And I am really not ready for Lanny Davis:
Last week, on Dec. 4, I helped organize a Ready for Hillary fundraiser in Montgomery County, Md., in the immediate suburbs of Washington, D.C. The organization, an independent grassroots committee, has been at work for the past year gathering millions of names and small donations in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — that is, just in case she decides to run in 2016.
When I began working on this event, I was not sure many prominent statewide or local elected officials would be willing to sign up on the invitation as members of the host committee, especially because the outgoing Maryland governor, Martin O’Malley, has made it apparent that he is running for president.
But what happened surprised me. Many of the major Maryland statewide elected officials signed up, including the attorney general, state treasurer and state Senate president. Early in the week at a Baltimore event, so did Maryland’s two popular U.S. senators: Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin. In Montgomery County, also leading the host committee were the current popular and recently reelected African-American county executive, Ike Leggett; the revered former county executive Sidney Kramer; and six out of seven members of the county council, including the incoming council president.
The guest of honor was the congressman representing the location of the fundraiser (Potomac), Rep. John Delaney. The congressman offered three facts about Clinton — the reasons she should be our next president.
Read between the lines- this is not so much just Hillary boosterism as it is an attempt to strangle an O’Malley run in the crib- “We’re in your back yard, bitch.” Which is yet another reason I am not ready for Hillary. I’m not ready for the re-emergence of uber scumbags like Davis, Penn, and the rest of that wretched hive of scum and villainy. I’m not willing to embrace the PUMA crowd and I am not ready to look past their racist bullshit in 2008. I’m not ready to forgive and forget, I’m not ready to deal with four-eight years of serial obfuscation and triangulation and overall hawkishness, etc.
And this doesn’t even get into the fact that on every issue in which Obama has not been as good as I wanted, Hillary will be far, far worse. Has she even spoken out about the torture report since it was released? You’d think she’d have some feelings about it, considering she voted for the war, was in the Senate while it and the torture were happening, and she was on the Armed Services Committee.
I’m just not ready for it. We just spent eight years fighting to undo much of the damage from the last Clinton administration. I’ll vote for her in the general if she is the nominee. But I’m not going to be enthusiastic about it.
What are your alternatives?
Suck it up, man.
Is Lanny Davis still part of Clinton’s campaign apparatus?
The silver lining is that, unlike Obama, there’s no way in hell she will carry delusions that the GOP is capable of actung in good faith
Seriously? That’s the damage we have been fighting to undo for eight years? I’d give my left nut just to scrape our way back to where we were when Bill Clinton exited office. Maybe that’s a low bar, but let’s keep some perspective.
c u n d gulag
Yeah, I won’t support her candidacy.
At least not until or unless she’s the Democratic candidate for POTUS.
Then, when I think of the alternative, I’ll help to GOTV for her.
It won’t be an enthusiastic effort, like I made with Obama – but, I’ll put some time in on the phones.
ANYTHING, but a Republican in 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even a former “Goldwater Girl,” is preferable!
From the op-ed(?):
Hillary knows how to work in the private sector? When was the last time she had a job in the private sector? 1990? That’s some relevant real world experience for the 21st century.
On the bright side, John, you probably won’t have to worry about this:
because i seriously doubt she can win a contested general election.
She may or may not, but she may still have the chutzpah and ego, as people at her position of power and experience often do, that she’s the one who uniquely can make it work where no one has before her.
Steve from Antioch
She won’t name, charge, or try the criminals responsible for this torture. Neither will the Obama administration.
That’s where I am at. Right now I am backing O’Malley for President. He is likely to get his ass handed to him by Hillary but I think he is right person for the job. He’s got executive experience; a long list of progressive accomplishments; has been willing to take tough stands in particular pushing for a more humane approach to the child refugee crisis this summer and following through with action; he’s much younger than Hillary and other potential Dem nominees and he has the cool factor with being in a band. The last 2 points are silly but Dems need young people to show up and I don’t think Hillary can inspire young people to vote. I also think he offers a better contrast to the potential Republican Governors who will likley be the nominee – Bush, Walker, Christie. They can’t run an outsider campaign against O’Malley like they could against Hillary and with Washington being as unpopular as it is right now that is a major strike against Hillary. Also, their claim about having more executive experience wouldn’t work against O’Malley either nor would claims that O’Malley is an empty suit. He can point to a long list of accomplishments. Hillary can’t point to any. He also has a narrative he’s been building for over a year that will serve as a great reason to run for president. I’ve yet to see anything like that from Hillary.
And what I’ve seen from Hillary supporters worries me. They can’t offer any positive reasons to vote for her besides she’s a woman and has experience. They can’t point to any accomplishments, any passionate reasons why she’s running. Nothing. It’s all she’s a woman and look at the poll numbers. This is exactly what they said last time. How is it in 8 years she hasn’t been able to come up with a driving reason why she would run?
Plus, there is the worry that Ready with Hillary is already in debt. The people she surrounds herself with are incompetent and expensive. I worry about going into the general election with that team when Hillary’s political skills are subpar at best.
I with John. I’m not ready for this either but I sure don’t want a President Romney.
@askew: the most dangerous politicians are the ones who really want the job, not to accomplish any policy, but just because. Hillary, like Mitt, falls into that category.
How are you defining this? If Republicans put up a viable candidate? Who is this mystery man?
I feel much the same as John, and that leaves me deeply worried about 2016.
Sure, I and millions of other Dems will vote for her over any Republican.
But I don’t think that’s enough to win an election. It doesn’t take dispirited rank and file sucking it up and voting for the least bad alternative.
In 2008 I drove from LA to Las Vegas to walk Nevada precincts for Obama and found myself with hundreds of other So Cal natives doing the same.
I have a hard time imagining us doing that again for Hillary.
That sense of victory, of righteous fury, that galvanizing energy of optimism that comes with supporting a candidate you really want- that’s missing.
But you can bet the white Republicans in the gated communities will have it for American Daddy, whoever he ends up being.
The tendency of the Clintons to surround themselves with fluffers like Lanny Davis is one of their most annoying attributes.
Congratulations, Cole. You have knocked me almost speechless.
Me either!! There are like 300+ million people in this country so i don’t understand how the only choices seem to be Bush or Clinton.. Over and over… Like some kind of festering dynasty instead of democracy… Gimme a Jones or a Smithers or a fucking Hernandez or something… Anyone who isn’t directly connected to years and years of cyclical political imbreeding…
They’re so tainted it’s impossible for me to stomach..
I just can’t even
John Cole +0
@Corner Stone: I know what has you gobsmacked- but I was talking about DADT, DOMA, etc. Although Bill Clinton’s deregulatory fervor played a part in the economic crisis of 2007.
@Corner Stone: I know it’s almost like he’s leaving someone or something out there. I wonder what it could be
No kidding. I hope O’Malley has a spine. At the very least, a robust primary season will hone her debating skills and politicking skills. She’s rusty. She should welcome the opportunity to do that, at least, otherwise she could be in for big surprises in the big time debates.
Of course it’s missing. But often do you really get something like that? No Democratic in the general in my memory besides Obama. Even on the other side, I doubt Bush I or II (at least the first time) had that kind of enthusiasm, though Reagan probably did.
1. It’s 2 years out. Was Obama on the radar 2 years out?
2. Technically, HRC hasn’t committed yet.
@Ivan X: it’s amazing how we assembled a collection of like 35 or so mediocre presidents when no one votes for uninspiring politicians.
I was willing to give O’Malley a look see. Until he totally screwed the pooch on the ACA rollout in his state. That was inexcusable.
Agreed. I’m also hoping that a significant percentage of white conservative America basically lost their minds over seeing a black man in the White House and seeing a white face (even a woman) will return some semblance of normality in our politics.
It may be a fool’s hope that all (or most) of this was a racial backlash but if this is what conservatism and the Republican party is moving forward then America is in real trouble.
@John Cole +0:
I was talking about DADT, DOMA, etc.
And what, you think Hillary’s gonna bring those things back? Sure, they were feckless moves, but that’s also easy to say now. I doubt Hillary’s going to be any great liberal trailblazer, and I’m not particularly enthusiastic about her as a candidate, but you make it sound like the Clinton reign was an apocalypse that we’ve just barely clawed our way out of and would return to under Hillary. It doesn’t sound…credible, I guess I’d say.
@SatanicPanic: the Republican nominee only has to swing three or four states in order to win. Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida gives the GOP nominee 272 electoral votes. Factor in a couple of other states that could swing (Colorado, Pennsylvania, maybe some states in the upper midwest), depending on the nominees and it can be competitive. And, for what it’s worth, I think Americans want to vote for somebody who actually stands for something when it comes to the presidency, and even though she’s been in the public eye since I was in junior high school, I still can’t figure out what Hillary stands for.
How dare you besmirch the memory of historical giants like Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and Chester Arthur.
Can’t we draft Sherrod Brown? Kay?
@Ivan X: yeah, because the years under Bush the Lesser were filled with rainbows and unicorns.
@KG: pfft, yeah right. If Obama could walk away with it when the economy was still bad there’s no way any Republican can do it now.
annnnnnnnd! Anyone who would want Mark Penn or Lanny Davis anywhere near their campaign already reeks of putrid desperation…
@Corner Stone: I don’t see why his comment is so offensive – it happens to be objectively accurate. The real drivers of the 2008 financial crisis were all fashioned, honed, and passed during the Clinton Administration. The Clintons cynically sold gays and lesbians down the river. And – AND – the Clinton Administration laid the foundation for the Iraq fiasco with the 1998 regime change bill.
Because it must be repeated ad infinitum: Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.
Uh, I don’t where you guys are getting mad about DADT. That was an improvement. DOMA not so much.
@SatanicPanic: even in 2012, Obama managed to inspire voters. And Mitt Romney might well have been the worst presidential nominee ever – tone, timing, policies, just terrible. Hillary doesn’t strike me as someone who can inspire a lot of voters, and her political instincts are questionable at best. After 8 years of a Democrat in the White House, a lot of voters are going to look for a change – that happened in 1992 (12 years with a Republican), 2000 (8 years with a Democrat), 2008 (8 years with a Republican). If you really think that 2016 will be an easy win for Hillary, I think you’re very mistaken
Gordon, the Big Express Engine
@SatanicPanic: not Jeb it seems.
@KG: People didn’t want a Democrat in the WH in the 1990s in the first place because that was an era of conservative ascendency and it took an exceptional candidate (Bill Clinton) in extraordinary circumstances to get elected. Paul Tsongas would have lost just like Mike Dukakis did. Democrats mostly held the presidency for decades between 1932 to the end of the 1960s. “the presidency must change parties every 8 years” is a myth.
@the Conster: Yes. Sherrod Brown. He is a solid progressive, has lots of experience, is intelligent and articulate, and extremely likeable – and yes, that counts in elections.
@SatanicPanic: Exactly right: Before DADT, anyone suspected of being gay was tossed from the military. DADT looks/sounds bad out of temporal context, but it led to the open military we’ve got today.
Plus, white male and from Ohio. Bingo!! Let’s make it happen.
@Alex: That’s certainly an interesting analysis, and I can see why you agree with Cole’s statement.
@Hungry Joe: DOMA, on the other hand, was just terrible. Clinton was a mixed-bag for sure.
I’m not as vehemently anti-Hillary as you, but I have my concerns about her candidacy too (expressed here just this morning). I don’t fear a return of the PUMAs, though, not unless a serious challenger emerges, and I don’t see any evidence that one will yet.
What I DO fear — just a teensy bit — is an reverse PUMA (AMUP?) action, where people who are still butt-hurt over the PUMA foolishness refuse to support HRC because of it.
On second thought, scratch that; I’m not worried at all about AMUPs. Most normal people who don’t obsess over politics still think PUMA is just a shoe brand, and a counter-movement to a nothingburger wouldn’t amount to a fart in a whirlwind anyway, so it’s all good.
@Gordon, the Big Express Engine: I think the actual financial stuff of Mitt Romney was just background, and hard to identify any disqualifying item.
He releases VERY few tax returns, unprecedentedly few. No one consistently calls him on it.
Especially the 2009 tax forms which may relate to the IRS amnesty.
The ads that Newt ran on companies that he closed down did not get replayed by Obama, as far as I remember. I would have ( but Obama did win, so what do I know.).
The same financial stuff will not be what sinks Bush, if he even bothers.
Not thrilled about it. AT ALL, but will indeed vote for her over any Neo-Confederate.
I would surmise that she believes that to be the case for a great number of Dem/lefty voters, and is counting on it accordingly.
I’m just not entirely sure that her logic is sound in this matter.
Unless Brennan cops to some facts laid out in the Senate Report, doesn’t Obama pretty much have to fire him?
Holy fuck. He’s opening with the 9/11 defense.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
To the point where I, not yet an O-Bot, was sick of him.
Whenever I see that Davis and Penn are still welcome in Hillaryland, I imagine Bubba as a little devil on HRC’s left shoulder, whispering in her ear that 2008 was an aberration, the CLINTON will resume his I mean their rightful place! I’m worried that they, especially he, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing from the last go-round. I want to be happy about a nomination, not election that still looks more likely than not, but she makes it hard sometimes.
Also, I’m amused by the idea that Hillary, unlike that “naive” Obama, won’t waste time trying to work with Republicans. Besides the fact that bipartisanship has enormous appeal to uncommitted, low-info presidential voters, and low info Democratic legislators, she will (would) almost certainly have no choice but to “work with” a Republican House at the least. They spent ten years calling her every name in the book, and as a senator and candidate she touted her ability to get along with them. John McCain called her then 13 year old daughter ugly in public, and they both fall all over each other to talk about their great friendship and working relationship. She and Bubba both helped sell Bush’s war, fercrissake.
Sorry, O’Malley doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. Remember last week when we were talking about the white working class and how you give ’em $100 and its all good (not my theory). O’Malley is the opposite, he instituted the rain tax. That’s right, a tax on something that falls from the sky. The ads write themselves. A Republican just beat his Lt. Governor to death with this issue and it worked quite well. I know that everyone says Brown was a lousy candidate but everyone in the state hates that tax. The Republicans will hang that around his neck and they will win walking away.
Not to mention how bad the ACA rollout was.
A ridiculous statement, I agree.
Rob in CT
I agree, but I’ll vote for her anyway. Yay.
Or President Perry.
Or President Santorum.
Or President Cruz.
Or President Huckabee.
Or President Jindal.
Or President Walker.
Or President Christie.
Or President Carson.
Or President (insert random wingnut here).
I will crawl over broken glass in 2016 to vote for Hillary Clinton.
But I’m really hoping I can vote *for* someone rather than *against* someone.
I’m sorry, when you wrote “Clinton” did you mean to write “Bush”?
Also, there’s no reason to assume this piece means Clinton is getting the old band back together. Remember, this was a fundraiser that Secretary Clinton didn’t attend, arranged by a group that she doesn’t run.
It’s entirely possible that when Clinton assembles her own campaign apparatus she may leave people like Davis and Penn (who I agree are terrible) on the sidelines, especially since so many members of Team Obama are joining–or are signaling their willingness to join–the Clinton camp.
OK, since none of the rest of you are willing to say it: UNLIMITED CORPORATE CASH!!!!
I’m pretty certain that you are not gay then.
We don’t need any “I want my country back” folks here, but thanks for applying.
Mitt Romney offers a good example of how a dispirited base can lose an election, even one that is tilted their way.
The rage and fear of the GOP base drives them out, even when Dems stay home. I’m not filled with despair, just worry. The combination of a chance to defeat the near sheriff’s replacement, a struggling economy, party fatigue, and voter suppression could easily give us a GOP in control of all branches of government in 2016.
@c u n d gulag:
A clear sign of how monstrously, disgustingly awful a clusterfuck the GOP has devolved into over the past 20 years is how essential, and not merely enormously preferable it is that the democratic candidate win the Presidency in 2016 – EVEN IF that means supporting Hillary if she’s our nominee and taking a chance that she might allow a slimeball like Lanny Davis any closer access to the White House than on the public sidewalk outside the fence. With regard to Mark Penn, if she’s dumb enough to take a single phone call or email’s worth of advice from him, she probably won’t win the general election, even if she does win the nomination.
Totally agree with this. I’ve paid 2016 very little mind so far because I get so irritated at how it’s been fixated upon since Election Day +1 2012…..but now that it’s looming on the horizon the apparent inevitability of Clinton sinks my heart as well, for the exact reasons you mention.
The woman has 0 charisma. That is a PROBLEM, in a presidential election.
I am ready for whomever the Dems put up, and Hillary is my next-to-last choice on that.
Because they are gonna mop the floor with Cruz/Ernst ;)
Good news on the Mark Penn “destroyer of campaigns” front. Back in 2008 he shot himself in the face politically with Hillary and is almost certainly NOT going to be part of any election campaign with her.
Link to 2008 article
Of course, if she takes him back, I may have to drink heavily.
This reminded me of the joke: Hillary and Bill pass by a gas station run by a former boyfriend of Hillary’s in Arkansas. Bill points and says look where you would have ended up if you had stayed with him. Hillary says that Bill would be at the gas station and Hillary would still be in the Governor’s mansion with Jim-Bob.
Nixon also had zero charisma. He still got elected. Johnson and charisma? Eisenhower? Truman?
Woodrow Wilson versus Teddy Roosevelt?
Paul in KY
I think we were trying to undo the clusterfuck of GWB, more so than ‘the last Clinton administration’.
I’m guessing you are riffing off Glass-Steagel repeal, etc.
When most progressive-inclined folks pine for days of ’99, they’re thinking of the overall balance in the big picture of things, and not that there weren’t any significant flaws embedded therein that needed fixing. Do you really think the dramatic positive evolution in American society and law over the past 15 years would have been less-likely to have happened if we had a do-over starting at year 2000 with democrats in charge for most of the time up to now than with a GW Bush presidency for eight years of that and the dems only having control of both houses of congress and the presidency at the same time for only two of those years?
Sorry, important though your issue is (especially to you) there’s far more equally vital concerns at stake, and if you think the enormous gains gays have made in legal and social acceptance won’t be put at substantial risk of erosion or outright reversal if tea party Republicans and social conservatives win effective control over all three branches of government in 2016, you’re delusional.
Paul in KY
@dubo: That is a point in her favor.
Yes. Obama was incredibly visible this time two years ago. He actively campaigned for candidates in 2006, he was very well-received at the Harkin Steak Fry in Iowa and at this point in particular, he was lining up his senior campaign staff.
He wouldn’t announce the exploratory committee until January 2007 but by September 2006, it was obvious to everyone in the political world that he was running for President. Obama didn’t come “out of nowhere” to jump into the race.
As for Clinton’s advantage in the polls, she had a huge lead nationally but in Iowa, Edwards was already competitive with (if not leading) her one year out from the caucuses.
There’s absolutely nothing remotely comparable with Obama in 2006 and Warren in 2014 aside from being first-term Senators.
Paul in KY
@MuckJagger: If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will send money & proudly vote for her.
@Mr. Twister: And the raiding of the state pension fund.
That Carcetti guy has a lot of skeletons.
All pre internet and 24-hour news types, so the comparison really isn’t valid.
If Clinton wants to get elected she has to give people a reason to vote ‘for’ her – even if it is hopelessly idealistic. You’ve got to give people something more than, ‘its my turn.’ She can get past being a stiff on the stump if she has a decent pitch to make. When she announces, it had better be with a clear vision or ideal, or it will be a long campaign.
@askew: This is unfair and untrue.
Clinton has many accomplishments. Here’s the one I like the most:
It’s pretty easy to talk about what’s good about HRC.
Thanks for saying what I was thinking.
True, but he had Roger Ailes making his TV spots.
Whom does HRC have?
On the positive side, I guess, the simple fact of First Woman President will energize a lot of women. (I personally am not energized by that simple fact.)
Hell, even my dumber than dirt teatard SIL said she’d vote for Hillary. (OTOH, she’s also a liar.)
Tree With Water
“Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is preparing to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, called on Wednesday for a special prosecutor to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of torture against terrorism suspects, one day after the Senate Intelligence Committee released the executive summary of its report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program”.
Will Hillary endorse O’Malley’s call, or not? At this point, who the hell knows, huh? That in itself is indication of why she’s hardly a lock for anything. She’s an armadillos-and-middle of a road style politician, and times have past her by.
I have written this before. I DO NOT believe that the President was naive. If he ever had a fault, it was that he was a true patriot. Who could have imagined, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis that this country has faced since the Great Depression, that one politically party would willfully and deliberately choose to commit ECONOMIC TREASON against this country.
@Tree With Water:
Does the Pope shit in the woods? Is a bear Catholic?
If she was still SoS, she would have made the plea to hold off on publishing the Executive Summary far more enthusiastically than Kerry did, and if she was asked in 2009 she certainly endorsed the “look forward, not back” strategy.
She’s a woman’s right to choose war pig, who has not and will not ever take a principled stand on anything that might jeopardize her chance of becoming president, including running the risk of alienating the redneck vote.
So far, only O’Malley has taken a stand. Forget Sanders – if he pushed for prosecution someone might bring up his unfailing support for Israel and wonder how he reconciles the two.
Push to the left and force people to take positions. Or not,and recycle Lady Macbeth posts for another 8 years.
Tree With Water
@drkrick: Yeah, but that was then, this is now.
Admittedly, I don’t support Hillary. But the stakes are too vast for the rank and file to play the “it’s not official until she announces” game. The party is now locked in mortal struggle with the GOP. She owes the democratic party a full accounting of both where she has stood and where she now stands, and, as importantly, why.
Gosh, I believe that there is an event coming up called a campaign.
In America, it is often the case that the campaigning season will provide opportunities for folks to evaluate what the persons running for office are standing for. I am willing to wait to see what insights the campaign bring based on the candidates actions and words.
All of their service considered, Hillary Clinton has been (at least) every bit as good a Democrat as Barak Obama. John’s opening here is a bit strange, but it’s a free country, I hear.
this just kills it for me. like so many here, not just curbed but curtailed enthusiasm does not a winning candidate make.
just as martha coakley. or better, ask any of the MA dems – like me – who were royally ticked she was promoted for the nomination, when… well, duh.
there are things i admire, i would GOTV, but … blah.
I went to lunch with a person who knows two weeks ago and she said “Sherrod isn’t running”.
He’s involved with sorting out the “Dems in disarray” thing in Ohio. It’s shaping up to be three camps- a Right-leaning group, Sherrod’s group and then a really feisty insurgency who want everyone in the Party fired and to start all over.
It probably doesn’t help Clinton that Ohio Democrats are in disarray because I think this state is and would be one her real strengths. She has genuine grass roots support here, and it’s resilient. The minute she announces they’ll get started. I like a lot of them, they’re good people and if she’s the nominee I’ll help them. They all worked hard for Obama and he genuinely wasn’t their first choice. I don’t know if I could have been as generous if he had lost the primary. Probably not.
No vote in the primary for HRC from me. As noted over and over and over again, she voted for the Iraq war and for me that is an automatic disqualifier. When things are their lowest you need people to stand up their highest, and she went as low as you could go. F*ck her for that forever.
General election? I will cast an enthusiatic vote agaisnt the Republican candidate whomever it is.
I just do not see a deep field for the D’s this time or a unique usurper that can capture the imagination like Obama did, so I am already resigned to Hillary. In addition, I am just tired of Bush / Clinton of any stripe and at any level – I wish they would all go away forever. That said, I do believe it will be just that in ’16: Bush v Clinton. What a sad spectacle that will be – the US continuing to go backwards hard.
This is pretty funny:
This is the Republican who beat Chris Redfern in November.
Redfern was a state representative and also the chair of the state Democratic party.
I can agree with John Cole until his last sentence. If I am not enthusiastic about it, then I cannot vote for the candidate. Just like a lot of other women, I don’t cast my vote by gender either.
@Kay: It sure seems like the case against that dude is strong. Will the GOP-run Ohio House of Representatives eject a newly minted Republican felon?
Just Some Fuckhead
I’ve joined the Bernie Sanders bandwagon. I’m a socialist, he’s a socialist – it seems like a good match. Its not clear to me if he’s going to try to get the Democratic nomination or run as an independent. If he runs as an independent, he’s got my vote in the general. If he runs for the Democratic nomination, he’ll surely be beaten by a half-dozen other candidates.
Having said that, America doesn’t elect leftist Presidents. In light of that, I think Hillary Clinton would make an excellent President. Maybe not as progressive as I’d like, but she’s a pitbull in a pantsuit and it would be nice to have a cage fighter taking on the insurrectionists.
It won’t. Conservatives have been flipping their shit about Hillary Clinton since long before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama. She was their Great Satan when Bill was President; they seemed to hate her more than they did him. And she’s a woman. But I probably repeat myself.
Partly it was because she refused to do things the way her two immediate predecessors had.
Agreed on all of it. The wretched hive, in particular.
We dodged a bullet in ’08. On the bright side, we’ve all gotten fairly desensitized since then and won’t care too much, if she gets elected. So, that’s something.
@askew: co-sign. My oldest child will be able to vote for the first time in 2016, and her reaction to Hillary is, “She always looked tired when she was Secretary of State. Isn’t being President harder?” She likes O’Malley because he actually tried to implement some real Save the Bay stuff and some climate change stuff, “as if he wants his kids to have a nice life on this planet.”
@Tom W.: Actually, if that’s her best, we’re in trouble. She’s running for President of the United States, not Secretary General of the UN. Not to mention that Mr. Watson provides evidence of good intentions but not concrete outcomes. Contrast with Obamacare which has quietly produced a lot of good outcomes.
What worries me about team Clinton is that they seem to want to re-fight 2008. I’m thinking of Schumer attacking the Affordable Care Act among other things. I get the distinct impression the Clinton campaign will try to at least partially repudiate Obama and bring back 1990s triangulation and centrism. Which is stupid on a couple of levels. Obama accomplished a lot and frankly I can’t see anywhere Clinton would have done better. On top of that, attacking Obama just makes the case for the Republican candidate. I think they might do it anyway because the Clinton team really does seem to resent losing to Obama. I hope I’m wrong and she runs explicitly defending Obama’s policy gains.
And yes, if she’s the nominee I’ll vote for her.
@rikyrah: Seconded, with full Scruffy voice. Norm Ornstein is a good guide on this – the conservatives have been hostile to the Obama administration to an unprecedented degree. Here’s a quote from a conservative speaking at Carter’s inauguration:
“Starting tomorrow at high noon, all of our hopes and dreams go into that great house with you. For you have become our transition into the unknown tomorrows. And everyone is with you. I am privileged to be present and accounted for in this capitol of freedom to witness history as it happens … to watch a common man accept uncommon responsibilities he won “fair and square” by stating his case to the American people … not by bloodshed, beheadings, and riots at the palace gates. I know I am considered a member of the opposition … the Loyal Opposition … accent on Loyal. I’d have it no other way. In conclusion, may I add my voice to the millions of others all over the world who wish you well, Mr. President. All we ask is that you preserve this … one Nation … under God … with liberty and justice for all. And we have no doubt you will, Sir.”
That was John Wayne, who had backed Reagan and Ford in 1976. Not a good sign when modern conservatives make Wayne look reasonable.
I hate the idea of an election in which Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil. Sadly, that’s what this country has come to — the Democratic Party either has no one to offer or the people who might be good are not interested (understandably) in the job.
The Democrats who would make good presidents either won’t run or wouldn’t have a chance if they did. The problem isn’t really the candidates; it’s the voters who don’t demand better candidates. And in order to demand better candidates you have to spend a little time becoming informed on important issues, even issues that don’t affect you directly. The Democratic electorate, or at least many of the potential voters who should be enthusiastic supporters of progressive Democrats, are simply not interested in making politics a priority.
The system is broken and there is no obvious route to making it work.
Paul in KY
@rikyrah: IMO, that is naïve. Hadn’t he seen enough of what they were capable of under Bush/Cheney?! Plus the crap they tried against Pres. Clinton?!
@SatanicPanic I can explain why I was disappointed with Clinton re DADT. I’m old enough to remember his first campaign. Believe it or not, I remember he actually campaigned on completely repealing the ban on gay people serving in the military! It was one of the reasons I found his candidacy so exciting.
So, he gets elected and actually starts to move to make this happen. Predictably, the big brass went into hysterics. The chief one I remember was Colin Powell, who IIRC, was rumored to be threatening to resign if the Clinton did this. Now, there was some talk at the time of Colin Powell being an unbeatable Republican candidate for president, should he choose to run.
Well, it may have been because of the specter of a Powell campaign, or it may have been for some other reason, but Clinton did what he so often did, he folded. He agreed to DADT as a sort of compromise. And, as so many of his compromises were, it was actually a pretty crappy one. Now, I suppose we can say that DADT was “better” than what came before, but not by much. People were still getting tossed out of the service, right? As I recall reading, many men and women were still booted out of the service, at almost the same rates as they were before DADT. Perhaps not tossed out as roughly as before (I believe DADT put a stop to an automatic dishonorable discharge gay service people usually received?) but I’m sure a lot of dreams were ruined. I understand that Colin Powell has “come around” to accepting gay people in the armed forces. That’s nice, but a bit too late for all of the people that lost the chance to serve in the almost 20 years it took for him to “evolve”.
To me, DADT just seems like another stupid Clinton move. Did the right wing brass in the military appreciate Clinton’s “reaching out” to them and trying to “understand” their concerns? No, they did not. They hated him just as much as ever,, even, more perhaps, because now they had to pretend to tolerate gay people. There’s been some sort of retcon, over the years, to make it sound like DADT was Clinton’s plan all along, but anyone who was around at the time and interested in the topic should remember that’s not how it was.
Every time I think of HRC running, I want to cry. I’m with you, I’ll have to vote for her, but please….NO!
Powell’s opposition was a factor, but “the specter of a Powell campaign” was not.
You’re also forgetting bitter opposition in Congress, led by, among others, Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn. The existing policy was just that: policy implemented by the Pentagon. Had Clinton refused to settle for DADT, Nunn and company threatened to enact the Pentagon’s policy into law — a far worse outcome.
I agree that DADT was not Clinton’s plan all along.
I’m pretty sure the PUMA crowd wasn’t at this party. I’m too lazy to look it up but I remember a pretty sad story about who the real PUMA’s were….a sad lot of individuals that had no influence but a story the press latched on to in the hopes of starting a narrative of infighting