Sounds like she believes "Building those relationships on Capitol Hill" is really important!!11!!

I'm decidedly NOT ready for Hillary, I never will be.

and Pres. Clinton were so hated by Congressional R's, the congressman thought Obama would have a better chance than HRC of getting along and getting things done with Congressional R's.

Little did he know.

And HRC seems to forget her history with the R's.

You know, that Richard Scaife whose death provoked an outpouring of hatred and loathing on DU.
Yup, she traveled to the Tribune-Review offices in little Greensburg, PA and persuaded him to have his chain of conservative newspapers support her in the '08 primary. One secret Dick Scaife took to his grave - what was the quid pro quo Clinton promised you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/us/richard-mellon-scaife-influential-us-conservative-dies-at-82.html?_r=0

Yup, when it comes to rich old white conservatives, they're ready for Hillary.

She won their respect through hard work and by being as she often likes to say, "a work horse, not a show horse".

Repulsion between like magnetic poles

Don't want to see it sink without exposure, so please get this to the greatest page.

Yet Clinton glibly said during a recent CNN town hall that these young people “should be sent back” because “we have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay.”

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Hillary-Clinton-s-immigration-misstep-5590648.php

Somehow, this cold-hearted comment doesn't fit in with either her dewy-eyed grandma-to-be spin or the Clinton Foundation's "noble" commitment to poor children.

Scene from a HRC presidency: Come sit on Grandma's lap and she'll tell you how many non-white kids who risked their lives to get into the US she deported today.

47,000 children have been sent unaccompanied through a treacherous border crossing. No, the families in Central America should not be encouraged to keep sending these children.

I'm all for legal immigration but this illegal stuff needs to be handled with a cold heart. Illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs and lowering our wages. They are like bloodsuckers sucking the life out of our social safety net. The more you let in the more will come. We simply cannot sustain this invasion. Only when word gets out that we swiftly send them back across the border will they begin to stop coming. Maybe if we just dropped them right back in Mexico's lap they might try to stop them as well. I know this sounds rather cold hearted, but I've seen so many leach off us for so long. I'm ready for all the negative reactions to this post.

It then this is good. She has lots of experience with world leaders having served as SOS. The DNC is lucky to have a pool in which to select a president and a VP. I l
am looking forward to seeing the Castro brothers mature also, future blood.

Basically, you're saying she would have been a more effective president than Obama, and I find that an amazing comment from someone who supports Obama, which I thought you did.

Every president should have their own agenda, our world changes all of the time, the GOP are still attempting to run on Reagan agenda, that is over, get a new agenda.

Your point is based on a false premise

But Obama would still be leaving HRC a record that a corporatist ought to be embracing rather than running from, and running to the right no less.

...but running to the LEFT, not the RIGHT.

that Hillary was against. So it doesn't seem like she's interested in wooing the people that got him elected. She's wooing the people that benefit wildly through thirdway haggling.

Considering that the haggling generally involves encroaching on the constitutional rights of the underrepresented, I don't have much enthusiasm for what is to come.

Dear God, put Hillary in a working class setting for at least a month or two. She is so out of touch.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

lots to sink your teeth into now plus since she ran in 2008 she has traveled and gained lots of foreign experience, yes she is in touch.

They were a hairline apart on the issues. Yes, he spoke against the IWR while safely ensconced in Chicago. In 2004 when he was campaigning for Kerry, he admitted to Tim Russert that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate at the time.

of the party. His comment around the time of the vote was a definite no.

Not to mention, HRC, in her new book, makes it very clear that she was for a more aggressive policy on Afghanistan, Iran, Syria ... than Obama allowed. That is the position that she is opting to take. It is NOT one that is popular here, but it is what she wrote in her book. She obviously is, like in 2008, aiming for general election positions before the primary. In addition, the country may be even less willing to intervene.

My New Year's celebrations this year were haunted by memories of January 1, 1994 -- the day that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. I remember crying that day, thinking about the proud men and women in union halls across America, the Mexican campesinos and the inspiring Canadian activists I had met during the fight against NAFTA, and hoping desperately that our dire predictions would be proved wrong.

They were not. In short order, the damage started. And, we started to document it.

For NAFTA's unhappy 20th anniversary, Public Citizen has published a report that details the wreckage. Not only did promises made by NAFTA's proponents not materialize, but many results are exactly the opposite.

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

I think the deal here is very frustrating. We have to vote for Hillary (or whomever is anointed the chosen one) because we have no choice on the civil rights front - we are moving towards the Conservative Christian's own sharia law at an alarming pace which will be horrific for women, children, gay individuals etc.

But we are also on the neolib/neocon path of turning this country into a third world nation. I don't think this is accidental in the least. People's expectations are being managed by guiding them into lower paying jobs or outright retirement. This is how the costs of the aging baby boom generation are being "dealt with".

As time goes on it will continue to be an even more globalized economy with largely low-paying jobs everywhere in the world, with the exception of the few high-skilled pockets we see here and there.

All I can say is "workers of the world unite" because that is the only way to fight back. The old man had it correct no matter how much DUers like to disparage him.

reform, telecom act, repeal of Glass Steagall. Not sure she really wants to go down the "Bill worked with the GOP" road.

...she still needs to make it through the primary process.

Moving to the center a little too soon there, Hillary.

Now it looks like Hillary is a Racist & a Hater,
because what else could it be?

Good to know..........

"They don't think the economy has recovered in a way that has helped them or their families," Mrs. Clinton said. In contrast, Mr. Obama sounded almost cheery after Thursday's jobs report, saying the country could make even more progress if Congress were willing to "set politics aside, at least occasionally."

If anything, she was chiding Congress for doing so little, not Obama.

Those skills become very dull if one automatically pre-judges the content of an article based upon its publishing source.

In this case, the WSJ polling data confirms much of what I suspected Hillary's strategy would be, given her coziness in the past with neo-con ideaology and Wall Street.

On the one hand, they'll say we should disregard an article ("consider the source&quot but on the other hand, we should believe polls from the same source.

I really love this passage (emphasis added):

Yet the article leads you to think she said it yesterday. The WSJ is desperately parsing words and phrases cobbled together from here and there to make it look like she's trying to do a hit job on the president. Their sister company Fox will only be too happy to run with this theme for a week or so before moving on to some other manufactured scandal.

And to the poster above, YES, I AM questioning the source, especially at how out of context I think these comments were taken (and when they were made).

Don't worry, they'll get bored with it soon enough and go back to their favorite past time of finding something to blame Obama for. I remember I made a bet with someone a few months ago that Fox would find a way to blame Obama for flight 370 and they thought I was crazy. I admit it took them longer than I thought - about two weeks - but they were finally able to string together some twisted way to put some blame on him. You should expect nothing less from the WSJ.

with Hillary?

Will his batshit crazy party allow it?

He sure did humor those Republicans well. He gave them a repeal of Glass-Steagall, DOMA, DADT, Welfare Reform, no healthcare, and just exactly what did progressives get in return? Scorn.

Sorry, that kind of talk from Hillary reminds me to Al Gore stepping away from Clinton in 2000 and putting Joe Lieberman (an anti-Clinton activist senator) on the ticket. It didn't make Democrats happy then, and it won't help in 2016. If Hillary chooses to distance herself in a material way from Barack Obama, then she's toast for me.

I'd be happier with Elizabeth Warren.

Democrats need to pull their heads out of their collective butt and start looking at other people.

If she is our nominee in 2016, this country WILL have a Republican president.