We are getting pretty well fed up with Republican Lite. Hillary is DLC. That means she is Right of Center. We need to get back at least to the Center, and preferably a little to the Left of Center. We have a lot of damage to clean up. That means we need a Liberal in that office. That is not Hillary.

is there a consensus on DU that feels this way----do you have any evidence that shows a movement )other than Republican/Tea Party base) that is trying to stop her-----as they always have----and I hear a lot of people on DU saying that we need a more progressive---more liberal candidate ---but no one has announced ---there is no viable candidate------if you have one let's get them up on the national stage ---otherwise -----the clock is ticking ----Ted Cruz is grandstanding in every battleground state ----and even though HRC is not my idea of a great candidate---I don't want to see a return of a Republican White House----have you looked on Emily'' s List to see all of the great women candidates that are surfacing for office around the country---if not you might check it out----

You seem to think the choice is locked in between Hillary or a Republican already? Huh, what? No one else, who is qualified is going to show?
We have the Mid terms to get through first. Then we can start worrying about candidates for the Presidency.
Don't forget the fact that Hillary herself, is Republican Lite. Full blown DLC. We need to do better.

that the Republican clown car is on the road-----(although it might be in the garage for a few repairs after the shutdown)---so again I say to you The 2016 presidential election is NOW---The Repubs have Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, Ryan, and a few other wingnuts out in New Hampshire, iowa and some of the battleground states. If you told me that crates enough damage to their brand I certainly would believe you and the Democrats could probably run Pee Wee Herman and win.

But that is not the way it works, and the startingly and scary thing I see is that the Tea Party, even though they had their nose bloodied in the past month, are doggedly determined to win the Presidency.

I certainly agree with your comments about HRC and I know that some on this site are romantic about a progressive or liberal for President. That will only add fodder to the right wing and diminish our chances of a win. For instance if you remember Geraldine Ferraro's run as a VP candidate she was never to rise to any national office again. If we were to run say Elizabeth Warren and she was soundly trounced, she would be marginalized and probably not win the Senate again.

Sometime we have to put a quarterback in the game that we dislike personally, but if they win the game, and let us go to even better seasons-----i.e. Wendy Davis, Allison Grimes, Elizabeth Warren, Michele Obama (my personal fav as Senator from South Carolina with a ceremony removing the Confederate flag from the Statehouse) ---that is what I am looking for-----

So if you have a candidate for 2016 ---please put them forward now---Ted Cruz is in the press every day!

I don't think she will run for President and I think HRC will likely be the nominee.

However, lets go with your comment that Warren manages to get the Democratic nomination and loses. If that happens, it may very likely be that some major things happen and the Republican party is preferred. Assuming that she runs a high minded (not dirty), intelligent campaign - which there is no doubt she would - I doubt that MA would then not support her reelection. There is a good precedent for that - they re-elected Senator Kerry 2 years (same timing) after his Presidential defeat.

Your idea that Michelle Obama will be the SC Senator is bizarre. Hillary is the only first lady to run and become Senator - it certainly is not a pattern. Not to mention, in Illinois, Senator Kirk is up in 2016 -- if she wants to run, why not in her real home state. A state that is FAR more Democratic.

her great grandfather was a slave in that State----and the Democrats need to turn it blue----she is so popular -----the demographics are changing heavily there ------so it would be a chance for her to right some wrongs---not in vengeful way------but in a healing way------the thought is no more bizarre than thinking a few years ago that we would have a black President named Barack Hussein Obama----and when Michele runs for President it will make a new Southern Strategy----she will win both

the Republican party use to be even 20 years ago, in order to win?
How is that not following the crazies over the Right side cliff?
For that is exactly what you are advocating. You are letting the Republican's dictate the type of person the Democrats need to run in order to win, over who the average voter would vote for, if they could in General Elections. Liberal and Progressives get primaried out because of the Democratic Leadership itself. We need to get the bought and paid for corporate interest, the DLC, out of the Democratic Leadership and start running people that will NOT keep dragging this country farther and farther to the Right, with each election.
What good is it to win elections, when our own people are part of the continuing problem of our slide to the Right, at the expense of the Middle class, loss of Living-Wage-Jobs, the Social safety net being shredded?

place your bets-----just remember the Tea party is not going away-----it has its roots in the John Birch Society--(the Koch Brothers father was a founding member)---and they and all the conservative think
tanks (oxymoron) will do everything in their power to defeat our candidate----so who do you have ? are they funded ----EW said she will not run------we have a down ticket to install in that election as well-----simple ------to get a progressive in we need to register the voters who will do that -----I think we are on our way---but simply saying is not doing-----a big thing all of us could do would be to help people enroll in ACA-------then we are team building

If we have to, we need to draft a proven Progressive.

Hillary is a corporatist and she shows it daily. I hate these either/or arguments. If we unite behind a proven Progressive and support him/her with all we can, then we can elect that person.
That is the problem. People who believe that if a great candidate is a member of either 2 corporatist parties they have no chance...

I posted here at DU that she was doing so because she planned to run for president in 2012 and didn't want to be perceived as weak on national security. I also said if she followed through and voted yes, I would never support her for president. And I didn't when she ran in 2008 and I won't if she runs in 2016. She knew better but was covering her own political flank. That is what I remember.

Other than that she is a New Dem and I am a liberal who thinks New Dems should just go ahead and register as a Republican instead of trying to straddle the fence.

Sam

It must have been ---even for a liberal Senator ---no place an up vote on Iraq----I know she might not fit the liberal mold---but she is not a Republican---and she was a US Senator from NYC --the main site of 9/11-----she did more than anyone else to get money back to the 9/11 worker, the police and the fireman---everyone else had abandoned the efforts------knowing her there was probably a trade off-------so what are you going to do on election day-----will you vote Tea Party-----because note voting for a candidate is very much like the way Bush 2 got in ----only this time the choices are so much worse -----Biden said these guys want to drag us back to the 1950'2--

Thank you for commenting

I was a Republican when I was younger and left the party in the 90s because I did not want my name associated with maneuvers the Republicans were implementing. Unlike you, I do not think Hillary is inevitable. I do think we need a heavy-weight. I personally would rather see Al Gore run. I think he could take anyone the Republicans offer up and liberals would feel a lot more comfortable with his running. He did oppose the preemptive war on Iraq, has promoted acting on climate change for decades, advocated for keeping Social Security safe, just to name a few items. I guess there is less than a 50/50 chance he would run, but he certainly is becoming more actively recently. When I know for sure that is not going to happen, I will decide then who I will support. Hopefully, a true liberal will be in the mix in some manner. But for right now, no more New Dems...not even to see a female president.

I do think Hillary has a lot of good attributes but she is just too much of an inside-the Beltway game-player.

I do like O'Malley but I am not sure he is enough of a heavy-weight to go up against someone like Christie. I would think he could take Ted Cruze!! or now it appears perhaps even Sarah Palin!! Ryan, yes, O'Malley could take him with one hand tied behind him. So there are too many unknown factors in play to commit today to a specific candidate, but I am committed to a specific platform.

Sam

I have never voted for her-----I study politics--and can not find a credible source that says she won't be our next Pres---but I do always vote Democratic-----and will vote in every election (and have since JFK)----there is a small unfunded group that does not want to see her win----I understand them----but money talks and if those who want to see her lose don't come up with a candidate soon --they should jump on the Hillary bandwagon---don't make her spend money on an unnecessary primary---she will need all that she can get to sweep the downticket in at the same time----so many people miss the point that it is the big picture----get women into office ---men have screwed it up a lot (especially red state men) ---and also get some supreme court appointments that make sense----Sam I think thee is a lot more than just "I don't like Hillary" at stake here----and on the " new Dems" ---we need a candidate that appeals to the whole country not just lefties like us

I don't agree with her politics so I am not supporting her. I do see the big picture. We have different ideas of what a big picture is. Are you aware of how many people died as a result of our invasion of Iraq, which was totally a war for profit? There is no bigger picture than that. And she facilitated that war.

And I believe we need more liberals attending to the Nation's business so I am moving as far left as I feel comfortable moving.

You were very polite in explaining your opinion on this matter, and I salute for that.

Sam

I already have the pole position on the left side----you will have to be next--ha ha-----my personal opinion about Hillary has always been that she is the most ruthless politico around----The Tea Party rougnecks can't hold a candle to her----but she is not a liberal----and I am----but a better word to describe how I feel is that I am a realist----and we simply have to move on in this country----the racism and war on women is atrocious----we are better than that

Accepting third-way types has been what we have tried for some time now and it has not gotten us where I personally want to see us go, and where I suspect a lot of other liberals would like to see us go. Look at Brasio and how he campaigned and what it got him.

We need someone willing to openly embrace the progressive agenda and who is a heavy-weight enough to withstand any candidate the Republicans put out there. I can only think of one person at this time, well maybe two, so I am reserving my position on who I will support until it becomes clear all of the Dems that step up to the plate to audition for the job.

Nice chatting with you.

Sam

national campaigner (along with a popular spouse and daughter), can give as well as take, laughs at the Republicans and they hate her. Committed to single payer and understands it fully.

Bring a candidate to the table, soon, that has that going in and we can talk.

Not the time for Dreaming...Elizabeth Warren isn't running...think 8 years of Jeb.

No, let's work on a veto proof, Democratic majority in Congress first. After all, the mid-terms do come first.

I don't want Hillary, only in part because she is a hawk. She is also a not so lite Republican, with a (D) by her name.

You mean "you".........

I do not want any Right of Center, DLC type that would continue bu$h's tax cuts and war policies.
I want a true center or even Left of Center Liberal or Progressive. That is not Hillary.
And if you think it doesn't matter just because they have a (D) buy their name, don't kimosabe me, because then you are part of the problem.

but there are a lot of "I's" that vote ---and if we put up someone that doesn't appeal to them we lose-----I agree let's try to make them as left and progressive-----but the Republicans would just love to see us put up a candidate that they could beat

Then maybe we could not only keep the Senate, but take the House also.

She is not right of center. She fights for human rights including gays, women, minorities. She supports social programs that assist those in need, she opposes the draconian abortion bills the republicans try to pass, she sponsored an emergency pill for rape victims, and tighter laws for gun control, she disagreed with the Bush tax cuts (that Obama continued), used tax dollars to update infrastructure, was for a jobs bill, voted to limit credit card charges and fees, voted to add sexual orientation to hate crimes bill, reintroduced the equal pay amendment, she supports rolling back the bush era corporation giveaways, voted to repeal tax subsidies for companies who offshore....

I could go on...and you need to do your home work before you continue the denigration of a great leader--just like the republicans. If anyone is republican lite--it is you.

I have done my home work. Hillary is DLC and the DLC is the shadow of the Republican party. The farther to the Right the Republicans move, the farther to the Right the DLC moves, dragging the apparent "Center" with them. The DLC is business oriented, just like the Republicans. When you vote for, or advocate for a DLC member, you are voting or advocating for a Republican Lite. Obama is DLC and look at how many times he has caved to the Republicans. For an example, Chained CPI anyone? No Liberal or Progressive would even put that on the table, let alone up front, as a bargaining ship. Then there is Obama's "Kill List" and his Drone wars. His extending bush'$ tax cuts, his position on whistle blowers, and NSA spying, his appointments of many Republicans to agency heads.
And don't forget the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement he wants. Now there's a real winner for no one except the international corporations, no matter how you look at it.



And this one -

who do you have as a candidate------

it is not time to tear down ---it is time to build---tell us who is campaign ready--funded and has an election team in place----otherwise we might suffer some horrible appointments to the Supreme Court


A Time for Everything


There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:


a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Per pro corporate formula: never.

Think out of the box for once.

it is not 1965----based on today that was on the extreme left and falling off the chart (btw I long for those days ------bring back Dylan , Baez, Seeger) but it is not----tell me what you envision as left of center---what is out of the box

is that they scale ideology, not people. 25-30% of the left runs from Communist to Green, which probably represents less than 5% of the voting population.

The were taken over the the DLC before the DLC was disbanded as no longer being needed. The DLC's job was done.
The Actual political center is not where you think it is. It is to the Right of where Nixon was. In fact, he'd be too Liberal to run today as even a Democrat. There are many (D) that used to be Republicans, before the Democratic party moved over to be a good fit for the moderate Republican's political beliefs. We need more Liberals and Progressives, of which the Democratic Party has major shortage.

You can argue that TPTB has deluded some or all of these middle of the road voters, but DLC was founded to shift Democratic policies to the Center because that's where the votes were.

I can recall working on the Mondale campaign in 1984, and driving aqround NYC to rally voters in October. In hindsight, if we had to sell Mondale to voters in one of the most liberal Cities in the country that late in the campaign, Mondale's liberalism was out of touch with most voters.

The DLC was founded to shift the Democratic policies to the Right of Center. Of that they did a good job. The DLC is business friendly. They favor war over diplomacy. Why do you think there is all this talk from the Democrats of the need to cut Social Security and Medicare? Where do you think the Affordable Care Act came from?

left of center-----mildly to the right -----screaming left-----and when in history did you see anyone support it until now-----so maybe on that issue we all are left of center------even some of the repubs are coming along because it will get votes----------hmm --what about the Lilly Ledbetter Act----never enough support for that to get it signed ---that was the first thing Obama did---

I could not have said that better ---or even thought it----more of you are needed on this site-----I would like the Hillary haters to tell me who will end up on the Supreme Court if the Republicans get in------also I am not sure about some of the comments here about HRC----some of them might be FOL's (Friends of Limbaugh)

Fear of the right is the ultimate way to keep democrats from thinking left.

Pro corporate formulations still have some grip on people's imagination.

what's your plan for the next election?

...not sure that Hill should bash women because of the way they choose their lives, especially if they LIKE to bake cookies!

Good luck with your endeavor. I wish that you could help me understand Ms. Clinton's behavior at the end of the primary season with Obama. She refused to concede and scheduled multiple press conferences that she did not show up for. What was that? Was it a medical reason? I have never seen that happen before in my lifetime. As a result the Dems were held up in organizing the campaign of our presidential candidate . I need to understand where she was for weeks and why she did what she did at such a crucial time before I could consider endorsing her. I am not saying that I will not endorse, only that there is some missing information that is needed in order for me to decide.

everything you said in your post fits----she is a bitter , tough woman----and the fact that BO beat here was unbearable-----she could not face it--and that is why it took weeks to calm her down----she was considering a third party run-------that is why she is so hell bent on the win this time-------and her ego----and intelligence will drive her to create a legacy she can be proud of------I know this sounds like a fan of her----but I am merely a KO---keen observer----of politics and I am a Democrat-----and a hell of lot more to the left than most-----I worked on JFK's campaign----so I have been around for a while---trying to get Dems into office--if we can get a candidate up to stature like BO---maybe-----but I think HRC has everybody on his team roped in from the first election-------

She was criticizing those who expected her not to practice her profession and to stay home baking cookies. She was referring to her choices in life. Hillary has always been about women having the freedom to decide what path to take and not be limited by societal conventions.

As for the primaries, neither Hillary nor Obama had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. Although he did have a small pledged delegate advantage thanks mainly to the caucuses. There were many supporters who wanted Hillary to take it all the way to the Convention (as Ted Kennedy did against Carter), but she refused. Furthermore, she campaigned for Obama assiduously, far and beyond what was required. She also accepted the position of SOS, which is something she initially had rejected. I think that Hillary has been loyal to the Democratic president and I also think that he would be loyal to her if she chose to run in 2016.

the question was...what in the heck was going on for two weeks while she held the Dems hostage? That is important to me. If a president goes missing in crisis that is a problem. The fact that she was a good SOS and did eventually campaign for Obama was never in question.

All I need is the answer to the question and I will proceed. Until that time I do not think she can win a national election. Personal opinion. I am not alone.

Her hawkish views are so off-putting.

If Dems can't find a candidate - and the Clintonspere is already sharpening their elbows vis a vie Joe Biden - for the first time in my life I will vote third party.

But, you're entitled to your opinion..........

we will miss you here Atomic Kitten

that is what HRC said to the Republicans when they foolishly questioned her on the that issue=----so I am saying to you ---what difference does it make that she was MIA for a bit----

Hillary's time is about to come. Can something happen in the next three years that will keep her from running? Of course. No one can predict the future.

But I think it's going to be time for a female president, and as you indicate I, too, love Elizabeth, but Hillary is simply further along in the game at this point.

and look forward to supporting the eventual nominee whoever that may be.

What fun! Plus, we'd have a real choice to make.

interesting!

They are opposite in sooooo many ways.

Warren would have the natural advantage as she is known for her honesty and doesn't have a history such that she has to be careful about what lies she told in the past to keep the present speeches semi believable.

Hillary would have the advantage of having thugs like Lanny Davis working Warren over.

Setting aside the fact that Warren is now supporting Hillary running, she's mainstream enough not to go up against Clinton just to "make a point".

EW supporting HRC

Yes, how feministic to call human beings Trash because the husband is a runaround lowlife. The women get called names and blamed and poor innocent Billy, ahhhhhhhhhhh. so hard done by and misunderstood.

we've lost sight of the goal. The election is not a referendum on whether Bill Clinton should have been impeached, it's about rebuilding the American middle class, renewable energy sources and global climate change!

Is that what the world needs more of?

Lanny Davis, her hit man, was very instrumental in that scenario.

Please explain to me how this is one of the great things of her SoS gig?

that kind of stuff happens daily-----

hondurans got handed a coup.. who cares. after all it is for blacks and indians in honduras. oh yeaah. now we are going places. we are demonstrating to republicans how not to be 'SOFT".

it puts a whole new name on bush lite. lol

what would you have done to solve the problem

sit on your ass and judge others. being sos is no gig. a band playing at a bar with 30 patrons is a gig who the hell do you think you are and what have you done that is so important to trash HRC or the SOS position?

poor Hill. So misunderstood when it comes to the Honduras. What, saying the word 'gig' is more horrific than the people who were killed during that coup and how democracy was served to that country, Clinton/Davis style?

Keep talking. It is your weak defense of the indefensible that will finally give more attention to Facts.

I thought Kerry should have been SOS to begin with but im talking about you downplaying the job of Secretary of State as just some job, just another position. Its about RESPECT for this Administration not about defending Hillary Clinton...

What is GIG?

GIG is "Live performance" or "Gigabyte" or "Job"

Gluten Intolerance Group

Good Internet Gaming

I think it is also a boat

I more than anyone would love to see a suggestion list.

First things first, getting back the House so we can get more done in the 3+ years Obama has left in office.

Yes, Hillary would be a good choice. I also favor Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, and Bernie Sanders. Someone that actually cares about the diminishing middle class. Who knows who will show up to the table.

After this fiasco with the shutdown, whoever it is, should easily beat whatever POS GOP candidate they put in there. I hope it's someone like Paul Ryan, that needs to drops a few notches. The GOP will never understand what the American people want.

>>>>HRC will be our next President, I love Elizabeth Warren --and she would be great as President----but guess what ---we can't all go to Disneyland! >>

If someone appreciates Warren.... why in the world would they be ok with a re-re-re-cycled Hillary again?


They could scarcely be more different.

I have seen no evidence that Warren polls well outside Massachusetts. This next election is all about gender---men in this country need to firmly led by an authoritative female figure. The country needs to have a candidate that is shovel ready i.e. ---team in place , funding, and able to attract votes on a bi-partisan basis.
Elizabeth Warren is on of the finest women to ever walk this earth---but she has not announced---and time is running short. And there are factions , like those who tried to stop her in Massachusetts to no avail, that will put up considerable money----the kind of money I have never seen on DU or other places like it.

After Hillary gets done showing men that they can behave ----then ---and only then do we have a chance of getting a progressive in to the White House----and to sacrifice an Elizabeth Warren this early in her career--------or to sacrifice her ideas and philosophy ----because that is also at stake----would be tragic

and nobody will be going to Disneyland!

What are you smoking? She can't even get her husband to behave. Sorry, but you are making her sound like some kind of harsh school marm or something that is going to 'straighten out all the menz with her yardstick'. That is not a good message. What are you doing?

And if you think Hillary is progressive compared to Obama, just wow. w.o.w.

I've worked with both women and men, and find gender-based generalizations counter-productive. The next two election cycles are more likely to be about who can credibly represent the interests of the 99%, irrespective of gender.

(And there sure seems to be enough of it)

I think everyone should be prepared for the distinct possibility that she will decide in two years' time not to go for it. If that is the case, some would cheer, some would be disappointed, but we would be one pitiful party indeed if we can't attract at least one dynamic, capable, younger individual to make a serious run. That is exactly the position the Republicans found themselves in last time, and it showed. Obama was vulnerable, and all the Republicans could come up with was Willard Romney? Now THAT is pitiful!

I'm sure Hillary would love to be president, but I'm anything BUT sure she wants to go through being a candidate again. I have a certain "been there and done that" friend who thinks that the job needs to be done by someone who is age 50 tops, and this is someone well-respected who was several years older than 50 when he ran for president. On the Republican side, Bob Dole pretty much burned out when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1996. Hillary would be four years younger than Dole was if she runs, but it's a grueling, exhausting, draining process, and she knows that from 2008.

check out Golda Meier of Israel-------Mother Teresa----

And while Golda Meir and Mother Teresa both were remarkable women who worked under stress, the US presidency is a job with a special kind of stress of a global kind that even the prime minister of Israel is not subject to.

I have friends who are active in their careers well past 80. Stan Lee goes into his office every day, and he turned 90 last year. Theo Bikel is still performing, Ruth Westheimer is still lecturing around the world, and my good friend Helen Thomas, whom I lost last July, was almost 90 when she left the national scene.

The stress STILL isn't the same as the job at 1600. For all that, I think Hillary probably could handle it. I am NOT sure she wants to, and she'd hate the campaigning part. Not so much the real campaign, but countering all the evil stuff a billion dollars worth of paid contrived hate from Adelson, the Kochs and Murdoch can buy--that's the tedious part, and whoever the candidate is, that part is coming no matter what. John Roberts and Sam Alito have seen to that.

It is the stuff that wakes her up in the morning. When you say "I'm not sure she wants to" --I say this is what she lives for and she likes riding on Air Force One. She's not going anywhere except to the White House-----and I am sure her thinking is ----if she died during her Presidency---what a way to go----sure beats the sofa!

I haven't chatted with her in person for over five years now, and at the time she was still Senator from NY.

If she has a thing about riding on Air Force One, she never mentioned it in my presence, but we didn't discuss dying on a sofa either, so there was probably some ground left uncovered.

had a chance to ride coach by divorcing him----we all know she wisely choose Air Force One------

In the Little Rock days, neither of them knew they would be headed for the White House.

1600 had some frosty months during the Monica incident, but they worked it out. I don't see why blind ambition needs to be the only explanation they stayed married. They both have overpowering personal charisma, and I'm sure it's what attracted them to each other in the first place. If you've met them and chatted with them for any length of time, you must know that.

might be faulty----a lot of people have alternate life styles and it works for them--who is to say that things were frosty-----let your imagination complete the thought

Ann Lewis, too. But what they have DOES work for them, no two ways about it.

My parents spent some time with Hillary in the WH era. I only met her after she was elected Senator, and spent nowhere near as much time with her as my folks did. Even so, a formidable personality, there's no denying that:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

where was that taken

It's called Renaissance Weekend (www.renaissanceweekend.org) and it's held in South Carolina over New Year's. The Clintons were part of that long before I was. Phil Lader, one of the founders, was Bill Clinton's Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and Clinton met half his cabinet at those things. Chelsea met her husband there as a teenager, and his mom is a friend of mine. Those are my daughters with Hillary and me.

These days, the Clintons don't come every year any more. Bill with his CGI and his foundation, and Hillary as Secretary of State left them even less free time for Renaissance than being President and First Lady did. Still, as you see, they do show up every now and then.

I think MLK prepped for the March on Washington there.

It's held at the Charleston Place Hotel.

What details are available to the public are here: www.renaissanceweekend.org

As everything there is off the record, all you will see are photos and generalities, but you can get an idea of the atmosphere and who comes. One of our biggest horrors was when Gabby Giffords, a regular, was shot one week after we all rang in the New Year together in 2011. One of our biggest thrills was when she came back last year.

I am certain that this group is not trying to isolate --but I don't see that presence in the photos. Do you ever get a Rachel Maddow or similar. It seems rooted in Southern tradition---I could be reading this a bit wrong.

I thought this event started at Penn Center---but maybe Hilton Head nearby. I really don't know a lot about it---but did visit Hunting Island (Forest Gump shot here) -----

Because it is held in South Carolina, I am wondering if it would not be a stepping off point for one of my predictions that Michele Obama will move to South Carolina and run for U.S. Senate. Sounds crazy doesn't it?

Andy Tobias, prominent author and Democratic activist (as in DNC treasurer), has been there longer that I have. He is only one of a group of well-known gays that attend regularly. Blacks make up a significant portion of the attendees, including university presidents, clerics, guys that have served in the foreign service, politicians, etc. Veronica Biggins is one of my favorite people at RW, period. Latinos and Asians are also always present. I speak enough Spanish at those things to be able to figure that out. Also young people--no family is discouraged from bringing their children, no matter how small. Round the clock care is there for small children, and teenagers are not encouraged, but required to participate if they come.

You are reading this VERY wrong. I invited Rachel Maddow personally to attend. She hasn't yet seen fit to, but Krystal Ball does. Roland Martin has been several times (he is one hell of a character!). I have no idea if she's gay or not, but there are plenty of media types. As I couldn't care less if they are gay or not, I never ask. Friends, like Andy, I know because I know them as friends, and thus am aware of their personal lives as well.

RW is held in South Carolina maily because it's where the Laders live. They also organize smaller RWs around North America during the year (Monterey, Banff, etc.) but I've never been to one of them. It's not easy running over to North America just for a few days, and I do have a day job.

The New Year's gathering was held at Hilton Head at one time. I was there for the last one (1999). After that it was held in Charleston.

If Michele Obama was considering running for US Senate, why would she run from SC? Why not Illinois? The Obamas, by the way, have never been to RW. I did mention it to (then-Senator) Obama in 2006, but he never attended. I never got Helen Thomas or Stan Lee to come, either. As for my other "amazing 80+ crowd" Theo Bikel comes sporadically, and Ruth Westheimer comes every year.

on Michele----the plan would be to create a blue South Carolina----he ancestors were slaves there---so it would be the of it thoughstart or continuation of a New Southern Strategy------not quite Nixon's idea ----sorry if I misjudged the RW ---it just looked a little too glitzy in the pics----the original was at Hilton Head and seemed a little more outdoorsy------maybe Penn Center is in the offing----maybe the Obama's and Rachel ----and more would attend then------not trying to make trouble --just sayin'

New Year's is a special occasion for many families, including my own. My children at first balked and protested at suddenly spending New Year's in America instead of with the people they traditionally spent it with. My wife was more flexible, thank goodness, or I might never have made it. Their PR is slick, it's true, but it's much more intimate and relaxed than the PR indicates. When you're sitting at the dinner table and the other people are Peter Norton, Jerry Nadler, Gabby Giffords, Dr. Ruth and Justice Breyer of the SCOTUS, it's not glitzy, and the conversation is very lively.

The Obamas, Rachel, and LOTS of other VIPS already have things they do at New Year's. The Clintons came during their White House years because they were friends of the Laders well before they achieved national prominence, and it was a tradition they continued. They didn't just suddenly decide that RW was more important than anything else they did. This WAS what they did.
Charleston is a very outdoorsy city. It's a five minute walk to the water, and anyone can jog from the hotel along the coast and race the dolphins if they want. The food there is to die for (if you have cholesterol problems, then literally).

There are remnants of an old blue SC there. Former governor Riley was a regular, as was Sen. Hollings. Organizer Phil Lader is a former Democratic candidate for Governor (too late for the days when Democrats got in automatically). As for attendees, the place is already bursting at the seams in terms of capacity. Any more than the number who attend now, and it would lose its intimacy. It is not intended to be a stadium-sized convention.

and it is a refreshing RW over the other one------maybe you could get some of those RWs over for some constructive engagement

It's pretty much a requirement to be accepted (every now and again they slip and let in mere mortals like me).

My brother came one year, and got blown away when he met Peter Norton. I had known Peter from previous years, and I asked him what he had been up to lately. "Oh, helping with the building of a few new cities in China."

People get proposed by current participants. I'm sure both women have been invited by present participants, but people like Grimes and Davis have probably made their New Year's plans far in advance. Anyone of that prominence would be a shoo-in for acceptance. Once you're in, the only way to get disinvited for the future is to behave like an ass. I know of exactly two people (out of a couple thousand) who made that illustrious category, and they both deserved it.

Usually, it's an interesting and stimulating atmosphere, and New Year's is a special occasion there. For example:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

newsone-now-maryland-ag-doug-gansler-does-nothing-to-stop-underage-drinking-at-party

what do you think of the report?

He does like to dramatize.

I didn't see too much of that when he was at CNN, but then I don't get American TV here anyway. In person, in case you didn't get the idea from the photo, he does like to ham it up and put on a show. It sounds like at his new gig, he gets to do exactly that. I thought he was a bright, fun guy in person anyway, and as you can see in the pic, my daughters thought so, too.

with the RW and give 'em a run for their money-----it might be fun to go into a red state ----buy a radio station and beam up some vitriolic----but truthful ---stuff about the RW that do so much harm to their constituents-------maybe start in West Virginia----------where I think the coal miners need a break----they need some churches that tell the truth ----and some media too---Roland just might be part of a team like that-----

oh and your daughters are beautiful----a bit younger than my three in their late 30===early 40----good luck to you today my friend

Richard Viguerie is politically the Prince of Darkness to us, but in person, a very nice guy, and I can't help but get along with him. It's totally weird, because if he got his way politically, the USA would be one horrible country to live in, but he's a friend, despite the fact that if his pals ever run the country, I'd be spending the rest of my life as an exile or in a dungeon.

Of the right wing whackos that do attend, Richard stands out as the only one of them who consistently manages to keep civil.

move a muscle move a mind---there is a good rundown on his ilk being on the wrong side of history==

http://republicandirtytricks.com/conservatives-always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/

this is one of the best dissertations I've seen on the subject-----the usual taking points the cons use have expired on these issues---they have conveniently become in favor of gay marriage because it is politically expedient---there are at least ten things on here that your friend Richard will find hard to swallow

as time goes on the liberal view seems to be the leader and the con is the follower

He would have been one of the ones condemning Galileo not because it was expedient to do so, but because he REALLY thought the sun revolved around the earth.

When he first started in calling Obama a socialist after the stimulus, I explained the LAST thing socialists, with their advocacy of State ownership of the means of production, would have done would have been to take a bankrupt giant like General Motors, save it with state money, and then return it to private hands once it was profitable again. Anyone doing that as a socialist would be put up against the wall and shot by his fellow socialists as a traitor to the cause. Richard pondered that for a minute, but still likes to call Obama a socialist--not because he heard it on Fox Noise but because he so fervently WANTS the epithet to stick.

Like the religiously obsessed (and Richard is no lightweight there, either), what he wants to believe takes precedence over what he might see before his very eyes. His world would collapse if he were to find genuine cause to see Cucinnelli, Cruz, Paul or Rubio as evil men, so he calls them "staunch conservatives," convinces himself of it, and moves on. The fact that he is one wily debater makes him a formidable study in obstinacy. Listen to Richard in person for half an hour, and not only will you want to have dinner with him, but you will also be half convinced that the earth really IS flat. I'm just sorry he's working for the bad guys.

sometimes works with these guys------would he support the same ideas when the minorities are the majority----he also sounds a lot like John Lennon words in "Imagine" --except the fantasy is a bit twisted ---I am also wondering if he would still support Limbaugh if his wife, mother or daughter were called a slut---are we supposed to feel free to the President --"I can't stand to look at you" ---or to yell at the SOU ---"You lie"------my usual description of a guy like this is that he is a OWID----Old White Irrelevant Dude-----he probably could handle all of those words except Irrelevant------maybe it would be good to tell that his logic is in a race with his relevancy--------and as the dimwit Dr. Phil would say "how is that working out for you?"

Thoroughly convinced that it wouldn't go down. As long as he remains a formidable fundraiser for right wing causes, Richard remains anything BUT irrelevant. He practically single-handedly got Reagan the funds he needed to defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980. Not to be dismissed lightly.

In 1977, Viguerie worked on a project to raise money for Sun Myung Moon's Children's Relief Fund, which reportedly only received 6.3% of the $1,508,256 raised. $920,000 went to Viguerie according to New York State charity auditors

According to CharityWatch.org: "[Roger] Chapin hired his long-time friend and direct mail expert, Richard Viguerie, to conduct fundraising campaigns for HHV, paying Viguerie's company $14 million between 2000 and 2005." HHV is a charity run by Roger Chapin, which according to Charity Watch has made many questionable and apparently unethical payments unrelated to its purported mission.[12]

Getting approved to mail at the nonprofit rate is a big deal. On average it, will save you about 10 cents apiece in postage compared to the regular rate for bulk mail. However, when the nonprofit rate is compared to the cost for using a regular first-class stamp, you're looking at a savings of closer to 29 cents apiece-this is huge!

The postage rate increase scheduled for Jan 22nd, 2012, will not increase postage for those who mail letter-sized pieces at the nonprofit rate. This means that being approved to mail at the nonprofit rate will save you even more money starting in 2012.

So, as usual, everybody else pays first class and the socialist direct mail subsidized industry gets rich.

He calls himself a "conservative," but he's a Republican through and through. In other words, he DOES know how to look out for number one. That's what they do.

he would be out of business------tell him there is a lo more outgoing mail from blue states because we know how to write---so those blue state mailings subsidize his ability to stay in biz----I've seen his kind all my life----but a little constructive engagement -------especially whenthey are asked to give an opinion when you are loaded on the follow up question ---is a good exercise

He is also so thoroughly convinced of his arguments that there is no middle ground for him. He is, for example, opposed to the NSA listening in on everyone, NOT because it is wrong to bug the chancellor of Germany, but rather because it is wrong to bug Republicans and find out what they're up to (as if it weren't already crystal clear what they're up to).

Richard's big secret weapon is that he can manage to remain civil while defending himself against "far left libbruls" like me while not giving an inch of ground. Seeing as how all others who are on his wavelength froth at the mouth with anger while Richard manages to maintain a calm voice and a smile, I have to give him credit--he is practically a minority of one, at least among the radical rightists I know personally, which are precious few, indeed.

these guys don't impress me----does he ever talk about his helping the Unification Church