.

    Well, that is what those who (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:03:47 PM EST
    lose caucuses will say.

    Fine, change the rules.  I do not care.

    This obsession with 2008 is now back.  Good grief.


    Obama (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 06:17:04 AM EST
    promised to change the rules but he did not. He could have done it with no problem in 2012 but guess what? He did not.

    And? (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    "People should stop ... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    People should stop complaining already about the DNC.  The Hillary people in 2008 should look in the mirror and ask why they gave the Caucus states to Obama.  

    ... pointing the finger at Mark Penn and insist that the DNC adhere to the most fundamental democratic principal of all - One person, one vote.


    Totally disagree (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:06:33 PM EST
    Just go back to the 1972 California Primary.  Winner take all.

    And, once rules are in place you do not change them during the middle of the game.

    Hillary lost because she had a terrible primary strategy.  I would blame Penn for that.  I am hoping she is a better strategic thinker than than he.  


    Of course YOU would (4.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 06:30:13 AM EST
    BTW - No one was "changing the rules in the middle of the game".  What people are unhappy about is the selective enforcement of the rules and punishing Democratic voters for the actions of a Republican-controlled legislature and governor.  Not to mention the basic principle that no vote should count more than another vote - particularly at the voter level.

    Obama HAD (3.60 / 5) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    to work the caucus because he had no other way to win. Do you have any proof that Hillary would have won caucuses anyway?

    When the delegates were restored AFTER the primaries were over why give Obama any of them from MI when he didn't even bother to put his name on the ballot? It would have been fair to split the undecided between him and Edwards BUT that is not what happened.

    It's kind of hard to complain about what George W. Bush did in 2000 when Obama did the same thing in 2008.


    Why give Hillary any delegates at all? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 09:59:23 PM EST
    She received delegates when according to the rules she should have received none.

    Just sour grapes.  Remember, Harold Ikces, her guy, sat on the committee that voted to adopt these rules.

    I guess we will never know what Hillary would have done if she had actually worked harder in the caucuses.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  Obama won them.  That is the result.  Very bad strategy and bad judgment by camp Clinton.  Very disappointing miscalculation from an operation that was supposed to be the All-Pro superstars.

    Bush in 2000?  What utter nonsense. All of the votes for Hillary in Michigan and Florida should have been tossed.  All of them.  That any were awarded to her was a concession that was not required.


    Well (4.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 06:20:40 AM EST
    if you don't think Hillary should have gotten any delegates from MI then you should think that goes double for Obama who didn't even put his name on the ballot.

    Obama knew that he could not win the nomination relying on primaries so he had to go the caucus route. IIRC Obama won the caucuses in WA state but Hillary won the nonbinding primary.

    It's not sour grapes but I think his behavior during the primary was very indicative of the kind of disappointing presidency he has led.


    Wow (1.50 / 2) (#97)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    Your Obama hate is awesome! Must be chemical at this point for you to say that in 2008 Obama did the same thing as Bush did in 2000.

    I hope you are donating your brain to science in your will. Much can be gained by studying such an extreme case as yours.


    Yes, when all else fails, just throw out the (4.25 / 4) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    "h" word, because reducing any discussion to being based on hatred is such a great way to win an argument...you don't even have to bring facts into it!

    Before you suggest someone donate her brain to science - now, there's a great way to elevate a discussion - you might want to use yours to explore the issue of situational ethics, and how damaging it can be to rely on it to guide one's thinking.  


    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 05:35:43 PM EST
    You can tell we are getting near time to vote again because the H word comes out. I find it EXTREMELY hillarious that squeaky thinks I'm an Obama hater and Jimppj seems to think I'm an Obama lover. ROTFLAMO. I guess i just keep everyone guessing.

    Seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 05:43:29 PM EST
    that this shows that you are on the right path, Ga6thDem.
    What can I say?    ;-)

    Subterfuge (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    Using PPJ as a way to paint yourself as unbiased is a laugh, another reason for donating your brain, because you actually believe it.

    One thing for sure is that your thinking is at least as biased as PPJ when it comes to any comparison between Hillary and Obama.

    Most of us on the left and most on many on the right have little bias when it comes to a comparison between Hilary and Obama:

    There is not a dimes worth of difference between them.


    You need to stop with the brain donation (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    talk; in addition to being offensive on its own, you're also running the risk of someone remarking that at least they have one to donate.

    Everyone has bias, you included, but it would serve you better to speak for yourself, and not assume that "most" or "some" of any group think as you do, that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Obama.

    On some issues, that may be true; on others, it might be more like a dollar, or even ten dollars - and those larger differences may be unacceptable to more people than you like to think.


    Me? (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    What about you?

    Oh right you insult passive aggressively in order to make believe that you hold the keys to ethics and the moral high road.

    And as far as brain donations go, it is an honorable thing to donate ones body to science after death.

    And regarding bias, yes everyone has it, but not many go to such lengths as you and your kaffe klatch to pretend that you hold no enmity towards Obama and that you do not loooooove Hillary.


    You weren't suggesting Ga6th donate (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    her brain to science because it is an honorable thing, you were doing it because you knew if you called her an idiot your comment would have been deleted.

    And you need to put that "Anne loves Hillary" thing to bed, since I have been quite clear in where she and I differ ideologically, and clearer still that I won't be voting for her if she runs.

    But I get it - when the "hater" thing fails, and everyone sees through your lame "brain donation" insult, just flip the hate on its head, swap out Obama, and - voila! - you can go after people for "loving" Hillary.  

    What are you, 12?


    No (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 02:05:53 PM EST
    I do not remotely think Ga6th is an idiot, if I did I would say it. I found it amazing for Ga6th to say that what happened in Michigan and Florida is analogous to Bush v Gore. The point of the ridiculous analogy, presumably, was to put down Obama as being just like Bush. And chiding commenters that IOKIYAD...  a special category reserved by many here, including you, who believes that Obama is the same as Bush or worse, and that he is not a democrat.

    And the self denial continues with Ga6th  arguing that she sees politicians for who they are without bias, she argued that PPJ thinks she loves Obama.  

    That is serious denial. And not new here at all, in fact that kind of BS has led to the departure of many and possibly one of TL's main contributors.


    You don't (3.50 / 2) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    recognize the similarities or is it okay for a Democrat to do it to another Democrat or it's okay if the DNC does it but not the Supreme Court?

    I'm impressed anyone remembers the details (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 02:21:14 PM EST
    of the run up to the Denver Dem. convention.

    Those were NOT "the rules" (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 06:22:00 PM EST
    The rules committee had discretion to award all, some or none of the delegates.  Or, they could even take delegates from one candidate and award them to another, as they did.

    The "unexpected gift" approach is a new one, though.


    Let's understand (none / 0) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    that those of us who supported HRC over B. Obama accept the final result, but, feel justified in debating and commenting on the race because it was such an exciting, and interesting, case study of a primary contest where so many different factors came into play.

    For those commenters who are so breathless in their admonitions, and, who repeat endlessly to the rest of us to "stop trying to replay the election," and/or,  the refrain used when one knows the official result of a contest is not always what it seems, such as those in the O.J. Simpson, or "Z" vs Martin cases, "get over it," I would suggest you simply ignore the conversation by using the most valuable tool we have here on TL..........the scroll bar.

    I wish this was not a debate about Obama vs Clinton but, rather, a discussion about the process, and the many intricate facets of this most debatable contest.

    The key point of my post above was to answer the question, "why even have Super Delegates?" If the 2008 contest was as simple as Obama's supporters claim, "he won more votes," then why do we have Super Delegates, who don't have to cast their lot with the wishes of the voters? There's an excellent description of this at the site, "Generation Progress," called, "Why Superdelegates Exist."

    The Obama allies insisted the Super Delegate system was "an attempt to subvert the will of the people." But, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) argued to unpledged delegates -- members of the Democratic National Committee, House members and senators, and former party leaders -- that it was not their responsibility to vote as their state had voted, but rather to back the candidate they thought would be the best person to represent the party.

    And, that is the crux of the matter. People still argue over the reason for the Civil War, did Roosevelt have advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, who really killed JFK, and/or MLK, and, do UFO's really exist? And, frankly, it seems to me that the side that consistently uses the silly term, "get over it," for issues that have results which are interesting, controversial, and, yes, debatable, emit a sense of anxiety that usually is associated with guilt.  


    The delegates (4.25 / 4) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    were restored at the end of the primary season. Obama pandered to IA and pulled his name out of MI along with Edwards. Fine. Nobody said he had to have his name on the ballot but when the delegates were restored he should not have been given any. He acted like George W. Bush did back in 2000.

    What hasn't been discussed enough (3.50 / 4) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 08:03:46 PM EST
    is the role, and, purpose, of the "Super Delegates."

    It is my understanding that those special delegates had powers and authorities that regular delegates did not. I thought of them like executors of a will. There is normal protocol, distributing the assets of an estate in accordance with the wishes of the deceased. However, they do, also, have the authority to make decisions contrary to those expressed by the departed. Such is the power of an executor, and, such was the power of the Super Delegates.

    It was their solemn duty, and obligation, to make decisions based on what was best for the Party, not, necessarily, what was best for any particular candidate. For example: Suppose one candidate held the lead in delegates just prior to the election, and, at the last minute, it was discovered that he, or she, had committed an illegal, or, immoral, act years prior. If, in the opinion of the Super Delegates, the candidate was thus about to lose the election, they could strip him/her of those votes, and, award them to the other candidate.

    The very purpose for the advent of Super Delegates was to adjudicate situations like the example I gave, or the controversies surrounding Obama/Clinton. There was considerable talk about "voter's remorse" towards the end of the Primaries. IIRC, certain pundits and polls indicated that Hillary had a much better chance of beating McCain than did Obama, especially after her convincing wins in the Big States: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, and Texas. And, of course, had the votes counted, Michigan and Florida.

    Anyway, my purpose here is not to replay the 2008 campaign. But, rather to illustrate that Hillary's supporters had real reason to be disillusioned, and, disappointed. The Obama people kept insisting, "the rules are the rules." But, I believe that there' a greater calling, "the will of the people." And, certainly, after the 2000 debacle, "count the votes," should have been the guiding principal.
    This was exactly the sort of situation The Super Delegates were supposed to judge, and rule, on.

    Simply put, the Super Delegates failed to perform the duties they were sworn to perform. And, they capitulated when they should have acted, in their most important "raison d'être," " do what is in the best interests of the Party, and the Country."


    I totally disagree (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 09:45:40 PM EST
    The Super Delegates were not supposed to usher in some overall will-of-the people.

    The history is helpful.  In 1968, Mayor Daley ran the Chicago convention, and the party bosses controlled the process and nominated HHH. In a grand rebellion, the Democratic Party made a conscious decision to go away from party bosses and ushered in more primaries and votes and will of the people.   The result:  George McGovern and a monumental loss.

    The solution:  give back some power to party bosses--exactly the opposite of the will of the people.   Hence was born the Super Delegates aka party bosses.

    And, what is in the "interests of the party and the country" is an amorphous standard that means nothing.  Everyone will have his or her own definition of that.

    And, there was no buyer's remorse.  Obama won huge primary victories in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Maryland--all long after Super Tuesday--and dwarfing Hillary's margin of victory in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  She was blown out in Virginia, etc.

    This constant carping about 2008 is just sour grapes run amok.  Losers blaming the refs for the loss.  I did not raise 2008 here....

    We had a respite for awhile from a replay of 2008.  Now here it comes again.

    Good lord, will people ever let this go?  


    Not just caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    Apart from numerous caucuses, BHO beat HRC in primaries in Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Oregon, North Carolina, Connecticut, Delaware, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, District of Columbia. Missouri was tied.

    Some imposrtant states like Washington and Colorado had caucuses. BHO would have thumped HRC if these states had primaries.

    NYShooter is not being reasonable, his post was an emotional response that was not worthy of him. Thanks for setting him straight.


    Primaries+Caucuses=Resounding win (none / 0) (#113)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    BHO beat HRC in primaries in Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Oregon, North Carolina, Connecticut, Delaware, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, District of Columbia.

    BHO beat HRC in caucuses in Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota.

    It was a pretty emphatic victory (given the number of states that BHO won)! Helpful tip: Count the numbers of states in the Union and then count the number of states that BHO won.


    If only sagebrush could vote (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 06:32:46 AM EST
    It was a pretty emphatic victory (given the number of states that BHO won)! Helpful tip: Count the numbers of states in the Union and then count the number of states that BHO won.

    Same number of votes = "pretty resounding victory".



    Rules said delegate count (none / 0) (#123)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 07:06:59 AM EST
    not popular vote. But even in the popular vote it was even.

    After you have lost a football game based on the score, you don't get to stomp your feet like little children and cry "but, but, but our passing yards were the same and we scored a touchdown while they scored 3 field goals, so we actally won because only touchdowns count". Maybe, in your world crying like that is normal but most people would laugh at you if you did something like that!


    Your football game analogy isn't (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:11:03 PM EST
    exactly representative of what happened in this case, is it?  

    If no one pulls his or her name off the ballot, even though they've been told the votes won't "count" in terms of delegates, but a later decision results in each of the candidates being awarded the delegates on the basis of the votes, no one's whining or stamping their feet.  

    But in the case of a football game, let's say there's supposed to be a game between the Washington team and the Chicago Bears, and for whatever reason, Roger Goodell decides that even if the game gets played, and even if those with tickets show up to the stadium, the game isn't going to count in the W/L record that determines which teams end up in the Super Bowl.

    The Bears decide there's no point in even showing up if it's not going to count; they stay home.  Washington decides to go ahead and go - the fans expect to see a game, so they put 22 men on the field and scrimmage for a total of 100 points.  Months later, as the season progresses and the standings start to take shape, Chicago decides that some of the people who came to see a game were Chicago fans, and since Washington was essentially playing itself, the league should put some points in Chicago's total, because, after all, points scored can end up being a tiebreaker.

    Goodell, while toking up in Denver, decides that's exactly what he'll do - he'll award Chicago some points.  And whaddya know, it's a completely crazy season and it ends up that the points totals come into play, and Chicago ends up in the playoffs and Washington doesn't.

    What you seem to be missing - and what you and others have consistently missed - is that the rules in 2008 were manipulated, and in some cases, ignored, or strangely applied, with the result that they will always and forever be considered a factor in the outcome of the primary race and nomination process.  Always.

    Yes, there are other factors in campaigns and elections, just as there are in football games.  You play a better game, you get the first down, you don't get the penalty that puts your opponent in position to score - all of that affects the outcome of every game.  Had Hillary run a better caucus campaign, had she not allowed her advisors to succumb to the smugness of the inevitability the media declared for her, who knows?

    People take their votes seriously - the don't like them to be fked around with, and when they are, they rightly feel cheated.

    No, talking about the events of that election isn't going to change anything - I don't think anyone here thinks otherwise.  What happened is part of history, and will be discussed as all history is, even though we can't change it.  That's not childish or immature or sour grapes - it's just people trying to understand what happened.  Does it, can it, engender feelings of anger?  Sure.  Bring up Vietnam sometime, or Roe v. Wade and see what happens.  

    Just because you think you're right, doesn't mean you get to anoint yourself the only mature person in the room, but I notice that you and your pals here can always be counted on to cast opposing views in terms of irrationality, immaturity and emotion.  

    How long did it take you to "get over" the Supreme Court-assisted theft of the 2000 presidential election?


    I wouldn't know, ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    ... since that's not what I'm doing, ...

    ... although it sounds like you have a lot of experience with that.


    How about counting the votes? (4.25 / 4) (#115)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:35:28 PM EST
    Votes were counted (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:32:47 AM EST
    Based on popular votes it was a draw. Based on pledged delegates it was a clear win for BHO. It would have been very undemocratic for superdelegates to reverse the verdict obtained from pledged delegates; thankfully they did not do so. If they did that, HRC would have lost the GE, handily.

    Over 90% of HRC supporters accepted that she had lost fairly but gave credit to her for putting up an epic fight (which most BHO supporters also accept). Most Democrats accept that they had 2 excellent candidates in 2008. The 10% of HRC supporters who still believe that BHO "stole" the nomination, live inside their own bubble (just like the tea partiers).


    Actually, not all SD voted (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    the same as their districts. I now happen to live in a place that overwhelmingly voted for HRC, but the SD threw down to BHO. I never really got the SD thing . . . .

    You think McCain/Palin would have won over HRC?


    The votes in both the caucus states (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 12:19:08 AM EST
    and the primary states that were authorized were counted.

    Again, with the 2008 Primary.  Why do you raise this now?


    I didn't raise it . . . (none / 0) (#128)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    just commented on it :)

    Add Montana (none / 0) (#114)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    to the total. Montana had a primary which BHO won.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 06:35:47 AM EST
    And their votes should absolutely not count more than those of people from a state with more voters than a medium-sized city.

    And of course (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    Barack Obama (nor any other Democratic candidate) was going to win Michigan anyway according to all pre-primary polls and all exit polls, so that worked out well for him.

    What worked out (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    was the Dem Party being smart enough to award delegates and not ignore the two states completely and risk losing both states. Instead the Dems won both states in the 2008 General election even though both states were stupid going into the primaries.

    In Florida's defense, it was Republicans that violated the rules and set the primary calendar in that state. In Michigan I am unsure how the date of the primary was decided.

    Not sure what exit polls you are referring to but Michigan was a Dem landslide in 2008.


    The exit polls for the primary (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    Obama (nor Edwards, nor anybody else) had a chance.

    Surely you didn't put stock (none / 0) (#94)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    in a January 15th exit poll at an election people were told was meaningless to forecast an election the following November when no candidates were yet on the ballot.

    That would have been one of the most meaningless polls ever.


    Actually I mean (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    All the polls leading up to the primary election (for months before hand) and the polls taken after that asked specifically, "If these had been the candidates on the ballot today, for whom would you have voted in the Democratic presidential primary?

    I have no idea what you are talking about.


    You're welcome to send it to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    Another article, in Atlantic... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    Ha - what part of John McCain 1996-2008 (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:14:07 PM EST
    did they miss? Is he even done yet?

    Well, he may not think (none / 0) (#43)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    that he is done yet, but he certainly is.    ;-)

    As long as he can still spit out the word (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:27:55 PM EST
    Benghazi...I fear he is still considering a run.

    He may well be considering it, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:31:13 PM EST
    But I think you can stick a fork in him- he's done, at least as far as running for President is concerned.

    Has Harold Stassen disappeared from (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    the memory of the author?

    And FDR? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:53:59 PM EST
    FDR won his elections. Stassen, not so much. (none / 0) (#52)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    Stassen was a perennial candidate and a perennial loser.

    Hi caseyOR... (none / 0) (#60)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:29:41 AM EST
    are you freezing in the midwest or freezing in the northwest?  It's a good thing today is not a voting day as neither Hillary nor any one else would get many votes in this cold weather.  It was 53 degrees here in the keys this morning and very windy.  I'm not going fishing .

    Here: 17 below Zero this morning (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:50:26 AM EST
    2 degrees with a wind chill of -25 in (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:13:09 AM EST
    my neck of the woods, which is 25 miles north of Baltimore; thank goodness it's only expected to last for a short time.  And at least we aren't getting snow with it - my co-worker's daughter lives in Buffalo and they are expecting multiple feet of snow to go with the -40 degree temps.

    That windy high 40's this morning (none / 0) (#67)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:05:35 AM EST
    kept me from running until it warms up later this afternoon. I'm in Florida for a reason and that 60 degrees at sundown today is more to my liking.

    It was so cold in the Keys when I was there one day long ago, the sawfish were hundled up in about 3 feet of water trying to get some sunlight to warm themselves. For Floridians (and sawish), it's a good day to cuddle.


    fishcamp, I am freezing in the Midwest. Low was (none / 0) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    a vicious 35 below zero yesterday with the wind chill. Right now it is 8 below. It might get all the way up to 12 degrees today. For comparison, it is currently  37 above zero in Portland.

    This weather sucks big time. Tough break on the no fishing today, pal.