Satisfaction of what’s to come

I plead guilty to enjoying a lot of the Hillary 2016 porn that’s out there on the internets (via). Is that so wrong?

Consider this an open thread.






70 replies
  1. 1
    MikeJ says:

    Hooray for lack of error messages on posting! (Thanks, mix.)

  2. 2
    Hill Dweller says:

    Bloomberg is reporting Chuck Hagel “likely” to be nominated for Sec. of Defense.

  3. 3
    shortstop says:

    I was kinda thinking, “Oh, now, Obama’s not even been reinaugurated yet; can’t this wait?” But then I clicked on the link and got all excited that Clinton would win Kentucky over Paul, so never mind!

  4. 4
    Paul in KY says:

    @MikeJ: I just get the ‘script’ message. If I click ‘NO’ 42 times, it goes away.

  5. 5
    Maude says:

    And they were so sure she’d win in 2008. How’d that work out?

  6. 6
    PJ says:

    I know the bulk of the Hillary 2016 talk is just media bloviating, but there seems to still be some fervent support for her among Democrats, which I don’t understand. She has a Romney-sized sense of entitlement, ran a terrible campaign in 2008, and her most noteworthy achievement in the Senate was voting for the Iraq war. For those who love her, what is the appeal?

  7. 7

    Delightful, truly delightful.

  8. 8
    shortstop says:

    @PJ: It’s almost like you’ve been locked in a closet since mid-2008.

  9. 9
    flukebucket says:

    @Paul in KY:

    Same here but I can click yes or no 14 times and it works every time. And I don’t even know what the hell it is asking me except that the link to the Barbara Waters interview is mentioned in it.

  10. 10
    Punchy says:

    Yeah, these are friendly, family dogs. Nothing to see here, all just a bad rep and haters who dont understand.

  11. 11
    jl says:

    2016? Ain’t that, like, totally totally beyond the horizon of comprehension of the public’s pretty little head, fer sher?

    I thought our failed corporate media experiment thought Hillary’s hairdo and Christie IZ PHATTIE were about all the public mind could grasp.

    Not there is anything else important going on, right?

  12. 12
    PJ says:

    @shortstop: my question was genuine – has she performed such an amazing job as Secretary of State that makes her more electable than in 2008?

  13. 13
    Anonymous says:

    Hi, just a note for those who participated in Anne Laurie’s Thursday morning open thread. I posed a question about possible plagiarism.

    I finally got around to replying only now, so I was unable to respond to SiubhanDuinne, arguingwithsignposts, Jerzy Russian, and Steve in something resembling real time. But my second comment is here. JerzyRussian asked why I didn’t just provide links to the articles in question, so I decided to do just that. Just a heads-up if any of you 4 are reading this thread.

  14. 14
    danah gaz says:

    I’m not so sure Hillary Clinton will run in 2016.

  15. 15
    DougJ says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    Honestly, that doesn’t bother me. He was a critic of Iraq. Better a Republican realist than a Democrat “liberal interventionist”.

  16. 16
    MikeJ says:

    @Paul in KY:

    I just get the ‘script’ message. If I click ‘NO’ 42 times, it goes away.

    I haven’t seen it, but every time it has happened in the past it’s been because of a badly designed ad. there used to be a thing with a poll from some company on the sidebar that was often the culprit.

    It’s shit like that that makes me use noscript. No flash, no javascript unless I ask for it.

  17. 17
    Brachiator says:

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Capitol Hill next week to testify about Benghazi. Many Americans will be on holiday break and will ignore anything about the story. And even though Ambassador Rice has been everything short of tarred and feathered over this, I predict that Clinton will largely get a pass. The crazy thing here is that despite all the past crazy Clinton hate, and what has to be fear that Clinton will run for president in 2016, the GOP has been oddly muted and deferential in dealing with the Secretary of State. And the wingiest of these wingnuts deflect all credit for any foreign policy successes off of Obama and onto Clinton, as though she is somehow the independent president of foreign policy.

    The Village is a damned, strange, place.

    OT and elsewhere, Javier Bardem got a Screen Actors nomination for Best Supporting Actor for Skyfall. The first time evah that a Bond villain got a nod. Well, deserved, too. And he is married to ridiculously hot and talented Penelope Cruz, which is its own reward.

    Question of the day is how many people will turn out for the midnight screenings of The Hobbit?

  18. 18
    Keith G says:

    Sorry to be such a crabapple but yeah it is kind of wrong. There are so many important battles that need our attention now, so many things we have to do and get right, that this type of masterbatory distraction is totally harmful.

    Hillary may well be President, if she wants, and there would be a lot of good in that. and there will be some harm. Instead of building up a grassroots activist base that turns out to vote, the Democratic Party seems to be powered by one charismatic “cult” (used very loosely) after another. That’s part of the reason why we’re not as powerful in the states as we should be.

    /rant

  19. 19
    Napoleon says:

    @PJ:

    You forgot to mention Mark Penn. And since 08 she has basically come out for that pipeline from Canada, anouther real winner with the base.

  20. 20
    Maude says:

    @MikeJ:
    It’s the update. Other Wp blogs are having problems as well. It’ll get fixed.
    I haven’t had any problem today. The comments want to post twice. I submit and then go off the page and the comment posts one.

  21. 21
    PeakVT says:

    Is that so wrong?

    Yes. The country is in desperate need of proper governance, which requires the media to do its job and not write horse-race pieces THREE FUCKING YEARS before they have any chance of being accurate. Clicking through to those pieces just reinforces the media’s impression that it can not do its job and still have readers at the end of the day.

  22. 22
    SatanicPanic says:

    Enjoyed reading the Freddie DeBoer pile-on over at LGM this morning.

  23. 23
    raven says:

    @DougJ: He’s good people.

  24. 24
    Roger Moore says:

    @PJ:

    has she performed such an amazing job as Secretary of State that makes her more electable than in 2008?

    I think she’s done a very good job as Secretary of State, and that doing so helps with some of her political weaknesses. That said, I think these polls are mostly worthless. Sec State is seen as a largely non-political position, so it’s a great place for somebody who has a history of being polarizing to resuscitate to burnish her image. I’m pretty sure that much of her popularity would evaporate and the hatred would return if/when she ran for office again.

  25. 25
    Lev says:

    @PJ: Yes. And I’d argue that there’s no real space for a contender if he runs. Democrats are going to be desperate to hold the WH after Obama leaves, to do so would cement all the Obama gains and would be a devastating loss for the GOP. And Clinton has neutralized much of her baggage, in 2007 somewhere around 40% of Iowa and NH voters saw her as untrustworthy, dishonest, etc. It’s nominal at this point.

    At this point, I’m hoping she runs, though with some reservations. She’s great on domestic stuff and iffy on security, as always. But it was John Major’s win in 1992 that made Labour go with Tony Blair.

  26. 26
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @DougJ: I’m not sure it makes that much difference. Defense is run out of the White House, and real, non-delusional SecDefs (ie. for all modern SedDefs not named ‘Rumsfeld’) know that. Been that way for a generation.

    Panetta’s a placeh-holder for the White House. Gates reigned, but did not rule. Going back to the prior Democratic White House, Cohen certainly reigned but did not rule, and Perry before him was a procurement specialist — no one ever confused him with George Marshall. I’d pick National Security advisor over Secretary of Defense in a heartbeat, if both jobs were on offer.

    It’s a job for a clerk-cum-lobbyist, not a policy rainmaker. There are no more MacNamaras out there.

  27. 27
    catclub says:

    @Napoleon: On the other hand, the bench for staff will people who have been in the (8n year!) Obama admin, more than the Bill Clinton admin. So that will
    rub off, and maybe some other examples from Obama might rub off, which would help her.

  28. 28
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Hillary and Porn shouldn’t be used in the same sentence.

  29. 29
    eemom says:

    Since this is an open thread — and yes, Hillary ’16 talk IS fucking ridiculous, tyvm — I am curious if anyone has watched any of Oliver Stone’s Untold History series?

  30. 30
    Full Metal Wingnut says:

    @PJ: I can’t imagine the 2016 election. Obama was definitely an incredibly charismatic and unique candidate. I can’t see the youth getting nearly as excited about anyone else. I don’t think Hil is bland per se, but she’s no Obama in the charisma department. I’m not sold on her liberal bona fides, but if the Dem 2016 field is shitstains like Cuomo and Booker, then I’ll be a Hilbot all the way.

  31. 31
    Full Metal Wingnut says:

    @PJ: I can’t imagine the 2016 election. Obama was definitely an incredibly charismatic and unique candidate. I can’t see the youth getting nearly as excited about anyone else. I don’t think Hil is bland per se, but she’s no Obama in the charisma department. I’m not sold on her liberal bona fides, but if the Dem 2016 field is shitstains like Cuomo and Booker, then I’ll be a Hilbot all the way.

  32. 32
    Full Metal Wingnut says:

    @PJ: I can’t imagine the 2016 election. Obama was definitely an incredibly charismatic and unique candidate. I can’t see the youth getting nearly as excited about anyone else. I don’t think Hil is bland per se, but she’s no Obama in the charisma department. I’m not sold on her liberal bona fides, but if the Dem 2016 field is refuse like Cuomo and Booker, then I’ll be a Hilbot all the way.

  33. 33
    Nemo_N says:

    Google is apparently making Safe Search the one and only option to search (for Google US so far).

    I was looking for images of one of my favorite manga artists (who also does lots of nudes and porn) and found all of the results to be his happy, G-rated works. Finding this strange, I looked into my search settings and well, it’s useless to tinker with them. Had to use Google UK, but the changes might take place there too eventually.

    This sucks.

  34. 34
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    If Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2016 I will volunteer and vote for her. Especially if they can identify a gay, single-mother who is half Asian and half Latina to serve as her veep.

    I want the Democrats to focus on 2014 like a laser and not suffer another teabagger uprising and then I want the Democrats to beat the tar out of the teabaggers again in 2016, and I think Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job (at this time).

    I don’t give a shit about liberal purity – I don’t give a shit about drone strikes – I don’t give a shit about Pvt. Mumia Manning. All I care about is killing off the Republicans as a national party.

  35. 35
    sphex says:

    longtime lurker, never-before commenter, but I saw this and realized that Tunch has a lot of work to do, and that other BJ denizens might get as much pleasure out of this video on cat agility as I did.

  36. 36
    burnspbesq says:

    The Hilary pron is amusing. It’s going to be Gillibrand.

  37. 37
    Nemo_N says:

    Well, apparently Google UK will be SafeSearch only too:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ed-UK.html

  38. 38
    Brachiator says:

    @Keith G:

    Hillary may well be President, if she wants, and there would be a lot of good in that. and there will be some harm. Instead of building up a grassroots activist base that turns out to vote, the Democratic Party seems to be powered by one charismatic “cult” (used very loosely) after another. That’s part of the reason why we’re not as powerful in the states as we should be.

    I don’t even know what this means, or what you think the Democrats should be doing.

    What is this grassroots activist base supposed to be doing until election time rolls up again? And who are they supposed to be voting for? Who is developing candidates to challenge Republicans or crappy Democrats? Is there anything that should be done to counter the gerrymandered districts that give Republicans huge state level advantages?

    @J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:

    I don’t give a shit about liberal purity

    I agree with you, but I also want to see the Democrats actually do some governing, instead of muttering, “just you wait until 2014, or even 2016, because then we will really do … something.”

    Despite all the yammering from the wingnut fringe about Obama not having a mandate because only four white people voted for him, he is winning the tax and budget argument. When even Republicans and independents say in polls that they want Congress to stop arguing and act, they are more likely to accept as a given Obama’s arguments about taxes and social programs. And Republicans are looking for a face-saving way of giving the president what he wants.

    Killing the Republican Party is unnecessary when they so conveniently self-destruct. They are beginning to remind me of that part of the impeachment follies when they kept talking about how Bill Clinton was a bad, bad man, only to see his popularity keep rising as their attacks increased.

    On the other hand, I wish that Obama would stop making peace offerings to the Republicans. This gets him nothing.

    And if he taps Hagel for Defense, the Republicans better vote for Rice to be the new Secretary of State.

  39. 39
    Alex S. says:

    She HAS GOT to be thinking that there’s at least a 75% chance of winning if she runs. The FED has basically said that it will do everything to support the economy which means that in 2016, Democratic policies will enjoy popularity. Andrew Cuomo already said that he is waiting for her to announce her plans. Noone else can represent the Obama coalition as well as her. She was a member of his cabinet. She’s a woman. Her way to the nomination would be free. She is probably going to face Christie or Bush, either of them being stronger candidates than Romney or McCain, but damnit, she’s the most popular national politician, with an unrivaled organization. The fundamentals are just so strong…. she HAS GOT to be thinking it.

  40. 40
    bfr says:

    What is this, DeeLite week or something?

  41. 41
    Comrade Mary says:

    @Nemo_N: Canada is still godless and filthy, thank Deen. I ran an image search for James Deen on google.ca and all was well.

    But when I switched to google.com, yeah, the photos were HEAVILY filtered and turning off Safe Search was no longer an option.

    Bummer [image not available in your region].

  42. 42
    Mandalay says:

    @Alex S.:

    She is probably going to face Christie or Bush

    That’s seems more than a tad presumptious. Just because they are less implausible than most other names, that still does not make them very likely candidates, and they are both lugging considerable personal baggage.

    And who predicted Obama for president in 2008, three years before he started campaigning? It is far more likely that the Republican candidiate in 2016 will NOT be Christie or Bush, and may well be someone who nobody is even considering at the moment.

  43. 43
    PJ says:

    @Mandalay: Neil Young did ( well, he prefaced it with a “maybe”). It seemed pretty clear to me after his speech at the 2004 convention that there was no Democrat who could challenge him in the charisma category.

  44. 44
    Full Metal Wingnut says:

    @Keith G: I admit to being an Obot, but even if I weren’t I would still say that Obama has a once in a generation personality. Even leaving aside my disappointments with him, his historic candidacy, his life story, his speaking skills, his charisma, his ability to inspire-I think we’ve taken those things for granted since 08. I voted Kerry in 04, but I was never inspired by him, never that gung ho. It’s going to be hard to find someone with Obama’s level of personality, someone who can really rile up the youth vote.

    Of course, Hil gets people excited too, although I don’t find her nearly as charismatic (although I don’t think that should matter, unfortunately it does). So if she is our Dem nominee in 2016 we may not have to worry, because she has a built-in base of people who are STILL sour on Obama “stealing” the nom from her in 08, and she would be the first female president! I think even my Republican mother would get on board with her.

    I’m not sold on Hil’s liberal bona fides, but if the alternatives are shitstains like Booker and Cuomo, I’ll become a Hilbot in a new york minute.

  45. 45
    Anonymous says:

    Say, if Original Lee is reading this, sorry I missed your comment earlier. As I note in the comment above, I’d like to get some confirmation that this really is a case of plagiarism before proceeding.

  46. 46
    Studly Pantload, the emotionally unavailable unicorn says:

    Anyone besides me wonder if Obama plans to be a king maker w/r/t the ‘016 election? E.g., that he’ll annoint Candidate X (very possibly Hillary) and ensure the ensuing primaries will be strictly a beauty pageant with very little bruising or blood drawn?

  47. 47
    artem1s says:

    Whether Hillary runs or not, it’s unlikely that any Dem can make a serious run at the WH without the Clinton’s help/endorsement. Obama’s will be crucial as well but the Clinton’s still carry a lot of weight and can have a huge impact on fundraising and campaigning. This will be one of the GOPs biggest threats in 2016. Right now I think these ratings are mostly about buyers remorse. They coulda had another Clinton to push around but got Obama instead. Never mind the GOP actively pushed for Obama to win the nomination in 2008 because they thought McCain had a better chance against him than Hillary.

    I think she understands that her role in 2016 will be more as a ‘King Maker’ rather than running herself. She will have a HUGE say in who gets the nomination in 2016.

  48. 48
    Brachiator says:

    @artem1s:

    I think she understands that her role in 2016 will be more as a ‘King Maker’ rather than running herself. She will have a HUGE say in who gets the nomination in 2016.

    I would seriously vote for Clinton if she chose to run. But although I could see that Bill Clinton would be extremely helpful to the eventual nominee in terms of campaigning for that person, I don’t see that either Clinton would have any great say in who should get the nomination.

  49. 49
    Ted & Hellen says:

    Susan Rice OUT as PBO’s nominee for SOS.

    Score another Obama cave to Republican tantrum throwing.

    Look for PBO to now nominate John Kerry, who will then resign as senator, allowing Scott Brown to win the following special election for Kerry’s seat, thus weakening what little numerical dominance the senate Dems have now; all the better to provide excuses for FAIL down the road.

    So predictable.

  50. 50
    Mandalay says:

    @PJ:

    It seemed pretty clear to me after his speech at the 2004 convention that there was no Democrat who could challenge him in the charisma category

    Right; Obama certainly “arrived” after that speech. But my (hazy) recollection was that the general view after Bush won his second term was Clinton would get the nomination if she wanted it (which is pretty much how things seem to stand now as well).

  51. 51
    Mandalay says:

    @PJ:

    It seemed pretty clear to me after his speech at the 2004 convention that there was no Democrat who could challenge him in the charisma category

    Right; Obama certainly “arrived” after that speech. But my (hazy) recollection was that the general view after Bush won his second term was Clinton would get the nomination if she wanted it (which is pretty much how things seem to stand now as well).

  52. 52
    Full Metal Wingnut says:

    @Ted & Hellen: Can someone explain to me the 11th dimensional chess the Repules are apparently pulling trying to get Kerry out of the Senate? I mean, it works in theory, but realistically? What could possibly force Obama’s hand on this? Seriously. The logic breaks down every time I think about it.

  53. 53
    WarMunchkin says:

    @DougJ: What’s bothering me is that some news sources are currently mis-reporting that Hagel “opposed” the Iraq War when he did, in fact, vote for it. Didn’t get around to criticizing until it was cool to do so. I’m not sure why, but a lot of journalists seem to be committing this sleight of hand.

  54. 54
    Brachiator says:

    Crap. The news is reporting that Susan Rice has withdrawn her name for consideration for State:

    Susan Rice, the embattled U.S. ambassador to the U.N., withdrew her name on Thursday from consideration to be Secretary of State in the face of angry Republican criticisms.

    “If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly—to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” Rice wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama, NBC News first reported.

  55. 55
    burnspbesq says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    Your bizarre agenda has again gotten in the way of elementary skills like reading comprehension.

    Did you miss the part where Rice withdrew from consideration? Since she hasn’t been nominated, there is nothing for Obama to withdraw.

    But since the facts don’t fit your narrative, the facts must be ignored.

    I don’t want to insult any boxes of rocks that might be reading this thread, so I will refrain from any further comment.

  56. 56
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Did you miss the part where Rice withdrew from consideration?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…oh my god, you are a tool.

  57. 57
    Keith G says:

    @Brachiator:

    What is this grassroots activist base supposed to be doing until election time rolls up again? And who are they supposed to be voting for? Who is developing candidates to challenge Republicans or crappy Democrats? Is there anything that should be done to counter the gerrymandered districts that give Republicans huge state level advantages?

    Good freeking god!

    Thanks for a great example of the deficit of imagination and effort that I was concerned about. (and I am not inferring that about you personally)

    Now is the time to build interconnected activist groups in counties, in cities, precincts, and blocks. Do the needs of sound democratic governance only manifest themselves during election seasons? Christ on a cracker, man Think!

    Civil Rights and Peace activist 40-50 years ago didn’t succeed on a message of, “That’s okay folks. Go home and relax. We’ll get ’em at the next election.” But then, they also didn’t have the internet so they could feel all good typing snarky messages about the conservative opposition.

    One reason the fucking right is wining so many battle in so many states, eg MI & WI is that they. never. fucking. stop.

    They can be wacky as hell and sometimes their gut-cramping focus on “their issue” can backfire, but look at it, man, in several important states, they. have. been. winning. And even if we could stop them cold, now…it might take us years to undo the damage.

    That is why we must build community and state democratic activism. If I knew the exact steps, I would write a book and get a gig on MSNBC. But Brac, dear fellow, it can be done and it must.

    Or we can sit back and watch them evolve and perfect their state by state attack on reproductive choice, labor rights, voting access (and now the electoral college process) while we wait anemically for the next election.

    @Full Metal Wingnut:

    I admit to being an Obot, but even if I weren’t I would still say that Obama has a once in a generation personality. Even leaving aside my disappointments with him, his historic candidacy, his life story, his speaking skills, his charisma, his ability to inspire-I think we’ve taken those things for granted since 08. I voted Kerry in 04, but I was never inspired by him, never that gung ho. It’s going to be hard to find someone with Obama’s level of personality, someone who can really rile up the youth vote.

    Once in a generation.

    Which is why we need to invest in the everyday person and not depend on the superperson. Obama is just one man and he will soon be on his way. If finally, he were to put together a strategy to help build stronger activist networks in the states, we would be in a better position for success no matter who the next nominee is – and that would be a great help to establishing a stronger historical legacy for Obama and a better future for us. Win/win.

    Question: Right now, who is the Conservative’s Obama?

    Answer: There is none. But they are still causing the forces of progress no end of grief, partially because of the work that has been done at the state level. They do not wait for a once in a generation talent to lead them.

    Dear god…that was too much. Sorry

  58. 58
    Keith G says:

    @Ted & Hellen: In DC, the nominee always with does the deed in bowing out. It saves the face of the once in a generation leader who has decided that the fight is not worth it.

    Hmmm What’s next? Secretary Kerry? Senator Brown?

    /frustration

  59. 59
    General Stuck says:

    @Keith G:

    Which is why we need to invest in the everyday person and not depend on the superperson.

    Even for you, this is some sorry wimpering as a way to take Obama down a notch or two. And you miss the point entirely on why, in the here and now, it is most important for progressive causes to provide loud and public support for the sitting president of our side of things.

    And the irony is, that Obama, along with others like Howard Dean, have turned back the DC based grifter dem consultant codlock on the dem party, and have been, and are continuing to build stronger state parties. It is not an either or, unless you are looking for a way to bash the current dem president.

    And it is also no act of genius, nor cultish in any way , understanding basic presidential politics 101, in the here and now toward enacting liberal/prog laws. The reason why loud public support from any president’s base for that president, is that that president is in a constant mano a mano test of wills with congress, in the sausage making process.

    A president needs to convince congress, ESPECIALLY those on his own side, that the base is behind him and squelch any egos from going off the legislative reservation while making law. And that presidential power is the looking glass to an intimidated or frightened congress critter class, that are more likely to follow.

    It is not some deep analysis on my part. This has been the basic power equation since the founding, and to not feed that support to the president of your party, is a recipe for failure. Whatever else you might accomplish as activists, you throw away the opportunity of the moment to get the things you want passed into law. And why gratuitous bashing this president for every slight or imagined slight or betrayal, is not acting for success.

  60. 60
    Full Metal Wingnut says:

    @Keith G: That could be his greatest legacy, even bigger than Obamacare. After leaving office, really solidifying the roots of democratic organizing and whatnot.

  61. 61
    Keith G says:

    @Full Metal Wingnut: Obamacare is very important.

    And there are so many other issues that need to be dealt with. Some Obama may be able to get started on before he leaves, but unless he has supernatural powers, many things will be left undone. We are a society with more than a few looming problems.

    Presidential leadership (even when it is great) it not enough. Many of the important issues in our society really aren’t formally in the president’s portfolio, but he can influence the process (like drawing district maps). The other side has moneyed interests that we can not match. I think we have better people, smarter people, more idealistic people. They are a resource more powerful than the Koch bros. But they aren’t a resource at all if they are not led.

    Let’s find a way to utilize them more than every four years. Human’s live to be led. It’s how we have survived – communal action for an important cause.

  62. 62
    redshirt says:

    I would of course totally vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee in 16, but then I’ll be voting for whomever the Dem is, regardless. The question is: Will I be excited for the nominee? Will the rest of America?

    I think yes with Hillary, but only a to a degree. I was reluctantly on the Hillary boat in early 2007 but the more I saw Obama, the better he got till I switched over in December, and get locked in with Iowa. I grew to loathe Hillary’s tactics as the campaign progressed, and I came to detest Puma’s. But she’s done a good turn as SOS and I feel much more positive towards her, but still…

    As for Republicans deferring to her/being nice, I chock this up to another way of undercutting Obama. She should have been the Dem President – the White President, is what the dog whistle says. We’ll be nice to her to show “that one” how much we hate him.

    By the way, sudden Republican love of Hillary once Obama got the Dem nom in 08 gave us – directly – Sarah Palin.

  63. 63
    Ron says:

    Am I the only democrat that isn’t just falling over myself to try to get on the Clinton 2016 bandwagon? Not that she’d be a bad president, she’d be good. But she isn’t my first choice.

  64. 64
    Keith G says:

    @Ron: Well she is a talented and accomplished politician/statesperson. She’s developed into one of the best we have.

    Ideally the Dems could nominate a dynamic 45-55 y.o. who has mad talent at leadership and can connect with large 18-30 crowd and keep them voting liberally (and has more than the necessary intelligence).

    But I do not see that person on our horizon. Though I respect her, I kinda have the feeling we will be hooked up with her whether its a good thing or not. We need new blood to find better ways to deal with our problems.

  65. 65
    redshirt says:

    I think Hillary would get a good percentage of the youth vote in 16. Similar to Obama really – why not? Electing the first woman President is awesome and she’ll have learned Obama campaign tactics. People will be fired up. I don’t know any other Democrats who would fire the country up.

    I think the Presidency is hers if she wants it. Will she want it, at that age? She’ll be getting up there, and it is THE most stressful position in the whole entire world. Not easy.

    I bet she does, but won’t be shocked if she don’t.

  66. 66
    Keith G says:

    @redshirt:

    why not?

    I like her too much to argue against her. It’s just a feeling I have.

    One can be great at a lot of things and still not be able to catch the lighting in a jar and 1) become Prez, or 2) if elected be really good/lucky at it.

    Remember, eight years ago this time we all thought that there was no way HRC would not be our next nominee and win the Presidency.

  67. 67
    redshirt says:

    @Keith G: Yeah true but that’s because she had the bad luck to go up against Obama, who is awesome in a “ONCE IN A GENERATION” kinda way. I think she finally realized it too, and that’s why she’s been an awesome SoS, and why I’ll fully support her in 16 if she chooses to run. I hope she does, unless someone else who’s unknown but totally awesome comes along.

  68. 68
    Dave says:

    Fuuuuuuck Hillary Clinton. Do not care.

  69. 69
    Paul in KY says:

    @flukebucket: I think it was 14. Didn’t try the ‘YES’ option. You are more adventerous than I.

  70. 70
    Paul in KY says:

    @Full Metal Wingnut: Whomever our nominee is, the President is going to have to help them out, campaign for them, etc.

    It is vital that a Democrat win in 2016. Remember all the good stuff from 8 years of Pres. Clinton that was rolled back by Darth Cheney?

    That same thing could happen to Pres. Obama’s 8 years.

Comments are closed.