Hillary Clinton Still Undecided About Running

Hillary Clinton told Jimmy Kimmel Saturday at a Global Initiative event in Arizona that she is still undecided about running for President.

" I’m obviously thinking about all kinds of decisions."

The "selfie" with Bill, Hillary, Chelsea and Jimmy is very cute.

< March Madness! Day 4 | "The Good Wife": How Not to Handle a Major Character's Departure >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She's running (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:13:11 PM EST

    In her (none / 0) (#4)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:19:06 PM EST
    non-answer about whether she would run, Ms Clinton began by saying,

    I am very much concerned about the direction of our country...

    I wish the questioner or Kimmel would have asked her to elaborate.


    Climate change ... a major emphasis (none / 0) (#6)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    Climate is certainly a concern (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:45:32 PM EST
    But the previous comment is correct that we have no idea what she meant and a follow up would have been very nice.  And in that situation very surprising.

    I can think of about 100 different things she could have been referring to.  One of the very interesting things to find out is to what extent she will separate herself from O and in which areas


    Climate is definitely (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:43:17 PM EST
    An issue that Clinton will talk a lot about and then when elected do very little.

    That is very little in any real sense of mattering.

    Not sure why this is even a political issue because the Dems do basically nothing about it for all the banter.


    Politicians are ALWAYS (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    running, the question is whether she declares and makes a serious bid for office.

    I am passionless about Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    And Bill. And the second she started going after Edward Snowden, forget it, she was dead politically to me. She no doubt supported Daniel Ellsberg when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, and when she was younger and more principled. Now she goes after Snowden with all the vitriol worth of any tyrant. Phuck her, to be honest, on this issue alone, the one that actually gets to the root of what freedom actually means. Sorry to be blunt, but the Clintons lost me, they are nothing more IMO than corporate Democrats with very little to no political imagination in their heads. I had an impossible time pulling the lever for Obama last time. It will be just as hard to pull it for Hillary. I hope I don't have to. Because she is a wretched, inexcusable, and visionless hypocrite with Snowden. Her position is not compatible with citizen control of the government, not in any way, and that is, you know, kind of a big thing.

    But hey, the symbolism would be great. And that's what matters in Presidential elections. As long as  a Republican doesn't win, this is all we can hope for. Aside from that, for most Americans, suck on it.

    Baloney, Dadler, Baloney (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:22:27 PM EST
    Foremost, I say that for this reason:  In asserting what the "root of what freedom actually means," I have yet to hear Snowden (or his buddy Greenwald) talk at all, mention anything about the Ukraine (or Georgia, or Chechnya, etc.)  C'mon, this isn't me just saying "but looky, looky over there."  No, it is a matter of me saying in the midst of your comment's excessive vitriol:  "Get a perspective."  

    Ah yes ... to each his own.  Selectivity has a lot to do with it for both of us, most certainly ... and, definitely for the very well known protagonists of the same schpiel.  


    Why on earth should either Snowden or (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:41:34 AM EST
    Greenwald feel compelled to comment on Crimea or Ukraine? That is such a ridiculous assertion.

    Snowden is a computer guy who has exposed the criminal behavior of the U.S. security forces. He is not a political commentator. Why not demand that he voice an opinion on the Middle East? Or our military moves in Africa? Or maybe he should take a position on abortion or contraception. How about the farm bill and the slashing of food stamps? These are also important issues that have nothing to do with the crimes committed by the NSA and other members  of our National Security State.

    As for Greenwald, well, are you demanding that every single journalist who has ever voiced an opinion critical of the U.S. must now give equal time to criticizing Russia?


    Not "demanding" anything (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    Merely pointing out what seems--in a very practical sense--ironic.  Yep, Russia is "oh so free."(Not) Yep #2, there is a sardonic sense in some "frying pan into the fire" realities.



    The obvious thing about "freedom" (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    you appear to be overlooking is that in Russia Snowden is not in jail nor is he accused of any crime. On a personal and indivdual basis, Snowden has a freedom there that he would not have if he returned to the U.S. On a personal and individual basis for Snowden, your analogy of "frying pan into the fire" is way off base. On a personal and individual basis, the U.S. is the fire (incarceration and loss of personal freedom) for Snowden.

    He would have to be willing to lose his asylum in Russia and be returned to the U.S. and jail to meet your demands that he change his focus from NSA to criticizing Russia. That is the reality that you are overlooking.


    N:o demands from me (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    And...while knowing that this is an area where my opinion is out of sync with yourself and others here...I would repeat the "frying pan" reference and add the apt "grass is always greener."

    Look, I respect your position on this matter.  And, I respect my own position.  Whatever words we use here will not be convincing to the other, imo. As for Snowden/Greenwald:  A driver point for me in any argument/debate apparently premised in how bad or rotten one side is together with the explicit or implied suggestion that the other side (person, organization, government)somehow is so much better ... well, a strong personal view is that the standards used to measure one should be used to measure another.  

    For now, there really is nothing else for me to add.  


    Another analogy that doesn't work (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    To the best of my knowledge, no grass grows in an U.S. prison cell. So yes, the grass would definitely be greener outside a prison cell.

    "The explicit or implied suggestion that the other side (person, organization, government)somehow is so much better" is something that you have read into the matter and is not supported by fact or even an universally accepted opinion. As others have pointed out, Snowden has never explicitly made the claim or even implied that Russia is so much better than the U.S.  

    It is very easy for others not to think in those terms. I, as well as others, can very easily decide that one fact does not negate another fact.

    It is very easy to believe that the actions of NSA are actions we want to stop and also believe that the actions of the Russian government in the case of personal freedoms are actions we want to stop. IMO both actions need to have the light shone upon them but there is no requirement for the same person to report on both issues. In the case of Snowden, it would be detrimental to his personal freedom to do so.


    I never heard Snowden say... (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:01:37 AM EST
    Russia was "oh so free".  The choice he ended up with for whistleblowing was Russia or prison.  

    Let's not pretend he chose Russia...he chose to stay outta prison, perfectly logical.


    kdog: See my reply to MO Blue (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    We can measure Russia and the USA... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:22:26 PM EST
    by the same standards, and should...but I fail to see what Russia has to do with Ed Snowden's actions prior to seeking asylum, Hillary Clinton's stance on his actions, and a voter's opinion of both.  It's got nothing to do with Russia...and I'm left to wonder why you brought the Russia/Ukraine situation up in relation to comments about Hillary Clinton's stance on Ed Snowden.  

    Because the situation (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    has a kismet quality to it, kdog.  

    We have much correction and change yet to accomplish in the US. Of course.  And, the subject over-the-top surveillance actions by NSA have not helped (my deliberate understatement.) But, necessary correction and a course to accomplish that is one thing, a commendable path and different from what I believe to be the unjustified and agenda-driven acts of Snowden/Greenwald. Frankly, imo and only per my opinion, the earlier tone of the Snowden/Greenwald almost total condemnation of the US as we watched whether the pathway of escape would be to such "free" nation states as China, Venezuela, or even Bolivia became sadly laughable.  Then, the dash to the "non-censoring" arms of the KGB Putin produced my giant guffaw.

    kdog: At this point, I really do not care what Snowden/Greenwald do or say.  That is my prerogative.  In the matter of the NSA and reform, the clash between the Senate and CIA may well bring about the reining-in changes we need in this country.  I remain very interested in Senators Udall & Merkley's proposal for such reform.  It is the legal process for change and the reality of such change that compels attention; not the personal agenda-driven acts of the original twosome.  Harsh, yes.  That is where I remain.


    Tone? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    the earlier tone of the Snowden/Greenwald almost total condemnation of the US

    in regard to unconstitutional spying....

    seems to me that you are painting with a very broad brush here.
    For one lumping Snowden and Greenwald as two peas in a pod is a gross mischaracterization, imo.

    You may think that ACLU is a commie sympathizer but they characterize Snowden as a patriot. I believe he thinks of himself as such as well.

    f Snowden were such a true believer in democracy, he would never have traveled to China or Russia. That argument fails to recognize the massive power of the American government to lean on other governments to repossess one of its most wanted. Recall the full court press that the American government made through the efforts of President Obama and Secretary Kerry to ensure that Snowden had no other door except one to an American federal prison. Even those countries that have voiced outrage at the NSA surveillance of their leaders and citizens - Germany, Brazil, Mexico - have failed to offer political asylum to the man who uncovered it. Their hypocrisy and capitulation to American diplomatic strong-arming left Snowden with little recourse but to receive help from governments that may have their own agendas in housing someone wanted by the United States.

    Did I mention the ACLU, squeaky? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:25:49 PM EST
    My first case, after Bar admission many years ago, was taken under the auspices of the ACLU.  It was a case that involved freedom of speech and censoring by a college.  

    Though life saw me moving to a government career shortly afterward, my husband & I remained local supporters for years.  My intellectual as well as emotional support for the ACLU is very much intact.  (But, sometimes, I disagree with a friend.)


    OK (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:29:38 PM EST
    Enigma but I am ok with it.

    Fair enough... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    we just fundamentally disagree.  I have no issue at all with the path Snowden took...in fact, I see it as the only path of conscience that wasn't suicide.

    At this point, I care a lot more about what Snowden has to say than I do about what Clinton has to say.  Snowden has more credibility with me.


    maybe true on this issue Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ZtoA on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    but when it comes to health care and a woman's right to choose I think she is the one to listen to.

    Will she be pushing single payer... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    in the 2016 campaign?  I have doubts, we shall see.

    As for a woman's right to choose, there are a plethora of better potential candidates also on the right side of that issue.

    As for where she falls short...foreign policy, drug war policy, criminal justice policy, economic policy...I could go on.


    You do realize (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:36:46 AM EST
    that no candidate is going to support the issues you support, right?  You do realize that your views are outside the mainstream - yes?  

    Not saying you're wrong about some of the positions you hold (and others I obviously disagree with.  :D ), but no candidate, especially for national office is going to be even close to what you want.


    They could be close (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    but they would get about 0.36% of the vote.

    If only the same could be Said for the right (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    What a wonderful world it would be

    Of course... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    anybody the D's trot out is not gonna appeal to me...the best of the Brand D bunch in my eyes will be the first one ousted in primary season.  There's a reason I'm not a Democrat.

    But I usually find somebody to vote for without shame amongst the also-rans, who are at least in the ballpark of my brand of non-mainstream.  So there are in fact candidates who come close enough to representing my views, just not in the two-party duopoloy.


    If you are going to go for (none / 0) (#131)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    Rand Paul, his records on social issues might interest you. He is anti-choice, against same sex marriage, anti ACA (says it is still unconstitutional despite the Supreme Court ruling), opposes taxing the wealthy, opposed the stimulus. link

    Believe me, I ain't... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:45:50 PM EST
    going for Paul either...he's like the bizarro opposite of Hillary, right on 1-3 issues important to me and dead wrong on at least 9-12 others.  I'll vote for a candidate who can bat at least .500, not hover at the Mendoza line.

    I certainly don't agree with her or (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:26:33 AM EST
    any mainstream potential candidate on all issues.

    Her advocacy of women's rights goes beyond choice. Here is a source for her history on civil rights, and her support of micro loans (to mostly women) both globally and domestically is good.


    I don't think anyone can push single (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:07:18 PM EST
    Payer in 2016.  We won't be able to get voters on that page until everyone gets used to having access and the poor get over the guilt of having healthcare and then start fighting for it.  Our society has our poor currently beaten into complete submission.

    You're probably right... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    but I hope it at least comes up in the campaign when the issue of improving on the ACA comes up.

    But it won't be Hillary, she'll be petrified! (snarky reference to yesterdays discussion;)


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    heard if she runs she's going to open up Medicare because of all the network problems etc. with Obamacare but we shall see if that is true.

    Heavenly (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    Fingers crossed/toes crossed/eyes crossed

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:10:00 AM EST
    Except that you have expressed disapprobation towards Snowden and Greenwald in the past. So, using them to point out Dadler's errors, may not be very convincing to many here.

    Not trying to convince anyone here (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    on this matter.  I've never wanted to be Sisyphus.  Only pointing out what is all too apparent in the broader world.

    I believe a perspective is needed (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:56:46 PM EST
    that looks at Edward Snowden as a whistleblower rather than as a traitor.  If the former, Snowden should be thought of as a patriot who brought to light the extent of NSA over-reach to citizens, members of Congress (even oversight committee) and perhaps even the president (who claimed he welcomed the debate.)  

     If the latter, he was a spy and his flight to Moscow was not dissimilar to the path taken by Burgess, Blunt Maclean or Philby.  However, there is no evidence that Snowden was in the employ of Russia and he escaped with his ill-gotten largess to his new country of freedom.  

    Or, for that matter, it has not been shown that Snowden had any purpose other than exposing spying on Americans and avoiding capture and prison in the US--with the associated inability to release or discuss his concerns.   As to lumping his "buddy" Greenwald together as if they eloped to Russia misunderstands the relationship.  

    However, there may be a relationship between Snowden and the Ukraine in that the US obsession with his pursuit, including the Evo Morales flight, did not help with the re-setting of US/Russian relations.

     And, it indicates, to me, that the US, by doggedly pursuing Snowden while in Putin's hands, mis-characterized Putin and his building resentments and feelings of humiliation by the West.  Yes, Putin was an opportunist in the events transpiring in Kiev, but US diplomatic efforts to resolve the matter were not advanced through the US handling of Snowden.  


    There is something in-between, KeysDan (none / 0) (#99)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:59:06 PM EST
    One perspective: Neither saint nor spy ... neither whistleblower nor traitor.  In that view, which I share, he is closer to one violates the law for what he believes is a good purpose and then wants others to believe that the purpose negates or excuses any legal violations. Because of the ramifications for a society built on law--theoretically & actual, in general--I cannot support that approach.  The notion that we are a law unto ourselves is not within my ethical framework.

    The dilemma faced by anyone who would openly violate--whether through theft of equipment or otherwise--is nothing new.  Even literature is replete with treatment of that ethical dilemma ... see, e.g., "Antigone," and recall the drama's explication of the sisters (one declaring & acting in fealty to God's law and one declaring same to human law.)  In modern times, we are all aware of those who acted according to individual conscience, and faced with bravery the consequences of their actions ... see, e.g., the heroic realities of Gandhi, Mandela, untold numbers of conscientious objectors in untold numbers of wars.  The situation of Snowden/Greenwald does not rise to that level.  That is the core of my disagreement.


    another perspective (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ZtoA on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:33:06 PM EST
    What difference does it make what Snowden "is"? If not him, then someone else. The system was wide open for someone like him.

    Fair points, but arguable. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:34:20 PM EST
    If neither saint nor spy..neither whistleblower nor traitor,  he is "in-between," ...a law violator with a good purpose, the approbation and the punishment should be proportional and commensurate.  Even more so if the good purpose is not just what he believes it to be, but also, what the good purpose the country has found it to be.

      The head of a NSA task force assessing the situation has stated that he would consider immunity if the remaining documents were returned.  A federal judge has determined that aspects of NSA spying on Americans violates the fourth amendment,  the program is almost "Orwellian" and would likely leave James Madison aghast.  Former President Carter feels his emails have been spied upon; and US senators have registered their umbrage.

    Your point of civil disobedience and it consequences is a good one--a part of Gandhi's lesson and a lesson taken by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.   However, the tenets of Gandi-ism assume a level, or fair playing field.  And, the cause can not be snuffed out prior to the consequence.  Snowden has asylum in Russia for a year and it is unclear where or who will take him; afterward;   the US has pursued him with pique and vengefulness--jeopardizing international relations along the way.

     It would seem to me that a part of that fervor should be directed at how a 30 year old contract computer guy in Hawaii could access and obtain such information.  

    Immunity, under the condition of returning documents and assurances that real reforms will be instituted by the government would be a good "in-between."   But, I would prefer a pardon.  And, I do not understand the animus toward Glenn Greenwald's role anymore than I would understand animus toward Jill Abramson.


    Your penultimate paragraph (none / 0) (#104)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:07:27 PM EST
    I totally agree that the farming-out of personnel and security matters to the large contracting operations demonstrate the failings of that hand-in-glove approach.  The late 80's and early 90s dance with privatization led to that kind of loose, troublesome $$ arrangement.  BTW, many full-time government employees have long been concerned about such a scandal-waiting-to-happen.

    Again, my sentiment about consequences is not really influenced by whether someone was a 20 or 30 or 50 year old adult.  To the extent that an ultimate good effect for the country may have been promoted, that should be a matter for sentencing.  I agree.  

    A minor, but central, comment:  The heroes who faced the consequences of their purposive acts did not face any "level playing field" by any means.  Very far from it.  The heroes were about bravery, character, honor.  (Speaking of honor:  Because the term is really one of subjective interpretation, let me address directly the reason for my "animus" toward Greenwald.  First, you are correct in that my attitude toward and evaluation of G. Greenwald is permeated by negativity.  Second, the negativity stems from my subjective read of his agenda in view of his past actions that range the gamut, but appear to be primarily cast as personal aggrandizement. Third, I have found his smug demeanor and barely-concealed disdain for all who disagree with him as reprehensible.)


    I think we see that (none / 0) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    "minor, but central" point differently.  The level, or fair playing set forth in my comment carried a different connotation,  however, you do seem to acknowledge that heroes of the past did not face a level playing field--and very far from it.   And, that such is part of it all.  In fact, an expectation  of  heroism.

      It may be that not all those of character, bravery and honor are still  willing to suck up un-level and un-fair justice in the service of ideals or  country.    Joan of Arc and Daniel in the Lion's Den are noble examples of heroism, but they not the only way of making a point and living or living a life to tell about it.  


    True, what you say about these Saints (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:20:58 PM EST
    Funny that you should mention St. Joan of Arc ... my confirmation model and name.  (I'll confess: How does one ever live up to such a role!?!)

    And, I (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:43:32 PM EST
    have a namesake connection to my other saintly example.

    A nice name. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:11:56 PM EST
    As part of the spiritual maturation  process we pick our own name (or mostly, so--always parental influence).  As a recent sponsor for my nephew, I needed to write a letter to his Bishop, saying all the expected things.   I noted, primarily, his choice fo his Confirmation name:  Francis--(a) his grandfather's name, (b) St. Francis of Assisi, in recognition of his love of animals, and, hopefully, (c) real change in the Catholic Church--by Francis.   Guess it was OK, he was confirmed.

    Snowden didn't choose his story (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:25:11 AM EST
    he had what he had, and made it public. Doesn't make him into a commentator.

    Greenwald has to be a little cautious, condemning Putin over Crimea is easy, making serious suggestions about what to do, or Ukraine in general requires on the ground resources that actually KNOW what is going on in depth.


    Yet ... lots of commentary (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:06:08 AM EST
    has issued from both on other matters over the past several months.  Highly & strategically publicized commentary.  Just saying.

    I don't agree with all of that but (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:53:27 PM EST
    While H will certainly energize women I fear other groups like young voters my also be somewhat "passionless" about her.

    I believe she would win a contest with Rand Paul but hearing the thunderous applause he got at Berkley the other day was a little worrying


    I have liked (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ZtoA on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    Her long and passionate advocacy of women's and children's human rights .

    As have I (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:47:25 PM EST
    But during the 08 primary I was working at a video game company surrounded by people who were ape$hit about O and openly and almost equally hostile to H.  
     I believe it's just a fact that many of those people given the choice between H and, for example, Paul would vote for Paul.
    I am not agreeing with the choice or endorsing it I am simply making an observation.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:57:36 PM EST
    We'll see..  But I think you are underestimating the Obama effect. I do not think we will have a contender who has anything close to that..  

    Paul forget it..


    The Obama effect willl be 8 years old (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:06:38 PM EST
    And have lost a good deal of shimmer.  I think she will win but Paul, and I think it just might be Paul is going to have a whole generational libertarian thing going and I don't think will be as easy as some think it would.  

    In 08 my 80+ year old mother said (none / 0) (#17)
    by ZtoA on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:43:19 PM EST
    "Men always come first. Black men got the vote before any woman and O election will pave the way for a woman". H's age on top of her gender will be a cultural problem for her.

    I think that's exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    Ther is a generational thing but I'm telling you from years of experience of working with 20-40yo straight men.  They don't like Hillary.  And I know that is a generalization with plenty of exceptions.  I have never been able to understand it but it's a fact.

    If Hillary wins it will be on the strength of primarily the female vote.  The good news, I guess, is that lots of the hope and change slackers I mentioned above are more likely to just stay home and women usually vote in higher numbers.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ZtoA on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:51:40 PM EST
    Identity politics seems to trump all. But H has always been strongly pro choice. Maybe men don't care about that.

    Why is her age a problem? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:23:11 AM EST
    Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 at age 69, and the re-elected in '84 at 73. Bob Dole was 74 when he was the GOP nominee in 1996, and John McCain was 72 when nominated in 2008. Jerry Brown was elected to a third term as governor of California in 2010 at age 72, and is all but a lock for re-election this year at 76.

    Mrs. Clinton will still be younger than any of them in 2016. Her age is not an issue.


    Her age will be an issue (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:44:39 AM EST
    To the extent any boomers age would be an issue against a post boomer opponent.

    We'll See (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    Young people, en masse did not go for libertarian thing last time, and I am sure that they will not go for it next time.

    The fact that Paul got huge applause was not that he was running for president but talking about privacy issues.

    People are not as stupid as you think. Paul is not appealing to young people on most of the major issues, imo.


    That was basically how it was reported (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:36:53 PM EST
    locally. It wasn't so much Paul, but the issue, which was hand picked for the audience.

    And if UCB students fall all over themselves to vote for him, UCB has a serious prob with their education program and those kids should get their money back ;)


    Paul (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:04:59 AM EST
    is an interesting case but you also have to realize that probably for every vote he gets with some young people on his stances that he's going to lose a lot votes among the elderly that are the majority of the GOP base. I mean the majority of Republicans are unwilling to accept that George W. Bush made humongous foreign policy mistakes and Paul is a 180 from that.

    Capt: I do think highlighting climate change (none / 0) (#12)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:25:22 PM EST
    is important for a number of environmental reasons.  It also has a savvy demographic and energizing reason for an upcoming campaign.  Think about it.

    Young (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:01:16 AM EST
    voters were pretty passionless about Obama in 2012 and Ron Paul attracted legions of them but in the end it did not matter.

    No interest in another simulacrum of dynasty (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    from this quarter.  Still, if it's her vs AFB (another f*g Bush) my vote's for Clinton.

    I look forward to voting for her again (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:56:29 PM EST

    It's becoming fun (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:38:56 PM EST
    To try to imagine what happens if she does not.  Tho I expect she will.

    Imagine (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:14:18 PM EST
    if it means that Biden is the heir apparent....

    Jeralyn has already announced that she would sit out the 2016 election were that fellow to be the designee.

    Oh my.


    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:20:35 PM EST
    I agree with BTD.  She's running.  But IF she did not I don't think Biden would win the nomination.  

    Maybe she does not look forward to the (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:48:38 PM EST
    Next two and a half years of campaigning knowing it's not a sure thing.

    It was supposed to be a sure thing last time and she couldn't even get the nomination.

    She is not a young person anymore.  This is a 10 year commitment to win and serve two terms and like no other politician before her she has Bill to keep in line.

    Not saying she won't but I'd understand if she didn't.

    Last (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:08:20 AM EST
    time she polled at 40% of the party. Obama had 25%. This time she has 80%. She built a huge following from her run in 2008. There is no comparison.

    She's technically at 67% (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:03:13 AM EST
    But that is also the highest rate of any non-incumbent candidate this far out on record for their party's nomination, either dem or republican.

    For comparison purposes, the leading republican right now is Huckabee at 13.7%. That is the lowest percentage on record of any non-incumbent candidate for their party's nomination, either dem or republican.

    In a nutshell what all that means is...your point is still completely accurate.


    The Obama (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    campaign wizards are running the Ready for Hillary operation.

    She does not have to announce for a long time.  Stay out of the line of fire for awhile.

    She will have the nomination whenever she wants it.....

    The campaign for her can be two months long from Labor Day to Election Day if she wants....


    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    some of them are but not all of them I don't think.

    Two months long? Nonsense. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:57:30 AM EST
    Profit driven Media won't permit such an abuse of their bottom line.

    Three factors come to mind (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:37:01 AM EST
    The economy, Obamacare, and 2014 elections.

    Without "real" non spin improvement to the economy, the party in control of the whitehouse will change.

    2014 elections have two elements, net party gain/loss, and what happens to specific people that HRC is tied to.

    HRC main interest was healthcare, and if she runs I don't see how she could avoid a theme of "fixing" Obamacare, it would have too much broad appeal to resist, and that means Obama might openly support somebody else.

    For the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:10:09 AM EST
    to win in 2016 they are going to have to find someone outside of their current crop of clowns.

    Not sure about the 2014 elections (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ragebot on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:50:12 AM EST
    But the economy and Obamacare will be biggies in the 2016 prez election.

    Currently there are about two million fewer peeps working than when Obama first took office, but that is still better than the five million fewer at the recessions worst.  More folks are looking for work, average family income is less, and labor participation rate is close to all time lows.  All this with QE infinity to the tune of $US85 billion a month.

    Plenty of dems are running away from Obamacare for many reasons.  Enrollment is lagging and the mix of those enrolled is bad, even using official govt figures.  Networks are limited and if polls are to be believed more folks got higher insurance bills than got lower bills.  Deductibles are often too much even with top level plans.

    Maybe the economy will get better and there will be a surge in enrollments in Obamacare, but I am not holding my breath.

    Two years is a long way off and things could change.  But one thing for sure is Hillary will be two years older and there are questions, legit or not, about her health.

    Don't bet the farm she will run, less yet get elected.


    I think the chances might increase (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    Of her running and winning if things go badly this year.  Everything that's been said about the need to protect the gains we have made would doubled.  Hillary knows as well as anyone how important it would be to hold off right wing attacks until 2016 when the map is much more favorable to dems.

    Meant to say (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    16 and beyond when the map becomes ....

    I agree (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    a full on crazy senate to match the full on crazy house would almost make her a shoe in for President in 2016. And you if you think nothing is getting done now, even less will get done if the GOP has the senate. They are just going to sit there and have vote after vote to repeal Obamacare.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#89)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    People vote for the president first and foremost in a presidential election year.

    See 2008.  

    Dems had the house and Senate after 2006 but nobody cared.   That election was about Bush.  

    If Obama doesn't improve his current polling (which is terrible) the 2016 election will be about his lame duck presidency and if Clinton will just be more of the same.

    Only active Dem partisans will care about the state of congress.  

    The average voter will say Dems had their chance to run the country and did a bad job.   Time for someone else.  

    Also dragging on Hillary will be the reality that she is a Washington insider and will really be more of the same old Washington BS.  Not the candidate to get out the youth vote looking for change.


    I find (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    that interesting because the GOP has even run ads where Hillary was criticizing Obama.

    The GOP has done such a great job running off voters and people remember what a horrific job Bush did on the economy that I would think the GOP would have a hard time selling that they are going to fix the economy. Let's see? Would we rather have a Clinton economy or a Bush economy? That's a no brainer.

    Do you really think they are going to hire crazy? Never fear Hillary will peel the bark off of whoever the GOP sends out from the primaries.

    And if it was soley the economy Obama would have lost in 2012.


    Where did you get this? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:22:38 PM EST
    Currently there are about two million fewer peeps working than when Obama first took office, but that is still better than the five million fewer at the recessions worst.

    Total non-farm employees, Jan. 2009 - 133,976,000

    Total non-farm employees, Jan. 2009 - 137,395,000, or (preliminary figures) Feb., 2014 - 137,699,000

    From BLS tables.


    That second figure (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:23:26 PM EST
    Jan. 2013 - 137,395,000

    If Obama were going to openly support (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:28:55 AM EST
    someone else I think he would have been subtly putting someone forward  by now. To me the fact that he hasn't is the clearest indicator that he expects Clinton to run. There are plenty of ways to improve Obamacare that any Dem can propose and Obama would agree with. Suggesting improvements is not the same as the republican attacks on it.

    He has got his hands completely full (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:29:09 AM EST
    Though.  And with all the dark money out there, I think all the Dem party leaders realize they must be very careful giving the rich anything to exploit.

    I believe Barack Obama is 100% in for Hillary, he was able to get through one signature piece of legislation and that was healthcare reform.  He has got to want that to survive in some form and healthcare reform is something Hillary Clinton has fought for since she was First Lady.  He's gotta have Hillary.  


    Not a thing about that I disagree with but (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    We are. 50 50 country (replying to several comments not just yours) Hillary's poll numbers will fall quickly when she once again becomes a politician. When we are neck deep in Kenya and birth certificates we tend to forget Vince Foster, travel gate, the Lincoln bedroom, the Clinton Chronicals and yadda yadda yadda.  But I assure everyone those files are not even dusty over atFox news.  And of course Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi.

    I have been saying for a couple years that Hillary will be the next president and I believe it.  But I hear coronation in many of these comments and we know how well that worked before.  A lesson Hillary learned better than anyone no doubt.

    She cannot run a "two month" and campaign it will be a dirty and ugly affair whoever the other candidates are.


    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    she's quite aware of what the crazies at Fox are going to throw out. That is why I liked her back in 2008. She realizes what she is dealing with regarding the GOP, none of this PPUS kumbaya crap that Obama pulled for years.

    One thing is sure (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:34:35 AM EST
    There will be a kiss a$$ war room and she will never make the mistake, as O has repeatedly, of not responding to a charge because it is ridiculous.

    Anyone we run against Fox News (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    It doesn't matter, from here on out it's going to be as ugly as ugly can be.  They (the royal Foxy Newsy set) have things on the Clintons that stir their base up frothy and have for years, what they don't have is anything yummy and fresh to feed anyone's neuropathways.  Any swing voter can't get easily caught up in the old scandals without something really delicious attached to it.  I think that is the reason several releases of letters and such have taken place recently too.  Old news just doesn't affect us all the same way because we survived it, it isn't the same threat and loses its ability to provoke fears in this whose fears aren't already entrenched.

    Do I think anyone is going to hand her the Presidency on a platter?  No!  She is going to have to earn her Indy voters, and the segment of voters identify as Indy is on the grow right now.  They are open to solutions though, and I notice she is making moves so that nobody can take those open minds and easily stuff them with tantalizing issue distracting garbage.


    A lot of us at TalkLeft will have to (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:30:05 AM EST
    Meditate heavily through the election process though,  we carry scars.  Some things scarred badly because some would not quit picking the scab.

    "...will have to meditate heavily..." (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by unitron on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    ...and others of use will have to medicate heavily to deal with it.

    Of course in my case I can't see any possible scenario where I won't have to vote for the Democrat in order to vote against the Republican, so that question is already settled and I just need to find some way to insulate myself from pretty much any and all news, discussion, et cetera, for a couple of years, hence the "medicate".


    And some of us will have to mediate heavily! (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    Bahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    Cat herders....small time (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:39:53 PM EST
    Try being a puma herder huh ruffian :)?  Some people scream, and some mediate :). Without mediators the world would be a culled place :)

    Well that's certainly true (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    But at least this time I  am pretty sure the primary will not be the problem

    I hope not (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    But my greatest honesty on the table, I expect NONE of this to be easy.  Either Biden is smoke screening for the benefit of the party or he could be a problem, and he and Hillary already had a secret knock down drag out over Afghanistan that Hillary deftly won.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    Just MO

    I think a contest between Biden and Hillary would be Bambi vs Godzilla.  Of all the problems I can foresee Biden is the least.  


    A primary challenger to Hillary though (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:50:18 AM EST
    Is going to be rough for many of my political friends to endure. I will have to take breaks from it all so I don't get too deeply caught up in it.  That's what my plan is, managing my scar tissue :)

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    Not sure what you are referring to exactly, but regarding the some who picked at scabs, I for one only picked at scabs that were oozing fetid pus.

    Grinding axes while acting as if there was no axe seemed par for the course for sometime long after the election... Flickers of that sentiment remain to date.

    To be clear those who had the scabs, continued to be relentlessly against anything Obama good or bad there was no differentiation. And when he f'ed up, which was not seldom, the glee was identical to the wingers.

    Had Obama cured cancer, many here would never give him credit.


    To be clearer, I don't think you did anything (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    Wrong encouraging others to live in the present without allowing the past to color EVERYTHING.  Clinton is a corporate Dem also, I don't think she would have made many drastically different choices than Obama if she had been President.

    And wow did she and Obama seem to work together seamlessly when she was SoS.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    I got that.. just wanting to add my thoughts to the issue, as I was a scab picker..  hahaha

    Is this in the nature of a confession? (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:38:53 PM EST
    See here. And no need for a confession as my role in the matter has been overt and transparent, imo.

    See (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    I'll drink (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    To transpRency

    And obviously I am (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    Or I could spell it .   Cocktails with lunch.  The. A nap.  Retirement rocks.

    I love naps anymore (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    Pathetic.  My spousal is home on R&R leave.  The only reason we get naked right now though is because it is too hot to nap clothed.  And we like it almost just as much...this napping thing.

    The only thing that can improve (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    A nap is a companion.   I have to settle for dogs.



    Squeaky, I didn't bring up the (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    Notion of the scabs looking to lay any blame.  It was an excruciating primary.  We all handled the aftermath the best we could.

    Anecdotally, it is possible to have scars but also (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    to have voted for and to support President Obama.

    Anecdote and adage (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    Everyone has scars ... in politics and, definitely, in our lives.  We heal, learn, move to the next phase.  

    I'd like to meet the person who bears no life scars.  Then again, maybe encountering a robot would lack something.  Same goes for anyone who has ever engaged in the art of politics.


    Benghazi! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    And I noticed yesterday that she gets worked into every GOP talking point about Russia too.

    The game is afoot.


    All true (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:31:02 AM EST
     It remember there is a whole generation of voters who were in diapers when we lived thru those old scandals and May or may not have even heard of them.

    Still old news though (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    They would be coming from the perspective of how did it affect the nation and good governance.  Not much unless you want to discuss Bill Clinton not taking that shot at Bin Laden when he had it because of the Lewinsky scandal and he didn't feel like he could afford the International uproar it may have caused at the time.

    Replaying all that could really blow up in the Republicans faces because this upcoming generation feels completely different about a bj :). And the majority of them already can't stand Republicans because they can't get real and have so many Victorian/racist hangups.


    When was this? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:14:44 AM EST
    Not much unless you want to discuss Bill Clinton not taking that shot at Bin Laden when he had it because of the Lewinsky scandal and he didn't feel like he could afford the International uproar it may have caused at the time.

    Bin Laden wasn't even indicted until 1998, at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack against Bin Laden - and got accused of "wagging the dog" because of it.  The "opportunity" that Crumpton was talking about was in 1999.

    From the Factcheck article:

    What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 - at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

    We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.

    I thought it was W who, post 9-11-,decided not to (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    take out Bin Laden.

    See factcheck.org (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:08:05 PM EST
    re Bill Clinton:



    But (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:27:06 AM EST

    And Hank Crumpton's account, the CIA wanted to kill bin Laden, not capture him.


    True (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    but honestly don't you think they are more concerned with actaul results than fake scandals generated by the GOP. I mean even when there was a real scandal ala Monica it did not help the GOP.

    And I think Obama has made a lot of those voters a lot more savy. No longer are they going to do the "hope and change" thing and believe and all the other stuff he told them that they now have soured on.

    George W. Bush tried to "cash in" on those scandals and could not even win the popular vote.


    What a shame only ONE (none / 0) (#95)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    network offers any criticism of the left, more of a shame its Fox.

    IF HRC runs, who on the left or right would be running against her? Could make for a very odd election cycle.

    Prediction I will make is that if she runs it will be a short period, maybe just a couple months before the outcome looks clear.


    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    isn't that they criticize the left but that they have such low standards. I mean they have been caught making stuff up numerous times and never offer a retraction. At least someone like 60 minutes when they fell for one of the Benghazi hoaxers did something and actually checked and put the reporter on leave. No such standards at Fox. It's the National Enquirer on cable. And the funny thing is they do a great disserve to the right and are part of their problem becuase they believe that everybody outside of their cult is the left.

    Have you watched CBS on Sunday morning? (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08:14 PM EST
    Or NBC? Or ABC? Open derision of the left is a staple of every round table.

    Oh I forgot, some people think Obama is "the left".  Yes, they are easier on him then they are on the left.


    Ah (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    the fluffer networks discussing, er, praising Obama. Golly I seem to have missed watching that, for the last few decades.

    You don't take anything they say as serious journalism do you?

    It party line baloney with token criticism offered only to fully dismiss it.


    You missed my point (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    You said the media does not criticize 'the left'. Obama is NOT 'the left'. The main stream media criticizes and ridicules 'the left' all the time.

    They're actual journalists (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:37:44 PM EST
    So, yeah ... I'd get my information from journalists rather than winger websites like CTH any day of the week.

    He did a terrific end run around Hillary (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 06:55:46 AM EST
    Clinton last tine. Could happen again.

    Don't see (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:10:59 AM EST
    that happening this time. I'm sure if she runs she's not going to leave any openings like she did last time.

    HIllary could have a (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    bad month and lose 20 points--and then still be ahead by so much it will not be a contest.

    The Republicans only chance is if they can get Jeb to change his last name and then run.



    Jeb may see Mrs. Clinton (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:15:48 PM EST
    as his best bet at running for president.  It would tend to neutralize one albatross of his--the dynasty matter to which even Mother Bush alluded.   Of course, there is the remainder of that flock of seabirds of his to deal with.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:48:45 PM EST
    but he can't change his last name which is his biggest problem. He has double the albatross the rest of the GOP field has.

    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:41:42 PM EST
    Hillary should be happy with a potential comparison of where the previous Clinton left the country to where the previous Bush left the country.

    Exactly. If the election comes down to (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:10:17 PM EST
    a Bush and a Clinton, I think I know who will win. Barbara just does not want her son beaten by a Clinton like her husband was. That would just be embarrassing.

    I think the extent of Mrs. Clinton's (none / 0) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    indecision is the exact date to announce her candidacy.   In my view she will easily win the Democratic primary and clearly tower over the dwarfs in the Republican line-up.   Rand Paul as an opponent will come across, alternately, as warden of the asylum (privacy/ the anti-McCain on bombing everything and everyone) and one of the asylum inmates (on everything else).

    Ted Cruz, aside from his reactionary extremism,  needs to fight that born in Canada matter (although it is not Kenya, the favorite of his fellow wingers), but I suppose he will start the Republican debate by singing the Star Spangled Banner in the key of eh.  That should do it.    

    But, I believe the country will be well-served by Mrs. Clinton: she brings special experiences from advisor to President Clinton, eight years in the US senate, and four years as Secretary of State.  Of course, her long record of service introduces controversies, but her opponents can be counted on to manufacture some if previous hot button issues have cooled over time.  

     I have disappointments with her policies and positions, in aspects of foreign affairs, especially a tendency toward neo-conservatisim, or at least, hawishness   However, her tenure as Secretary of State was overall a successful one, benefiting from the tone and tenor of the Administration.    

    Key concerns of mine include the Libya "humanitarian" actions (but not Benghazi).  And, most recently, her reported statement that the Russian/Ukraine sounds familiar--what Adolph Hitler did in the 1930's.  This was inelegant and  was not helpful.  

     Historical analogies are never exact, and she might be expected to present the similarities and dissimilarities--if the emotional undergirding to the statement needed to be stated at all.  

    But the problem is (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    that experience doesn't matter.

    We all learned that, for sure, about the Nu Dems.

    What matters to the Nu Dems is the visuals.  And they don't want the visuals of a woman, an old woman (to them), a woman with "cankles," etc., etc.

    (I'm not saying that she wouldn't win, the she wouldn't be good, etc.  I'm saying that we all witnessed the result of the pandering in primary season to the post-boomer bloc, and it ain't gonna be pretty with them without a candidate who ain't pretty, by their parameters.)

    No matter the apparently overwhelming support now -- we all learned about that, too -- I can see exactly how they would do the takedown.  

    And it won't be about experience.


    Not necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ZtoA on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:32:52 PM EST
    This is NOT scientific, but my daughter in LA in her mid 20s says that her male peer group attitudes have changed since 08.

    H's strong support of choice and women's and girl's rights helps. Oddly, "Texts from Hillary" helped too. She often participates in gay pride parades and extended same sex partner benefits to her state department. The "cankles" cracks were mostly from middle aged white men. And the image of someone who could take on an insane congress is good.

    Yes image counts the most in elections but her image may be fluid. Depends on how she campaigns. I hope the liberal middle aged white male media got bruised in 08 and is evolving too.


    Experience is a positive attribute (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:38:40 PM EST
    The 2008 primary was about voting for candidates--not against candidates....

    This is why Hillary is so strong this time around.  Those who voted for her in 2008 were not, for the most part I would venture, anti-Obama votes but rather pro-Hillary votes....


    Look at this (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:26:03 PM EST
    way: The Nu Dems or the latte contention's fervor has cooled after being taken in by Mr. Obama. They bought a pig in a poke and yes, they will whine about Hillary but at least they KNOW what they are getting when they vote for her unlike Obama who acted like the Clinton years were the worst years EVAH and that Bill Clinton was the problem and then promptly hired all his advisors.

    Obama should be grooming Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#140)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    so she can run with Barney Frank. Or Peter DeFazio or another good middle class supporter.

    Oh wait, Obama's not on our side...