Hillary Clinton To Announce White House Bid on Sunday

The former First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will announce her bid for the presidency this Sunday via a video according to published reports.

The published reports indicate Clinton will immediately begin campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with a bent towards smaller events.

Other potential candidates on the Democratic side include Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley and just recently, Linc Chafee.

The ride officially begins Sunday it seems.

< Thursday Open Thread | Saturday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tengrain's Guide to the 2016 Goat Rodeo, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by leap on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    the Republican side. This is a great cheat-sheet on the sheets running for the high office.

    Very much looking forward to voting for Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    in the Florida Primary just as I did in 2008 and then one more time in the General Election in 2016.

    Spoken like... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:05:22 PM EST
    a true stock market speculator! (j/k)

    Well I Won't Miss... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    ...the super-delegate fiasco and Rush Limbaugh's 'vote for Hillary' non-sense in Texas.

    Didn't the wingnuts (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:54:13 PM EST
    already kind of shoot their bolt with all those brilliant The Truth About Hillary books they cranked out in the nineties?

    Still no proof they killed Ron Brown and Vince Foster..still no proof Bill received Marxist-Leninist indoctrination from Sen Fulbright..still no proof they dealt cocaine..still no proof Hillary is the liberal succubus whose mere glance makes red-blooded patriot's genitalia wither and fall off like so much autumn foliage..


    I think all that was when the GOP (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:06:43 PM EST
    Started losing its mind, and it has became cemented in.

    I think it happened earlier (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 12:20:23 AM EST
    with Reagan's "Government is the problem, not the solution" propaganda.

    Robert Reich writes: (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:10:19 PM EST

    Hillary Clinton should make the moral case about power: for taking it out of the hands of those with great wealth and putting it back into the hands of average working people...

    If she talks about what's really going on and what must be done about it, she can arouse the Democratic base as well as millions of Independents and even Republicans who have concluded, with reason, that the game is rigged against them.

    The question is not her values and ideals. It's her willingness to be bold and to fight, at a time when average working people need a president who will fight for them more than they've needed such a president in living memory.

    This is a defining moment for Democrats, and for America. It is also a defining moment for Hillary Clinton.

    She has had quite a few defining moments.

    If she does come out fighting on our behalf, I'm sincerely interested.

    If we get "Got Bless America", and we must be vigilant, and we're great but we can do better... I will begin to doze.....

    When newscasters begin discussing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    A possible President Rand Paul, spring break is sooooo over

    Oh, my (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    if they're talking about that then they are really out of touch.

    Turning the news off now (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    It has gone nuts, just bonkers.  Chuck Todd just gave a Clinton analysis.  Once again, she has not officially announced, and nothing he said was about any issue.  Is this a ride or a freak show?  Maybe it's going to be a ride through a freak show.

    Shehas announced (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Amiss on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 12:01:36 AM EST
    that she will be in New Hampshire in two weeks.  Just a few miles from me. We are going.

    Live Free or Die... (none / 0) (#141)
    by fishcamp on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    What did he do? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:35:51 AM EST
    Crank up the sexism and start talking personality stuff? That seems to be the only thing they are capable of doing these days. Even after she delcares I'm sure they won't talk about her stances on the issues.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    He was talking about how she was going to project her toughness or something like that.  As if none of us ever lived in fear of our mother's very real consequences + intelligence = wrath :)  She was just that poor weak flimsy thing who had to pretend to have some authority when things got so bad the house was about to blow up:)

    No talk about the danger her (none / 0) (#23)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:41:42 PM EST
    "time of the month" will bring to the nation, though, as Hillary is post-menopausal.

    I do expect all kinds of garbage, the oh so many ways, we will be told that she is a dried up old bag no one wants to f$ck. As we all know, a woman's value is measured by her f$ckability.


    Dream on . . . (none / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    I'm sure her hormonal state will be analyzed at some point . . .

    Yes (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    you are correct. The whole talk radio crowd is already on Facebook talking about how she needs a facelift, she's old, etc.

    I guess get ready for a hurricane force of sexism coming down the pike.


    To late (way to late this is from 2007) (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    You know (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    what is even worse? There are people who call themselves liberals or Democrats who act the same way as Rush. I have a friend, female, calls herself a liberal, who has a lot of sexist BS come out of her mouth and I have called her on it. I really don't think she believes that women should be in leadership roles.

    She may be (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    a Democrat, but she's no liberal.
    Not all Democrats are liberals.   ;-)

    I know (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    what you're saying but she does call herself a liberal, thinks Obama is the greatest thing since FDR and that he's actually the "New FDR" etc. etc.

    Hee Hee...I can call myself the Queen of Sheba (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    ....does not make me the Queen of Sheba

    You should know about what (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    Is even worse because you act just like Rush when it comes to the left of the party. You, like Rush, never miss an opportunity to put down liberals and the left of the party. I don't believe you believe that liberals or the left have a place in the party.

    Betty sez (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:32:50 AM EST
    fasten your seat belts

    You read my mind (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    Let's get it going....if something they throw at the wall is going to stick, let's find out now.

    Now Marco (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    Rubio is already having a meltdown over this. Sheesh what a child.

    You don't see Game of Thrones (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    whining about conflicting with their premiere...that's how the game is played. Show of strength! Winter is coming!

    If he can't even withstand a same day announcement (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:36:46 AM EST
    he really thinks he can beat her in a campaign? Way to show weakness Marco.

    It's not even same (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    day. He's supposed to announce Monday.

    I have to wonder if even the GOP is going to talk about him running or have a collective meltdown of screaming sexism and completely ignore him too on Monday.


    No doubt! (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:40:49 AM EST
    The last thing they want to talk about is their own candidates.

    It would (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    seem so. Already you can tell what the GOP campaign is going to be: we can't let that evil conniving woman get the levers of power. It would be the end of the world. It's going to be all gloom and doom emanating from the GOP 24/7 it would seem.

    Well damn, we're doomed! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    "I'm more convinced than ever that our future in the 21st century depends on our ability to ensure that a child born in the hills of Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta or the Rio Grande Valley grows up with the same shot at success that Charlotte will," Mrs. Clinton wrote, referring to her new granddaughter.

     Is there a plan B, or at least a platitude B, since that is so obviously ridiculous?

    So . . . (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    would you like her to just ignore those children's future? Kinda like the GOP . . .

    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:06:45 PM EST
    so. There's a left wing version of the tea party that has this whole idea of who's "worthy" and "not worthy"

    Several of them post here (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    they do for sure.

    As one of the last enlightened Texans said (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    the only thing in the middle of road is squashed snakes and dead armadillos.

    Actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    i think it was yellow lines and dead armadillos.

    poetic license (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    And it's pure BS (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:10:24 PM EST
    don't you have some (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    grade schooler somewhere to tase for not obeying orders?

    Well (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    You act and write like a 7 year old, so I could start with you.

    Please do, mistress (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    You need to quit appeasing your fragile ego (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:10:23 AM EST
    with down rating people, it only makes you seem to be unable to handle any feedback that isn't 100% favorable to you.

    Primaries (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:19:52 AM EST
    coming up and it's back to lots of downrating it would seem.

    That would be Anne Richards (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:53:31 PM EST
    and of course the beloved Ralph Yarborough from years past.  Was in the JFK motorcade in Dallas.

    You rang? (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    Not worthy of my vote, absent a policy metamorphosis of epic proportions.

    The Right Wing Tea Partiers...batsh*t crazy and sometimes repugnant, but god damn it if I don't respect the way they just won't throw their vote to just anybody the money-men tell them to.  


    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    think she was talking about you. Speaking for myself we have posters that have determined that some people are "unworthy" just like the tea partiers. And I'm talking about vast swaths of Americans are unworthy not political parties that are unworthy.

    Well... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    Clinton is certainly no less worthy than any of the disappointments who have sat in that chair since at least 1980.  

    Do you take any time to read before (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    you comment?  Because your comment seems to be a complete non sequitur to what nycstray wrote or have any connection to what Reconstructionist wrote.

    It just doesn't make any sense as a response.  Come to think of it, it wouldn't have made any sense as a stand-alone comment, either.  I mean, what is this so-called "left wing version of the tea party?"  And what does your imagined group of people deciding who is and isn't worthy have to do with what Recon said about what Hillary said about the future?

    I guess I just don't get you.  I don't get this increasing antipathy for liberals - I assume these are the people you think are tea party equivalents.  Do you think that liberals have ideas and beliefs and a vision that are bad for people?  Are we crackpots for believing in choice, and expansion of Social Security and single-payer health care, and holding accountable the people who keep taking us to war?  Do you think we're off the rails for wanting to close the yawning chasm between the haves and the have-nots?  

    Why do you keep marginalizing and demeaning these people you think are the liberal equivalent of tea-partiers?  Are you upset that liberals are tired of seeing the things they care about being compromised away and sold out by the powers that be who may be thinking more with their own wallets than as true representatives of the people they are supposed to represent?

    Do you feel that you have been slotted into the "not worthy" category?  When people tell you that you have not accurately represented their opinions and beliefs, to the point where they have to repeatedly state what those opinions and beliefs are, that is not them telling you you are not worthy, it is them telling you that you are wrong.  Which, given that they are speaking about what they know they think and believe, they have the right to do.

    I await your response, which will no doubt invoke Moveon, in spite of there being little evidence on TL of anyone here having any particular interest in what they are doing.  


    I wish there actually was (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:49:41 AM EST
    a left wing version of the tea party.

    In a way there is (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:58:01 AM EST
    its Alan Grayson.  

    Well, not exactly (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:39:04 PM EST
    Alan Grayson isn't crazy.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    apparently you missed a discussion a while back with Recon who spent a ton time discussing why we shouldn't do an HOLC because it would help people keep houses who shouldn't have had those houses. He deemed people unworthy of help just like the tea party deems people unworthy of help. It's the same attitude but just a different swath of people who are deemed "unworthy".

    So, now I'm supposed to believe that (3.50 / 2) (#175)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:03:02 PM EST
    Recon represents this so-called left wing version of the tea party?  Because of something he said on a completely different topic?

    Are you kidding me?  I can't even process this; it makes no sense.  

    I don't know, maybe some people are willing to go along with the sweeping generalizations you regularly salt your comments with, but I'm not one of them.  Where is your support for this latest one, that

    It's the same attitude but just a different swath of people who are deemed "unworthy".

    Are you basing this on one person's comments who I doubt strikes many here as being particularly left?  Who are these people who represent the left-wing version of the tea party?  Where are they?  Is there a spokesperson?


    Apparently you still don't get it (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:50:43 PM EST
       My point and was and remains that policies which serve to redistribute wealth should redistribute it from those with more to those with less. Aspects of the mortgage bailout did the opposite. It is unfair, and in my opinion wrong, for a policy to take money paid to the government by those with smaller incomes in order to subsidize those with greater incomes.

      I suppose you really are an absolutist and believe no one is "unworthy" of having the government others'  money in order to help them.

       So, you would, as a matter of principle, not oppose  policies  to reduce the highest marginal rates by  eliminating the personal exemptions subtracted from income and eliminating  the standard deduction meaning those whose itemized deductions would equal less than the standard deduction must pay more regardless of their income.  After all by doing that we could remain "revenue neutral" and those with incomes subject to the highest marginal rates are surely "worthy" of the tax break. Right?

      I'm mocking you because you represent the worst type of commenter. You don't think and in your eagerness to criticize you say foolish things because you don't get simple concepts let alone the big picture.

      You know as well as I do I didn't deem anyone "unworthy" but merely argued scarce resources should be allocated to those most in need to do the greatest good.

      You fabricated the "unworthy" BS because you are incapable of holding your own in a discussion based on facts and logic and application of principles to problems.

      If it's true the people get the government they deserve, you are doing your part to get us a bad one.



    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    think there's is anybody who is "unworthy". I just think policies that help the middle class and poor is better than policies that help wealthy people. And a lot of times if you are helping the middle class you might end up helping a few wealthy people but so be it. Sometimes nothing is going to be "pure" and I don't believe helping 99% of the working class and 1% of the wealthy would be worth not doing anything for the 99%. But beyond that a HOLC would not be helping the wealthy because a 500K house might be a mansion in your neighborhood but in a lot of places it is not.

    And besides that you are willing to let people suffer and their housing prices drop who did nothing but buy a house. So even people who did things the way you wanted them to you are willing to let them get punished in the housing market for the sake of punishging the people you deem "unworthy"


    There is a corporate (none / 0) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    middle of the road version of the tea party who doesn't know what the fck they are talking about and has a habit of thinking that if they insult enough people on the left it will somehow help Hillary win.

    This is not (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    about candidates. It's about voters and how certain swaths of people are unworthy of being helped just like the tea party thinks the same thing.

    Ah, thanks for clarifying the issue (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:56:43 PM EST
    It's about voters and how certain swaths of people are unworthy of being helped.....

    It is YOU and  not the left who is deciding who is worthy and who is not.

    The candidate that has you for an advocate is going to be starting from 5 miles behind the pack after you insult them rather than try convincing them with the merits of your candidate.

    But then again, it is a whole lot quicker to chant tea party and the left, the left,  than actually find out what candidates actually propose to do if they are elected


    Again (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    this is NOT about a candidate or any candidate. This particular discussion I'm referring to was about policies and another poster said those policies should not be implemented because the people it would help they had deemed "unworthy" the same as the tea party says we should get rid of food stamps because one person one time bought shrimp with them or something.

    I think you are totally missing what the conversation is about.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:07:00 PM EST
    I never said anyone was unworthy unless you're talking about an organization.

    You insult the left in your comments (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    on a regular basis. Do you somehow feel that comparing people on the left to members of the tea party is a complement? Of course not, you are insulting them.  You  pass judgement on them in every political discussion we have here on TL and find a way to state that they don't meet your standards.

    Your comments are about individuals not just organizations. Your direct quote:

    There's a left wing version of the tea party that has this whole idea of who's "worthy" and "not worthy"

    In response to "Several of them post here." Your direct quote:

    Yes they do for sure.

    No organization involved at all. Just other posters who do not agree with you. Posters that you feel the ongoing need to insult because they don't agree with your version of the Democratic Party.

    So yes you definitely have this whole idea of who's "worthy" and "not worthy" and never miss an opportunity to share your judgements of the left with us.


    wow, are you ever off base on that (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    Sounds like a 3 minute applause line in a convention speech if I ever heard one. I am teary already.

    That is not to say that great speech lines are not often banal..but it can still strike a chord.


    my response to that (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:20:55 PM EST
     is that if that statement earns applause, then maybe the fault for our problems does not lie entirely with the politicians.

      Dutifully applauding de stupid just encourages more of it.


    You don't think that the goal she expresses (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    is a worthy one? She is not saying it is that way now, or even promising to deliver it.  She is saying it is the goal of America. I honestly don't understand your problem with that.

    I'll correct myself - she is not saying it is the (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:14:59 PM EST
    goal, but necessary to success. I agree with that. A country where only the rich have opportunity will not last as any kind of a democracy. I thought that was one of the disadvantages of our huge income gap, besides of course the basic unfairness.

    Or maybe you think she is insincere? Call me crazy, but I think she does believe that.


    As someone who has followed her politics (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    since she was First Lady of AR I can tell you she either believes it or is amazingly consistent with her falsehoods.

    I have found this whole conversation odd.  I find the statement quite inoffensive and hardly worthy of all this hyperventilating.

    Seems a laudible goal.  Achievable or not.


    Yes, Rio Grande Valley is Latinos (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:43:05 PM EST
    Mississippi Delta....and Appalachia....Sounds like Bobby.

    Some New Yorker... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    she forgot the child born in the South Bronx!

    I tell ya, the silly season just gets longer and longer every cycle...I'm not ready for almost 2 full years of endless bullsh*t.


    Maybe if Goldman Sachs (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:13:29 PM EST
    opened a branch office in the South Bronx..

    Don't laugh... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    I'm sure they're looking at the South Bronx as ripe for gentrification, and all the grifting opportunities therein.

    Once food service and building maintenance is fully automated, they'll have no use for the proles.  Till then, toilets still need scrubbing and coke residue removed from the TP dispenser...though I suppose they can rent us cots on a barge floating on the LI Sound.


    There's probably one or two (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    altruistic folks at GS who might go through and pick out some of the more attractive proles and start a scholarship fund for them at the Emperor's Club..

    Ah yes... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    the Lebowski Lil' Achievers...and how proud we are of all of them.

    You think they've got room (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    for one more?

    It isn't the endless bull$hit from the pols (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    that bothers me.  They're pros.  Telling people what they want to hear, empty promises, lofty visioneering, in other words, lying, is their trade.

    What's annoying is the endless "are you with us or agin' us" from the people on our own side.  The herding behavior.  The self delusion.  The bottomless displays of credulousness.  People screaming at each other that they're insufficiently impressed by the pretty words delivered in a speech written by a twenty-something crap artist.


    I'm sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:49:17 AM EST
    she will get more specific like she did last time with plans and explain how they are going to help people.

    We already know you hate her but what would you have her say? What do you think the solution should be?


    It sure isn't stupid and banal rhetoric (none / 0) (#22)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:29:38 PM EST
      Personally, I would advocate:

     Eliminating the preferential treatment of capital gains versus ordinary income

      A more progressive personal income tax rate structure

      Tax credits against (a higher) corporate net income tax rate to encourage hiring and paying a domestic workforece as opposed to encouraging overseas investment. (Say a credit -- on top of the expense deduction-- for payroll expenditures allotted to domestic workers between $40 and $120K)

       Conversely, a limit on the amount of employee compensation that can be expensed and subtracted from gross income to provide the taxable corporate income. (Say a sliding scale: 100% below $500K; 75% 500--1 mill; 50% 1-2 mill; 25% 2-4 mill; 0% above 4 mill. Corps could still handsomely reward high echelon employees but they'd have a tougher time justifying it to shareholders if it cost them more)

      Increased federal spending for infrastructure repair and maintenance which would not only accomplish something sorely needed would provide many good "working class" jobs.

      I could go on and on. Let's not act like we are stupid and can't think of anything politicians could, but won't, advocate that would do a lot more to address "income" and "opportunity" equality a lot more than meaningless drivel.


    Ah yes, the business plan (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    Cut taxes (especially capital gains) :)
    Now, is there a way that you can say that to reach and persuade the millions of voting Americans who aren't tuned into or on by tax discussions (with or without G. Norquist) ... because, as the pendulum swings, this era is looking more "populist."  And--as you have displayed an analytic bent--how would you encapsulate your stated approach for the vast majority of Americans to hear?  

    The campaign for Presidency is--at its best and at its worst--about broad themes, vision, goals, personal definition.  For example: Much as I disliked the late President Reagan's approach and campaign, I even agreed that "Morning in America" encapsulated a lot as a concept. What I find good, pinpointed, and encouraging with the direction of Clinton's statement, which you cite, is the identification of a national concern that may be reaching the tipping-point and the almost simultaneous personal pledge to act to further real opportunity for the greater good.  (A kind of glint of Bobby Kennedy's early awakening ... for us old timers.)

    READY FOR HILLARY! (Instead of getting presents for my birthday next week, I just said to my husband ... get the contribution checkbook out.)


    It's true that I'm reading in a hurry today (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    But are you referring to this:
    Eliminating the preferential treatment of capital gains versus ordinary income.

    when you say this (which I read sardonically)?
    Cut taxes (especially capital gains) :)

    Because I read it as the opposite of what you said, and if so, I agree with him. I leave it to Recon to clarify.

    On capital gains? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:09:21 PM EST

      I would go along the lines of:

     "Is this right? Is this fair? We are talking about folks who have  accumulated or even inherited enough surplus wealth that they are  able to invest money they don't  need to support their families and meet  monthly bills like most of us need to do.

       Why should these already privileged people  get to pay a smaller percentage of the money they receive from  investments which require no labor on their  part than you have to pay on money you work your butt off to earn?

      Why isn't it fair for, at the very least,  all earnings to be taxed the same.

       If you have a taxable income of $36,000 you are paying 15% on about $27,000 of that and the entire amount and over 13% on all of it.

       If your taxable income is  $90,000 you are paying about 19%  on the total and some of your income is taxed at 28%.

       Compare that to a guy who  inherits 10 million dollars and invests it. If he earns a million, all of that is taxed at just 15%.

       You just worked all year and you have no more real wealth than you had at the beginning of the year. He didn't have to work a  day and even after the 15% taxes he is $850,000 richer than he was.

       Is there any good reason he should not be required to pay  at least the amount that someone who earned a million dollars by working would have to pay?


    Naturally, using a selective example, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    such as the one you used, makes the capital gains tax seem outrageously unfair.

    However, and I'm pretty sure you understand this, our government uses tax policy for many reasons/goals, not just for collecting a "fair slice" of one's income. And, one of those goals is to incentivize the taking of risk by those with abundant/sufficient capital.

    The idea is that by reducing the tax on certain money one might be encouraged to take risks he/she would not ordinarily take. In your example of the gentleman with the inherited $1,000,000, he has many choices of what to do with that money. The safest, and most risk-free, of course, is to just plop it into some sort of savings vehicle (savings account, money market fund, etc) collecting interest, and not doing much good for society in general.

    But, if, by lowering the taxes on that money he is convinced that the risk/reward ratio is sufficient enough, he might invest that money in a manner that, not only he, but society as a whole, would benefit. And, by the way, almost all commercial/industrial development comes as a result of tax policy designed to promote just such activity. He might start a business, expand an existing business, upgrade his equipment, and so on. And, that would result in creating new jobs, and, greater, future tax income.

    Now, we can discuss the fairness of such a system, but that would lead to a discussion of the fairness of our capitalist vs socialist system. I don't think that's what we're doing here. Bottom line: the purpose of charging a lower tax on capital gains vs earned income is to free up money that would otherwise sit idly in a dormant, interest only, risk-free repository.

    My personal opinion about this policy is that it doesn't matter what my personal opinion is. What is important, however, is to understand that politicians have used the public's lack of tax policy knowledge to misinform and obfuscate the issue for their own advantage since time began.


    As i said somewhere in here (none / 0) (#93)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:15:48 PM EST
      No action is perfect and devoid of negative consequnces. Reasonable can (I'm waiting for some to appear) disagree on the relative weights of the positive and negative consequences of a specific action.

       I don't buy the "trickle-down" or supply school of thought (neither do some who used to advocate it.

      The first problem witht he theory is that everyone with money is going to do something with it. Most people are going to spend almost all of it to pay the bills. The phenomenon of people  spending money to purchase  housing, goods and services is the single greatest "stimulus" of the overall economy. that positive effect must be  considered in conjunction with he "social good" of the greatest number of people possible being able to purchase sufficient HGS to live a decent life. so, putting more money in the hands of the relatively less affluent creates more demand. where there is demand, investment will follow. Tax policy does influence investment decisions. But no one deliberately invests in an unprofitable venture because the non-existent profits would be taxed at a lesser rate. People will though invest in a  perceived likely profitable venture despite higher taxes, if that investment still appears to offer the best likely return.

       No one is going to bury their money in the backyard, and very few are going to invest a large proportion of their money in gold and keep it out of the economy waiting for the collapse.

       In terms of the domestic economy, the supply-side argument is thus  easily refuted. Now, it is of course true that capital can flow across borders. It's also true that we don't want to eliminate the flow of capital from the USA to profitable ventures overseas. But not eliminating something and placing more regulation and higher tax consequences on such activity to encourage domestic investment are two different things.

      Just as I advocated corp net income tax policies to incentivize domestic employment, I advocate other policies to incentivize domestic, job creating investment. The free trade purists, who all seem to have a lot of money or get most of their lesser amounts to perform "studies" commissioned by those with a lot of money warn of dire consequences if we "penalize" the act of investing money overseas relative to investing it here. At a very extreme level that would likely be true. At a more modest level I don't believe it for a second.

      I strongly believe that the widespread positive good from such policies would substantially outweigh the negative consequences. That's not saying no one on the other side makes valid arguments and that one can always go too far, but I feel highly confident in saying that presently we are not going near far enough. I also am resigned to the likelihood that our politicians will remain in the corner of the wealthy capitalists and not infringe upon their freedom to accumulate more and more at favorable tax rates and invest it overseas with little or no attempt to recoup a portion of what that movement costs the domestic economy.

       It doesn't make me mad that Hillary is not only the most likely candidate but almost the inevitable one. At this stage of my lifer it just makes me sad. Sadder still is seeing people who claim to share a desire to restrain the power and influence of corporate capital show by their support that it's really just empty talk.

       I agree with one point being made. It is highly likely she will end up running against someone appreciably worse. I honestly don't think many of the people who will end up voting for her truly believe there is any other reason to do so. Many will admit it  but some don't want to admit that to themselves.


    oh and by the way, (none / 0) (#94)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    The safest, and most risk-free, of course, is to just plop it into some sort of savings vehicle (savings account, money market fund, etc) collecting interest, and not doing much good for society in general.

     You do realize that when an individual "parks" his money in a "safe vehicle" that the entity operating the safe vehicle then uses the money to make more than it is paying. It doesn't disappear in a hole.


    To your last statement, (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    yes, of course. But, you do also realize that when we're having a discussion such as we're having one would hope that that both parties understand the context within which a point is being made. That's just being fair, and honest, to the process of having a, hopefully, intelligent discussion.

    Certainly, you have witnessed the many, many conversations that go on for way too long because the parties simply talk past each other. Each side knows what the other "meant," but, for whatever reason, they choose to respond to a nuance, or interpretation, that was not intended.....and, they know that. This psychoanalysis, more often than not, erroneous analysis, is the main reason I rarely comment here. Without a moderator to keep a debate on track, having meaningful debate is virtually impossible.

    Anyway, thanks for the chat; I wish I had more time, but I gotta run.

    We can pick it up later.


    Plus with interest rates on savings at near 0% (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    the only way anyone can grow their nest egg is to play in the Wall Street casino...I don't for a minute think that is coincidence. Reduced incentive to save and increased incentive to invest/gamble.

    I'll also add (saw it coming, didn't you?) (none / 0) (#95)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:27:50 PM EST
      that I would rather put more money in the investment sector by keeping the interest rates low. The President does not run the FEd and can't dictate monetary policy, but he or she is not without influence.

       I strongly disagree that inflationary pressures are anywhere near the level that would justify tightening the money supply. People who want to react to ramp down the money supply and claim the benefit of greater employment growth in this economy is outweighed by the negative consequences of, historically speaking, very moderate inflation are not working on behalf of those at the lower end of the totem pole.


    Putting it into some sort of... (none / 0) (#104)
    by unitron on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:16:39 PM EST
    ...savings vehicle means it's available to be pooled with the funds of others who have done the same and loaned to someone else to be used for entrepreneurial stuff, or to buy bonds issued by governments to finance large infrastructure creation and repair projects, which create people drawing paychecks, so it's not exactly the same as stuffing it under the mattress or burying it in Mason jars in the back yard.

    To Unitron, ruffian, and (to a degree, Recon.) (none / 0) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:00:52 PM EST
    Firstt, to put my comments in context, I am a screaming, flaming, unabashed Liberal. I was not always a Liberal. As a matter of fact, I was a card carrying member of the NRA a long time ago. But, today, I would, in a heartbeat, contribute half my income to the common weal, IF all those above a certain income level joined me. Basically, I can't see how anyone who considers him/herself to be a "Christian" (in the broadest, secular sense of the term,) a humanitarian, or a patriot, can live a happy, fulfilling life while their neighbors struggle to meet basic needs. (But, that's a social, personal argument, not to be confused with the cold hard reality of economics in a, so-called, free-market, capitalist society.)

    Now, I only state these things so that the comments I make explaining, or pointing out, certain factual realities in the marketplace are just that, Facts, and, not to be confused with how I feel about them. For example, a while ago I pointed out that the FED had engineered a near zero interest rate policy (QE) with the intention, and hope, that the moneyed class would not just hoard their money in interest bearing accounts, but put their funds into enterprises that would grow the economy, and create a lot of jobs. Unfortunately, that policy did not have the result the FED had hoped for; The Rich, instead of putting that almost-free money to productive use, played the arbitrage game instead, borrowing 0% short-term money from the Government, and loaning it back to the Government through the purchase of longer term 3-1/2% bonds, (the, so-called, "carry trade.") Smart play on their part. Why risk losing money by lending to businesses when you can be guaranteed making money, at no risk whatsoever?  

    So, naturally, I was accused of being a 1% Pig because (in trying to give a simple explanation of the FED'S policy) I didn't show enough pity towards the senior citizens who had saved all their lives for retirement, hoping to have some interest income in their "Golden Years," but, now had zilch.

    Anyway, that's enough personal crap, I hope you get my point; I just wanted to make this comment/statement so that I'd have something to point to later on when that kind of juxtaposition is, inevitably, made against me again.

    Now, I'll be more than happy to address any points anyone would like to make.

    p.s. (Reconstructionist, I'll get to you later)


    That's the kind of detail (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    that belongs on a position paper. This is the point in the campaign when you humanize yourself and lay out your personal arena and perspective -- not bombard with minutia about tax policy. You are calling her statements "stupid" while not seeing how your statements show little comprehension of the campaign process.

    You don't have to like the process -- I don't myself, in general. But don't pretend that her approach is unusual or banal.


    If Secretary Clinton's (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    announcement provided a detailed plan on war and peace, a comprehensive domestic program that included strengthening social security, provision for long term nursing care, and forgiveness/reduction of student loans, but made such announcement wearing a dress rather than her customary pantsuit,  I wonder what the headlines and week-long discussion would be about?   And, that news-grabbing  couture would be considered poor sportsmanship by Rubio--who would suffer a de-hydration attack untreatable with mere Poland Springs.

    Yes, sj (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    And, yes, about your comment on taxes above.  Partly sardonic on my part; and, also, inaccurate on my part.  As a subject matter, I see taxes and the words pertaining to it, and glaze covers my eyes.  Yeah, you said it better about this not being the time for "position paper" stuff. It is about direction and goals ... and the person herself.

    this comment (none / 0) (#51)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:27:34 PM EST
     highlights a huge problem.

      The condescending attitude that most people cannot understand important stuff because they lack our elevated smarts so we to appeal to them we should treat them like the slow kids they are.

       I don't believe most voters are as slow and incapable of understanding grade school math as y'all seem to think. I also suspect some of them might resent people making such suggestions.

      Even if some gloss over the math I'm pretty sure all can grasp: "rich guys get to pay less than you do because the other guy is in their pocket. I'm not."

      Of course, that actually has to be true to work.


    Have you ever (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    thought to consider that it's not that they can't understand it but don't have time to get mired in details and droning on about taxes like you did above is probably the biggest way to turn off the largest amount of voters.

    There are also a lot of people out there who like big picture and vision things more than details. Do you think those voters should be ignored to drone on about taxes?

    And frankly unless the candidate can explain how it is going to work in that person's life they might as well not explain it. I've seen this happen time and again. Somebody is for it but can't explain it. It's one of the reasons Obama has had so many problems explaining Obamacare.


    sometimes (1.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:01:27 PM EST
      I wonder whether people like you truly are so obtuse or just feel compelled by some incurable condition to reflexively write foolish things to  to respond someone who doesn't share their affinity for a certain person.

       It might just be possible to address many  other things during the course of a single speech, let alone an entire 19 month campaign, and still address boring, but rather consequential, stuff like taxes with some degree of specificity (and what I offered was of course an very quick and dirty, hardly an MBA thesis).

      Heck there might still be time to work empty slogans about how much you care at every natural paragraph break. Then, everyone can be happy.


    More condescending (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    junk. This is the kind of stuff that drives voters away but you're oblivious to that fact it would seem.

    You took one sentence and had a meltdown about it. Now you're talking about the course of 19 months when before you mad that she wasn't droning on about taxes in that one sentence.

    You obviously don't understand that making an emotional connection with voters can help too and that's really what that statement was meant to do but you obviously don't get that part of a campaign either.

    Apparently you would rather have someone run for national tax accountant than president.


    You can make an emotional connection (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    AND also talk to people like they're engaged, thinking adults capable of rational thought and of making creative contributions to society..

    But, you may be required to be more specific in your communications than "Ask not what your country can do for you.." or "Every child should have the same chance Charlotte has.."



    That's (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    fine but that statement was not designed to be a policy statement. That's the kind of statement people make to warm people up so they'll listen to other things. I just don't understand having a meltdown about it and the bitterness behind the statement.

    It's an insult to anyone's inteligence (none / 0) (#100)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 05:05:31 PM EST
      That kind of statement won't give anyone whose head is not already planted deep into Hillary's colon the warm and fuzzies. At best it indicates a person completely out of touch with the realities of the upper middle class let alone the less affluent. At worst, it a cynical attempt to manipulate thought by empty words not backed up the policies she has consistently backed.

    Heck, Chelsea got paid a reported $600,000 a year for a part-time job at NBC. Her other jobs have all also been the type that very few people will ever be able to be attain in their lives let alone at the start of their careers. While I have no reason to doubt she is not a capable person, no one would even suggest that Chelsea Adkins from Wytheville Virginia would have the same opportunities as Clinton if she was  just as capable but just didn't happen to have parents who are super wealthy and powerful.



    Yes, very few people do get those jobs (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:26:08 PM EST
    and few people actually get 3 (or is it 4?) degrees including a phd. I'm sure her degrees alone would have opened some doors, and yes, you can prob blame her parents for that too.  Genetics and all . . .

    Wonder how Hillary got as far as she did. She didn't have a known last name or wealthy parents and came from where again? Then there's Bill, and his wealth and famous family that helped him make it to the White House . . .

    Talk about out of touch . . .


    Yes, of course, genetics, (none / 0) (#133)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:23:56 AM EST
     along with the socio-cultural factors  are another reason why it is impossible for government (or any force)to bestow equal chance or opportunity for all children.

      As I have said, the problem is not that the Clinton's children and grandchildren... will have opportunity far beyond the reach of most people. She's the one who tried to say that. I'm the one who said that's BS.

      To a lesser, but still very substantial degree, I and my children.... also benefit from "built-in" advantages  far greater than most people are lucky enough to have. We might only have more advantage and opportunity than 95% not 99.99995%, but it's just as real.

       The simple truth is it's impossible to give everyone the "same chance" by giving everyone a really great chance. Trying to do it the other way-- equalizing chance by eliminating advantages was never even able to implemented in reality in the societies that proclaimed it as a goal and people are rightly not clamoring for a repeat of those "experiments."

       I'll also respond to this comment by GA6th:

    actually can be successful and broke as long as you don't define success in terms of money.
    Things are very tough for a lot of people right now. People are looking to have food on the table, heat in the house, be able to see a doctor etc.

     And studies have shown that kids that don't have food don't do well in school the first chance they get to succeed in this world. And you don't have to be a millionaire to be successful. You can be a welder or a car mechanic or any number of things. At least in my book but not in yours apparently

       I agree that "success" should not be defined solely in terms of financial status. Truth is relative to the huge advantages I pretty much received as a "birthright," I am not that successful in financial terms. At the risk of sounding even more conceited, that's because of personal decisions I chose as to where I live and what I do. I had opportunities that would have paid many times more money than make or have any chance of making. I did that because I believed (and still believe) it would be more rewarding and I would be happier doing what I do than just making as much money as possible.

      The thing is, I recognize that I am so fortunate that even the less lucrative of my opportunities still freed me from any worry that I would not have "food on the table, heat in the house, be able to see a doctor etc.".

      Those things cost money and I tend to doubt that many people who struggle to or can't buy food or pay the gas bill view their lives as successful. You can view yourself as successful without being rich but a perspective that money isn't everything is a lot easier to maintain when you have enough to live a comfortably with some degree of financial security.

       THAT'S what honest politicians should be talking about. Spare me the nonsense about you're going to give the least fortunate the same shot as the most fortunate. Tell me what you intend to do so that the least fortunate have decent housing, food, medical care, and an opportunity that means not just meager amount of assistance but a chance to have a productive job that lets them provide for themselves and create a base from which their children can achieve ebven more.


    I wasn't mad that she (none / 0) (#72)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:22:22 PM EST
     didn't mention taxes in the statement I quoted. I wasn't even mad at how stupid it was. If I got mad at all the stupidity in politics, I'd be like you guys who are off the handle in response to my initial post. Pretending to be inquiring about what I think then getting madder when I tell you, because you don't really care what anyone thinks. all you guys want to do (and you do it abysmally, by the way) is shout down anyone who dares to question Hillary.



    If you got mad at all... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by unitron on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:20:18 PM EST
    ...the stupidity in politics, that'd be 25 or 26 hours out of each and every day shot right there.

    That's one of the points (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:59:09 PM EST
    that pols have to trenchantly make, over and over again if the necessary: that citizens here for far too long have been treated by our leaders like mindless hormonal adolescents with nonexistent attention spans..

    Like a "target audience" that a (lousy) product is marketed to.

    This tax stuff isn't sub-atomic physics, and is an issue normal thinking humans can be passionately engaged by if placed in it's historical context by able communicators.  


    I hate to tell (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:36:38 PM EST
    you but most Americans don't have the time nor the inclination to listen to long speeches. There's a reason so many politicans speak in bullet points and it's not because people are being treated like children. It's because time is limited to get your message across.

    They listen to sermons in church.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    or, from the looks of things, maybe they don't..

    So, what? Should we tell all the teachers to stop trying to teach kids the Gettysburg Address?

    No more memorization of anything longer than Sam I am, I eat green eggs and ham?

    And a few more generations, we'll all go back to living in small bands in the forest. If we have the attention spans for it..


    Even (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    sermons are done in bullet points these days and the long winded ones people fall asleep during.

    You can teach the Gettysburg address with out having to read aloud the whole thing. That's just silly.


    Seeking unity (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    Far from being condescending, I urge that the thematic entry--the goal and purpose of candidacy, the directional charge in sweeping terms, the mission that defines the seeker--is the what we aspire to in a Presidency.  

    My background originated in the Pennsylvania Coal Region ... my Dad didn't finish high school because he had to quit and work in the mines (there was enough black lung disease in my forebears to see matters at the feeding, shelter, crying, laughing levels.)  So, please, hold back the condescension on your part.  My Dad educated himself; he was the smartest, warmest, and wisest man I've ever known ... even raised two daughters and scratched for jobs as we grew up.  So, can it.

    IMO, we need the clarion call, the genuine concern (such as what you term a "platitude") stated first, and strongly again & again.  Shortly, follow with the kind of suggestions that you offered in the down-to-earth (non-ivy league) directness above.  There is a place for sentiment; for aspiration; and--the sweat and real work comes with the setting & unifying explanation of how to get there.


    I call BS (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:37:28 PM EST
     The condescending attitude that most people cannot understand important stuff because they lack our elevated smarts so we to appeal to them we should treat them like the slow kids they are.

    First of all I didn't say that "people cannot understand important stuff". I know I didn't say that because I don't believe it.  What I implied -- and will now say outright -- is that there a is a process.

    But if I had said that -- which I didn't -- I would say that the kind of detail you pretend you want can only (for most people) be grokked when it is presented in writing --and maybe not even then. This bit of yours:

    Say a sliding scale: 100% below $500K; 75% 500--1 mill; 50% 1-2 mill; 25% 2-4 mill; 0% above 4 mill.
    would bore me silly unless I was already in analytical mode. And I care about things like that. But whatever -- if she had said exactly that you would have found something else to sneer about.

    You are taking that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:48:28 PM EST
     from a different post where I was responding to what I might advocate not from the one where I stated how I would suggest framing an argument to increase the capital gains tax.(off the top of my head in 10 seconds so, yeah some refinement might be possible)

       If this kind of blather is the best you got to suggest Hillary's statement was not vacuous drivel, you are not helping.



    Oh because ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    ...this sort of blather is so much more enlightening.
    from a different post where I was responding to what I might advocate not from the one where I stated how I would suggest framing an argument to increase the capital gains tax.
    Moreover, it shows your inability to follow a discussion. Hint: There is a "Parent" link for a reason.

    Blather away, puffing your chest with your own brilliance, strutting about like Foghorn Leghorn.  I'm done responding to your cr@p for today.


    white flag accepted (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:07:54 PM EST
     I'd advise you stay on the sidelines as a matter of course. You won't need it as much then.

    When you step in (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    it you like to walk on as much floor as you can, don't you?

    Try again (none / 0) (#68)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:05:33 PM EST
     the sliding scale remark is from my post responding to what I might suggest as policy, not the one where I was asked how I would fram an argument about the capital gains.

      Not that it matters, but it's not me who has trouble following things.


    duh (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    ... that is the conversation I was having. I didn't lose track. I never asked how you would frame a blah blah blah

    I only said that I would leave it up to you to clarify your remarks to christine. And that wasn't even in the direct parent/child tree.

    That you continue to think this comment thread references your capital gains blather shows you didn't click "Parent" even after my very helpful advice.

    I have to laugh at your white flag comment below. It wasn't that I raised a white flag so much as I was leaving you to wallow in your own pigsh!t.

    As it happens, I changed my mind and joined you in the mud pit with this comment, because what the heck; what's a little mud and pigsh!t before happy hour.


    I'm not (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    sure infrastructure projects would do much in the way of helping working class people since Obama did it and it didn't seem to do much. That seems to be more of a marginal thing.

    As far as the rest we shall see. She did a lot of advocating for working class people in 2008 because she believed they were the ones that needed the help. If you will remember Obama is the one that called them names.


    Obama did about a third of what was needed (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    It is still needed, and a good idea. Good place to start anyway.

    I know (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    and I agree with place to start. I just don't think it's the end all and be all.

    Nothing is the end all and be all... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:23:17 PM EST
     and nothing is "perfect" even as one component to in a broad strategy. Literally no action that can be taken in any area that is totally devoid of all negative consequences (including my suggestions).

      I'm not demanding a miracle worker. Indeed, I'm scoffing at the silly suggestion that miracles are what the aim should be.

       I'm merely suggesting that I know that she knows that the overwhelming majority of children will have nowhere near the shot of her grandchild.

     That's not the problem. I hope little Charlotte takes advantage of her tremendously privileged position and has a happy and prosperous life. I won't judge anyone's success or failure on whether  all children have the same shot she does.


    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:03:40 PM EST
    what you are advocating is droning on about taxes which doesn't do much to gain you voters. And it's one of the reasons that people like Kerry lost. You have to start off like she did and then explain how it works to the voters.

    Good grief. Bitter much?

    You are playing to the GOP narratives and definitions of success. There are many successful people who are not wealthy but they are successful in other ways. Have you ever considered the fact that maybe it has nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with the fact that Charlotte has food?


    So you are suggesting the better approach (none / 0) (#45)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:18:19 PM EST
      that the road to success likes in convincing voters  we will make life better for people without doing anything to improve their economic status with airy fairy talk about how you can be successful and broke?

    You (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    actually can be successful and broke as long as you don't define success in terms of money.

    Things are very tough for a lot of people right now. People are looking to have food on the table, heat in the house, be able to see a doctor etc.

    And studies have shown that kids that don't have food don't do well in school the first chance they get to succeed in this world. And you don't have to be a millionaire to be successful. You can be a welder or a car mechanic or any number of things. At least in my book but not in yours apparently.


    FDR's infrastructure projects (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:28:29 PM EST
    helped working class people.

    What? Should we continue spending a trillion on defense and giving tax breaks to an investor class that bankrolls slave labor and a totalitarian state in China aka "Free Trade" (rah rah!)


    If infrastructure projects... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    don't cut it, maybe some pol will have the balls to start pushing guaranteed income.

    Sh*t...a smart eloquent person like Hillary should be able to sell it to Goldman on purely self-preservation grounds..."they need at least some cash to live on Lloyd or they might kill us, we can even couple it with a mandatory retirement mutual fund contribution so you get a cut.  It's good business.  Pass the Grey Poupon, will you darling?"


    What was it FDR (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    supposedly said to the 1% swells?

    I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks..


    That (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    was set up differently. No? Now we have to use "contractors". Right? Paul Ryan's family. Right?

    As if (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    I'm not (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:44:46 AM MDT  

    sure infrastructure projects would do much in the way of helping working class people since Obama did it ...

    Apparently you haven't been following Atrios' "if only there where shovel-ready projects" series of posts.

    You would (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    be correct on not following Atrios.

    Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by sj on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    IMO Atrios' forte is "finding stuff". He has been very good on finding infrastructure issues.

    Hey, sj (off topic, quick question) (none / 0) (#115)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:11:03 PM EST
    I was just wondering, inasmuch as we seem to agree in our outlooks about 95% of the time, why you would give me a 1 (troll) rating regarding my comment about Indiana's assaults against women's rights?

    See "Saturday Open Thread, Happy Passover and Easter."

    Comment #91


    Beats the heck out of me (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    It looks like a mistake. Which I've rectified. Sorry about that.

    lol, wow, (none / 0) (#123)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 12:49:12 AM EST
    didn't know you could even do that.

    aw shucks, thanks.


    Can any of those tax law mods (none / 0) (#142)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    be accomplished through fiat?


    To your final point, that concrete plans are more meaningful than feelgood pablum for the proles (that's us), I agree.


    No they can't (none / 0) (#146)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:19:27 AM EST
      but neither could the tax advantages for the very wealthy of the present system.

      The rich didn't get them without asking for them and working to get politicians to support them.

      The less rich are already at a disadvantage. It seems unwise to magnify that disadvantage by declining to ask that the most powerful person in the system not be committed to helping them. the argument that even a committed Pres might not succeed is true but the future conditional becomes a certainty without a Pres who is committed.


    Heh (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    Recon, this is about establishing a (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    vision, about tapping into people's desire for their children to have better opportunities than they did; it is not, as you seem to have taken it, about getting people to believe that the average person's child is going to have the built-in advantages little Charlotte has.  I think people are all smart enough to realize that not only will doors open like magic for Clinton's granddaughter, chances are there may not be any doors for her at all - her world will be wide open.

    But you can't bore people to death - Al Gore - and expect them to get excited about voting.  You can't lock-box your way to the White House; you have to give people things they can relate to.

    And people can relate to the possibility that their children's opportunities for success can be improved upon; the next step, of course, is convincing people that this candidate is the one who has the strongest chance to make that happen.

    How it can happen is a detail for a later day.  And if the "how" you hear is platitudinous and not practical, then by all means, call her out for it.


    Nancy Reagan (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 05:37:26 PM EST
    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    that was funny.

    sneaky devils (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton for President. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:48:47 PM EST

    Well (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    watching the twitter feed on this. Lots of excitement by Dems, meltdowns by Republicans, and some disgruntlement. I saw the RNC feed and they are still shopping Benghazi. I guess they finally concede that their issues are bad.

    Apparently the head of the NRA (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:37:33 PM EST
    is not happy that she's running.

    Works for me :P


    OMG (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    they're nuts. It looks like they're aiming guns at her wanting to shoot her.

    I didn't go much past the headlines (none / 0) (#112)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:57:23 PM EST
    not willing to subject myself to that while relaxing with dog n' wine :)

    Perhaps some of those lunatics will land their a**es in jail . . .


    Bill Maher offered Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    A million dollar contribution if she ran in the primary and became the candidate, she very professionally and sincerely explained to him that she appreciated it but she is not running for President.

    And she stumped for the income inequality problem and the too big to fail problem...characterized the new Republican majority Senate as a very scary place where they are working hard to dismantle Dodd Frank and our TBTF problems are even bigger than they were at the crash.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:07:00 AM EST
    I wish they would stop this getting her to run for president stuff because it becomes part of the conversation and what she really says gets lost in the whole conversation.

    And that is scary if the TBTF situation is worse.


    She said a recent study (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    Indicated that 11 institutions exist that if anyone one of them were to fail it would pull us immediately into another crash and everyone would have to be bailed out by the government again, or accept that our retirements had been destroyed and credit was frozen until further notice, and on and on down that chain reaction.  So it is terrifying in the newly run Republican Senate because one of the first things they are doing is trying to weaken existing regulations that make it more difficult for those 11 to fail.

    Senator Warren (none / 0) (#147)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    was very effective on Bill Maher's show, and, similarly so, during a recent appearance  with Jon Stewart.  Not only pushing her book, but doing herself a lot of good. Very popular with the younger crowd.  I have noted the language of her regular response on a presidential run: "I am not running for president."   The present tense, and, not... I will not be a candidate etc.

    Maybe, a difference without a distinction, but, then, she is a politician, and a good one.   I believe Secretary Clinton needs to mix her fundamental caution with boldness.  And, safe boldness would be to have Senator Warren on the ticket as vice president.

    Of course, polling (if not already being done) will drive a decision, in large measure.  Julio Castro would be another possibility, but I believe a Clinton/Warren ticket would be the best.

    The electorate is a different one than even six years ago--so much of those Clinton wars do not register with the newer voters and are in the deep recesses of many others  mind.  And, the Republican's mining of those memories will have limited effectiveness.

    The issue will be to mix experience with freshness.   Since, I believe Jeb (or more accurately, Jeb's money machine) will, ultimately, beat out his competing miscreants in the clown car, A Clinton/Warren ticket would strike just the right balance.


    I've been pushing Clinton/Warren (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    for more than a year.  And you are dead on about the "tense" of her reply.

    Yes, Captain (none / 0) (#149)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    you were among the very first with that ticket.  And, I agreed then and it is looking even more prescient now.

    Politically (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    imo it would be brilliant.  Castro might be very good.  As a "stand in" for Warren.

    (Bracing for the list of "we want to keep her in the senate" replies). :)


    But (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    she would still be in the senate and have more influence in a lot of ways. That is an interesting thought.

    You don't want Elizabeth Warren so (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 11:11:06 AM EST
    Bored she's stealing baby binkies for thrills?  She would be the tie breaking vote in the Senate if it ever reached a tie but she would have no filibuster negotiating authority, even John Adams said being VP was mostly a useless thankless job.

    First (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    any job is what you make it.  VP could be a lot more and second even assuming what you say is true (which I do not) if it means the difference if having a democrat president or not, which it could, then absolutely yes.  I do.

    Disagree, VP always stands down (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:12:44 PM EST
    Cannot outshine the President...isn't proper.  Like party Senators are free to burn and influence like new born suns though when paired with or sometimes against their like party sitting Presidents.

    Warren belongs in the Senate, is vital to the health and well being and growth of the Democratic party in her Senate position.  I do not desire or need her to be second place to anyone.  She has much more power and influence in the Senate than as Clinton's VP.  I need Warren to be a lioness in the Senate, not second fiddle to Clinton.


    Well I have a feeling (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:16:49 PM EST
    we will find out if she agrees with you.  I tend to agree with Dan.  If it's offered, and it probably will be, I think she will take it.

    I don't know why you both (none / 0) (#198)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:39:56 PM EST
    Can't see other VP possibilities that make more power garnering and Democratic party representation and dispersal sense.  I don't think Clinton is willing to give up having Warren in the Senate during her Presidency. If not a Castro (For the love of Texas), what about Mark Warner (Virginia, Southern battlegrounds) or Evan Bayh (Indiana, Midwest battlegrounds)? What about Charlie Crist to really battle for Florida against a Bush or Rubio?  

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:47:15 PM EST
    without speaking for Dan that what we said is we think it's a great idea.  And I believe he took pains to say there were other good choices.  You are free to disagree.
    Personally I would like to think Hillary is less concerned about being upstaged or overshadowed than she is with winning and doing good.



    Oh My God (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:00:59 PM EST
    I hardly think Clinton worries about being upstaged.  I think she worries instead about being able to govern well and have real Democratic legislative power able and available.  And you are smart enough to know that is exactly what I was speaking of and not some silly shallow pettiness.

    And whether you like it or not it is not considered acceptable or professional for a VP to even attempt to out govern or out preform their President, and Warren is nothing if not professional and ethically sound.

    Hillary Clinton is not stupid either. She needs key Democrats in key positions of power.  There are three branches of government.  The Presidency isn't the whole enchilada, it isn't even close...just necessary.


    Jesus, why not just a Republican? (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    Evan Bayh?  Mark Warner?  Did you forget Jim Webb?

    I have to tell you that I'm teetering on the edge of maybe, possibly being able to vote for Clinton, if - and it's a big "if" - I hear and see her talking like a Democrat, but honest to God, if she goes with one of these guys, forget it.  

    And by "talking like a Democrat," I don't mean the Third Way/DLC kind, either.  She doesn't have to spontaneously combust in an explosion of liberal heat, but she's gotta give us something.  And a Republican-lite running mate isn't one of those things, not for me.  Because a Republican-lite VP probably means a Republican-lite president in 2020 or 2024.  

    Ugh, no thanks.

    Please tell me you were kidding.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#162)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    The vice-presidency is much different than the days of John Nance Garner, vp under FDR, who said the office is "not worth a bucket of warm pi$$."   I doubt if many/any  US senators would pass on an offer to run with Mrs. Clinton.   The issue, at hand, is to assure the election of Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic party.

    The stakes are high--Bush/Bush, Walker/Koch, Cruz/Cotton, Jindal/Huckabee, Rubio/Adelson ...... If a Clinton/Warren ticket proves to be the strongest ticket (and I believe it would), it does not make sense to worry about her loss to the senate.  She is from  MA, there will likely be another another Democratic senator in her place (even if the Republican governor puts a Republican in as a place-holder).  


    The stronger VP candidate? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    While being somewhat reluctant to jump that far ahead ... nevertheless, here is what strikes me out here in Colorado: Julio Castro has the better chance of aiding the Democratic Party in a number of states.  Those states would include, at first look: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and (being brash here) but a strong indentation in Texas. He adds potential to the recently problematic Iowa, Virginia and--significantly--Florida.  Should either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio be nominated by the Repubs, he more than offsets a dynamic that might be created there (and, do not count out N.Mex. Governor Martinez as a Repub VP candidate in the event that neither Florida Repub is nominated for the top spot ...because, that party has to face certain realities about demographics.)

    I need to do some more reading up on J. Castro. 'Saw him speak last year in Denver at a Democratic function ... he IS impressive.  As for Warren, she is obviously powerful in her own right. But, as an old-fashioned counter about who might bring the most new numbers that otherwise would not vote Democratic or that might not vote in large force, J. Castro may offer that inroad ... not just to the Rio Grande Valley to which HRC alluded but to a much larger geographic area.  

    In any event, as the campaign progresses, the personalities of the players in this dynamic should become more pronounced.  As for me, my inclination is to look to the West (natch ... and, because neither Clinton has ever been very strong out here) or to the classic President-making Midwest.  Names from the Midwest for VP? Especially potentials with a possible populist cast?


    Didn't she win in the west v Obama? (none / 0) (#166)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    Not in the caucus states (none / 0) (#179)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:47:38 PM EST
    Frankly, she has always done better in the broader ballots/polls.  The Democrats have their work cut out for them in the non-coastal western states in the coming election.

    The caucus states.... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:30:05 PM EST
    Obama was completely caucus prepared and Clinton wasn't.  My grandmother was a Colorado Democratic party leader.  The region that I left when we moved to Alabama, they argued until almost 11 pm before deciding for Obama, but Obama's representation was ready.  And they just wore everyone out, and people had to get home and to bed :)  Brilliant strokes from team Obama.  I often thought that if I had been there it wouldn't have gone down that way, but Clinton supporters would have had to come fully prepared to argue the issues, and argue, and argue.  If I had been alone in that I would have likely left sad and angry :( I don't think that will be a Clinton error this go around!

    Sounds like we are on (none / 0) (#167)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    a similar track. But, it is not too far ahead, especially when there is not likely to be a strongly competitive Democratic primary, to be thinking about a ticket.  Surely, the Clinton campaign is on it.

     Secretary Castro would bring strengths, certainly.  But, I feel (and I believe this is the thinking of the Captain, as well) that Senator Warren is a powerful new force that appeals to many Democrats and Independents--an attraction that complements those of Secretary Clinton and one that should be tapped into, not overlooked.  

    The rhetoric of Bobby Jindal, if he worth use as a barometer, wants the 2016 election to be about populism not elitism--elitism would be Mrs. Clinton, populism would be the caring Republicans.  While most would read it, give a laugh and more on, Bobby may be revealing something to come.

    Geography is not as important as it once might have been and certainly should not over-ride more salient factors: Bill Clinton (AK) and Gore (TN) was a winning ticket (and, of course, there was W. Bush/Cheney both residents of TX, er, WY).  

    These are political thoughts, but Clinton/Warren would be historic and be a good for the country.  Hands down, compared with any Republican contenders.


    I think that's right (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    i have no idea who she will pick but IMO she has the center.  It's the left that needs convincing.  There is no one who could come close to the excitement Warren would bring to the ticket.  

    Right (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    now it sure looks that way however as we go through the primaries we will see where the hole in support is.

    So far it looks to be the latte group of upper income white males that are her problem.


    Like kdog? (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    Kdog, will you speak for (2.00 / 1) (#182)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    upper income latte sipping males????

    Don't go twistin my werds (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    i made the comment sometime earlier that kdogs aversion to Hillary and openness to Paul's message supported my thought that there was a portion of the left Paul could cultivate.  
    And he is far from alone.  I am routinely in contact with many progressive people, mostly men who have very real problems with Hillary and who think Warren walks on water.

    Hillary has a problem with the left.  It's a fact. For many reasons including but not limited to war and wall street.  IMO a unity ticket is the solution.  Or at least A solution.  But no one asked me.


    Question (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:01:07 PM EST
    Are they the same group that thought Obama walked on water in 2008?

    Mostly they probably are yes (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:08:58 PM EST
    and who won that election.  And the next one?

    That is (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:18:50 PM EST
    what I figured. Obama desperately needed that group of voters because he performed so poorly with working class voters. I don't think putting Warren on the ticket would change their minds though. Might be wrong there but I guess we will see.

    Kdog-you listening? (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    would consider voting for a Clinton/Warren ticket.

    Just curious.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 06:56:56 PM EST
    if Kdog would count because he's not really part of the party and usually votes green no matter who the nominee is.

    Good arguments all the way around (none / 0) (#178)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:44:27 PM EST
    My point of departure, tho: Hispanic turnout and more.  

    My one caution as to E. Warren:  For some reason, I believe that it would be more exciting to have a VP candidate who can show a broader base than the ivy halls and Northeast.  Yep, I'm speaking like one bearing western stereotypes ... Warren's strongest showing in Colorado (when she campaigned for then-Senator Udall) corresponded with Boulder and CU.  Nothing wrong with that, of course ... that is laudable, but that is always Democratic territory.

    We need more info, because--at this point--I'm thinking that Elizabeth Warren's appeal may not be as broad as Julio Castro's popular draw with a significant & necessary populace.  But, as you say, the campaign team will weigh the tangibles and intangibles in the months ahead. (Both would clearly be an asset to the ticket.)


    I think (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:06:04 PM EST
    that perhaps you might be right. I could see him actually being an asset here in Ga where Warren probably would not be.

    For whatever reason people from the northeast don't translate well to the rest of the country.


    If you really think a Hispanic (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    is going to sell better than a populist white grandmother you don't know rednecks as well as I thought you did.

    No (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:21:07 PM EST
    I'm not talking about the rednecks. They are not going to listen to either of them. Do you really think they'll listen to Harvard professor from MA? No, they will not. Castro would at least appeal to the Hispanics who are GA.

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:27:18 PM EST
    i don't think, with its recent history, the Republican Party is going to get much of the Hispanic vote.

    And you really don't understand to attraction of Warren.  I know more rednecks than I would prefer to.  And you know what.  They know who she is and they do not consider a eastern law professor.  The consider her to be the only person in American politics who is talking about them.  I have heard very VERY right wing folks have nothing but praise for her.


    Well (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:35:11 PM EST
    all I can tell you is that here her appeal is more to the same people you were talking about earlier not the rednecks.

    So (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:39:17 PM EST
    if you are correct those are the people Hillary needs and currently does not have.  Rednecks are mostly not going to vote for her anyway.  I was just making a point about the perception of Warren.

    Exactly my thinking too (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:18:20 PM EST
    And I think it is simply smart politics to have one of the Castro brothers set up for a White House run if it shakes out.  If we have had our first black president, and likely headed to our first woman president, setting up a run for our first possible Latino president makes sense when I look at the Castros. They are young, but thus far seem to have what it takes to be considered future Presidential material at this time.

    And if needed (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    he still has a vote in the senate.

    I saw (none / 0) (#176)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    Elizabeth Warren.
    She was visiting a museum.

    Talk about star quality.

    She has it.


    I have enjoyed the above comments (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:49:53 PM EST
    very very much.

    But don't you folks realize that Hillary is just Obama with more money???

    You mean personal wealth? (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 05:35:02 AM EST
    Did Obama take a vow of poverty for after he leaves office? I'm sure he will catch up and surpass in due time.

    As if it matters.


    LOL (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 07:07:42 AM EST
    Doing a 180 now from a few years ago when they were mortal enemies?

    Hillary was born in Kenya too? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:12:14 AM EST
    et al (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    ruffian - Nope, her views and his.

    Mondriggian - I read were Obama was screwing up his terrorism policy so bad that Kenya is claiming he is born in America.

    GA, Nope the Repubs will be too nice to do such. In the meantime Hillary will be eye gouging, hair pulling and shin kicking... Of course Paul might be tough enough to fight back.


    Paul? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 04:15:03 PM EST
    LOL. No, he would sit there and drone conspiracy theories at her and then commence with an hour lecture that reeked of misogyny. I can't believe that guy had meltdowns already and people are laughing at him. Even Fox is talking about his "woman problem". If you've got Fox talking about it he really really has a problem and could not be up against a female candidate.

    Though so far all of them having been living up their insane clown posse reputation.


    Jim, glad to see you crawl out (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    from under your bed after checking for any  jihadis possibly hiding there because of Obama's terrorism policy.



    LOl (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:20:36 AM EST
    No, I'm talking about the GOP running tapes of Hillary criticizing Obama in 08 and 12.

    I was responding to Jim and his assertion (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 08:26:03 AM EST
    About the two of them being alike.

    Okay (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:39:03 AM EST

    It's a crime it will be Hillary and Jeb (none / 0) (#132)
    by TycheSD on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 09:13:05 AM EST
    If this site is about the politics of crime, then I can't think of one much bigger than what our options will be in 2016.

    no alternatives, really? (none / 0) (#140)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:03:43 AM EST
    Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo have both led large states through difficult times and with fiscal stability.  Cuomo has even managed with a Republican controlled state senate.  
    The presidency today is first and foremost an executive position, one as the CEO of the largest corporation.  Not a place for someone to learn on the job.  
    You can support progressive values without supporting Hillary at this early stage of the game.  You can vote for if she is the nominee.

    I'd take Jerry Brown more seriously (2.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:12:17 AM EST
    if he'd force his idiot constituents to stop watering their lawns.

    Plus (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 10:15:49 AM EST
    its not like he or Andy are being stopped from running.  By anything other than fear of losing.

    Anne your #156 (none / 0) (#202)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 08:20:16 AM EST
    Makes some valid points , but it seems to me that rather than boring people todeath my comments provoke strong and sustained reaction.

    I expect some will reply that thi bo ard is easie to engage than thr general populatipn. Maybe to an extent, but I think that belief involvrs some self-flattery and discounts people's wilingness to listen to a leader they trust and rrspect. Also discpunted is the  value of a lrader who is not just a good communicator but has the coirage to use thosr skills t o explain real idras and grow support cfor the ideas not a manufactired image.