Hillary 2016?

In November 2008, this was posted at TalkLeft:

Ezra Klein thinks: "Presuming that Hillary Clinton will remain one of, if not the, central actors in Democratic life from the year 2000 to the year 2016 displays a certain poverty of imagination about the path of Democratic politics. With every passing day, her singular political position erodes. In 2004, she would have won the nomination in a walk. By 2008, there was a new politician who better tapped into that particular moment in the party's life. By 2016, there will be many politicians like that, most of whose names we don't know. It's very hard to imagine that eight years in the future, the party will want to move back to Clinton."

One thing for sure, Ezra is not suffering from a poverty of imagination in this post. The entire post seems a figment of his imagination to me. [...] I think the complete opposite of Ezra - If Hillary wants to be the Dem nominee in 2016, she will be the Dem nominee in 2016.

Told you so. Of course Ezra got the Vox money tho.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Belgian Arms Dealer Admits Selling Weapons Used in Paris Attacks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Did you want to be right? (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    Because it just seems to me that whether you win that argument or Ezra does, or whether Hillary wins the election, I can't help feeling like we're still losing.  And by "we" I mean Democrats, solidly-on-the-left types like me, who are fed up with bought-and-paid-for candidates who get all goose-pimply when they think about war, and making rich people richer.

    That being said, two years of GOP control of the Congress might make Democrats out of a lot of people who would never admit to going over to the other side - assuming, that is, that Obama doesn't get it into his head that finally, he has a Congress who can give him the Grand Bargain he's pined for.  

    At which point, I don't know what happens.  We cry, I guess.

    I so badly want someone to get into the race who can push, pull and cart Hillary Clinton in a leftward direction, and who won't be satisfied to claim to be to the left, but only because the GOP has gone so far to the right that it just seems that way.

    And, no - I am not talking about Elizabeth Warren.  I want her right where she is, pushing hard against the right in the Senate - and even against Obama, when he needs to be pushed.

    Once again, a Democrat will be better than a Republican, but that's not really saying much; wherever that bar was in 2008 and 2012, it's been lowered yet again.  Why we have to keep following the GOP in the race to the bottom, instead of aspiring to the top, is a complete mystery to me - until I remember who's paying for these elections, and then it all makes sense.

    Yes, Ezra missed on (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    that one--but his prognostication did not take into account her subsequent appointment as Secretary of State.  Her well-acquitted and widely admired service removed her from the domestic fray while keeping her in the public mind.  Now, the Democratic presidential nomination is there for her taking--the most others being encouraged to run are expected to accomplish is to sharpen the debate and re-tool campaign skills--or to position for running mate.  

    However, the caution of a "poverty of imagination" does need to be heeded for the campaign.   Secretary of State brought value to her candidacy, but the trappings of that office need to be shed so as to demonstrate a reclamation of a popular touch.

    President Obama was remiss on this score in his first debate with Romney, and we saw a similar reaction by Al Gore in debates with Bush.  Mrs. Clinton's early interview on NPR with Terry Gross (despite Ms Gross's demeanor) was needlessly controversial.

    Clearly, the lesson is to never underestimate the opponent just because he is a dullard.   Importantly, "Poverty of imagination,"  comes into play in presenting a vision and plan for that vision in her administration. What will be the same, what will be different from the Obama Administration.

    Romney would make that task easier in that we know he is bereft of ideas. Jeb does have some thoughts, but he needs to tame them for his crowd.   Both, are no threats from a freshness perspective. Some Republican wannabes can provide a fresher face, but still offer stale ideas--and worse, dangerous ones.

    Mrs. Clinton has been in the public eye and national consciousness for decades; she needs to couple and build upon that familiarity with her experiences and plans for the future.

    He also was (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 03:50:15 PM EST
     rather overly optimistic about the emergence of better candidates (in terms of either "electability" or  policy/leadership).

      I wish he had been right.


    As far (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    as developing any kind of bench for the future Obama has been abysmal.

    You are certainly (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    right that it looks as if Clinton could well be the nominee.

    But this statement by Ezra resonates with me as well:

    "It's very hard to imagine that eight years in the future, the party will want to move back to Clinton."

    Even as we move toward anointing Clinton, I find it difficult to imagine that that is as far as the Democratic party has moved in eight long years: Nowhere.

    The only breath of air has come from Elizabeth Warren in my opinion - and she is not going to run.

    So, for me, it's not just that Clinton wants it, it's that if there are other voices - particularly voices on the left , I'm not hearing them.

    What a poverty of imagination in the Democratic party. And on the other side - it is a proverbial clown car - packed with people I couldn't even imagine having lunch with - yet alone seeing as president.

    Not a pretty picture.

    It would seem that... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by unitron on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 05:08:10 PM EST

    "By 2016, there will be many politicians like that, most of whose names we don't know."

    ...by and large, we still don't know those names.

    Lest we (I) forget, Hillary Clinton was the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 05:41:38 PM EST
    "inevitable" Dem. nominee in 2008. Until she wasn't.

    who's going to challenge her? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:07:49 PM EST
    I don't think anyone significant. So it will be quite different from the crowded field of candidates in 2007. There's no more Edwards (in politics), Biden wouldn't dare run against her, Obama's done. I think everyone is waiting for her decision, and the nomination is her's if she wants it.

    That said, I'm not sure she'll decide to run.


    The Super Ds will decide and clue us (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:17:08 PM EST
    in later.

    Seems She might be leaning (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    Podesta (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    is a good pick. Hopefully she will pick better people this time.

    Didn't a couple of her picks go to (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:26:20 PM EST
    Obama last time? Axelrod comes to mind . . .?

    Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    apparently had some minor role in Bill's campaigns back in the 1990's. Considering the fact that he's pretty much ticked people off every time he's opened his mouth IIRC she's probably better off without him. I believe Axelrod was the one calling people "bitter knitters".

    Oh dear . . . (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    the under the bus days are starting to come back to me . . .   :P

    Bitter knitters remark came from (none / 0) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    current Chicago mayor and perpetual jerk Rahm Emmanual.

    She needs Plouffe, the mastermind. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:01:41 AM EST
    Plouffe (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:05:31 AM EST
    another one that should stay away from a TV camera.

    She has better than that (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:23:28 AM EST
    Obama's national field director has been with the Waiting for Hillary group for quite some time now.....

    And I predict, if that's the case (none / 0) (#69)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    that the Democrats will lose in 2016. I'll probably vote for her whilst holding my nose and stomach because the alternative will be even worse. But I don't understand the fascination with Hillary Clinton. She is not particularly liberal. She's has a 90's drug warrior perspective on the war on Americans. Her attitude toward marijuana legalization is probably in tune with Mitt Romney. Marijuana will never get off Schedule I.

    As is (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    Most of the country and many Democrats.

    She is not particularly liberal

    Since presidential candidates need to be  electsble by more than the just base of a party, it seems that's exactly why she'd be so attractive as a candidate.


    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    ...it's about moving the Overton window. Remember: by today's nutso GOP standards, Nixon was a flaming liberal.

    The knee-jerk anti-liberal rhetoric breaks down when people reach retirement age and want their Medicare and SS untouched. Either they regain common sense, or live their lives in cognitive dissonance.

    And anyway, Dems are already losing a great deal of what was once the base of their party. So what then? All that's left is the mushy middle.


    It's ALWAYS been (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    And always will be "about the middle".

    Except on blogs.


    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    Completely disagree. It's the blogs who go on and on and on about the middle.

    Most voters have problems and issues in their lives that they want addressed. Oh, and they like to say they have voted for a winner.

    Most people (obviously not those who consider mouth breathing and knuckle dragging to be proudly conservative, but most people) don't give two sh!ts about centrist vs liberal vs conservative when taking a position on an issue. They know when they have been screwed -- or are about to be.

    It's the natterers that blather on and on and on about "heading for the center".


    Likewise, I wish landscape window (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    had not shifted.  But, it appears to have slid since the Reagan years ... and, my take is that positioning reflects on our inability to focus as strategically as Repubs on local and state offices.  We let the backbone go a long time ago, and now we find--once again--how significant politically & otherwise the mundane tasks of apportionment, assemblymen, state initiatives really are.  As we keep finding out (see 2014, e.g.)we liberals don't do so well in defining the in-between times, apparently.

    So, I take the "window" where it seems to be and deal with that location now.  At the same time, I understand railing against the shift.  One caution might be in order about wishing-something-was-otherwise:  The right has its version of pining for something else as well ... Sen. Ted Cruz said recently that the Republicans could not regain the White House by going the path of the "mushy middle." (Politico reported on Monday, January 12th.) That phrase is an interesting pejorative.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    it sure as heck isn't going to shift back if nobody tries to make it happen.

    It is not like Cruz came up with (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    the  phrase the "mushy middle." Dems have been using that phrase for a long time to describe the more right leaning members of the Democratic Party or those who considered giving the Republicans everything they asked for and more a compromise and patted themselves on the back for being so very pragmatic.

    Bothe the base on the right and (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 04:38:46 PM EST
    the base on the left decry the "mushy middle."  My point, obviously, was a cautionary one about avoiding becoming like or being seen--rightly or wrongly--as the polar opposite.  Political scientists have talked about the tendency for years; it is the stuff of latter-day political science classes.

    I seriously doubt that there is any (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:35:27 PM EST
    Danger of the Democratic Party being the polar opposite of the Republican Party.

    Where the danger lies is in the Party being viewed as not standing for anything. Everything can be traded away upon request.


    I come in peace (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:26:57 AM EST
    Obviously I will not be supporting Hillary but I see her as both a strong and week candidate for the democrats.

    As of today she is a shoe in to be the nominee.  Who is or who even wants to challenge her?  The only type of candidate that makes sense is an Elizabeth Warren type candidate that can challenge her from the more progressive side of the party.  But I wonder if such a person is going to stand up and instead we will get a more generic Democrat opponent that Hillary can easily defeat.

    Since the goal of the Democrats is to win the presidential election do you really feel a strong progressive candidate facing her in the primary will do her any favors?  

    While I get the theory that she needs a good challenge in the nomination process to prepare for the general election I also think getting stuck in debates on more progressive issues might hurt her in the general election.

    Also what is the Bill factor going to be?

    We can talk about Hillary as an individual as much as we want but Bill is going to loom large. Most Americans are not going to see her as an individual they are going to see the two of them as a package deal.  

    Let's just say for arguments sake Americans somehow separate Hillary from Bill in terms of today she is still going to be seen as a politician from that generation. How does she go about claiming to be a politician with new ideas and not a politician that's part of the status quo?

    Can she reignite the Obama voter? He won his two elections by getting people to the polls that otherwise may not have come and in the first election actually winning Republican voters because of his message of change.  He did this through his powerful personality and his message. Is she up to this challenge?

    Does she separate herself from Obama? He will not leave office as a popular president but she can't go bashing himl but she has to again claim she's different somehow and appeal to a more moderate part of the electorate in the general.

    Ironically I think Republicans are about to cancel out the factor were she is most vulnerable if they nominate Jeb Bush.

    I'm sorry but I can't think of anything more boring than a Bush Clinton or Clinton Bush national election.

    I can also think of and no election that would be less important in terms of new policies then that election.

    Elizabeth Warren remains too much (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:35:36 AM EST
    of an outsider.  Nobody gets what they want in that town unless they can build on relationships that take years and years to build, (mainly through you scratch my back and I scratch yours dealing)

    While. Obama might be willing (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    to scratch a lot of backs, he did not take years and years to build relationships. That did not seem to prevent him from becoming president.

    When you have the backing of the (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    Chicago Democratic machine, when you pass the major test of speaking at the Democratic convention, have your path to the Senate more or less cleared for you, are given plum committee assignments as a freshman Senator (even if you don't show up for the meetings), you've won the only kinds of relationships that apparently matter.

    You definitely have a point (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    I agree that he was given the only type of backing that really matters from the get go.

    It did, however (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    Hinder him in many ways since becoming president.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:08:26 AM EST
    Since the goal of the Democrats is to win the presidential election do you really feel a strong progressive candidate facing her in the primary will do her any favors?  

    IMO that's the wrong question.  I think Hillary, should she run, will win.  The demographics of the country make a democrat victory ours to lose.  Again IMO.  A true progressive in the race might not "help" her but IMO it would help us.  It would keep the issues we care about on the stage. In a way that is not just lip service.   I like Hillary and have already said I'm fine with the idea of President Hillary.  I actually think the "two for one" thing will help, not hurt, her.  Bubba is a revered figure.  I've been seeing cable talking heads talking about how Hillary will have to "answer" for all the BS from the 90s.  I couldn't disagree more.  I hope and pray they think they can make this about interns and blue dresses.

    Also, I don't think it will be Jeb.


    But (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:39:13 AM EST
    While Democrats keep talking about the advantage of the demographics they are also ignoring how much Hillary will cost them in the white vote come to 2016.

    in order to counter that she has to steal women from the Republicans and re-create the demographic advantage that Obama enjoyed.

    How is she going to run as a candidate of new ideas when she is tied to the politics of the past?  That is the connection to Bill I'm talking about. I think a few loony Republicans will try to bring up the old scandals but for the most part the narrative will be she is just more of the same old Democratic Party.

    If she can't shake that label her demographic advantage will be in trouble.

    Lucky for her the Republicans make nominate a Jeb or Romney and then it won't matter it'll be a choice between two old stale parties.


    Your (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    are sorely mistaken if you think Hillary is going to cost Dems the white vote. The last polling I saw had her with something like 48% of the white vote. The GOP with only 52% of the white vote and an ever shrinking elderly white vote at that has nowhere to go but down. BTD did extensive demographic research on this issue back in 2008. Obama won with the Dukakis coalition. Hillary expands that to working class whites.

    The problem the GOP has is that their "get more of the white vote" will only work in a low turn out off year election.


    I hate to (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    tell you this but the politics of the past is way more hurtful to the GOP than to the Dems. The GOP has to deal with the Bush problem. Most people remember the 90's as an economic boom time when they did well.

    It's more about her (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:38:41 AM EST
    Is she just more of the same from Washington?

    Lobbyists, favors, big government, wars, etc...

    What kills me is Republicans are going to wipe all that away when they nominate Romney or Bush.  Don't know why people are doubtful of this.  Just look at their nominees back to Eisenhower.   Only Goldwater had a pulse of charisma.

    All the sudden she can take the new ideas angle and she'll walk away with it.

    Republicans only chance is a young smart candidate that can put out a new fresh message but again they never seem to do that.


    To answer your question, yes, she is (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    more of the same from Washington.  It may be a saner same, but she exemplifies the status quo that the money men and the other pols are comfortable with.

    For what it's worth, I don't think Romney's getting another chance to be president; he might make it to primary season, but if he does, I don't think he's getting very far.  And I don't think it's going to be Jeb Bush, either; can't put my finger on it, but it just doesn't feel right.

    I think the real problem the GOP is going to have is overcoming the mess they're already trying to make of things via the Congress, and if they are as bad at offering good policy as it seems they want to be, their only real chance to win might be if they could finesse making it legal for the Pope to run.  


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    the GOP's problem is larger than the candidate. They are still campaigning on the same platform written over 1/3 of a century ago. Unless someone gets a hold of that, changes it and manages to attract young voters it is not going to matter who they nominate. Look no further than someone like Rand Paul who is now doing a 180 on his previous ideas which actually would have been different but apparently candidates have to go where the voters are to win the primary and there's no votes in the GOP primary for civil libertarians or not enough votes.

    Oh I agree (none / 0) (#106)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:05:40 PM EST
    And probably why Hillary will win if she gets the nomination and the Republicans nominate another stale fish.

    The disconnect between the types of candidates they field in house, Govenor and senate races and what that usually field in the presidential nomination is really quite remarkable.

    I really can't believe you guys are skeptical about Jeb or  Romney.  History tells us they are way more likely than any other kind of candidate to be the nominee.

    Republican primary voters are old. They like slow and steady. So that's what we keep getting.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:49:03 PM EST
    my skepticism comes from the fact that I saw the local Republicans not thrilled with McCain but even less thrilled with Romney but the absolute hatred of Jeb Bush is amazing along with Chris Christie. These people believe that they were not far right enough and that is why they lost. They want someone in the mold of Ted Cruz.

    But a lot of the Republicans in the state houses are just as bad. Might be the year to run a tea partier like Cruz and let him go down in flames to show the crazies that they are out of the mainstream because they sure think they are the mainstream and that their ideas are popular.


    Man, lower Alabama hates Chris Christie (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    I sense they could support Jeb as long as nobody talks about the ethnicity of his wife, and then how he might like other brown people too.  But Chris Christie?  Let's not even think about him right now.  Chris who?

    Same here (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:59:13 PM EST
    the republicans here want someone pure.  That ain't Jeb or Chris.

    They want the Huckleberry (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    Or the Perry so far

    My husband says it can't be Chris (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    So much drama.  All his people are being indicted, but he's safe....like a mob boss or something :)

    I think Huckabee (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:45:28 PM EST
    is a player.

    In the Southern sector he certainly is (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 07:35:11 PM EST
    What the South demands and what the rest of the right leaning is comfortable with tends to not match up well.  At least not in the past.

    The (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:17:48 PM EST
    evangelicals love the guy. I could very well see him winning the primary but he runs off a lot of people too.

    Same here. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:54:43 PM EST
    If Jeb could figure out how to hide Columba for an entire primary season he might be acceptable but since he's in an "interracial" marriage it just is not acceptable.

    Glen Beck (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:59:26 PM EST
    describes Mike Huckabee as Jeb Bush hiding behind a cross.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:20:16 PM EST
    Do tell who does Beck like? It seems that none of the mouthpieces for the GOP like Rush, Beck et. all care much for Jeb. The only constituency Jeb must have in the GOP sounds like they could be all contained in one smoke filled room.

    Glenn Beck of the gold and seed hoarding tribe :) (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:47:32 PM EST
    Who does bat$h!t crazy like this go around?

    Who do you think? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:51:55 PM EST
    Ted Cruz

    I should have known (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:52:34 PM EST
    I honestly didn't though

    I posted a Beck rant (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    i think in the last open.  He goes there.

    Wow...went and found it (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    What happened to Glenn Beck?  Did he jump into a worm hole and come out 30 yrs older?  He's all grizzled in a grampa sweater.  Crank=Cranky?

    What's all the binders in the desk?  What's with the flashing lights around the desk?  That can cause seizures ya know.

    Mike Huckabee is the devil...common core satan :)

    The military started using the terminology common core too for certain classes that everyone in certain groups must take.  Satan has infested.


    Fascinating bit (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    of triangulation there I think.  

    I should (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 07:07:27 AM EST
    have guessed that but like Tracy I didn't know either. I remember him being a huge Romney fan. I wonder if that increases the chances of Cruz being the nominee.

    Goldwater & charisma, huh? (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    So, Slado, who would be your preferred Republican candidate for President in 2016 of those Repub potential candidates mentioned today?  And, of course, the reason that I ask is your definite-sounding statement in this thread that you would not be voting for Hillary Clinton ... at which point, the next line naturally leads to "Okay, we know who you are against ... now, turning to your own political persuasion, whom do you support?" Does your comment here suggest another Goldwater?

    Oh yes I'd like someone (none / 0) (#103)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    Scott Walker, till yesterday Paul Ryan.  Maybe even a Gov. Christie or Rand Paul

    I want someone who will focus on shrinking ( I'd take restraining) government and our national debt, nothing crazy but someone that is at least serious about solving the problem.

    Under Obama none of that happened. Six years after a huge recession we are now finally seeing the inkling of growth and that growth is because of our energy boom and the massive secret stimulus through the treasury.  An economic policy that in reality has benefited the economic numbers and the very rich.

    There is a beautiful middle between what Obama has done the last 6 years and what the tea party wants to do and someone like Scott Walker or any candidate they can propose a real message could find that place.  

    I could care less about social issues so I want a candidate that can be socially conservative but does not make it part of his main platform.

    So we'll see.


    A little follow-up, Slado (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    First, thank you for your courteous & direct response.  Although I think that you substantially underestimate the strength of the growth here--now at almost 5% without the infusion of $$$$ associated with war-economics--and, especially in view of the sharp upward climb from what was handed President Obama in 2009--people will always approach economic "facts" from their own perspective.  Understandably.

    The follow-up? What is your position on unionization of the workforce? Can you see where--in the course of American history--their contributions in terms of pushing for & obtaining safety standards/upgrades in industries ranging from mining to manufacturing; can you recognize a contribution to the building of the middle-class in terms of negotiated working conditions, legislation covering safety standards for children, uplifted wages, pensions, etc.?  I know that that are--Unions--has been a major breakpoint between traditional Democrats since the New Deal in the 1930s and the traditional Republicans ... and, from my standpoint, the treatment of teachers' and public employee unions stands out as hallmarks of Scott Walker's and Chris Christie's negative treatment of union issues.  I think that you might prefer the traditional Republican approach toward Unions ... but, before proceeding with that assumption, it seemed right to ask for your comments on same.


    I am not a fan of public (none / 0) (#134)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:43:04 PM EST
    Sector unions.

    They are often an impediment to change required to allow government to function better.  Their pensions are backed by tax payer money and delivered by politicians for votes and are now restricting budgets if not bankrupting municipalities and cities.  As a non democrat I find it a bit unseemly that public sector union employees take taxpayer money to pay dues that are then used to fund almost exclusively democratic campaigns.

    I have no problem with private sector unions.  I delt with them at work for years working in construction and they provided a value of workmanship and quality that is economically justfiable.   However I found laws and regulations passed by goverment to favor unions a bit unfair but they are no worse then similar types of actions taken against and for private companies all the time.

    I recognize the need for unions and fair treatment of workers during thr first half of the 20th century but those days have come and gone.  Unions again in the private sector provide a value but they should not require the help of government to stand on their own.


    I'm not sure "new ideas" will be (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    the touchstone.  We sort of did that.  I think she will get a bit of the politics of the past but it won't stop her.  Interestingly I personally think it might have more of a bad effect on a male candidate of her generation.

    I keep saying I don't think the republicans are going with the establishment choice this time.  They may very well.   They have done it forever.  I really think this time the candidate might be less establishment and more "pure".   It going to be crowded in the clown car.


    As for focus, Captain (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    I agree that the line-up to date suggests to most that Hillary Clinton's advantage resides in the classic standard of Experience, Demonstrated Ability, Reliability and Sureness of Footing.  I also agree that Clinton will need the oomph of something more than the solidity of experience ... and, given her smarts & experience, I'm sure that she realizes she needs to meet the challenge of deftly combining the tried & true with a new dimension.

    But, again, the sense of hands-on knowledge that she brings is a big plus for openers.  In many ways, she has the fascinating "image" task of enhancing what the majority of Americans feel/know about her (see, e.g., her standing as most-admired-woman for an unprecedented in-the-teens time announced earlier this month) with the newness of wonder of a less experienced personage. My sense is that the combo will be strongly previewed during the week of her announcement.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 07:32:16 AM EST
    a strong challenge would hurt her. There are some like Kos who say Warren running and getting rolled by Hillary would be worse for the left wing of the party than running a "token" progressive.

    I don't see how Jeb Bush gets the nomination and if he does, it probably puts states like GA in play for Hillary because Jeb Bush stands for everything these tea party nuts purport to loathe even though at the same time he is pandering to them and losing any semblance of "moderation"

    The biggest problem the GOP has is the electoral college. It would seem they have no one that change that dynamic.


    By far, most people... (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    Also what is the Bill factor going to be?
    ...(including Dems and former Dems) have no "Bill factor" when it comes to HRC. It's the wingnuts that obsess on that score.

    Differentiating herself from Obama, now, that's a bigger issue.


    Yep, I agree (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:38:48 PM EST
    Differentiating herself from Obama, now, that's a bigger issue.

    I don't see how that's even possible; (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    the "dime's worth of difference" may actually now be more like a nickel.

    Which is why I can't understand (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    The Obama is gawd but HRC is horrible crowd or the Obama has been horrible but I can't wait to vote for HRC crowd.

    Maybe it's a case of (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    "the grass is always greener?"  

    Or that the same crowd that came after Hillary supporters with torches and pitchforks in 2008 would like to forget that the Mr. Transformational/Hope and Change they were sure Obama would be turned out to be just more of the same - and too much of that same was Bush/Cheney policy they were so sure he would change.

    Sometimes I wonder if people like this have any core beliefs, or if they just want to be on a winning side.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    Sometimes I wonder if people like this have any core beliefs, or if they just want to be on a winning side.
    IMO it's the people who want to vote for a winner who carry on about "wasting" one's vote when voting one's values if the candidate is unlikely to prevail.

    I, not atypically, think that's completely backwards. I think voting with the herd just to vote for a likely winner is wasteful.

    Your vote is your only voice into the miasma that is politics. And, IMO, "not as bad as the other guy" isn't a good enough statement for me to echo.


    Ezra...yawn....wha? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    Dope. I think you're right, tho. It's hers to take or reject. But I don't want Hillary, and I feel kind of guilty about it, having been raised essentially by a woman, and being a guy who has long wished we could break that sexist barrier in the Oval Office. But I just don't see anything about Clintonism that will help us now. The corporate democratic party has rendered political imagination all but extinct. We have no leaders anymore. None. We have shills, bought and paid for male and female prostitutes, more in the pocket of power players than ever, back to the Gilded Age level  of bullsh*t really. Will Hillary be the one to reclaim that "And I welcome their hatred" spirit needed for the Democratic Party to make any real difference? Um...pardon me while I chuckle. Prez Hopey and Changey is still on his knees blowing Wall Street. The whole party is.

    Does anyone with a genuine imagination and an ounce of creative ability or real political courage even stand a chance of existing in our current political system?

    Nope. (Though the fact that Elizabeth Warren has the role she does is mildly encouraging.)

    Maybe some good average American will win PowerBall for a billion and run. That'd be fun. And probably better for all of us, sadly.

    If I won (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:16:49 PM EST
    a billion bucks the last thing in the world I would want us to be president.

    Which is what makes you infinitely... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    more qualified than anyone and everyone who wants the job.

    Once again I give you the Kurt Vonnegut Fundamental Flaw of Psychopathic Personalities Theory...

    There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president

    Even as we read and type, the House of (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    Representatives has passed a bill wiping out President Obama's recent efforts reforming immigration policy including the Dream Act. Next up:  whittle away at Dodd-Frank. Do you really believe Clinton, if nominated and elected, would buckle re either issue?

    She'd buckle on other issues (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    That's the point. Neither is much of ANYTHING.

    I don't (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:14:43 PM EST
    think she would have buckled like Obama did. They would get something but they would have to squeal like a stuck pig before she do anything about it.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    but it's still looking like it may be fun to watch.   And not boring at all.  

    I like the new VOX.  Or maybe I just never paid attention and it's the old VOX.

    I agree, BTD. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    I think Mrs. Clinton will be the nominee, too -- if she wants it. And if she does, I'll be there to support her.

    On a related note, I'm starting to really be annoyed by those people who've been pining ceaselessly in public for an Elizabeth Warren presidential candidacy in 2016, and who are apparently still refusing to take her definitive "No!" from just this week as an acceptable answer.

    Everything that I've heard Sen. Warren say thus far in response to the relentless inquiries tells me that she sincerely and truly does not want to run for president in 2016. And if her diehard fans at MoveOn.org et al. really respect her as a person, rather than merely as their all-purpose poster girl, they'll take her at her word and stop this nonsense.

    Welcome back, my friend.

    Although many a candidate has repeatedly said (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    "No" and then enterred the fray. Looks like Jeb will be one of them

    First off (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by sj on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    I agree with you that -- for good or ill -- the Dem nomination is Clinton's for the taking.

    But conceptually I don't have a problem with "draft so-and-so" for any race. True, at some point it becomes disrespectful if the potential draftee is clearly not on board. But in the meantime a draft movement is a vehicle for voters to emphasize a given priority.

    That assumes, of course, that the priority is a value or group of values, and not a cult of personality.


    Personally I hope she has a credible challenger (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    from the left.  Credible at least in the sense of not being laughable.  Not many of those around.

    Well, all I can say is, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    Ain't that the truth?  Sadly.   :-(

    I said (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:16:03 PM EST
    that weeks ago. Elizabeth Warren's biggest problem is the people that are attaching themselves to her.

    Their dire disappointment with Obama is what is driving their behavior and desperation.


    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    I think Democratic party operatives should question why so many are wishing that Warren would run.

    Why do you think they are (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:07:00 PM EST
    wishing for her to run?

    Wasn't a challenge or anything (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 14, 2015 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    just curious.  I know why I think they wish she would run.  There is more than one reason.  They like her.  She is a smart articulate progressive.  And some just don't like Hillary.   I'm not in the last group.   I'm just fine with president Hillary.  I never honestly thought I would live to see both an AA and a female CiC.  
    One other thought on her prospects.  Living in redland as I do I can tell you there are many people in my area here, and I suspect in all the state, who will vote for her who would never vote for Obama.  Or probably any other democrat.  She is loved here.  I'm not prepared to say she would win the state but it won't be a blowout either way.
    And while part of that is roots I believe another part is that she will be able to get rural white votes a lot of places across the country.

    All that said.  I would still like to see EW run.


    I'll tell you... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 03:55:10 AM EST
    I was initially reaction to Donald's remark:
    I'm starting to really be annoyed by those people who've been pining ceaselessly in public for an Elizabeth Warren presidential candidacy in 2016

    He's annoyed.

    I thought that, as a democratic operative, as someone active in democratic party politics, he might consider asking himself why "those people" are drawn to Warren. What is it about Warren that gets the juices flowing in a potential voter?

    Personally, I think she is brilliant. I think she knows what she is talking about. I think she talks from a unified brain and heart. She doesn't mince words. She has natural integrity. She also, at this juncture anyway, does not appear to identify with the elite. She has a naturalness about her that is appealing.


    Another thought... (none / 0) (#35)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:38:33 AM EST
    I sense from Warren a true passion to try to do something to improve our lives - to loosen the stranglehold on us from Wall Street and its associates and lackeys - which is just about everybody in Washington.

    If Clinton once possessed this quality, I no longer perceive it or feel it.

    Warren is not "ambitious" in the sense that I get it from Clinton.
    I don't really have a sense of why she is running, except that she would like to win.

    Warren's ambitions seem to me, feel to me, based in her deep desire to help us. Which is probably why she, unfortunately, will not choose to run at this time.


    Right now (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    Warren is a one trick pony.  Her thing is economic issues / disparity.  Which is great - we need a strong voice in the Senate and on the airwaves talking about this.  But a presidential candidate has to be able and willing to intelligently talk about many other issues. And Warren hasn't needed to or wanted to discuss those other issues up to this point. It's kind of hard to judge what kind of president a candidate would make until you can see how they think about a multitude of issues at the same time.

    Let her season a bit more.


    I don't know... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    since economic disparity is probably the biggest/toughest issue we face in a democracy thoroughly corrupted by money, I think we could do far worse than a president who worked tirelessly on nothing else for 4 years.  Back burner everything else.

    And if you agree this is our biggest issue, you're basically contractually disqualified for voting for Ms. Wall Street or anybody Brand R is trotting out.


    Sorry, pal (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 07:56:15 AM EST
    NO presidential candidate will ever meet your purity test.  Even Sen. Warren has taken money from Wall Street (and the lawyers who defend the Wall Street bankers).

    Of course not... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    unless Eugene Victor Debs rises from the dead and makes a run!

    Warren comes about as close as anybody with a D or an R after their name though.  All moot, she ain't running, I will just have to hope Jill Stein runs again.  


    Kdog and I have decided (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    i should be president.   And my first official act will be to create a new cabinet position for him.   Secretary of Buzz.

    They can talk and talk about oh-so-many issues. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 02:21:16 AM EST
    So what. Experience matters.

    The thing about "Experience" (none / 0) (#144)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 09:24:46 AM EST
    To the John Sculleys and nattering pompousnesses that populate corporate boardrooms across the country, "experience" is the only hat stand in which they can hang their hats. To the Elon Musks and Sergei Brins, this "experience" is the choke hold round the neck that suffocates people, deprives the brain of oxygen and causes blurriness in vision.

    To each their own! To low information people, the amorphous word "experience" may have some value. Others may however want a more critical assessment of that "experience", if that "experience" is touted.

    George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and  Don Rumsfield had tons of "experience" to do their jobs. How did it turn out for America? When a young Governor of Arkansas in 1992 was asked by Jim Lehrer in Oct 1992 about what he had to offer against an opponent, G.H.W. Bush, who touted his "experience at this level" to separate himself out from his opponents, candidate Bill Clinton replied, "I believe experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my State also should count for something" and people should vote for him because he represented "the real hope for change".



    The only (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    one of those that was ever president was George H.W. and he did a much better job than his son who lacked experience that's for sure. We've had two presidents in a row that really lacked any kind of experience. I think voters are tired of that. It's taken Obama six years to finally figure out Washington. His naivety about "changing Washington" will probably be legendary. We've had years and years of nothing getting done. People are tired of it.

    um . . . . (none / 0) (#150)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    "Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my State also should count for something"

    That IS experience (yeah, I know who said it). Without experience, we know nothing about his values and judgment and he certainly would not have amassed a record that we could look at . . . . And his lack of experience was 2x Gov and state AG. . . . looks kinda experienced compared to the last 2. Granted, he had no military experience . . . .


    Last night I read that the Republican governor (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 12:38:15 PM EST
    of MI vetoed an NRA-backed bill re firearms in relation to domestic violence. The NRA had supported him. He also, contrary to his party's wishes, supported quickly setting up a wtate healthcare coverage exchange. Experience. But the wrong party!

    Bill Clinton was (none / 0) (#163)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 18, 2015 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    governor of Arkansas for a total of 12 years:1978-80, 82-84, 84-86, 86-90, 90-92 (resigned upon election as president).  Beginning in 1986, Arkansas changed to four year terms from two.  Clinton was defeated in his re-election bid in 1980, and then elected again in 1982.  Clinton was the nation's youngest governor when first elected (age 32) and the youngest ex-governor when defeated in 1982.

    Former President Clinton said it well (none / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    Yes, experience matters ... and, with that, the candidate must add something else in the way of mission, direction, clarity of purpose.  I expect that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concurs with the sentiment that it isn't all about simply putting in the time.  Rather it is what you do with that experience; and, I'm convinced as well that Clinton will combine the essential experience with clear & challenging purpose.

    Yep, genuine, character-building experience is a good foundation.  For me, there is little to match a person who prevails over--politically or otherwise--a trial-by-fire, while having gleaned the best of experience to merge with rededicated purpose and optimism.  

    Thanks for bringing up how important it is to have real experience AND real purpose.  Sounds like Hillary to me :)


    So, you think if Clinton runs (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    she'll just be doing it because she wants to win? Don't you think that's a tad dishonest on your part?

    No... (none / 0) (#100)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    I am being honest in that that is what I feel.

    I fully accept that you could feel differently.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:07:46 AM EST
    the problem is that they are  YET AGAIN attaching themselves to a PERSON instead of an ISSUE. The underlying issue is what is probably driving them but they are doing everything backwards. Instead of attaching themselves to a candidate and begging them to run they should be asking all candidates who are running to address the issue.

    I don't think I would agree with that. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:27:34 AM EST
    I think where Warren is concerned, it's very much about economic and class issues, about ending the insider/Wall Street/banking grip on advisory and policy and leadership positions.  She's been on the leading edge of things like student loans, the cost of education, holding Wall Street accountable, advocating for working families.

    She almost single-handedly managed to lead other Senate progressives to sink the Antonio Weiss nomination, which was huge, not least because it showed there is a coalition of what I would call rebel Dems, who may be emboldened by this victory to try their hand on other issues that have been dying on the vine for lack of liberal/progressive pushback.

    You're focusing on the fact that, like Obama's was when he was in the Sentate, her political track record isn't substantial enough for her to be thinking about running for president - and I don't disagree that she needs more seasoning, and we also need to see where she is on other issues.

    I will be interested to see when and where and on what issues she dials back her strong opinions and compromises - I've had enough of people who talk a good game, but don't have any follow through, and I think we need more time to assess that with Warren.

    It may be that people also like her aggressiveness and her lack of fear in the face of the Washington power structure - but we need time to see if that continues.

    I'm quite happy to have her in the Senate, giving all these old pols heartburn, and exposing their craven subservience to corporate money.  I think she'll be much-needed in the fight against the ridiculous GOP agenda these next two years - and she may be much-needed to push back against Obama's tendencies to want to compromise and give Republicans too much of what they want.

    We'll see, I guess, but I don't think this is so much about her, I think it's about the issues she's leading on.


    I think you are correct (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    I know it is for me.  

    My point (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    mostly is that you can talk about the issue without mentioning Elizabeth Warren or trying to get her to run for president.

    Why would you not want to mention one of (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    the few Democrats who seems to be putting her words into action, and having some success at it?  Who is managing to draft others to join her in working for the kinds of changes that matter to everyday people?

    Seems to me that's worthy not just of mention, but of support.  It doesn't have to take the form of pushing her toward a run for the WH, though, which I take it is what you have a problem with.

    I think it's emblematic of the real hunger in this country for someone to lead on issues that matter to people like us, but I think her value is much greater as a force in the Senate than it would be in the Oval Office - at least at this stage.  

    We jumped the gun on that once - to do it again would be the definition of insanity.


    Because (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    once you start mentioning names it seems to start becoming about that person and not the issue. Yeah, mention them as an aside or something but not the main focus of the conversation.

    ::sigh:: (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:11:42 PM EST
    Because (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 04:04:42 PM MDT

    once you start mentioning names it seems to start becoming about that person and not the issue. Yeah, mention them as an aside or something but not the main focus of the conversation.

    I totally see what you are getting at. It doesn't work that way, though. If you want your issue to get attention it needs at least a spokesperson, but better yet a standard bearer. And after that it needs a representative/mover and shaker to make something happen.

    Like it or not an issue needs a face. I suppose alternatively, someone could die to become that face.

    That would suck.


    Sure and why would liberals (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    mention Warren when she is the only one leading the fight for the issues that matter to us? Better we get out the Pompoms and cheer for more of the same corporate centric policies that we hated under Obama just because you want Hillary to be president?  Don't think so.

    Because (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    again, it's focusing on her and not the issues when you do that. When you put her name in every conversation it becomes about her and not about income inequality.

    Not any more than any other possible candidate (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:12:00 PM EST
    She is the one pushing issues that I care about. What is Hillary currently championing?

    This thread is about HRC. Throughout  the thread the focus has been on her and not on income equity or any other policy issue.


    OMG, yes. Just this. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    It has been about nothing but Hillary Clinton, who, by the way, isn't talking about issues.  Well, not to us ordinary people; maybe to the Wall Street crowd, the hedge-funders, the deep pockets, but I don't see her out there talking to us about issues.

    We'll have to wait, I guess, for her to officially be running - then we'll get the packaged, plastic, consultant-approved, poll-tested candidate.  Yeah, I know this is how the game is played, they all do this, but I'm sick of robots delivering canned and tested lines like some sort of Chatty Cathy doll.

    Yes, I'm cynical and jaded, but can you blame me?  I supported Hillary in 2008, but it's 2015, and I've heard views from her that just don't work for me.  Would she be better than whatever refugee from Crazy Town the GOP will nominate?  No doubt.  But that's a very low standard, and I don't have much hope the standard is heading in the other direction anytime soon.


    Hillary is taking the break (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    That every strategist has said she must take to be viable.

    I don't have a problem with (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 12:25:29 AM EST
    Hillary taking a break.

    I do have a problem with the meme that we shouldn't mention Elizabeth Warren's name because it detracts from the issues.

    OTOH mentioning HRC's name as often as possible is all that is needed. No need to discuss what issues she might be for or against at this point in time, just the name is sufficient.


    Well (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 07:11:02 AM EST
    I would certainly encourage everybody to ask Hillary where she stands on the issues or she'll probably tell you.

    If Elizabeth Warren passed away would that be the end of the discussion on income inequality?


    If Elizabeth Warren passed away? (none / 0) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 09:12:58 AM EST
    You are really jumping the shark on this in your zeal for Hillary to become president.

    You are sounding much like one of the bots that use to reside at the Big Orange and that is not meant to be a compliment.


    You are completely (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 09:41:23 AM EST
    missing my point. And that comment had nothing to do with Hillary.

    Look at the gay rights movement? Who was/is the political leader in that movement? I certainly can't think of one. It's a grass roots movement that pushes politicians and has allegiance to no particular politician. That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make and that I think that model is a better one to follow than any person.


    That comment had nothing to do with Hillary?? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 10:02:43 AM EST
    If your comment had nothing to do with Hillary, why was the first paragraph about Hillary?

    If you want to eliminate talking about specific politicians and discuss nothing but issues, then you can start right now by eliminating HRC's name from your discussions and talk about issues.

    If you want to be about issues, be about issues and tell us Hillary's current positions on the driving issues of our times.

    Expecting others to drop Warren from our conversations is totally unrealistic. Bringing her imagined death into the discussion, is IMO jumping the shark big time.

    I'm leaving to go on vacation so I'm done. You can continue without me.


    Oops (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    Sorry. I did not look at my complete comment.

    As far as Hillary and anybody else for that matter, i'm of the opinion when they are running you ask their stance on the issue. If Elizabeth Warren were running for president she should get the same treatment as any other candidate.

    I just said that about Warren to make a point which apparently you missed once again. She's not Jesus and neither is anybody else running for president or not.


    What a horrible question (none / 0) (#151)
    by sj on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 12:01:54 PM EST
    If Elizabeth Warren passed away would that be the end of the discussion on income inequality?
    But sadly, probably yes.

    Oh, it would still be talked about at our level. But unlikely to be discussed in those hallowed halls.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    I don't think so. If it's truly a movement it goes on regardless of what happens to anyone in Washington. If it is dependent on a politician then it's not a movement.

    Who is running with a meme that (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2015 at 06:57:47 PM EST
    Mentioning Elizabeth Warren's name shouldn't happen?  And who says mentioning her name detracts from the issues?

    Well (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 17, 2015 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    I said the focus on E. Warren detracts from the issue because it seems the conversation focuses on HER instead of the issue.

    She has said 1000 times that she is not running but for some reason people will not accept that answer from her and it's getting to the point that it's downright crazy. Are there no other candidates out there who could back the same message? It's not like any candidate even keeps the same message the entire primary. This again is where the left wing of the party loses credibility. They need to act like you said w/r/t gay rights but frankly after so many of them letting Obama walk all over them for six years now no one wants to listen.


    Okay, thanks for explaining (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2015 at 11:00:52 PM EST
    Me personally.  Discussions, particularly when they get real deep, about making Elizabeth Warren run...I just wonder why?  Because as you point out she has said NO over and over again.  Whatcha gonna do?  Wrestle her to the ground and not let her up until she runs.

    I think pressuring all the other pols to be more like Warren is where energy should be applied.  That's just me though :)


    Well (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 18, 2015 at 07:35:08 AM EST
    you and I are on the same page w/r/t that.

    I should add that I do agree with (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    the last part of your comment - issues should definitely be driving the process, not finding the latest "it" person, the sexy choice.

    I think we have to take some responsibility for the way the process has been turned upside-down; to some extent, we've allowed the powers-that-be to dictate who the golden child will be.  In 2008, I believe those PTB found someone who could accommodate them, someone malleable and very much in the DLC/Third Way mold, and people allowed themselves to be seduced by the optics and the rhetoric.

    The problem - one of them, anyway - is that I feel like we're too much on the outside looking in - I think members of Congress and those in charge of the party allow us to play around the edges, but for the most part, circle the wagons to keep us from making trouble for them.  Which means we have to push harder, strategize better and maintain pressure, things we haven't been very good at.

    For my money, a Democratic primary/nomination process that doesn't include someone who can push Hillary from the left will be a huge disappointment.  And if someone like Bernie Sanders, say, gets into the race for that purpose, it will be interesting to see how the media reacts.  Will they take up for Hillary now, so they can toy with her later?

    Really not looking forward to any of it.  Already having flashbacks to 2008 - and not the good kind, lol.


    Maybe I'm just a sad junkie (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    but I am looking forward to it.

    I agree with Ga6th (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    Real change comes from sticking to your issue come hell, high water, whatever.  Real change comes even when your pols fail us when the dedication to the issue remains.  The progress of gay rights for instance.  They fought/fight the same no matter who tries to get in the way, or how, or when.  They aren't going away.

    Occupy took a stand, not well organized, not fighting specifically enough.  They won the awareness fight, now what specific changes to fight for?  It was only one fight too.  No war is won in a single battle.  It was the first toe to toe.  More need to follow.


    As far as gay rights is concerned, (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 09:21:54 AM EST
    they finally got Obama and the Dems to support them by saying that they would no longer support the party in any way (no votes, no money, no work) until Obama and the Democratic Party supported them.

    They did not gain Obama's and the party's support by continuing to say "Please, please pretty please, support my issue but I will continue to vote for your candidates no matter what. Nope, they as a group said enough is enough, no more the lesser of two evils and they meant it. Guess what? That strategy worked where the lesser of two evils did not.    


    As I recall (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 17, 2015 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    Publicly calling Democrats out when they were trying to make pretty speechifying is what really changed things.  When Dems ran on gay rights and then conveniently forgot the LGBT community did not forget.  They relentlessly dogged such candidates.  They didn't just sit home and whine about it.  That is where they beat the rest of us in getting candidates to follow through.  I have always thought the rest of us were sort of whiners whining instead of really acting and organizing and showing up physically like the LGBT does.

    In the minds of many (me included) (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    Warren is Main Street and Hillary is Wall Street.

    Also I tend to view HRC as a continuation of many of the Obama policies on foreign, domestic and constitutional rights issues. Changing the face rather than changing the policies is definitely not what I would prefer.


    What I tend to think on foreign policy (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    Nobody is going to do it better than Obama or Clinton.  I know everyone wants world peace in our time, but just being passive won't get anyone there.  That just allows bullies to run things and the global situation becomes even worse for human beings.  Unchallenged bullies and psychopaths only gain more power and treasure to hurt others with.

    Anyone sitting in that Oval Office and faced with the responsibilities that come with it have to deal with the real world and all of its too ugly realities.

    I don't want a Mad Man in there, and many can talk about pulling everything in and that will create a magical calm....and then they discover when they are in that chair it isn't all about us.  We have never, did not, and don't incite everything and the other side of all coins are responsible for their actions too.  The world isn't challenging simply because it's trying to survive certain evils...so it becomes evil in response, the world just has evil born into it.

    Nobody would be better at foreign policy than Clinton.


    But Democrats are scared of you MO (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:57:08 AM EST
    And this house needs them that way.. You are a playing piece on the table that is in the Pentagon's face when Obama or Clinton sits in that chair.  Republican Presidents don't give two chits about you or your ideas against using American soldiers for cannon fodder.

    I wish that the Dems were scared of (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    the liberals in the party. I do not find that to be true. I believe the attitude was and REMAINS, "You have no where else to go." Rather than use the left flank of the party to stop the ever persistent movement to the right, the party enjoys dismissing and demonizing liberals. Since the prevailing meme among the majority of liberals in the party is the along the lines of the lesser of two evils, the powers that be have no reason to fear us.

    I do think that some members of the party MAY be more willing to hold Hillary's feet to the fire than they were with Obama. Which would be a good thing. I am not, however, convinced that the Dems give two chits about what I think either or that pressure when your vote is guaranteed is effective.

    We are never going to agree on how Obama has handled foreign policy or whether continuing the policies are the right way to go but that is ok by me. Different circumstances often result in different perspectives.


    this is (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    not directed at you really but mostly at the people you are speaking of. They blew their wad with Obama and lost all credibility with the "we'll go along with whatever Obama wants" attitude. They threw away all their allegiance to issues to act like cultists. I remember even back in the 1990's they would stand up to Bill Clinton on stuff or disagree with him or whatever. No more. So the Move On crowd really needs to start regaining credibility with voters and pining for Elizabeth Warren to run is not the way to do it.

    IMO pining for Hillary is much the (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    same as pining for Obama. I really have difficulty understanding why pining for Obama indicates a lack of credibility and pining for HRC doesn't. Really can't understand how someone could love one and dislike the other. There is not that much difference between them on the issues.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    all I can tell you is that I saw a HUGE difference back in 2008 between Obama and Clinton on economic issues. For one she was promoting a HOLC for homeowners and Obama was not. There also was a big difference on foreign policy. Basically he ran to her left on that while she ran to the left of Obama on the economy. Every time something she proposed to help the middle class was put up Obama ridiculed it as we can't do that. I think she understands that you have do stuff for the middle class but Obama does not.

    I, too, saw huge differences (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    in domestic policy. And I pretty much care mostly about domestic policy.

    Most people are focused on the similarities in foreign policy and then declare there is but a dime's worth of difference between the two. Why, they are practically the same person!!

    She now is mostly defined by her stint as SoS which is all about FP.

    I have no idea where she currently is when it comes to domestic policy, but she hasn't said a single word that puts me at ease. And her misleading, rote comments about Snowden (for example) that echoed all the other misleading, rote comments about Snowden (for example) have put me off her.

    I say that knowing she has mind like a steel trap and a work ethic that won't quit.


    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:51:49 PM EST
    Thanks. I totally get where you are coming from now :)

    What you said (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    is why empowering EW in every way we can is a good thing.   Right now she is as close as we have to a leader of what's left of the left.

    I get a kick out of your (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    What's left of the left :). That left can always push, and it can always expand and contract.  The trick is not giving up because you didn't get your pony.  It's only a one trick pony anyhow :)

    Push, work, write, speak, challenge, vote, push.  Nobody is ever going to win this lottery.  Too many IMO act like we just fight this fight the right way once and we never have to fight again...snort....not possible.


    Speaking only from the perspective (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    Of who gets sent to war when war is chosen, they are afraid of you and only you. We can feel it.  And it's great.

    Conservatives really need to get a Republican in there quick though MO because you are about to change the mindset of the entire military leadership.  And this is how that occurs.  In order to catch Obama's eye you must work on something militarily that appeals to him.  You have to work on strategies that create detente.  So climbers in the military begin this slow shift, because everyone needs attention.  You gotta have the guys attention to get your money too, to do anything militarily running around in your fevered brain.

    What's even better is that crazies, the people who would produce the slide presentation of bombing them to a sheet glass, we can't invite them to important get togethers with team Obama or even anyone who would tell team Obama.  We are looking for a closet to stuff this crazy a-hole in....and a career in uniform dies right there :). So you gotta hide your crazy and talk all sane.  And that makes saner junior officers come to life.  Next thing you know that junior officer is friends with team Obama, they request his input and request that certain projects be placed on his desk.  In 16 yrs, you have a much a different mindset at the whole Pentagon, 24 would be awesome....officers who spent their entire career under a Democratic CIC.

    I would really like to skip the eight years of insane Republican fruit loop President though following the eight years of Obama.

    Military is downsizing, doing studies on toxic leadership, asking and telling.   This is a very good path. It would just be nice to get to stay on it and they do fear you.  They must have your vote, Republicans not so much.


    Why are they wishing... (none / 0) (#158)
    by unitron on Sat Jan 17, 2015 at 06:05:35 PM EST
    ...for her to run?

    Maybe they want a Democrat who actually acts like a Democrat, both before and after taking office.


    BTD - got a Gator question for you (none / 0) (#36)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 05:52:35 AM EST
    As a Gator what are your feelings about Urban winning his third national championship?

    I am a small  g gator fan as I grew up there but eventually went to Vanderbilt but the part of me that is a Gator fan has mixed emotions.

    I know all my Gator buddies are struggling with this.  They are still very bitter over how Urban left the program and don't buy that he is some how doing this differently than he did at Florida.   We see the same Urban that win those two national championships on the sideline today. You can't tell me he isnt still putting in the work that he put in at Florida.  Maybe he has changed but Gator fans have their doubts.

    But bottom line that guy is just the best coach in the country right now and he could still be prowling the sidelines of Gainesville.

    Very interested in your take.

    I remain a fan of the coach (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    that brought my team 2 national championships.

    Sadly (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:48:39 AM EST
    Urban's mental health did not handle the daily stress in Florida/SEC very well. By taking the same skill set north, and being a little older, he has settled in quite nicely.

    And looking at the OSU QB, it was easy to picture previous Meyer recruits and Heisman winners Tim Tebow and Cam Newton running around.

    One side note that would have probably been brought up had BTD been here to talk about the title game, through a little known NCAA rule that had little effect prior to the implementation of a National playoff series, Ohio State had unlimited practice time prior to the Title game while Oregon was limited by rule. (not that it probably made much difference as OSU dominated)


    And Slado (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 06:49:55 AM EST
    I just realized we aren't in an open thread so we should probably drop this topic for now.

    My bad (none / 0) (#53)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    I meant to put it there.

    Ezra was wildly wrong about Hillary (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 07:51:31 AM EST
    Remaining a Dem central player.  Couldn't have been more wrong.  And apparently wrong about Clinton's abilities as she was a pretty incredible Secretary of State during war and the U.S. leaving war zones and expanding combat in Afghanistan.  I can't imagine the lack of sleep involved for her and her staff.  She must be pretty good at choosing that too.

    As oculus points out though, things aren't done until they are done.  It looks good for her, but until she is the nominee, she isn't.

    But yeah, Ezra was wrong.

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    Ezra's problems for years has been that he bought into Obama's PR too much and lost all sense of reason. He seemed to snap out of it at some point but I remember him writing about health care legislation and shaking my head.

    It's a pity we can't seem to hold him (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    Accountable for what he wrote at that time.  Somehow many of his peers considered him a healthcare wonk when it was all going down.  I remember reading other leftwing bloggers describe Ezra as an individual who somehow magically understood the medical spreadsheets in a depth and way that others would/could not be able to comprehend.  And he was allowed inside circles the rest of us weren't so just trust him, he knows what he's talking about :)

    And now we have states refusing the expansions and healthcare systems in those states on the brink of collapse.  Collapse was supposed to be what all this was done to avoid.  Anyhow, the wonk of infallibility missed about 80% of what ended up happening :). But he got the megaphone


    Devils advocate (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    who would have imagined states would turn down millions of federal dollars and screw their citizens just to make a stupid political point?
    Well, someone did I guess because the law was written to prevent that.  Until the court stepped in.

    Probably BTD :) (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    He always considered them Madmen

    Ezra was one of several (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by smott on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 10:50:35 AM EST
    Progressives who sold out on their own issues in favor of licking Obama's privates.
    Klein on health care, TGWKJM on SS, among others.



    Okay, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by sj on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    your comment was more graphically put than I would have made it, but I can't disagree with your conclusion.

    Lol (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by smott on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    I was going for "nauseating" !.....

    Speaking of 2016, FiveThirtyEight has (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2015 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    an interesting matrix handicapping who will or likely won't be getting into the race.

    To try and find some answers, we're starting a recurring "Will They Run?" feature. We'll look at three variables:

        1. What the person has said about running. If candidates say they are definitely running, they get a 5. If they say they are exploring or seriously considering a run, they get a 4. If they are unsure, they get a 3. If they haven't ruled it out but are leaning toward no, they get a 2. If they say they aren't running, they get a 1.

        2. How many events -- rallies, fundraisers, political meetings, etc. -- they have held in Iowa and New Hampshire (the "early states").

        3. How many national primary polls they have been included in.

    The logic here is straightforward. We look at statements because some candidates are relatively honest about their intentions. We look at early-state events because actions speak louder than words: Almost all of the candidates on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire in early 2007 and early 2011 ended up running in 2008 and 2012, respectively. And we look at the polls under the assumption that pollsters are close political observers with some idea of who is likely to run.1

    We'll score every potential candidate who has been included in at least one national poll since the 2014 midterm elections.2


    We plan to update these numbers regularly and see how much of this changes. Just in the course of writing this article, Ryan and Warren declared they weren't running, and Romney's efforts became more serious. The race to the White House is only now beginning.

    Charts are included in the article.

    This is too funny (none / 0) (#154)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 04:08:10 PM EST

    "We are not going to have a circus" says Prince Reibus.

    You will behave like trained seals because we have to win the WH in 2016. You will be very civil with each other inside the clown car. You should even start thinking about complimenting each other. You will only screech when the name of BHO or HRC is mentioned. That is when you will earn your points. We will note who screeches the loudest at that time. Good little boys and girls, now work on your act! We are not going to have a circus, we will need to win the WH in 2016.

    Hershey, PA (none / 0) (#156)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 16, 2015 at 04:33:11 PM EST
    Maybe said Repub leaders agreed on the chocolate at their get-to-know-each-other-session in Hershey this week.  So far, the reports have indicated that they could not agree on any other noteworthy legislative issues.  

    The challenge of governance and all ....