Clinton Fatigue, 2016 Edition

[Trigger Warning: Politico link, I will inevitably be called a misogynist for writing this]

I understand it is not her fault, but I would do anything to not see Hillary run in 2016. If it turns out she is the best candidate and has the best chance to keep the White House out of Republican hands, I will crawl over glass to vote for her and do everything in my power to get her elected.

But I just don’t know if I can take it anymore. She was such an awful candidate in 2008 and continuously surrounds herself with questionable people, and fuck it. Let’s be honest. I quit listening to Blues Traveler around the same time I quit drinking jaegermeister, and I just want all three of them to go away. I’ve had enough:

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.

And I have no doubt this is all made up and bullshit and think Hilary has nothing to fear, and the Politico is probably reporting as truth something a Republican operative thought he overhead from a low level aide at the cigar bar while on someone’s expense account. But this is the kind of mania that the Clinton’s inspire, and again, it is not their fault. But sweet jeebus, STILL?

I know this is what the GOP wants, but I can not do another round of Vince Foster or Benghazi or whatever. I just can’t. And the whole dynastic thing drives me crazy. I just can’t take any more Bush or Clinton candidates. People in America (well, those who pay attention) were shocked with the notion of the PRI holding power in Mexico for 71 years, but how many decades have we had a Nixon, Bush, Clinton, or Dole in the running? It’s just weird.

And yes, I remember that Hillary embodied the hopes of feminists everywhere, but is she really the only female Democrat out there who can win? What about Gillibrand? Does it have to be Hillary?

And speaking of Benghazi, I think Pelosi screwed up by appointing five accomplished and serious people to the panel. By doing so, it implies you are taking this bullshit seriously. If I were Speaker Pelosi, I would have appointed one person, and one person only. Alan Grayson. And then I would give him instructions to impede at every opportunity, disrupt as loudly and obnoxiously and to grandstand and make snide remarks, and on the occasions he was allowed to speak he was to talk only about Beirut and Reagan. Hell, if he had twenty minutes to speak, I’d be cool with him just saying “241 dead Reagan cut and run accountability” over and over and over again.

But that is just me.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






184 replies
  1. 1
    joel hanes says:

    Alan Grayson

    He was on the short list.

    But Steney fucking Hoyer got a case of the prospective vapors, fearing no doubt that Grayson might say something true and perceptive, and complained to Pelosi to get Grayson scratched.

  2. 2
    Brian R. says:

    I quit listening to Blues Traveler around the same time I quit drinking jaegermeister, and I just want all three of them to go away.

    Goddammit, that might be the best line you’ve ever written.

  3. 3
    TG Chicago says:

    Trigger Warning: Politico link, I will inevitably be called a misogynist for writing this

    And Cliven Bundy was called a racist for what he said. Weird, ain’t it?

  4. 4
    cckids says:

    I share your trepidation about Hillary, though I think she’d make a decent President. Also, we all know that ANY Democrat will get craploads of shit about any & everything. But . . . I’m tired of the Clintons. Surely as Democrats we have other candidates, female & otherwise.

    Also, early to go OT, but I know we have some Juicers in the NYC area, and this came across my Facebook feed. A woman surrendered her deployed military boyfriend’s dog to Animal Control because, after agreeing to care for the dog, she decided she “doesn’t have the time”. Anybody available to help?

  5. 5
    askew says:

    So, once again the Clintons make it all about them. Maybe instead of asking Dems time to defend her, she could spend the time from now until November barnstorming to try to raise money and GOTV for the midterms. Oh, wait. The Clintons don’t do anything unless it helps them and they are too busy giving speeches to Wall Street for money.

    I am so sick of them getting more news coverage on a nightly basis than the Obama administration which is actively working to improve our lives.

    Edited to add: Grayson is an idiot and the last thing we need to do is highlight our crazies. Cummings is a much better representative because he’s liberal and knows what he is talking about. What is it with the netroots and loving do-nothing white guys who make a lot of noise and claim to be progressives (see Grayson, Kucinich, Weiner, etc.) while ignoring actual progressives who have working diligently for years to move the country forward?

  6. 6
    Brian R. says:

    @joel hanes:

    Eh, I was glad to see Grayson wasn’t put on it. He’s a bit of a self-promoter and a bit too hard edged for what the Democrats need in front of the cameras.

    Elijah Cummings has just spent the last year making Darrell Issa look like the cheap used car salesman he really is, and he’s going to lay waste to these fuckers when they bring their weak shit again.

  7. 7
    TG Chicago says:

    I know this is what the GOP wants, but I can not do another round of Vince Foster or Benghazi or whatever. I just can’t.

    Tough titty. Doesn’t matter who the Dems nominate. You’ll still get a version of it. Swift boats? Birth certificates? It’s not like they reserve those tactics for Clintons.

  8. 8
    rikyrah says:

    @askew:
    Amen to all you wrote.

  9. 9
    cckids says:

    @Brian R.:

    Elijah Cummings has just spent the last year making Darrell Issa look like the cheap used car salesman he really is, and he’s going to lay waste to these fuckers when they bring their weak shit again.

    This. Rep. Cummings said earlier that someone needs to be there to defend the truth. While I think this committee is a ridiculous waste of time, I agree wholeheartedly.

  10. 10
    Violet says:

    @Brian R.: Yeah, I’m really glad Cummings is on it. He’s strong and has that air of moral authority that one has only if one has earned it.

  11. 11
    askew says:

    @TG Chicago:

    But, it is a disappointment after an era with a squeaky clean President who doesn’t make dumb mistakes to have to deal with the Clintons and their stupidity and their sliminess. A lot of what happened in the 1990s started because of their shady dealings or behavior or the behavior of the slime buckets they surround themselves with.

  12. 12
    John O says:

    This is the reason I started reading this blog. If it comes down to a Bush-Clinton race, my third party vote is virtually assured living in IL where HRC will win anyway.

    And Grayson should have been the only Dem on the Benghazi committee.

    Shorter: What JC said.

  13. 13
    rikyrah says:

    Have to agree with those who like Cummings on the Committee. He has been dealing with that criminal Issa. I trust him.

  14. 14
    amk says:

    Shorter clintons – we will do jacksquat for you all in 2014 but you better do all for hills 2016.

    Dems need to wake the fuck up.

  15. 15

    @askew: RE: Grayson If you are going to have a circus, you need a clown. I take none of the Benghazi bullshit seriously other than the tragic death of a couple of good Americans. The rest has just been clown shoes.

    You are right though, that if you are going to take this seriously, Pelosi has a top notch team in place. And, in reality, she is right, because even though this is all nonsense, the village will take it seriously, so we better have our A game.

    Although I still like the idea of Grayson just saying “REAGAN BEIRUT 241 DEAD CUT AND RUN” for all his speaking time.

  16. 16
    Cacti says:

    @joel hanes:

    But Steney fucking Hoyer got a case of the prospective vapors, fearing no doubt that Grayson might say something true and perceptive

    Or more likely, Grayson is a narcissistic blowhard who can’t be trusted not to step on his own dick.

    DU(mb) is that way if you’re looking for an Alan Grayson mourning thread.

  17. 17
    Punchy says:

    I think it comes down math. What’s better: a 75% chance a boring centrist Hillary wins if nominated, or a 50% chance with a more liberal, more progressive candidate? Personally, knowing the ages of our SCOTUS justices, I’ll take the more sure thing (HillClin) if only to ensure we don’t allow a Repub to appoint 3 more reactionaries to SCOTUS and completely fuck us for generations to come….

  18. 18
    xenos says:

    Maybe Clinton is just being menschy, standing out and accepting all the abuse, acting as a stalking horse so someone smart and good like the senator from NY or the governor from Maryland can get their organisation up and running outside the attention of the GOP media complex.

    Naah. I don’t believe it either. But it would be nice.

  19. 19
    Ruckus says:

    John, I agree with everything you said but I have a couple of small differences. I stopped drinking jaegermeister after the first one and stopped listening to Blues Traveler about 15 min after the first time hearing them.
    I didn’t vote for President Obama because Hillary Clinton is a woman or because I had(have) a case of Clinton fatigue. I voted for President Obama because I thought he would be the better candidate. Had she been the nominee, I would have voted for her. If she becomes the nominee I will vote for her. Depending on who, if anyone else runs, will depend on who I vote for in the primary. She is not my first choice. She may be my only choice because she will be light years ahead of any republican. What I’d really like to see is an actual liberal instead of a bleeding heart centrist. But then I like ponies too.

  20. 20
    amk says:

    @askew:

    What is it with the netroots and loving do-nothing white guys who make a lot of noise and claim to be progressives (see Grayson, Kucinich, Weiner, etc.) while ignoring actual progressives who have working diligently for years to move the country forward?

    Yup. While the gop crazies always try to forward their agendas and sometimes succeed at that, these clowns are good enough only for the circus shows. Between three of them, how many progressive bills they managed to float, let alone steer among the congress critters? Snark is all they got.

  21. 21
    scav says:

    @Violet: There are at least two solid hitters on the team and I’m not the best at paying proper attention to committeework. Not going with overt showboats only helps emphacize Team Hyperbolic Drama to my dull mind. A Nice quiet yet public kneecapping would fulfill my political RDA.

  22. 22
    TG Chicago says:

    @askew: Fair point. I’m just saying that Cole is dreaming if he thinks there’s any possible scenario in which the Republicans run solely on issues and accomplishments.

  23. 23
    Cacti says:

    @amk:

    Shorter clintons – we will do jacksquat for you all in 2014 but you better do all for hills 2016.

    This.

    When the Clinton cronies got their hands on the DNC, all we did was lose at the legislative level for the next decade.

    Put Hillary in office, and all of the oxygen in the party apparatus will be sucked up from propping up Bill and Hill again.

  24. 24
    JGabriel says:

    John Cole @ Top:

    But this is the kind of mania that the Clinton’s inspire, and again, it is not their fault. But sweet jeebus, STILL?

    It’s what Republicans and Conservatives do – get their mania on for Democratic presidents and aspirants.

    They did, and still do, the same to Obama, to Kerry, to Howard Dean, to Al Gore, to Jimmy Carter, and to Ted Kennedy – who’s not even alive anymore. The only reason Republicans don’t get as maniacal about Walter Mondale is because he lost every state but Minnesota. Also: they probably forgot Mondale’s name.

    And they’ll get just as maniacal about the next Democratic nominee and/or president whoever it is – whether it’s Hillary Clinton or someone else.

    I’m not super-thrilled with the prospect of President H. Clinton, either. I think she’s too much insider at this point. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is probably the most qualified person in the country for the job, although there’s some merit to the argument that judgement counts more than qualifications in the Presidency.

    That said, if Hillary’s the nominee, I’ll vote for her. She’ll be light years better than anyone the wingnuts come up with. But I’m not going to worry about the craziness she inspires in Conservatives, because, frankly, they will go just as enragingly bonkers on whoever we nominate. Outraged bonkers shit-spouting is their default setting. It will be no better and no worse with whomever we nominate.

    Conservatives don’t modulate the crazy – it’s turned up to 11 all the way.

  25. 25
    TG Chicago says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole: Although I still like the idea of Grayson just saying “REAGAN BEIRUT 241 DEAD CUT AND RUN” for all his speaking time.

    Actually, this brings up an interesting point: Has anyone gone through the Sunday morning gabfest transcripts the week of various attacks during Republican administrations?

  26. 26
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    This. Rep. Cummings said earlier that someone needs to be there to defend the truth. While I think this committee is a ridiculous waste of time, I agree wholeheartedly.

    I agree. A couple of lawyers here quoted some professional maxim about never missing the chance to argue your case, and I agree. I think boycotting would have been a mistake, as would the Grayson ploy.

    Lindsey Graham (insert standard set of jokes here) says this is all about American security and getting the American people the truth, yesterday made some quip bout Condi PDB Smoking Mushroom Rice should be president. (The Closet Caucus? The Sixty Year Old Virgins’ wing of the GOP? Sorry, couldn’t resist) For all I know it was a throw away joke, but it still says a lot about him and Bengahzi, and when Obama is negotiating the contract for his memoirs, Graham will be on the Sunday Gasbag Shows opining about President Hillary’s foreign policy team.

  27. 27
    Ruckus says:

    @askew:
    I talked about emotions, you put the substance behind them.
    Shorter, what askew said.

  28. 28
    Mnemosyne says:

    Honestly, I’m not that worried about an HRC candidacy, because I don’t really think it will happen. Either she won’t run in the primaries (wanting to keep her status as kingmaker) or she’ll run and lose the primary again.

    If by some weird chance she ended up the candidate, I’d vote for her but, really, what are the odds?

  29. 29
    Violet says:

    Is one of the people on the committee going to ask lots of questions about that anti-Muslim film that sparked the riots? Like who funded it, where did that money come from, etc. That would be most interesting.

  30. 30
    coin operated says:

    @Brian R.:

    Elijah Cummings has just spent the last year making Darrell Issa look like the cheap used car salesman he really is, and he’s going to lay waste to these fuckers when they bring their weak shit again.

    Seconded. Warren made Gowdy look like an idiot during the CFPB hearings. Cummings had to deal with Issa and should be well versed and ready to make Gowdy look like a fool all over again.

    Edited to add…I, too, have Clinton fatigue but will low crawl through a mix of broken glass and salt water to vote for her if she’s the nominee. I’d love to see Warren run, but we *really* need her where she is right now.

  31. 31
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @TG Chicago: we don’t have to go back to Reagan. Bob Cesca has a list of “13 Benghazis” under Bush II that I (who marinate in this stuff) only heard about when I tuned in to Stephanie Miller to listen to Charlie Pierce the other day.

  32. 32
    Cacti says:

    @askew:

    What is it with the netroots and loving do-nothing white guys who make a lot of noise and claim to be progressives (see Grayson, Kucinich, Weiner, etc.) while ignoring actual progressives who have working diligently for years to move the country forward?

    Where Teddy Roosevelt said “speak softly, carry a big stick, and you will go far”…

    The motto of the netroots seems to be “shout loudly and flail empty hands, accomplishing nothing”.

  33. 33
    angelfoot says:

    Can Pelosi appoint anyone? Do they have to be from congress? Because if Colbert isn’t available I’m thinking Gilbert Gottfried could use the work.

  34. 34
    Narcissus says:

    I don’t mind the Clintons at all, it’s the DLC third-way operators that surround them that I don’t like. One of the greatest things about the last six years has been Harold Ford relegated to Morning Joe.

  35. 35
    CaseyL says:

    I don’t know how the Clintons could help in ’14, precisely because they bring out the crazy in the Right.

    The candidates who will most need help will need help because they’re running in districts/states that are purple at best. A Clinton campaigning for someone like that is more likely to energize the opposition than energize Democratic voters.

    That won’t be as much of an issue in ’16, when turnout is better and odds favor the Democrats in any case. But I’m really not sure Bill and Hillary being active in this year’s elections would be the best use of resources.

    Now, fundraising behind the scenes – asking the big donors to pony up – that would be helpful.

  36. 36
    max says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole: Grayson If you are going to have a circus, you need a clown. I take none of the Benghazi bullshit seriously other than the tragic death of a couple of good Americans. The rest has just been clown shoes.

    Yes, and if no Democrats had been involved, it would have looked like the 2012 R primary campaign.

    And, in reality, she is right, because even though this is all nonsense, the village will take it seriously, so we better have our A game.

    Feh.

    WASHINGTON — Representative Nancy Pelosi of California on Wednesday appointed a full slate of senior House Democrats to a special committee investigating the 2012 attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, surprising some in her party by giving legitimacy to an inquiry many had dismissed as a political stunt.

    The NYT is IN, baby. And so is every other newspaper. It must be serious, the D’s sent people.

    Although I still like the idea of Grayson just saying “REAGAN BEIRUT 241 DEAD CUT AND RUN” for all his speaking time.

    Oh, that’s nice, but he can do that from the floor.

    Meantime:

    Mr. Gowdy said he was pleased that Ms. Pelosi had chosen lawmakers with real heft.

    Oh, of course. He got what he wanted – he wanted the D’s to commit.

    The Republican members, by contrast, largely lack foreign policy and military credentials, although with Mr. Gowdy and Representative Susan W. Brooks of Indiana, they have prosecutorial experience.

    Perhaps because the R’s view it only as a vehicle to drum up the R base?

    Mr. Gowdy said Mr. Cummings had met with him this week to seek assurances that the proceedings would go forward without spectacle. Much of the work will be done through depositions, not open committee hearings, although there will be some.

    He will TOTES be keeping that promise, you betcha. And he will totally only schedule hearings during August. And September. And October. No spectacles will be involved. Nope.

    I did like the part I saw in TPM (I think), where the anonymous Dem said they committed because the White House didn’t want to get blindsided (by what?). Obama, as he keeps reminding us, is never running again. The Dem caucus is running right now. So we totally want the focus on the White House because something.

    And yes, I remember that Hillary embodied the hopes of feminists everywhere, but is she really the only female Democrat out there who can win? What about Gillibrand? Does it have to be Hillary?

    Your moderate rich people want to fund her because she’ll suck up to Wall Street. No other woman can come close to taking her on that, and so she’ll get the white lady vote. That’s that.

    The real problem is not 2016, but 2020. After 12 years of Dems treading water and telling everyone it’ll get better real soon now they’re not going to have a real appealing message.

    max
    [‘If she throws in a couple of wars, well.’]

  37. 37
    TooManyJens says:

    I was around here when the tag “I Can No Longer Rationally Discuss the Clinton Campaign” came into being, and I really hope you don’t have occasion to resurrect it.

    Clinton seemed to pull herself together after going completely batshit in the 2008 primary (I mean, really, after “Obama might get killed like RFK!” she had nowhere to go but up), but I don’t know. I don’t want to go through that again. I don’t want to relive the 90s Third Way bullshit either. The Dems are finally taking baby steps toward moving on from that, talking about things like economic justice, and the last thing we need is to wipe out that fragile progress.

    @askew:

    What is it with the netroots and loving do-nothing white guys who make a lot of noise and claim to be progressives (see Grayson, Kucinich, Weiner, etc.) while ignoring actual progressives who have working diligently for years to move the country forward?

    A-fucking-men.

  38. 38
    MC Carpenter says:

    @TG Chicago: Say Amen! What John says is why I held back from Hillary last time. This experience with Obama has convinced me that they won’t accept ANY Democrat’s right to govern.

  39. 39
    feebog says:

    Wherein our slightly wacked out host buys in to yet another bad idea from the left wing fringe:

    If I were Speaker Pelosi, I would have appointed one person, and one person only. Alan Grayson. And then I would give him instructions to impede at every opportunity, disrupt as loudly and obnoxiously and to grandstand and make snide remarks, and on the occasions he was allowed to speak he was to talk only about Beirut and Reagan.

    I guess it’s a good thing that Nancy Pelosi is the Minority Leader instead of some blogger from West Virginia. Look, I like Alan Grayson just fine, he is combative, confrontational and irritates the hell out of the Right. But not a good fit for this committee. Yes we all know it is a load of bullshit, and that the entire idea is to take a shot at Hillary Clinton. Which is why we need to take it seriously, with some serious, credible Democrats on the Committee. Unlike Mnemosyne, I think she will be the Democratic candidate, and obviously so do most Republicans. Pelosi made the right decision here, put some good solid Dems who will be well prepared to counter attack at every opportunity.

    As far as the Clinton’s pushing back, don’t see anything wrong with it. Politics ain’t beanbag.

  40. 40
    Forked Tongue says:

    I gotta say that of all the arguments against Hilary, the one about dynasties is the one that moves me least. It wasn’t by my choice that the Republicans nominated two Bushes or that the people in their wisdom elected them (well, twice anyway). And if there hadn’t been two Bush presidents, nobody would say that two Clinton presidents were part of a dangerous trend. I very well might prefer someone other than Hilary, but I’m not going to let the ass-stupid decision to install two generations of Bushes in the WH dissuade me from voting for who I want.

  41. 41
    JGabriel says:

    @Punchy:

    What’s better: a 75% chance a boring centrist Hillary wins if nominated, or a 50% chance with a more liberal, more progressive candidate?

    Barring scandal, I think it’s going to be a decade or two (maybe more) before the GOP can win a Presidential race again. They’ve screwed themselves with respect to the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the women’s vote, the LBGT vote, the Jewish vote, the Asian vote, and the under 40 vote.

    Pretty much the only non-white male constituency I can think of whose majority vote the Republicans haven’t eliminated for the GOP by their hateful rhetoric are the Cubans. And even the descendants of Castro’s refugees are not a sure thing for the GOP anymore.

    Unless the Democrats screw it up, and we are admittedly really good at screwing ourselves, it’s going to take a while for the GOP to change the accurate perceptions people have of them as xenophobic assholes with a hard-on for the rich and the brutal. And as of now, Republicans still aren’t even trying to change the public’s perceptions of them.

    Until that happens, Conservatives and Republicans are screwed by demographics and their own rhetoric as far as winning the Presidency goes.

  42. 42
    TG Chicago says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: If anybody has access to Lexis Nexis, they should check out the transcripts of Sunday shows the week of those attacks.

  43. 43
    The Dangerman says:

    @Punchy:

    …or a 50% chance with a more liberal, more progressive candidate?

    I can’t think of a Republican that can get nominated that makes it a 50/50 split. Bush? Hell, no. Christie? Maybe, if he isn’t in jail. After those two, it’s all clown car characters.

    The Clinton’s need to go away. They had their time and their chance.

  44. 44
    cckids says:

    @max:

    The NYT is IN, baby. And so is every other newspaper. It must be serious, the D’s sent people.

    Do you honestly believe that eventheliberal NYT would have dismissed the committee if Pelosi had decided to skip naming D’s to it? I can guarantee that they’d have written something along the lines of “Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat caucus are showing their lack of concern for the new Benghazi disclosures by giving a pass to the House’s select committee”

    Skipping this was a lose-lose. Having members with heft & intelligence pointing out the truth and the absurdity of the Republicans chasing this car can only help. The R’s are going to do what they’re going to do. Gotta be there to fight back.

  45. 45
    Violet says:

    @askew:

    But, it is a disappointment after an era with a squeaky clean President who doesn’t make dumb mistakes to have to deal with the Clintons and their stupidity and their sliminess. A lot of what happened in the 1990s started because of their shady dealings or behavior or the behavior of the slime buckets they surround themselves with.

    Yeah, this. Hillary in 2008 didn’t do much to dissuade me from the view that the Clintons surround themselves with slimy people who make dumb mistakes. Maybe she’s changed but I’m not seeing signs of it at the moment. Maybe it’s too early.

    I’ve appreciated the No Drama Obama White House. Sure he’s not perfect but I can’t remember a White House with less drama. It’s incredibly refreshing. I wish he could run for a third term.

  46. 46
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne: Lately, you and I have not agreed about a lot, but this is my view exactly.

  47. 47
    askew says:

    @Cacti:

    The motto of the netroots seems to be “shout loudly and flail empty hands, accomplishing nothing”.

    Bwah!

    I am going to pretend all the way up until the Iowa caucuses that Hillary isn’t running. That will keep my blood pressure low and allow me to keep up with politics. I just can’t anymore with the Clintons.

  48. 48
    TG Chicago says:

    As far as the Benghazi Fugazi Paparazzi goes, I think Pelosi made the right call. The media wouldn’t have been kind if they did the Grayson-only stunt.

    And a boycott would just set a terrible precedent. The next time the Dems wanted to investigate something about the GOP, what do you think they’d do? They’d boycott every time. And if the Ds were the first to do it, the media would act as if it was legitimate for the GOP to do it regardless of the circumstances.

  49. 49
    Fair Economist says:

    I know this is what the GOP wants, but I can not do another round of Vince Foster or Benghazi or whatever.

    Fortunately, they’ve been *much* more reasonable with our current non-Clinton president. If we nominate somebody besides Clinton I’m sure we can expect similar behavior to what we’ve had with Obama. Won’t that be fun?

    The Bushes are a dynasty. They’ve had a Senator, 2 Presidents, and 2 Governors (of large states, even) over 3 generations.

    The Clintons are *not* a dynasty, not even remotely, and won’t be even if Hillary serves two terms. When Chelsea’s unborn child succeeds her as Senator from Pennsylvania or whatever, *then* we can talk about the the Clinton dynasty. Not before. Call me in 40 years.

  50. 50
    Citizen Alan says:

    I will vote for Hillary if she wins the Dem primary, but it’s frustrating for a Bernie Sanders supporter to know that he’s eventually going to pull the lever for a former Goldwater Girl whose husband governed as a pro-choice Republican. That said, I give her props for saying “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” fifteen years before most people knew who the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson and the rest of the oligarchs were. And I’m pretty confident she won’t waste the first two years of her first term “reaching across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship” that never comes.

  51. 51
    TooManyJens says:

    @TG Chicago:

    The next time the Dems wanted to investigate something about the GOP, what do you think they’d do? They’d boycott every time. And if the Ds were the first to do it, the media would act as if it was legitimate for the GOP to do it regardless of the circumstances.

    Fixed that for you.

  52. 52

    @feebog:

    Wherein our slightly wacked out host buys in to yet another bad idea from the left wing fringe

    This has nothing to do with the fringe, it has everything to do with my contempt for the bullshit that has been the Benghazi Boogaloo since day one. It’s not that I think Grayson would win any arguments or do anything worthwhile, but he would be an entertaining court jester for a proceeding about as just and properly conceived as Tyrion Lannister’s trial. Alan Grayson is the “dignity” and just the right kind of asshole this kind of event deserves, were we to live in a sane world.

  53. 53
    Violet says:

    People who think she’s not going to run–why do you think that? Seems like all the signs are pointing that she is going to run.

  54. 54
    TooManyJens says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole: If they were going to use trial by combat for the Benghazi hearings, I’d watch.

  55. 55

    After the 2014 midterms are over, maybe I’ll start thinking about the 2016 election as anything other than a meaningless intellectual exercise. Or maybe I’ll wait another year, when it will still be too early to say Hillary is the clear Democratic candidate.

  56. 56
    amk says:

    @feebog:

    Politics ain’t beanbag.

    Then why do the clintons want the dems as their own personal beanbags?

    Especially, when they don’t give a fuck about getting them elected in 2014.

  57. 57
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Violet: I used to say I’d be surprised but not shocked if she eventually didn’t run, and I still think it’s a possibility, if a shrinking one. There’s really not less that she can do and still leave the option open, if that makes sense. She was already ambivalent about running in ’08, according to a couple things I read back then, and I doubt she’s since developed the fire in the belly that Bill has for himself (redemption, vindication, he’s owed her nomination and election in his mind). Somebody made the point on the Tweety show the other day– there hasn’t been a leaked story that she’s said to Chelsea or Bill or her best friend that she’s in. If Bubba– or Ed Rendell or Carville or any of the other hardcore Bubba courtiers– could leak that, he would.

  58. 58
    TG Chicago says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    And I’m pretty confident she won’t waste the first two years of her first term “reaching across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship” that never comes.

    I completely see your point, but what is the next Dem president supposed to do? Unless they get supermajorities in both houses, the GOP will obstruct everything just as they’ve done to Obama. It has been a successful strategy for them, so why would they stop?

    Maybe a Dem could get somewhere after the redistricting in 2020 (which is a presidential election year, so Dem turnout should be better), but I don’t see a path to any success before then.

  59. 59
    Amir Khalid says:

    I agree with the consensus here: better President Hillary Clinton than any Republican now in sight. And I don’t think she’s too stupid to take notes from Obama’s generally capable presidency. But if Hillary turns out to be the Democratic nominee in 2016, it will have done her chances no good that people on her party’s side were grumbling beforehand about “dynasty”, proclaiming their reluctance to support her, and openly wishing for some other — any other — candidate.

  60. 60
    SatanicPanic says:

    I’m reading Foner right now and at one point he says something along the lines of “Most Americans presidents have been mediocre”- which I agree with. We’ll survive another one. Not every president is gonna be Barack Obama or LBJ.

  61. 61
    🌷 Martin says:

    Too early to think about. The world will look different by 2016. I’m just tuning out any 2016 speculation.

  62. 62
    SatanicPanic says:

    And everyone ranting about dynasties can suck it- John Quincy Adams was a decent president and a more than decent white man for his time. Just because someone’s from the same family shouldn’t disqualify them.

    ETA- Prediction: “dynasty” will be the “drones” of 2016.

  63. 63
    scav says:

    @Amir Khalid: Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure the superficial gloss of being the singular ideal wished for choice of all is worth that much, practically speaking. Flip side of that is accusations of a shallow bench, which is already being tossed. I’ll worry about any of this much closer in, and really only to the degree where I can influence it, which isn’t much.

  64. 64
    Comrade Colette Collaboratrice says:

    I know this is what the GOP wants, but I can not do another round of Vince Foster or Benghazi or whatever. I just can’t.

    A close friend is the widow of one of the people who is frequently listed in those idiotic, vicious conspiracist e-mails that circulate about the “Clinton murders” – not Vince Foster, someone much more obscure, but with a name distinctive enough that she’s easily tracked down. After all these years, she still routinely gets e-mails and occasionally gets phone calls from the fucking sociopathic lunatics who subscribe to these fruit-loop theories, when their tin-foil hats spring a leak and the voices broadcasting from Mars tell them that they will be the ones to finally, at last, badger her (or her teenaged kids) into revealing what supersecret dirt her late husband had on the Clintons that made them have to kill him.* They will never stop. They have no shame, no rationality, no self-consciousness to force them to examine their own actions. They’re just army ants. There are plenty of good reasons to doubt the desirability of a Hillary campaign, but the noise made by this segment of her opposition is about as meaningful as a leaf-blower.

    *It shouldn’t need saying, but her husband’s unfortunate death was absolutely unrelated to the Clintons and he never met them, worked for them, opposed them, or otherwise had any nexus with them. Crazy people is crazy.

  65. 65
    Hill Dweller says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    And I’m pretty confident she won’t waste the first two years of her first term “reaching across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship” that never comes.

    Don’t be so sure. The Clinton’s tried shoving their policies down the congress’ throat in their first two years, and came within a hair of a failed presidency. Her husband spent the next 6 years basically giving away shit even the Republicans weren’t asking for. If not for a self-destructive attention whore like Gingrich coming along, there’s no telling how much damage he’d have wrought.

    They’ll be plenty of hand holding after the ‘divisive Obama years’, and lots of speeches urging unity. We’ll look back at Obama as an progressive hero once the Cinton’s are done paying back the plutocrats for all that global initiative money. I’m already seeing way too much talk about Bubba promising corporate America help with reducing their tax burden.

  66. 66
    mdblanche says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole:

    Alan Grayson is the “dignity” and just the right kind of asshole this kind of event deserves, were we to live in a sane world.

    I think I’ve spotted the flaw in your logic.

  67. 67
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Hill Dweller: To say nothing of the fact that Republicans will probably still have the House and at least some kind of filibuster in the Senate– let’s hope that’s all they have.

    I’m still working on the implication that Obama’s first two years were “wasted”, but I could write the response– Banksters stimulus too small Krugman Bully pulpit public option we had sixty votes.

  68. 68
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    The Clintons are Democrats solely because there were already too many people just like them in the Republican party at the time.

  69. 69
    Violet says:

    @Amir Khalid: I don’t think that matters. People thought the 2008 fight between Obama and Hillary would doom the Democrats. It didn’t. There’s plenty of intra-party grumbling and fighting early on. What matters is can the party come together for the general. History shows they can.

  70. 70
    Citizen_X says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    everyone ranting about dynasties can suck it- John Quincy Adams was a decent president and a more than decent white man for his time.

    Couple o’ guys from the Roosevelt family, too.

  71. 71
    Citizen_X says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole:

    a proceeding about as just and properly conceived as Tyrion Lannister’s trial.

    And how was that going, right up until Oberyn (sp?) dropped in his lap?

  72. 72
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Citizen_X: Nice catch, I don’t tend to think of them because they’re so different

  73. 73
    Suzanne says:

    @Punchy: Word to everything you just said.

    I think she’d be a solid President, not transformative, but on the high side of average. That is good enough for me, if we can avoid some mouthbreather who wants to take my right to choose and to dismantle the safety net. I have never had the luxury of getting everything I want and I don’t expect that to start anytime soon.

  74. 74
    mike with a mic says:

    Look there are multiple reasons not to like or want Hilary Clinton. However possible nominee will have that problem with at least one faction of the Democratic party. Furthermore “Republicans will get MOAR crazy” is not a valid issue. That will happen no matter who we nominate

    So if you accept that any option would be horrible to part of the party, and the Republicans will always go MOAR crazy, you’re left with the perfect versus the sure thing. You either give up and say shit sucks and go for the Hail Marry for all the money, or you go with the easy win and pocket some small change and try to repeat as quick as possible. I think the latter is the best strategy, and by all means Hillary is the easiest win here, even if she doesn’t move the needle that much.

    On the other hand… The Democrats bagging the first African American President, and the first Female President, after already having the first Catholic President, the first Female Vice President nominee, and the first Jewish Vice President nominee is something. It keeps our side on the record of shattering these barriers and being the forward moving party. I know that’s cynical as fuck, but cynical often wins. If the Republicans want to play on “white, christian, straight, angry” for quick points, why not just scoop up everything else while they spend all their time over there?

    Obama won’t matter in 8 years. It will be just like Bill Clinton, everyone will praise him and the few who don’t will just look nuts. Let them rack up a similar tantrum vs the first female president. Their going to fuck this up and alienate even more people.

    So screw it, Clinton it is!

  75. 75
    Anoniminous says:

    According to the Christian Science Monitor the other possible candidates are:

    1. Joe Biden
    2. Andrew Cuomo (gag)
    3. Martin O’Malley
    4. Mark Warner (say what?)
    5. Elizabeth Warren (not gonna happen)
    6. Kirsten Gillibrand
    7. Amy Klobuchar

    Since you can’t beat somebody with nobody, and looking at the list, Senator Klobuchar looks interesting but I can’t find any evidence she is making moves. O’Malley is definitely testing the waters. Gillibrand has said she isn’t running but if Clinton doesn’t, who knows.

    The one I can’t figure out is Vice President Biden; he could stand up against Hillary nationally and definitely has the inside track for getting the OFA on his side. He’ll be 72 in ’16 so his age is an issue. Generally speaking, the Vice Presidency isn’t a good springboard to the Presidency. AFAIK, he hasn’t ruled it out and it is impossible to tell if he is making some moves.

  76. 76
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    “Tiger Beat on the Potomac” quite simply needs to be erased from reality, and everyone involved in it resettled to Pluto.

  77. 77
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    And everyone ranting about dynasties can suck it- John Quincy Adams was a decent president and a more than decent white man for his time…

    The Adams’ were both outstanding presidents. Unfortunately, Bill “The best Republican president ever” Clinton is no John Adams and the triangulating Hillary is incapable of the non-interventionist foreign policy that was the hallmark of J. Q. Adams’ administration.

  78. 78
    mike with a mic says:

    @Anoniminous:

    Warner will keep moving VA blue that’s why. The “blue” areas in VA are the top two, and one of the top 5 income areas in the entire US with 1% populations as common as NYC. It’s socially blue and believes in government, because all those blue workers here are security cleared defense and intelligence types, but it’s not progressive by any stretch of the imagination. It’s as establishment as you can get.

    Warner is a safe establishment pick from here that will help drive up margins and convince blue VA that the Democratic party is moving our way and not that Sanders Warren way. Hence why he remains an option.

  79. 79
    Anoniminous says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    I’d work my ass off for Sanders if he runs but I don’t think he can raise the money ($500 million, minimum) and he doesn’t have the support within and without, e.g., OFA, the Party.

  80. 80
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole:

    a proceeding about as just and properly conceived as Tyrion Lannister’s trial.

    “If you’re looking for justice, you’ve come to the wrong place.”

  81. 81
    Suzanne says:

    The Clintons are Democrats solely because there were already too many people just like them in the Republican party at the time.

    This is idiotic. Bill gave us Ruthie B. G. and Breyer, supported affirmative action, didn’t seek to dismantle the safety net, and didn’t run the economy into the ground. While in a sane world, none of this would be too notable, to say that they are just like the Republicans, who impeached a President over a fucking blowjob, is seriously making the perfect the enemy of the not-too-bad.

  82. 82
    Anoniminous says:

    @mike with a mic:

    I’ll buy that.

    I can’t buy he would get the nomination.

  83. 83
  84. 84
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    But if Hillary turns out to be the Democratic nominee in 2016, it will have done her chances no good that people on her party’s side were grumbling beforehand about “dynasty”, proclaiming their reluctance to support her, and openly wishing for some other — any other — candidate.

    You speak like a sensible person, as always. Remember, Cole was a Republican tadpole during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and I fear he’s never gotten over his early imprinting. And some of our loudest anti-Hillary commentors have previously explained that they only took an interest in voting Democratic when Barack Obama emerged on the national stage; at least one of them has said that they never intend to vote for a Democrat again. Cole (I piously hope) will continue to grow in wisdom, and once the bandwagoneers wander off to their next fad, those of us who’ve been Democrats all our lives will still be working for/voting for Democrats!

  85. 85
    David Koch says:

    @Anoniminous: He’ll be literally 75 years old and has never ran a race in a population larger than a congressional district. In fact Vermont’s tiny population of 626K is smaller than a normal congressional district of 727K and smaller than Palin’s Alaska (731K). Plus he’s a gun nut, voting against the Brady Bill and voting to immunize corporate gun makers from any and all legal action.

    But other than being very, very old, a tool of the NRA, and never running a significant campaign, what’s not to like.

  86. 86
    kuvasz says:

    Hey, John, are you serious? I want to get this right. Your thesis is based upon a Politico article?

    Perhaps my age is informing my attitude but the major reason to support the Democratic candidate, regardless of who is that a Democratic president over the next eight years will be able to mold the Supreme Court for a generation, much better than any Republican. The importance of such a thing is obvious.

    I worked in the Edwards campaign in 2004, 2008 but was not chest fallen due the guy’s dickie dunking because the purpose of these political leaders is not to look at them as heroes or messiahs, but to use them to get your opinions on things presented before a wider audience than you could do on your own. Otherwise, all you get is a cult of personalty. Hilary Clinton was beaten by an Obama cult of personalty movement that swept all others aside, not because she was a poor campaigner.

    Its going to be a Long March and we had best take Dr. King’s perspective on progress with his last speech, the Mountain Top speech.

    “Like anybody, I would like to live – a long life; longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

    Frankly, we as a people are going to have to stuff our egos in our back pocket and realize that we are simply carrying the torch and most likely it will not be our generation that gets to the Promised Land. Our satisfaction is in engaging in the struggle, “though embattled we are, a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.”

    That is the way we win, without ego.

  87. 87
    mike with a mic says:

    @Anoniminous:

    Might be a VP just to blow us more. Keep in mind that Fairfax County was blood red republican, now it’s deep blue. It’s a huge tech/war/government/intelligence/R&D area here. Low taxes and fucking poors does fly, fucking up research funding, not paying feds and contractors, hating on education and science, being a bigot, and denying evolution or global warming causes people to look at if you as if an asylum is missing a lunatic.

    As long as the Democrats aren’t talking about slashing the three letter organizations that employee everyone here shit’s gravy, and the Republicans are the danger. Warner gets that and is a former tech guy himself, so he’s one of us.

    The press is always going to hawk that sort of type from VA… because they live in NOVA.

  88. 88
    David Koch says:

    @Suzanne: The Clintons did some good (raised taxes, 10 year ban on assault weapons), but did a whole lot of bad (ending welfare, DOMA, DADT, NAFTA, PNTR, killing Glass-Steagall, slashing capital gains taxes, deregulating the commodities and derivatives trading).

    Even now, Clinton shamelessly shills for Big Oil and the Koch bros’ Keystone pipeline.

  89. 89
    patrick II says:

    We have to be careful not to let Republicans intimate us into not choosing the candidate we want. I know everyone is already tired of the bullshit the republicans have already started spewing, as they will continue to do so thru 2016 and some of us don’t want Hillary to run because we are already tired of hearing it. But I don’t give a fuck what republicans say. They talk their distasteful, spiteful bullshit because Hillary is the candidate they currently most fear and are glad to hear us say we don’t want to hear anymore, and maybe Hillary shouldn’t run. That is success for them.
    There are candidates I would prefer to Hillary, but republican vulgarians have no impact on my choice, and if Hillary is the democratic candidate, I will gladly support her.

  90. 90
    Suzanne says:

    @David Koch: I’m not disagreeing with you, but let’s keep in mind that DADT was actually an improvement on the situation at the time. I estimate that I would be pleased with about 60% of a HRC presidency. 60% is a shitload better than 0%, which is what Cruz or Paul or Christie or Jeb would offer. In a perfect world, I’d have more choices. But it’s not a perfect world.

  91. 91

    @kuvasz:

    Hey, John, are you serious? I want to get this right. Your thesis is based upon a Politico article?

    Just kill me now.

  92. 92
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Citizen_X: yeah. But there were Harrisons. Not much to be said about the Harrisons.

  93. 93
    Anoniminous says:

    @David Koch:

    You mean the same NRA that gives him a F? But I agree, if gun control is your single issue Sanders isn’t your guy and you shouldn’t support him. But it’s not mine and he is the only Improbable-Possible congruent with my positions.

  94. 94
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Suzanne:
    Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. He signed the CFMA into law. He advocated for and signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, itself a major element of the Republicans’ Contract with America. He advocated for and signed NAFTA into law. He was the beneficiary of an economy driven by an Internet bubble which had nothing to do with his economic policies. What little good he did was dwarfed by the harm he did.

    You also seem to forget that during the 2008 election Ol’ Bill compared Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson’s campaigns during the Eighties. Yeah, he’s a great guy all right.

  95. 95
    Suffern ACE says:

    I look at a Clinton candidacy as a sign that we really have run out of ideas.

  96. 96
    David Koch says:

    Cole, with regards to Ben Gazzara, your idol says Issa is right, Susan Rice’s talking points are an impeachable offense and needs to be investigated.

  97. 97
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    It is reminiscent of those execrable remakes of “The Beverly Hillbillies” and “Starsky and Hutch.”

  98. 98
    Anoniminous says:

    @mike with a mic:

    Can’t argue with that … but … um … er … ick

  99. 99
    Anoniminous says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Lingering effects of the country’s move to the Right and the DLC take over. It happened all over the world. Friends of mine in the UK are sick to death of the Blairite Labour Party and moving to the Green Party, those in Germany have abandoned the SDP for Die Linke.

    We haven’t run out of ideas. We can’t break through the status quo to get them considered.

  100. 100
    jl says:

    @Anoniminous:

    Wikipedia has a list of people who have publicly expressed interest:

    Joe Biden
    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Howard Dean
    Martin O’Malley
    Bernie Sanders
    Brian Schweitzer

    HRC, Biden and O’Malley have shown they can rouse a crowd.

    I do not understand candidate fatigue or getting tired of the politicians. Politically, they are tools to get things done and that is all. For example, Kerry, who never speaks like a human, but always intones, pronouncementates, stentorates, or drones on like a one note bagpipe, irritates me no end whenever he talks. But I don’t give a shit really, if he gets the job done.

    We know the GOP is going to nominate a dangerous fool, swindler, sociopath or lunatic. So any decent Democrat who can beat them is fine with me.

    So, Cole should ID somebody he wants and run it past us, and put up a contribution widget, Otherwise, I do not care if Cole is tired of HRC or not. Big deal and who cares. Beat the GOP is all that matters, given what that circus will nominate.

  101. 101
    David Koch says:

    Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion.

    She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically.

    She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere.

    But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy.

    Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist.

    It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power.

    They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.

    ~ Griftwald

    I really got a kick outta this. Are all those dead-end Hillbots, who for years, have implored us to listen and follow Griftwald, now gonna tell us to disregard the great man?

  102. 102
    M. Bouffant says:

    @Narcissus:
    “it’s the DLC third-way operators that surround them that I don’t like”
    What? They’re just “surrounded” by neoliberal corporate cruds? Gee, how’d that happen? Just random, I guess.

    Scum finds its own level.

  103. 103
    M. Bouffant says:

    Anybody
    But
    Clinton
    2016!!

  104. 104
    JWR says:

    OT, but one thing I can say for this place, meaning balloon-juice, is that it sure beats the pants off of TPM, especially with that “great” new commenting system they’ve instituted. Also too, discussions here are far, far more interesting.

  105. 105
    David Koch says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: In an odd “baby boomer” way, it’s like those endless revivals of “Leave it to Beaver”. They could never just leave it on the shelve. They repeatedly tried to squeeze the last bit of tooth paste out of the tube.

  106. 106
    Anoniminous says:

    @jl:

    Thanks for the list.

    I need to take a closer look at O’Malley.

  107. 107
    Nathaniel says:

    @Anoniminous: Speaking as a Maryland resident, he has the right values, but I haven’t seen much evidence of charisma.

  108. 108
    Fred says:

    In the ’08 election I swore America would never elect a black man to be POTUS. Not in my lifetime anyway. And Hillary? All I could think of was “VAST RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY!!” with her eyes buggin’ out. Not that there wasn’t a vast rightwing conspiracy but there had to be a better way to say it.
    Anyhow, given the choice between the two I was convinced we were doomed (DOOMED I SAY) to whatever incompetent crackpot the GOP decided to foist on the world. I WAS WRONG. Thank God for Sarah. An old rightwing racist buddy even voted against her.
    But yeah, I’m not crazy for Clinton either but she has learned a thing or two since “VAST…” and she is a tough bitch in a knife fight. And these are times that call for a tough bitch and close in cuttin’.
    As to BENGAAAAAZZI round 35, I’ve no idea where that will go but I too would have loved to hear Alan Grayson rip the GOPers some new holes for their BS to plop out of. The press would have ate it up youbetcha. Maybe he’s too much of a loose cannon and given the tragic event this is supposed to be based on maybe he takes a bit too much glee (I love him burning grin) for the general audience.
    I also miss Al Franken as a comic goad but I’m used to not getting what I want.

  109. 109
    David Koch says:

    Gillibrand sure is gorgeous.

  110. 110
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    Look, I’m a Boomer and I no longer want to see another Boomer president. All of us Boomers were born into the Cold War and we grew up with it. Some of us were more deeply affected by that experience than others. It seems to have left many Boomer politicians with a view that the US is always the Good Guy, no matter what it does. Those same pols seem to have an unquenchable desire to identify Bad Guys (As long as they aren’t wealthy Americans) and to go after them no matter what the cost to us or the damage to populations around the world. Raising a generation in a climate of fear seasoned with periodic warnings of nuclear Armageddon leaves a mark. It’s past time for some more new blood and some different ways of looking at the world and our place in it.

  111. 111
    David Koch says:

    Bill Clinton was probably the best Republican president the country ever had, if you look at the policies that he passed. ~ Rachel Maddow

  112. 112
  113. 113
    Jordan Rules says:

    Haven’t read all the comments due to coverage issues so pardon me if I missed it, but has anybody linked dynasty with privilidge?

    Its harder to build one with a severe defecit that was institutionally sanctioned and never really accounted for.

  114. 114
    David Koch says:

    Personally, I can’t support Hillary after her unwarranted criticisms of Edward Snowden:

    “It struck me as—I just have to be honest with you—as sort of odd that he would flee to China, because Hong Kong is controlled by China, and that he would then go to Russia, two countries with which we have very difficult cyber-relationships, to put it mildly.”

    Clinton also suggested that Snowden had inadvertently helped terrorists. “I think turning over a lot of that material—intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained—gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like,” she said.

    My God. She’s accusing Snowden of helping Al Qaeda. She’s worse than Bush.

    Clinton was also suspicious of Snowden’s recent appearance during a video Q&A with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin’s authority,” she said, going on to imitate Snowden and Putin’s conversation in a mocking tone.

    Is THIS the kind of person we want in the White House? Hillary would be Bush’s 3rd term.

  115. 115
    magurakurin says:

    Count me as another who has trouble with the whole “dynasty” thing as being a problem. I don’t even see the dynasty at all. She’s the Big Dog’s wife, not his daughter or sister. Talk about taking away the agency of a woman after she gets married. If she divorced the Big Dog and changed her name back to Rodham would that be good enough for the anti-dynasty crowd?

    And was mentioned above, the whole dynasty thing should lay at the foot of the Adams Family

    first Herman then Eddie…shocking.

  116. 116
    J R in WV says:

    I’m here all the time, so you know I’m interested in politics. I had to DuckDuckGo to see who Martin O’Malley was (mayor of Maryland if you’re in the same boat ;-) ) – maybe he’s the guy, if he can get a crowd roused up.

    If Hilary Clinton is the nominee, I’m willing to work 8 hours a day to get Hil elected, as opposed to anyone the GOP nominates. I will vote for a Zombie corpse before I vote for a GOP nominee, unless there’s a gun pointed at me. I will get down in the trenches and make phone calls for any Democratic candidate in 2016, because the GOP wants to destroy everything that makes America better than Russia.

    America with Republican control of both houses of the legislative branch AND the Supreme court AND a lock on the White House for 8-12 years will look just like a country run by the Taliban. I will be glad to be in a rest home living on grits, which is what it will be like to be 85 in the Republican’s America in 2035 if they take total control in 2016.

    I joke with people who say something about my “Veterans for Obama” bumper sticker that I’m a “Yellow Dog” Democrat. But I got those bumper stickers long before the convention. After I saw his speech at the Dem Convention that first got him noticed on the national stage, I thought “That’s the first Black President, and I’m watching history being made!” First political inspiration I ever had that was drop dead accurate!

    I too didn’t care for the Bill Clinton presidency that much. But Hilary is not Bill, and this isn’t the 1990s.

    I agree with everyone who says we need a non-Boomer president. Obama is pretty much not a Boomer, and that’s working out well. Anyone on the list above would be better than anyone willing to put a Republican bumper sticker on their car.

    Gillibrand would be my favorite on the list had she not defended a tobacco company, although we would see the R’s making blonde jokes and talking about how no one that pretty can be smart enough to be President, which would cement the election for them -NOT!

    Amy Klobuchar, although I had to look her up to be sure about who she is, would also be a winner as far as I can tell, if she got the nomination; I prefer her to Gillibrand because my Mom was murdered by Pall Mall, who got her hooked on free cigs while attending WVU. I would work for Amy in the primaries if she was running.

    But Hilary is OK by me if she gets the nomination. Given her history and current status as wealthy retired person with some health issues, I think she would be stupid to run, look how hard SoS was for her, but if that’s what she wants, and if she runs the best campaign in the primaries, I’ll vote for her, without holding my nose.

    G’night, all.

  117. 117
    max says:

    @cckids: Do you honestly believe

    Did you clutch your pearls when you wrote that?

    that eventheliberal NYT would have dismissed the committee if Pelosi had decided to skip naming D’s to it?

    They’d have covered it, but not as an important news event.

    I can guarantee that they’d have written something along the lines of “Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat caucus are showing their lack of concern for the new Benghazi disclosures by giving a pass to the House’s select committee”

    Naw. David Brooks would write that. The editorial line would have been something like, ‘Republicans should stop wasting time with this Benghazi nonsense’, and the reporting would have mostly followed that. Now it’ll be ‘he said/she said’ until the cows come home.

    The NYT is perfectly capable of ignoring an issue if they want to. (see ‘torture’, chemical weapons allegations, etc etc etc) The Washington Times, on the other hand, will be breathlessly reporting NEW NEW NEW committee reports of wrongdoing if they have to write those reports themselves.

    If you can isolate the thing to the right-wing bubble, then that’s pretty much that. You can’t stop it IN the right wing bubble, but you can firewall the thing. As it is, every time they dig up something, no matter how important, the NYT will have to intone monotonously that the Republicans are wasting time, but the Democrats need to investigate this here new allegation. Which will, in turn, necessitate a damage control news conference, another damage control news conference and so on. Two weeks later, no will remember what the new allegation was, because it will have been supplanted by an even NEWER allegation.

    The D’s will be so busy doing damage control on bullshit, they’ll spend all their time in an ass-covering crouch. Of course, they often spend time in an ass-covering crouch, but this will be worse.

    Then they’ll lose the election and decide they have to be more moderate by saying, agreeing with the republicans that they need to set themselves on fire. But they’ll compromise and only set half of themselves on fire. Hillary will rush out and explain that she always sets herself on fire, twice a day.

    This is pretty much the equivalent of going into a loose zone defense in the middle of the third quarter. So as to avoid giving up any big plays.

    max
    [‘If you were up by five touchdowns, you might get away with it. Won’t work when you’re down by a field goal.’]

  118. 118
    JGabriel says:

    cckids:

    Do you honestly believe that eventheliberal NYT would have dismissed the committee if Pelosi had decided to skip naming D’s to it?

    The Editorial Page would have dismissed it. Actually, I think they already have.

    The news side of the operation, not so much. They’d probably put right leaning centrist rah-rah boy idiot Matt Bai on it, which they’ll probably do anyway.

  119. 119
    Halcyon says:

    @askew:

    Everyone keeps asking why the Netroots likes the loud, shouty grandstanders. Is it really, truly, that hard to figure out? I don’t know the average age of everyone here, but based on the frontpagers here most of you are my parent’s age. Look at our experience with politics! I was 17 in 2001. That means a couple of things. First, watching (or more realistically, ignoring in the background) the character assassination of the Clintons on TV and in the papers made up basically my entire experience of politics during the years I was learning about the world beyond my immediate surroundings. Secondly, the vast majority of my time as an adult was spent during the bad old days of the Bush administration, watching Fox News (and to a lesser degree all the other shouty conservative windbags) *eat the Democrats’ fucking lunches.*

    Is this really that hard to understand? For my entire adolescent and adult life, politics has largely consisted of watching conservatives completely flip their shit about every little thing, and then proceed to usually get exactly what they want. We all absorbed the lesson: throwing a tantrum fucking works. So, given that throwing a tantrum seems to work really, really well, why are we not throwing tantrums all the time too? That’s the simple logic at play in the knee-jerk desire to send someone like Grayson out there to treat the proceedings with the level of decorum they richly deserve. I think Pelosi is ultimately right, of course, as John Cole has said he does too, but god damn if my inner little voice wasn’t cackling with delight at the idea of turning it into a circus with Grayson as ringmaster.

    There’s another part to it too. For better or for worse (probably worse, but there you have it), you have an entire generation of people who now identify as liberals who have not seen any real representation in the leadership for our entire living memory. An entire generation of us have never seen an elected Democrat who doesn’t run from the word “liberal” like it was a swastika. Is it really *that* hard to imagine that we want someone who is perfectly willing to say, out loud, at every opportunity, “Of course I’m a liberal. I’m a proud liberal because I have a fucking soul and a shred of empathy for other people. The real question is why the hell aren’t you?” But we don’t have anything like that. The closest we have is someone like Grayson.

    There are lots of us who *didn’t* come from hippie backgrounds. I’m a competitive asshole by nature. Lots of young techie kids are, the sort you’d expect to find among the Netroots. The ones smart enough to be exposed to the libertarian bullshit but figure out just why it is, actually, bullshit. (Yes, I voted for the libertarian candidate when I was in college. I’m not proud.) And again, for an entire generation of us, the things we’re supposed to accept as great victories have been watered down at absolute best. Yay we passed Obamacare!… except the Supreme Court then proceeded to gut it, and now the red states have been allowed to fuck it up. Yay we didn’t entirely blow up the economy!… except we’re not actually going to prosecute any of the people who fucked us there, either, and we’re not actually going to do anything like a truly useful stimulus. It’s human nature, and this part of it comes more strongly to some of us than others: sometimes I don’t just want liberals to win, I want Republicans to fucking LOSE and I want to rub their noses in it. I’m not proud of that tendency, but there you have it. I can’t imagine I’m the only one. (I imagine the issue of Gay Rights will be the first time in my living memory that actually happens with almost no caveats, but we’ve still a ways to go there.)

    tl;dr: This really isn’t hard to understand — Some of us youngsters want some god damned red meat sometimes too.

  120. 120
    Kay says:

    The problem is we don’t have a strong western or midwestern Democratic governor who wants to run and can be seen as a potential challenger. The Republican primary isn’t going to be a clown show. For every grifter this time around there will be a governor like Walker or Kasich and Republican governors will be taken seriously by voters. We need a counter to that.

    Democrats are weak at the state level. Cuomo is horrible – he’s the definition of “good on ‘social issues’ and terrible on economic issues” and he’ll never win outside the east and he’s the only one who seems to be interested. He’s also really unappealing as a personality.

    Ideally, we’d have a strong western governor who isn’t Jerry Brown. I like Jerry Brown but every single person tells me he’s too old and eccentric as a candidate (I also like eccentrics) so he won’t run.

    Everyone here, and I mean everyone, thinks Clinton is running. She hasn’t announced yet because we haven’t had the midterms yet.

    It isn’t Clinton for me, she’s not the problem, it’s that she’s surrounded by people who think they are brilliant and are going to be impossible to manage.

    I don’t think “the Clinton campaign” will be bad. I think all the Democrats of the Clinton-era who think they run the Party will be the problem. They’ll all be running their own little different franchises, trying to influence both her and her campaign. I think we’re already seeing it.

    I’m convinced there was a concerted effort to move Democrats off income inequality and to “the opportunity gap” in the midterms by the resurgent Clinton-orbit Third Way people. I think “the opportunity gap” theme sucks for Democrats. It’s incoherent, out of touch and wonky and Republicans have the same theme and do that theme better, so that was a mistake.

    We need stronger state level candidates, and please don’t suggest Howard Dean or re-litigate the 50 state strategy. I saw the 50 state strategy. It was nothing to write home about. I also read his Twitter feed and he’s as bad as the rest of the Clinton-era tv pundits, he may as well be Ed Rendell. Not to mention the fact that he’s on the payroll of a lobbying firm which he never reveals and no one ever talks about.

  121. 121
    kindness says:

    I actually think Hillary will be better now after everything she’s gone through. Yea the DLC aspect of Bill’s triangulation sucked but I think even that has stuck in the Clinton’s eyes.

    And really it simply does not matter who the Democrats nominate to run. Republicans will use the same meme no matter who it is. So in that sense I say Run Hillary just to stick it to Repubs who hate her so and because she’d beat which ever crazy they’re likely to nominate.

  122. 122
    Kay says:

    Democrats could have a wash or net loss of governors in the midterms and GOP governors are already at historic highs, in terms of numbers of states they control. The changes in state law have been devastating. I can’t even keep up. Anywhere you look, voting rights, workers rights, womens rights, taxes, education, safety net, we’re getting absolutely slaughtered at the state level. That’s the real threat.

  123. 123
    different-church-lady says:

    And then I would give him instructions to impede at every opportunity, disrupt as loudly and obnoxiously and to grandstand and make snide remarks,

    Which you could accomplish with three words: “Just be yourself.”

  124. 124
    Kay says:

    Also, this is a misreading of the Clintons, IMO:

    Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried

    It’s typical of Politico, because it’s spun toward Republicans.

    The Clintons defend. On everything. It’s not that they’re “so worried” about the awesome power of this attack, it’s they defend on every attack, large or small. It’s what certain Democrats love about them, and it’s also what exhausts certain Democrats. It’s where the whole “fighter” theme comes from, but it’s a blunt instrument.

    I think the defensive quality will be more apparent because there’s also the impulse to defend Bill Clinton’s presidential legacy, which was a huge part of the ’08 primary.

  125. 125
    master c says:

    without reading the comments I TOTALLY AGREE JOHN. Im dreading Clinton/Bush redux and will vote for her if I have to. NOT EXCITED.

  126. 126
    MuckJagger says:

    Once the Republicans decided it was critical to investigate Things That Go Bump In The Night, the Democrats probably had to play ball.

    But I’m going to go out on a limb THIS FUCKING FAR with a prediction: whatever the Benghazi committee “determines,” the final vote will be 7-5.

  127. 127
    Hawes says:

    The idea that some other nominee than Clinton would be spared the Vince Foster/Benghazi/ Whitewater circus is laughably naive. Ask Gore. Ask Kerry. Ask Obama.

    If anything, let them attack Hillary morning, noon and night. She’s tough. And as they attack her, they will drive more and more women from their ranks, just as the veiled and unveiled racism of the attacks on Obama have driven people away.

    As far as “How will she govern?” Clinton will govern just as far to the Left as Congress will let her. Bill tried single-payer, but Congress wouldn’t let him. He tried Americorps, but Congress underfunded it.

    The best way to have a “Progressive President” is to have a Progressive Congress. And Hillary is most likely to enter office with coat-tails.

  128. 128
    Hawes says:

    And if O’Malley gets the nomination, Republicans will tie the “O’Malley” character from The Wire into Littlefinger from GoT, and we’ll have ads about how O’Malley poisoned Dubya and runs a brothel in King’s Landi…Washington, DC.

  129. 129
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Halcyon: Well said, and it tracks with my experience with voters younger than you, e.g., my daughter, who will be old enough to vote for the first time in 2016. That’s one thing the GOP does well — it panders to its base enough to keep them fired up.

    @Kay: I also heard a shift from “income inequality” to “opportunity gap,” but I heard it first from Obama rather than the Clinton people. At first, I thought it was a huge mistake — and it may be — but from Obama anyway, it was about valuing work, which is a theme that could resonate.

  130. 130
    Kay says:

    @Hawes:

    She’s really popular here, and it’s ordinary Democrats, not exclusively Party people (although they like her too). It was true in 2008 and it’s still true. A huge number of people have already voted for her, in 08. That’s just a strong position, IMO.

    They are so familiar with her that nothing that campaign does will knock them off her. I think she has a very strong and resilient base and they will pay absolutely no attention to what they will consider campaign nonsense, whether it comes from Clinton or the Republican Party.

  131. 131
    sjw says:

    John asked, “How many decades have we had a Nixon, Bush, Clinton, or Dole in the running?”

    Well, on the Republican side, every national ticket from ’52 to ’04 – with the exception of ’64 – had a Nixon, Bush or Dole on it, either for Prez or VP. 13 out of 14 elections, for more than half a century.

    Add me to the list of those who would cast an unenthusiastic vote for HRC in the general election.

    If we have to have dynasties, can we at least ask for better ones?

  132. 132
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @askew:

    So, once again the Clintons make it all about them. Maybe instead of asking Dems time to defend her, she could spend the time from now until November barnstorming to try to raise money and GOTV for the midterms. Oh, wait. The Clintons don’t do anything unless it helps them and they are too busy giving speeches to Wall Street for money.

    I am so sick of them getting more news coverage on a nightly basis than the Obama administration which is actively working to improve our lives.

    Edited to add: Grayson is an idiot and the last thing we need to do is highlight our crazies. Cummings is a much better representative because he’s liberal and knows what he is talking about. What is it with the netroots and loving do-nothing white guys who make a lot of noise and claim to be progressives (see Grayson, Kucinich, Weiner, etc.) while ignoring actual progressives who have working diligently for years to move the country forward?

    Seconding your entire comment. All of this. This.

  133. 133
    Kay says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I also heard a shift from “income inequality” to “opportunity gap,” but I heard it first from Obama rather than the Clinton people. At first, I thought it was a huge mistake — and it may be — but from Obama anyway, it was about valuing work, which is a theme that could resonate.

    I’m glad you heard it. I feel like a conspiracy theorist. I’m convinced it happened. I blame Obama for it too, but I think the push came from Democrats who rely on high-income donors in the east and west and are currently running and the 1990s Third Way people who were afraid of alienating the people they know and love.

    I don’t think it resonates at all. I listened to a speech he gave at the opening of a vo-tech initiative and he’s trimmed and cleaned up the point of the thing, which to me means they’re struggling with it. He started with (paraphrasing) “what we mean when we say…”

    I don’t think that’s a hopeful sign. They poll constantly. They must know no one knows what it means. I heard it defended by the state party as “income inequality is too negative” but the problem is Republicans always use “opportunity” (in some fashion) so Democrats are reduced to explaining the Earned Income Tax Credit or doing these attenuated lists; “IF you get a student loan AND graduate college you MAY move up in the world!”

    I just groaned when I saw then rolling out the “student loans as the path to prosperity” line. Surely they’re aware that student loans are an extremely touchy subject among our younger voters, right? Maybe not! I don’t know how you could be unaware. My two grown kids don’t have loans because they got money from their schools and we paid the rest, but every single one of their friends are obsessing over student loans.

  134. 134
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    But if Hillary turns out to be the Democratic nominee in 2016, it will have done her chances no good that people on her party’s side were grumbling beforehand about “dynasty”, proclaiming their reluctance to support her, and openly wishing for some other — any other — candidate.

    I disagree. The battle over the 2008 nomination did not hurt Obama in the general. (The PUMA sideshow was just that–a sideshow. They made no impact on the actual vote. If anything, we have Parah Salin to thank for her strenuous efforts on behalf of the Democratic Party.)

  135. 135
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Anoniminous: Sanders sucks on a lot of issues. Socialist is just a label.

  136. 136
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @kuvasz:

    I worked in the Edwards campaign in 2004, 2008 but was not chest fallen due the guy’s dickie dunking because the purpose of these political leaders is not to look at them as heroes or messiahs, but to use them to get your opinions on things presented before a wider audience than you could do on your own. Otherwise, all you get is a cult of personalty.

    No. Wrong. You are not electing someone to be the communications director for your progressive issues media campaign. You are electing a leader who will have an enormous amount of power. Who they are and their character matters a LOT. The thing around Obama is NOT a cult of personality. It’s the trust people have in him that he has earned and the gratitude for having a leader WHO ACTUALLY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THEM AND NOT JUST ABOUT HIMSELF.

    John Edwards talked good but that’s all he did. He was an empty suit with $1000 hair, and his private behavior, once exposed, showed that to be true. Had you given him the ultimate power he would have had thousands of opportunities to be a cowardly, weak, pathetic little shit who would have let the American people and the Democratic party down.

  137. 137
    Kay says:

    Also, I have to vent. TPM should stop writing about education. School lunches and food subsidies that revolve around schools are complicated. It’s this big, ridiculous battle and it’s local Republican activists and then DC Republicans who are pandering to huge ag and food industry lobbyists. You could write a book about school lunches.

    It’s like when Andrew Sullivan writes about health care. Just don’t. I love them on voting rights and many other subjects but anything about food subsidies and/or schools sucks. They don’t understand these issues.

  138. 138
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Kay: I’m sure you’re right about the reasons behind the shift, which I first noticed in the SOTU (it was probably blindingly obvious to people who pay closer attention before then). And the student loans thing…facepalm…

  139. 139
    rikyrah says:

    @amk:

    Shorter clintons – we will do jacksquat for you all in 2014 but you better do all for hills 2016.

    Dems need to wake the fuck up.

    amen.

  140. 140
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Hawes:

    The best way to have a “Progressive President” is to have a Progressive Congress.

    You left out the Steely Resolve, the Inflexible Will, and the Power to Lead with Leadership

  141. 141
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @rikyrah:

    We won twice in a row.
    We’ve got nothing left to prove.

    Come 2016, it’s time to lose nobly, but with a real progressive.
    Mike Dukakis is tanned, fit, rested and ready.

  142. 142
    ruemara says:

    Know what I’m fucking tired of? Fuckers like half the front-pagers on this blog mocking the basic courtesy of trigger warnings. GFY. Now I don’t give a shit about your fucking bug up your ass about Hillary.

  143. 143
    Keith G says:

    Cole….

    Nah.

    As much as it would be nice if we had a deeper bench of nationally known leaders right now, we don’t. The Democratic Party is a widely disbursed coalition. Hillary Clinton is the only one I can think of right now who can hold all the parts together and keep it moving strongly forward to face the onslaught of GOP money. I say the above fully aware of her imperfections.

    The Democrats placed on the committee need to be the smartest and the best inside players that we have. I felt that way before the Clinton people spoke up, if they did. Our side can out think the GOP and show them to be the fools that they are, but we have to be there to do it.

    Grayson? Good golly, what a foolish idea.

  144. 144
    HelloRochester says:

    Ditto.

  145. 145
    Kay says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    The student loan thing was driven by the fact that it was time to apply for student loans and college and job training are a good and noble goal, but the whole message sounds like advice to me.

    I think they made a deliberate decision to veer away from wages and the employers role in income inequality because that is a touchy subject and it offends powerful people.

    Enough lectures to potential or actual employees, already. We get it. What about the other side of this equation? Surely income inequality isn’t solely the fault of the workforce?

    Even the Department of Labor does it. Are they the Department of Labor or the Department of Earnest Advice to Labor? It sounds… apart. Like they are people who are advising other people. “On your side” means just that. They can’t be like the mediator where we’re pretending that “both sides” have an equal amount of power. They don’t. I’m fully confident in the ability of large employers and corporations to defend their interests. They don’t need government hopping to and fro to both sides of the table, even-steven, managing this dispute. It’s not even a dispute with workers. They’re not even at the table. They’re getting slaughtered. They’re never going to get to the table.

  146. 146
    Christine says:

    Well, this feminist agrees with you completely. She ran a terrible campaign and I don’t want the Democratic Party to slide back into the Clinton years policy-wise or otherwise.

  147. 147
    Aunt Kathy says:

    Cole, you said everything I’ve been thinking. First, we’ve got all these millions of people in this country, and we’re looking at ANOTHER Clinton and Bush? Really?

    The thing that probably lost Hil the nomination was her Iraq war vote. It’s a dilemma specific to female leaders that they think they have to “look strong” militarily, prove they have balls just like the boys. I believe she gave in to that then, and I’m afraid she would carry that into the White House with her. It’s one thing to make a cravenly political decision; It’s another thing to make that decision because you don’t want to look like a girl.

    She has been at her best when she’s gotten stern, strong and mouthy (during a 2009 House hearing on family planning), or shortly after becoming Sec of State, when she told a Pakistani journalist, “Hey, if you don’t want our country’s money, you don’t have to take it.” I could vote for that Hillary.
    But with Hill, you get Bill, and, my God, I just can’t take it.

    And one thing about Martin O’Malley? MD resident here, and one who had a horrible time trying to sign up for insurance in our “exchange”, at which I never was successful, and will have to wait for the next enrollment. “Apparently the task of overseeing the ACA implementation fell to LT Gov Brown (now running for Gov), but the exchange failure will still stick to O’Malley, like he didn’t know what was happening? O’Malley has made all the right moves and has signed in lots of liberal legislation, but I don’t get a thrill up my leg at the thought of him as a national leader.

  148. 148
    NonyNony says:

    And speaking of Benghazi, I think Pelosi screwed up by appointing five accomplished and serious people to the panel.

    And this is why John Cole is Speaker of the House and Nancy Pelosi is a blogger.

  149. 149
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    Grayson/Kucinich 2016!

  150. 150
    Aaron Morrow says:

    Martin O’Malley is getting a bump from the Beltway media because he’s right there; he’s been governor of Maryland for six years or so. Brian Schweitzer should be guaranteeing Democrats one more Senate seat; I’m not voting for him, but I am rooting for someone smart to pull Hillary Clinton to the left. I personally think Democrats should nominate Joe Biden as Vice-President as long as he can run, but his previous Presidential runs leave quite a bit to be desired.

    I’m alright with Hillary Clinton because of two things:
    – If Terry McAuliffe (!?!?) can change and run a liberal campaign for governor, then Clinton can change and run a liberal campaign for president.
    – If Hillary Clinton does not run, it is far more likely that Andrew Cuomo will be the Democratic nominee for President someday. I don’t care how POLITICO and Fox News attack Democrats, but I’d like someone who I think can help make things better. Cuomo sucks, and if Clinton runs, she’ll have to run to the left of him.

  151. 151
    scott says:

    If you don’t like Clinton for what she’s said or done, that’s a cool reason not to support her. But fatigue at “the mania the Clintons inspire” or not wanting to hear about Vince Foster or Benghazi just seems vague and, more than than that, lazy. Whoever the Dems put up, the GOP will find other pieces of rhetorical poo to fling at him/her, and just being tired of it all before the fight’s even started seems a bit slack.

  152. 152
    jonny bakho says:

    We heard the same crap in 2008 about how Obama would be a uniter unlike Hillary who would attract the wrath of the right.

    Sorry, It does not matter who is the Dem nominee. They will be Swift Boated and falsely charged, smeared and libeled. The Republican policies are not popular so they need other means to win elections. That is why they go negative and they have the money to do so. Hillary is not as progressive as I would like, but she would have done less bad managing the economy than Obama and his Republican economics team of Geithner and Bernanke.

  153. 153
    Johnnybuck says:

    Nothing in these hearings will dissuade anyone from voting for HRC if she decides to run. She’s actually pretty popular with rank and files dems so I’m pretty sure she doesn’t give a shit what bloggers think. She also wasn’t President in the 90’s her husband was.

    The Republican part is scared to death of Hillary, that warms my heart

  154. 154
    Dennis says:

    @Anoniminous: Why is Warren not going to happen? Despite her repeated statements that she won’t run, that’s been done before, and her book A Fighting Chance has presidential feeler written all over it.

    I would love to see her run because she is the only high profile candidate with an unabashedly populist Democratic message.

  155. 155
    mrblifil says:

    @askew: How is a Politico article with unnamed sources claiming “Hillary’s world” worried about Benghazi an example of the Clinton’s making it all about themselves? Who are “Hillary’s world?” Hillary herself put a flaming knife in the heart of the investigation with her testimony, forcing the Republican rear guard to nibble at the edges in order to keep their fund raising hopes alive.

    And let’s be clear: whoever is the nominee will get the same fucking treatment, and very few of them are as seasoned as Hillary at dealing with it. You really think the GOP is going to say of Gillibrand, “what a nice person, let’s leave her alone and argue the issues?”

  156. 156
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    Anywhere you look, voting rights, workers rights, womens rights, taxes, education, safety net, we’re getting absolutely slaughtered at the state level. That’s the real threat.

    thanks Kay. You are absolutely correct.

  157. 157
    rikyrah says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    They’ll be plenty of hand holding after the ‘divisive Obama years’, and lots of speeches urging unity. We’ll look back at Obama as an progressive hero once the Cinton’s are done paying back the plutocrats for all that global initiative money. I’m already seeing way too much talk about Bubba promising corporate America help with reducing their tax burden.

    Folks keep on telling the truth here.

  158. 158
    Royko says:

    but how many decades have we had a Nixon, Bush, Clinton, or Dole in the running?

    You’re combining the Nixon/Dole/Bush on the R ticket factoid with the Bush/Clinton stretch from 1988-2008 (almost extended by HRC), but doing so sounds kind of silly when you consider the length of a term, the difficulty and need for multiple attempts in attaining it, and the role of the VP. Basically, there’s nothing dynastic or remarkable (career-wise) about Nixon. Clinton and Dole are successful husband-wife duos, and even so Liddy never got a nomination, and HRC hasn’t yet. The Bushes are the only ones here who smack of dynasty. (You left out the Kennedys, who were dynastic, presumably because they only managed to get on one ticket.)

    I agree that our political class is too restricted and I’m all for new blood, but 4 families (involving 7 people) over 7 decades doesn’t sound that ridiculous, especially when Nixon alone gets you 3 of those decades himself.

  159. 159

    @cckids:

    I share your trepidation about Hillary, though I think she’d make a decent President.

    I know a whole bunch of UAW members, including those at UAW Local 22 in Detroit — who would disagree with that statement. Seeing the clinton’s fucked the UAW with the passage of NAFTA.

  160. 160
    JustRuss says:

    @mrblifil: Indeed. Can I just say here: Fuck you, Politico? They run a headline making it all about Hillary, cite anonymous sources, and the only person willing to go on the record, Pelosi, says it never happened. That’s fucking terrible reporting. But it’s Politico, so what do you expect?

    Much as I’d rather not see another Clinton in the White House, it would almost be worth it just to stick to all these assholes who breathlessly hype every Clinton “scandal” that pops into Karl Rove’s head.

  161. 161

    @Brian R.:

    Eh, I was glad to see Grayson wasn’t put on it. He’s a bit of a self-promoter and a bit too hard edged for what the Democrats need in front of the cameras.

    Could not agree more. He is an embarrassment to the democrats. Kinda like Ron Paul was to the Republicans.

  162. 162
    anon says:

    Yes, she is really the only female Democrat out there who can win. At least in the near term. No offense to Gillibrand, but tossing out the name of another female politician does not make that reality go away.

    None of that is to say that you, women, or anyone is obligated to vote for her for that reason. Just, it would help to treat a serious issue seriously, and not glibly wish it away. Be against Hillary, fine. But yes, she’s the only realistic hope for a female nominee. Here in 2013.

    (and god, people, please resist the urge to fall back on, it’s Hillary’s fault there are no other viable women. another glib way out. just acknowledge the problem. that’s all. again, that acknowledgement doesn’t require you to vote for her.)

  163. 163

    @askew:

    So, once again the Clintons make it all about them. Maybe instead of asking Dems time to defend her, she could spend the time from now until November barnstorming to try to raise money and GOTV for the midterms. Oh, wait. The Clintons don’t do anything unless it helps them and they are too busy giving speeches to Wall Street for money.

    Quote of the month!

  164. 164
    Cassidy says:

    You could always start with a stop to mocking people who have asked for and feel they need a trigger warning, but I guess I shouldn’t expect that much compassion from a shut in sack of shit like yourself. And you think I’m a sociopath?

  165. 165
    What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us? says:

    @TG Chicago: Amen. All they have is implied scandal. It’s the one constant of electoral politics. It doesn’t matter who is at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2016, the GOP will be running with some sort of conspiracy theory about that person.

  166. 166
    Morzer says:

    If you think that the latest round of hooting and hollering is the fault of the Clintons, you probably think that the latest round of Benghazi fever is Obama’s fault. This is standard-issue GOP behavior – and it’s the consequence of having nothing to run on but hatred and division. They don’t have even the ghost of a positive, intelligent agenda, so they have to rely on driving down Democratic enthusiasm and hyping their own crazy old white base into a frenzy. It doesn’t matter who the Dems run, the GOP strategy will be the same because it HAS to be the same.

    That said, I thought BillClinton was a fairly mediocre, weak, and, at points destructive president (DOMA, Glass-Steagall, Mogadishu, apparent inability to stop catting around etc etc) who got lucky with the economy. Sure, it’s better to be lucky than good, but I don’t see any sign that HRC is going to be a “lucky” president and I am not convinced she’s learned the right lessons from her time in politics. To be fair, judging by some of the posters on here, this is something in which she is not alone: if the GOP is trying so desperately to push HRC out of consideration, it might just be worth asking yourself why you want to go along with this and indulge them just because you are tired of hearing.. what?.. why yes, GOP scandal-mongering. If you don’t want to hear the latest round of concocted GOP nonsense, turn off the TV/radio/internet and go and do something else – and don’t blame HRC for being bashed by the right wing troglodytes. If you choose to listen, ask yourself why you want to listen to these pop-eyed lunatics. There might be a moment of self-awareness to be had there.

    One point worth considering: right now there’s a lot of self-congratulating about the inevitable demographic advantage, electoral college advantage and so on and so forth that the Democrats have, linked to a tendency to assume that we don’t really need HRC to run and we could run Bugs Bunny and win without too much trouble. What we neglect to consider is that because we haven’t campaigned effectively at state/statehouse level we don’t have that much in the way of a bench. The list of credible Senators and governors who might run for the Democratic nomination is pretty thin. Could a candidate come out of nowhere? Sure, but it’s not exactly a strong probability. Before folks here get too invested in the narrative that HRC is both repellent and dispensable, they might want to take a good, hard look at just what the alternatives are, because I really doubt that any of them would be as strong candidates for the presidency as HRC, despite the baggage, the tone-deaf campaign in 2008, and the various faults that are attributed to her. The GOP are pissing themselves over the prospect of facing her – and that should tell you something.

  167. 167
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @Cassidy:

    you think I’m a sociopath?

    Yes.

  168. 168
    Heliopause says:

    What about Gillibrand?

    If she starts right now she might be able to make a run at it in 2020. Maybe, if the climate is right.

    Fact is, you have to lay the groundwork for this years-to-decades in advance. Lots of networking, ass-kissing, Faustian bargains, and so forth.

  169. 169
    Cranky Observer says:

    = = = According to the Christian Science Monitor the other possible candidates are: = = =

    I don’t think Jay Nixon will run against Hillary unless something goes seriously wrong with her pre-candidacy. But if Hillary is not in it JN will definitely jump in at an advantageous point.

  170. 170
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Cassidy:

    And you think I’m a sociopath?

    You’re definitely a malignant, bullying prick on the internet, if not a sociopath in real life. The trigger thread gave you a convenient excuse to taunt Cole about Tunch and sneer at me about my recently deceased mother, but that’s not novel behavior for you that is confined to threads where you can pretend it’s relevant to the topic.

    Didn’t Cole temporarily ban you once for stalking another asshole troll and repeatedly urging him to commit suicide? That the troll in question was a raging jackass in his own right is no excuse. There are bounds of human decency that you are oblivious to. That is a hallmark of sociopaths.

    You also seem to select your targets carefully. I notice you didn’t take after Sooner in the trigger thread, even though he was far more dismissive of the cause you were pretending to champion. Maybe you’re just a garden-variety internet bully rather than an actual sociopath. Either way, you’re an asshole.

  171. 171
    LAC says:

    @Another Holocene Human: amen indeed!

    And again, Cole – politico? Really?

  172. 172
    Susan S says:

    I know it’s too late to have any words..but John, Yes! Yes! Yes! to everything you said. I raised my children without a dime of child support, built a lovely seven figure income by myself..and looked for jobs in the late 60’s..ie RainierBank International Dept..”We don’t interview women for that dept.” Period. So don’t hide behind ‘you’re not a feminist” when I say not every woman is the best candidate..and I think the Repubs can beat Hillary and they know it. No dynasties..I suspect the ideal ticket is a brilliant Hispanic male for President; Elizabeth Warren for VP..or one of many, many others. No body with odd trading in futures, or sarcasm, or that arrogance will be the first women President. Watch Pres Obama on the Mall today..and try to envision Hillary doing the same..and truly enjoying herself, as he so obviously did. Of course..Pelosi is best but sigh..that’s just a dream

  173. 173
    AxelFoley says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    Don’t be so sure. The Clinton’s tried shoving their policies down the congress’ throat in their first two years, and came within a hair of a failed presidency. Her husband spent the next 6 years basically giving away shit even the Republicans weren’t asking for. If not for a self-destructive attention whore like Gingrich coming along, there’s no telling how much damage he’d have wrought.

    They’ll be plenty of hand holding after the ‘divisive Obama years’, and lots of speeches urging unity. We’ll look back at Obama as an progressive hero once the Cinton’s are done paying back the plutocrats for all that global initiative money. I’m already seeing way too much talk about Bubba promising corporate America help with reducing their tax burden.

    Thank you for addressing his nonsense.

  174. 174
    Col Bat Guano says:

    @TG Chicago: Yeah, this belief that only Hillary will get this treatment seems a bit naive.

  175. 175
    AxelFoley says:

    @Another Holocene Human:

    No. Wrong. You are not electing someone to be the communications director for your progressive issues media campaign. You are electing a leader who will have an enormous amount of power. Who they are and their character matters a LOT. The thing around Obama is NOT a cult of personality. It’s the trust people have in him that he has earned and the gratitude for having a leader WHO ACTUALLY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THEM AND NOT JUST ABOUT HIMSELF.

    John Edwards talked good but that’s all he did. He was an empty suit with $1000 hair, and his private behavior, once exposed, showed that to be true. Had you given him the ultimate power he would have had thousands of opportunities to be a cowardly, weak, pathetic little shit who would have let the American people and the Democratic party down.

    Thank you for countering his bullshit.

  176. 176

    Man, things are a bit hostile around these parts!

  177. 177
    Cassidy says:

    @Betty Cracker: Uh huh, yeah….go fuck yourself with a rusty dildo.

    On another note, so I called my mom today. Nice long talk. Loved it.

  178. 178
    SteveinSC says:

    Fuck the Clintons (especially that Wall Street, AIPAC fellating Hillary.)

    I’ll pay Grayson’s travel to that party!

  179. 179
    Mason says:

    Yeah. Me, too. Not that I’m likely to vote for a Democrat (I never did undergo the paradigm shift you went through years ago) but I just can’t take any more Clinton. And this is even looking back on the first Clinton admin with some sense of fondness.

  180. 180
    Ed says:

    I’d rather someone else, but she’s a million times better than any Republican. I just don’t like the “nepotism” aspect of the whole thing. Bush I was bad, Bush II was horriffic. Clinton I was not great ( tiangulation, NAFTA, DLC, Third Way ) , and Clinton II has all of the old baggage. But you go to war with the troops you have.

  181. 181
    liberal says:

    @David Koch: she does seem pretty hawkish.

  182. 182
    liberal says:

    @Halcyon: what’s wrong with wanting to rub their noses in it? I don’t feel any guilt at all.

  183. 183
    Nathanael says:

    @joel hanes: Ouch. What can we do about Steny Hoyer?

    Maryland, it looks like. DC suburbs. We can work with that. What’s the local grassroots organization like? He may be vulnerable in a primary.

    …crap, it’s Annapolis and the *car-dependent urban-hating* suburbs. Maybe not.

  184. 184
    Nathanael says:

    @AxelFoley:
    [quote]The thing around Obama is NOT a cult of personality. It’s the trust people have in him that he has earned [/quote]

    Citation needed. I can give you a laundry list of times Obama promised to do something, then did the opposite, starting with filibustering the FISA Amendments Act. How has he earned trust?

    [quote]and the gratitude for having a leader WHO ACTUALLY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THEM AND NOT JUST ABOUT HIMSELF.[/quote]
    Citation needed. I simply see no evidence of him being in it for anything but the Goldman Sachs payout. Sorry. He seems just as bad as the others (Clinton, Edwards).

    I’m rather upset by the poor state of Democratic Presidential Primaries these days.

Comments are closed.