Gonna be quite the campaign season. Sigh.

Oh, and the GOP hates Hillary so much that they will come out in droves to vote against her. And I don't see all that much enthusiasm for Hillary.

As a woman, I could give a flying fuck about the gender of a president. It is not like electing a prom queen, ya know. "Cool" is the very LAST thing I am looking for in a candidate. Gee, what if the Dem is a man and the GOP comes up with Fiorina or someone like that? How's the "cool" factor then? Bad thing to base a campaign on.

But sure, it's still again her turn. Because it's not about voters or taxpayer or the nation. It's about whose turn it is, per what the PTB decide amongst themselves.

I didn't vote for Obama because he was African American. I chose him to support in November 2007 because I thought him the most electible of the primary field. And, by the election, I was so excited about him as a candidate that I could not sleep the Monday night before the election.

Election night, I was so thrilled that in electing Obama, we had also elected the first African American President, I cried with joy. Nonetheless, I did not vote his skin color and I will not vote my vagina. One would have been racist and the other would be sexist. JMO.

It is, actually, a bit insulting, to assume I would vote for another woman without considering what might happen to the lives of millions of people. Especially considering what other women are out there - Palin, Bachmann, Fiorina, Ernst. Ugh.
IMO, this is too important of a job to have any sort of historical ramifications attached to it. I am pragmatic that way. It is a job, not some sort of ceremonial thing.
I couldn't tell if your "Good for you" was sarcastic.

I think it was way past time to elect an African American President, but, as my post said, I would not have voted for Obama if I did not think he was the best choice of the field. I also think it's way past time for a woman, but I am not voting for a Presidential candidate simply because she is a woman. I sure as hell didn't vote for Hillary in 2008--or for Palin when Hillary was no longer a contender. I don't want either of them to be President or Vice President, full stop.

I agree that the notion that women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman insults women. However, at the same time, I do think most women (and many men) think it is past time for someone other than white, and mostly WASP males, to hold that position. But, it has to be right woman or the right minority male candidate.

He figured that he could attract the Hillary voters from Democrats with Sarah Palin, but instead, women were put off by her. Palin's approval numbers were lowest among women and minorities. Republicans always seem to think that if you throw out an ersatz candidate who's female, Hispanic, African-American or some other demographic they're trying to attract, but who's really a conservative lackey, that it will give them points with their target group. It usually backfires. It's an obvious insult to our intelligence.

And you know what? I really don't care whether we 'make history'. I'd rather simply have a candidate who understands the lives of the poor and the near poor, and will work tirelessly for those of us who make less than 30k a year, rather than for those who own the rest of us.

Even if it's not 'EXCITING' or 'VERY cool'.

THIS:

What crowd for her? Ones she will pay for with her pac like republicans do?

I am just so sick of money money money.....

while I understand you not liking a possible Democratic Primary candidate and clearly are against that candidate should she become the Democratic nominee, but making up shit is really beyond the pale. Paying for a crowd...really?

Not that she already did it...

Your right I am not a fan and normally stay out of talking about her.

Second...paying for a crowd is a RW strategy

Third, it's you're and not your...which is consistently a RW grammatical error.

Are you sure you are at the right place?

How long have you been here?

With the exception of this crazy post I have calmly peacefully been here since beginning of 2004.

Sorry I said anything....can see why people are leaving this place is getting mean very very mean.

No I am not RW ha ha...ask anyone who knows me...

I do. You are so on point.

Rich, boring and out of touch.
She has time to win me over, but there's a reason I was behind Obama.
Only time will tell...

I will support her and work for her to win.
She is smart, she is tough, she is fair, and she probably won't back down from the Teaparty kooks as Obama did the first four years before he finally came to the conclusion there is no negotiating with them. She knows that type well.
She's a feminist and a thinker. Those who throw stones at her are aiming at the wrong target in DC. And it must give the Repubs great pleasure to see someone as well versed in foreign affairs, domestic affairs, and the rights of people being bruised by those who call themselves Democrats.
My concern is that she find a better person than the last one to run her campaign.

She's the one who coined the term "great right wing conspiracy." She knows their type. She won't play games.

what they are. She knows how to fight with the gloves off and that's all some of these jerks understand. Plus, she has lots of experience.

I'm just stating that I have many friends, both male and female who don't find her "exciting."

I'll still vote for her because all options outside of our party are far worse than electing someone that I find isn't exciting.

People are not paying attention to Clinton's campaign rhetoric on DU. They are tuning it out.

We have been told that it is okay to say things one does not mean, like, say, doing something about NAFTA or snidely saying that if being forced to buy health insurance will fix the health care problem, then maybe we should force the homeless to buy houses. And if the answer to that is that the president is helpless - then - why believe in a new set of rhetorical statements?

I don't SELECTIVELY listen to campaign rhetoric. Or believe it. Learned that lesson.

What they promise to achieve when they run for office. That's why when Obama put SS on the table, I didn't have a big problem with it, or at least, I didn't lose my mind over it, because that was something he actually campaigned on (Clinton, in contrast, refused to do that, and said it was folly).

The insurance as a way to universal health care was seen as the way to get there by Edwards, Obama, and Clinton, it wasn't a "snide" approach, it was the one that they felt the votes could happen. They were right. And in 3 short years one state (Vermont) will have single payer (and could not have done it without the ACA without a major wage tax hike). Stepping stones.

That said, the President is really weak as it concerns domestic policy, it requires control of the legislature to achieve anything.

The snide thing, for me, was saying that gee, why not require homeless people to buy houses.
(Answer - because the rich are going to buy them up, I see.)

Here is the thing - Obama didn't run on stepping stones. Even if I say fine, cool, then why on earth would I take what Clinton says seriously? She is a hawk, and helped write the TPP. That is all I really need to know. That is my metric, not whatever she says in order to get votes.

Putting SS on the table was a shit thing to do. And SS is not a damned pony. Neither is the TPP. Both of those things would negatively affect many millions of people. Chained CPI is the first of a thousand little cuts, and makes it easier to proceed. The TPP will bring wages DOWN to the lowest, and give corporations rule and replace sovereign rule. Generics drugs - not cheap or allowed for long. Things like that. Not voting for anyone who thinks that is a good thing. I don't care how many cutesy musical campaign videos are released.

Do you think she's lying when she says that our prison population is a problem?

How about what she said about "smart power" with foreign policy? Oliver North said that it ended her candidacy, because she said she wanted to "empathize" with our enemies. Do you agree with him? Or do you think she's just lying?

What do you think when she talks about income inequality? That she's lying? That she doesn't believe what she's saying?

It has been (actually condescendingly) pointed out to me that campaign rhetoric is, of course, saying whatever one needs to say in order to get elected, and then I am told that of course that, once, elected, the politician has to please the big donors so that they can get more money in order to get reelected. So forgive me if I am left cold by campaign rhetoric, I have no reason to attach importance to it any more.

The US, because it stopped manufacturing so much a long time ago, relies on the developing world to provide its goods. TPP allows the US to leverage those developing nations. It's not about jobs or even trade, it's actually geopolitical to box in China and Russia, China being our largest economic threat and Russia being our largest political threat.

I don't believe the adage that a politician must obey their donors. I think that is too simplistic of a view. If a politician says good things, I will hold them at their word, if they deviate too much from what they promise, then I will call them on it. Fortunately most politicians try to do what they say they will do.

There are actually posters here who, naively, call Clinton a neocon Republican in disguise, etc, and say, quite literally, they'd rather not vote at all than vote for Clinton, because at least Republicans say they're Republicans, but Clinton is a liar. It's just anything to disparage a woman who has spent quite literally her entire life in civic duty.

well as current rhetoric.

Just like we looked to the "community organizer" to usher in "hope and change."

Thing is, all that community organizer stuff? Didn't really tell us much. What did tell us a lot is what he campaigned on. And he stuck with his word for the most part. Everything in his power to do, he did. He was blocked on a lot of other stuff, though.

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Just like we looked to the "community organizer" to usher in "hope and change."

I think Obama has done a fantastic job being as inexperienced as he was.

Good one, Josh.

I meant to do a little end of day posting, but got carried away I have been up way too long. I am going to catch a few winks. Enjoy your morning.

nation or not.

That's why when Obama put SS on the table, I didn't have a big problem with it, or at least, I didn't lose my mind over it, because that was something he actually campaigned on

I just didn't get all excited when he did what he promised he'd do: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/05/obama_on_abcs_this_week_with_g.html

And, again, his 2008 campaign comments about Social Security were not exactly clear, unequivocal and consistent, as the link in my prior post clearly shows. I didn't cherry pick one quote from the source.

I didn't whine and moan because I didn't have on rose colored glasses. Clinton was to his left then and will be when she runs. And so called liberals will just have to deal with it.

All you have to do is read Obama's two acceptance speeches, and you'll see that he has followed through with his plans pretty damn consistently. When, of course, he was not blocked by congress.

though, in your eyes, he had campaigned on it. That is not whining or freaking or moaning or freaking out. It simply being a good citizen, rather than a sycophant. (This is a man who also campaigned, sincerely or not, on "make me do it," and having a team of critics.)

Since Obama will not be running again, I don't especially feel like rehashing how well he lived up to his 2008 campaign promises, but will simply note that a nomination acceptance speech is very different from a primary campaign speech.

However, because this next comment is still relevant and not only to Hillary, I will say that no Dem voter I know perceived Clinton as running to Obama's left, especially on the Iraq War and the individual mandate, arguably the biggest two issues (in voters' minds) differentiating them in 2008.

You can argue about whether Hillary was in fact to his left or not until the cows come home, but voters vote based on their perception, not your (or my) interpretations or assessments.

There are a lot of people who didn't know he was going to put SS on the table. A lot.

Don't care about making history. Care about the welfare of our citizenry.

And, isn't clapping louder all that really matters in the end?

and if she does not then I will write somebody else in for the presidency if she is the Democratic nominee.
I will not vote for an "in-law" of the Bush Crime Family.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/05/george-w-bush-hillary-clinton-is-like-my-sister-in-law/

completely devoid of substance

and several repubs- including Jeb and Romney are running even with her in polls.

The electorate is in a reactionary mode. Will this last? hard to say, but it looks likely at this point.

She's a loser. a corporate war mongering, cowardly loser. And no, she's not likeable enough.

She's not good enough, she's not smart enough, and doggone it, people don't like her.

but not that one! Keep telling us what our opinions should be though. I'm interested to know what I'm supposed to be thinking.

APPROVED candidates. You will know them as they will be the only candidates permitted on every ballot across America.

Fucking Politbureau.

You get one of two choices -- one Dem and one GOP. In some cases, two GOP. No Green. No Socialist. No nuthin'. Oh, and no write-ins.

Welcome to The People's Republic of China.

Right on cue with this thread RBI.

https://screen.yahoo.com/hillary-speaks-empty-seats-georgetown-132158848.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/hillary-s-inevitability-disappearing

As for the issues you raised, you don't know that this is the first time she spoke to a half empty arena. It's only the first time it made news. It makes news now because she wants to run for President, or so it would seem, everybody has been claiming how popular she is; the mid-terms are just over.

In 2012, Obama was a war time incumbent, which is a very different proposition from someone who is not even a nominee yet. I don't think Obama was speaking to half empty arenas in 2007 or 2008.

No way is she the most exciting.

She hasn't even (officially) started her campaign but since her book tour (which really was her campaign start and way too early) = Foot in Mouth Disease, plus kissing kissinger, Obama does stupid things (while I was SoS and apparently went along with those Stupid Things), and on and on and on. Plus the racist campaign she allowed to be run in '08. People will remember that, especially now.

At first, yes, the dog whistles were only leaks and plants with media, like the Wright "black liberation theology" tapes and the photos of Obama in traditional Kenyan clothing.

Then, it went to surrogates, including Bill, dog whistling about drugs, black liberation theology, Jesse Jackson, and "shuckin' and jivin' (as if that would be something that just naturally rolled out of the mouth of Cuomo!).

Then, it went to surrogates being explicit, like Geraldine Ferrara saying flat out that the only reason that Obama was succeeding was that he was "black." (Because more Democrats are black, like Obama, than are female, like Hillary?)

However, as Hillary's chances got dimmer and dimmer, she finally identified her constituency as "hard working white people," which went well beyond dog whistle, though it certainly encompassed the "lazy" and "welfare" dog whistles. (This, from a woman who had earlier "tone deafly" compared being a United States Senator in a Republican majority Senate to being a slave on a plantation!)

After Bill's "casual" comment about Jesse Jackson, I had heard that Kennedy had warned that one more "racially tinged" campaign move would cause him (Kennedy) to declare openly for Obama (instead of allowing the primary to play out). Then, after Game Change came out, I read the bit about the private conversation between Bubba and Ted. Supposedly, Bubba said that, a couple of years ago, Obama would have been bringing them both coffee and the only reason that Ted was supporting Obama was because Obama was "black."

Aside from the racism, I had a hard time believing that Bubba, whom I see as one of the smartest people and best politicians on the planet, could be that clumsy and miss it by that much, both as to the "racially-tinged" campaign in general and how to win over Kennedy specifically. And, I think just "allowing" a racially-tinged campaign, especially one so transparent and clumsy, speaks volumes about America's alleged "First Black President" and his First Spouse.

If there is a real, hard-fought Democratic primary, these things will be raised against Hillary again and again. If there is a coronation or a dog-and-pony show aimed at convincing Democrats they are getting a primary when they are actually getting a coronation, Hillary will not be hit with these things again and again. So, I'll be watching. Meanwhile, Democrats, both PTB and rank and file, need to consider carefully what a Hillary nomination, despite her "racially-tinged" campaign against Obama, might do to one of their heretofore most steadfastly loyal constituencies.




Speaking of "racially-tinged," I never heard that term before the Hillary campaign. Until then, as far as I knew, something was either racist or it wasn't. Maybe the racism was subtle, or clumsy dog whistle, or blatant, but, in any event, it was either racist or not racist.

Was "racially tinged" invented to avoid accusing the Hillary campaign of being racist, or did I just miss it before Hillary's campaign? (Candidly, I think I am as capable of guessing as the next DUer, but does anyone know for sure when that term first hit our common lexicon?)

And you are right, 'racially tinged' was invented for the Clinton' protection. And you are especially right that either you Are or Aren't a racist, there is no waffling and gray areas. And it appears the Clintons ARE.

I hope people are paying hard attention to this. Hillary and Bill thought they would just throw Anything into the mix to win, ANYTHING, and they went there in desperation thinking if they win, doesn't matter. Now they are going to have to depend on a lot of help from the media to keep their racist sins under wraps and for people to get collective amnesia about what disgusting tactics they used to try to win.

These are not good people.
Good people is what is in the Whitehouse right now, and they are being shat upon.

I probably did not cover everything, either, just the things I recall hitting me between the eyes as I learned of them back then.

I just do want to point out that I said something is either racist or it isn't. I did not say a person is either racist or not.

I had a WASP gal pal in college who said we should all stop arguing over whether someone was racist or not. We should just go ahead and operate on the assumption that we all were racists and needed to spend the rest of our lives trying to make up for that sin. (The group she was addressing was not all white and debating whether or not she was right about everyone being racist misses her point entirely.)

So, I would rather focus on behaviors, even though I think participating in them or even allowing them as an election strategy does say something about all the people involved, including her top campaign people, one of whom is now a Governor.

maybe we can get a little more creative....

She'll have strong backing from both individuals and institutions. She'll be attacked from the left just as hard as she will be from the right. But she'll have broad support from the less politically active center.

She's not my first choice based on ethics, policy, or ideology. And she's not my second or third choice either.

But I'll do almost anything to put a Democrat in the White House.

will not vote for her, even if she is the Dem nominee, and she is not even your third choice, but you are confident that she will somehow get the support of a majority of the nation if she is elected? The "silent majority?"

Okay.

and activists like here on DU. Despite a highly vocal and highly engaged minority of people who speak loudly about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the expansion of NSA surveillance, the struggles and hardships of the Palestinian people, etc., the majority of people don't know and don't care about any of it.

Most people aren't active or engaged. Hillary Clinton is generally viewed favorably by a great many people. Reliable national polls show this consistently.

My dear old mom, for instance, a retired social worker and lifelong Democratic voter, would probably vote for Hillary in the general without any of the hand-wringing that goes on here.

Yes. The "silent majority".

Happened in 2008, happened on her book tour and will happen in 2016.

Hand wring that.

have more than those people running in 2016. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be entertaining, but I'd really love to see Ben Carson or maybe even Michele Bachmann get the nomination so that whichever Democrat can have an easier time as the GOP base's heads explode.

$30,000 a year, Hillary knows, she has been there, yes they have increased their net worth after Bill left the presidency, wrote books, gave speeches, Hillary has also written books and gave speeches and they were paid. The governor pay while he was in Arkansas was about $32000 when he left so they know what it is to live on a low salary. She has fought during her college days for Civil Rights and this did not include lots of folks who was earning very much money. She has sponsored bill in the Senate to increase the minimum wages and to tie future increases to Congressional pay. She took Hillarycare to Congress and was not successful in getting it past a Republican congress, this was helping the lower income folks. You can continue the trashing Hillary for not looking out for the 99% and you will continuously be wrong. Her record stands for itself.

News flash: It's not about me. I am not running for office, even on DU.

However, what is your point? That other Democrats who might run would publicly oppose the minimum wage while Hillary alone among Democratic Presidential candidates would support it? Please.

to lower end of the earnings scale.

So that sure won't be setting Hillary apart (or prove that my opposition to her equals opposition to the minimum wage, trying to prove something about me being totally irrelevant anyway).

It's nothing unusual for a Democrat. I bet that bill had a lot of co-sponsors, but a vote is good enough for me.

A Democratic president who won't have an obstructionist Congress out to systematically thwart every single initiative and nominee proposed by that president, no matter what their gender or last name might be.

I don't think we get that, and that would be very uncool. The only thing worse would be a Republican president with a Republican congress. If THAT happens, well, let's just say I'm glad I'm married to a German with the equivalent of a German green card, and that my two children have both German and American citizenship.

Are we kids waiting in line at a drinking fountain?

Hillary got screwed in 07 when her AA "friends" bailed on her and jumped on the "first AA president" bandwagon. Now she has new friends. Wall Street, bankers and the middle of the GOP. Did you see her new music video? Do you know who's in her Georgetown bible study group? She speaks at Rick Warren's mega church in Orange County Ca.

Lets pick the best person for the job not the next person in line.

All you have to do is find someone to run against her...

Do you really think that just because she happens top be a female that she will govern differently?

As far as her being a fioghter goes,i have no doubt of that, but she will fight as hard to destroy the left of the party as she does the right.

I will never vote for that CORPORATE TOOL. Ever.

Voters will love your inspiring message.

The low cost of gas will make Obama popular, he will get behind Hillary and she will win comfortably in 2016....and like every election DU will be head over hill in love and commited to the dem candidate.

who eventually emerges as her main opposition in the party. Then, just as the campaign picks up to an insane pace, ABC has to fund raise and coordinate for a nationwide campaign for the nomination. That challenge is enormous. Then, if they can overcome that, they still have to raise enough to beat whoever the Koch brothers pick for the Republicans.

I'd give her extremely good odds for the nomination barring a major scandal. The election, though, will likely be a crapshoot, with no one winning big.

Just my opinion....