Big Dumb Money

im_ready_for_oligarchy_2016_shirt
Why do I know about this fairly clever shirt? Because Hillary’s people made a fuss about this obviously First Amendment-protected parody. Fortunately, after they backed down and he got his free publicity, the creator has decided not to sue Hill’s campaign for damages related to the takedown notices they sent to Zazzle and Cafepress. If Hillary’s campaign didn’t have a bunch of well-paid, poorly led staffers sitting around dreaming up stupidity like this, I doubt that I would ever have heard of this t-shirt. (And if you doubt that her campaign is poorly led, can you please dig up an example where the billion-plus-dollar Obama campaigns did something this dumb?)

Similarly, I wonder how Cantor’s race would have turned out if he didn’t have a bunch of staffers sitting around wondering how to blow millions of dollars. Maybe he wouldn’t have put out a bunch of negative ads attacking his no-name primary challenger. Those served mainly to drive up Brat’s name recognition and generate free media when the claim that Brat was a “liberal college professor” was fact-checked into the ground by the media.

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

201 replies
  1. 1
    RaflW says:

    I do not have a good feeling about the inevitable Hillary run.

    I’m not a Hillary-hater. But I think the Clinton m.o. is far too Mark Penn and the campaign will be much too likely to think it’s still the late 90’s.

    And if they use Fleetwood Mac, I’m a gonna barf.

  2. 2
    amk says:

    Has she signed up mark penn yet?

  3. 3
    constitutional mistermix says:

    @RaflW: “I’m ready for Hillary” is a statement of acceptance, not excitement, kind of like “I’m ready for my colonoscopy” or “I’m ready to pay my kid’s college tuition”. There is nothing creative about it, but I’ll bet you it cost them a fuck-ton of money for their consultants to think up.

  4. 4
    Betty Cracker says:

    @constitutional mistermix:

    “I’m ready for Hillary” is a statement of acceptance, not excitement, kind of like “I’m ready for my colonoscopy” or “I’m ready to pay my kid’s college tuition”.

    In that case, it’s an unusually accurate reflection of my actual level of enthusiasm. The only thing that truly excites me about the prospect of an HRC presidency is that we’ll finally have elected a woman. And that’s no small thing. But it’s not enough all by itself.

  5. 5
    raven says:

    RIP Chuck Noll, Cole will have a post.

  6. 6
    beltane says:

    I see Hillary and her staff learned nothing whatsoever from 2008. That alone is depressing.

  7. 7
    amk says:

    @constitutional mistermix:

    Even her red/blue wavy thingy seems to be a obama campaign copycat.

  8. 8
    beltane says:

    @amk: It’s a fusion of the Obama and Rmoney logos, though leaning more towards Rmoney’s.

    I shouldn’t have said that Hillary didn’t learn from 2008. She did learn something, it just happens that what she learned was wrong.

  9. 9
    Morzer says:

    Why do I have a horrible feeling that every day is going to be sniping at Hillary day from now on? I am not even a Clinton fan, but I am getting mighty sick of the constant jabs at her. Could we at least wait for some sort of official announcement that she is running before people line up with their boutique buckets of shit to pour over her head?

  10. 10
    mai naem says:

    I’ve seen three Ready For Hillary bumper stickers which is pretty good for Arizona. Anyhow, I am no timpressed by Hillary so far. The Terri Gross thing is ridiculous. Bitching about gay marriage and your timing of support for it is not showing your manliness/toughness or whatever you were trying to do. And, really, Terri Gross? Are you fucking kidding me? She has a fucking conversation with you. She never does any gotcha questions. She’s freaking NPR for gawds sake, not Faux Noose.

  11. 11
    RaflW says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    we’ll finally have elected a woman.

    I’ve been curious why the U.K. hasn’t managed to elect another woman since Thatcher. They’ve now had four men in a row. Is there a woman poised to step up? I don’t follow their politics with any closeness at all, so I really am asking, if anyone knows (not just spitballing), whether Thatcher was a fluke not to be repeated for another few decades?

  12. 12
    Alex S. says:

    @RaflW:

    For me, it depends on the song they use. Black magic woman? Go your own way? Little Lies?

  13. 13
    Jerzy Russian says:

    Wouldn’t it be neat if Hillary and JEB! were their respective nominees in 2016, and if one of Al Gore’s kids was JEB!’s running mate and one of Dan Quayle’s kids ended up as Hillary’s running mate?

  14. 14
    seabe says:

    Oh look more reasons why I’m NOT ready for Hillary.

  15. 15
    mai naem says:

    I watched Gina McCarthy on Bill Maher last night. Why the hell can’t we have elected Dem women like McCarthy? I doubt it, but I hope she runs for Mass. governator. Very cool lady.

  16. 16
    gene108 says:

    Hillary is a capable person, but she is not someone, who has worked hard at honing the craft of campaigning, like Obama and her hubby have had to do.

    It shows up from time to time.

    But this does not mean she will be a bad President.

    As far as the 2008 primary goes, the bottom-line is the Iraq War vote dampened her support from Democratic voters. There really was not a lot materially different in the policy positions between Obama and Hillary. IIRC Hillary was more liberal than Obama WRT to gay marriage and gun control.

    I think, if you want a woman President, you will need someone, who can handle the misogyny that will be leveled against her and Hillary has been dealing with it for 20+ years now.

    Also, I think the fact she will not eclipse the career accomplishments of her husband will sooth fragile male egos that feel they are losing their place in the world.

    Plus, apparatchiks from previous Democratic Administrations move up in future Democratic Administrations (same goes for Republican Presidencies). so you will have Obama people moving into positions of authority in a Hillary Presidency and if a Republican wins, you’ll have the Bush & Co. flunkies in charge again, just like the Watergate flunkies were in charge during the Bush & co. mis-Administration.

  17. 17
    Alex S. says:

    @Jerzy Russian:

    I think Chelsea would be perfect as Hillary’s running mate. And next year, she’ll fulfill the age requirement.

  18. 18
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Everyone mentions Mark Penn, and it’s right they should. The man is an utter fucktard, the guy who apparently is so professional that he can’t do delegate math, the guy who gave us the idiotic “Scroogled” campaign.

    I certainly hope that if Hillary does indeed run, she very politely (as in ‘fuck no!”) tells Penn to stay in Redmond…both during the campaign and during the subsequent Hillarystration.

    Goes double for the utter fucking scum that is Lanny Davis.

  19. 19
    Morzer says:

    @RaflW:

    Basically, none of the major parties have produced/promoted a woman who looks ready for the top job. Harriet Harman (Labour) is unpopular and derided by some as an avatar of political correctness of the starchy, annoying sort (nicknamed Harriet Harperson etc). Yvette Cooper is too tied to Blair (and Ed Balls) to be a good candidate for the top job. The Lib Dems aren’t in a position to produce a prime minister, but even if they did, they don’t seem to have any obvious elite female politician waiting in the wings. The Tories probably come closest with Theresa May, who is supposedly topping the poll for Next Leader once Shameron is booted out or rides off into the sunset with Becca Brooks. That said, May is not popular with her colleagues and has just been smacked down by Cameron after a fight with the repellent Michael Gove. So, there you have it.

    The SNP have Nicola Sturgeon as their deputy leader, so she might get to run the show in Scotland if Salmond ever does retire. (And yes, the combination of Sturgeon and Salmond is somewhat amusing).

  20. 20
    Ultraviolet Thunder says:

    I’m ready for Hillary to run the way by the 100th minute of a superhero movie I’m ready for the climactic battle scene to top all previous battle scenes. You know it will be epic. You know at the end all will be smoking ruins and the villain vanquished.
    Basically, I want to see a Democrat kick some GOP ass.

  21. 21
    the Conster says:

    The one takeaway from Brat’s success was his line that “money doesn’t vote – you do”. I don’t think Hillary’s team fully understands, or doesn’t want to understand, or understands but doesn’t want to act on, the ground up nature of electoral success.

  22. 22

    It’s still at least a year and a half before any of this is anything but staring at the stars and wishing astrology worked.

  23. 23
    gene108 says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    The only thing that truly excites me about the prospect of an HRC presidency is that we’ll finally have elected a woman.

    What’s kind of sad, to me, is that Democrats were fired up to make history again and get a woman elected, but after all the premature Hillary speculation, I do not think a woman at the top of the ticket will have the same enthusiasm that Obama engendered in 2008, as the first African-American Presidential candidate.

  24. 24
    Alexandra says:

    @RaflW:

    In the UK, you have to become leader of a large political party first, either Labour or the Conservatives. You can’t run for Prime Minister from outside the parliamentary party, which means the routes to power are narrower. You’re also extremely unlikely to become Prime Minister without having been in Cabinet first. In other words, you have to build up a coterie and a power-base within opposition or Government. There’s no equivalent of governors running for national leader, for instance.

    Margaret Thatcher, whatever your politics, was an outsider in the beginning in her party, an insurgent running against ‘the wets’, in other words, the RINOs… and the UK, at the time, wasn’t in a great state. She ruthlessly seized her opportunity.

    Teresa May, also in the Conservative party, is amongst the front-runners for the next Tory leader after David Cameron. Don’t think there’s much talk about any women leaders in the Labour Party at the moment, although there are a few talents in the making.

  25. 25
    Schlemizel says:

    @Morzer:
    This is not the official HRC shit bucket, this is just an independant group of people who are investigating the possibility of dumping shit buckets on HRC and encouraging her to be the target.

    Since that is the same logic that permits people to say she is not running that ought to be good enough for us too.

  26. 26
    Johannes says:

    I’d vote for HRC, but would much rather Jennifer Granholm or Elizabeth Warren.

  27. 27
    WaterGirl says:

    @gene108:

    I do not think a woman at the top of the ticket will have the same enthusiasm that Obama engendered in 2008, as the first African-American Presidential candidate.

    I just want to chime in to say that not all of the enthusiasm Obama engendered in 2008 was because he was the first african american presidential candidate. For me, the enthusiasm was for the man himself and all the talent and skills he would bring to the job; that he would be the first african american president was a nice bonus.

  28. 28
    Morzer says:

    @Schlemizel:

    It would just be nice to have a day (or possibly even two) without people making everything about HRC and then blaming HRC for making everything about herself. Still, I guess I can always join Frankensteinbeck in looking at the stars and wishing astrology worked.

  29. 29
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @RaflW: Maybe they see Thatcher as a cautionary tale.

  30. 30
    MattF says:

    @gene108: I agree that Hillary is a poor campaigner– compared, e.g., with Obama. And given that she’s going to be campaigning from now until November 2016, we’re in for a lot of WTF moments. That said, I don’t believe that she will be led around by the Mark Penns of the world. The Mark Penns will try to claim that they’re her special someone, and then try to betray her– but she’s been there and is done with that.

  31. 31
    Morzer says:

    @WaterGirl:

    It helped that Obama came out of nowhere. There wasn’t a decades long record that people could scan for evidence of their favorite heresies and unacceptable statements.

  32. 32
    hildebrand says:

    Just to get this out there before the regular crowd rolls in and points out the blazingly obvious – yes, we know, those who are not thrilled with Clinton fully realize that she is infinitely better than anything the Republicans can hork up.

    Of course, that is damning with faint praise. Anyone over the age of five with a working conscience would be better than any of the usual suspects from the Republican side of the aisle.

    I, for one, would simply like a broader array of choices. I am not looking for a pony or a unicorn, just an alternative to the Clinton Show – someone who leans a bit more left on issues of war and peace, and doesn’t come pre-loaded with a lot of baggage. It is not about who can be tough with the Republicans, that actually is wholly irrelevant, they will hate whomever we nominate, it is about who has the ability to govern amidst the standard Republican knavery. For better or for worse, Obama has governed exactly like he campaigned (I think it has been for the better, quite a lot actually), and thus how someone campaigns does tell us a great deal. This is why so many are less than thrilled with Clinton.

  33. 33
    Starfish says:

    @gene108: I think Hillary Clinton as the candidate at the top of the ticket is what dampens the enthusiasm. It’s like when Michael Steele running the RNC. It is a sign of tokenism rather than a person being chosen due to strong leadership skills.

  34. 34
    gogol's wife says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I feel this way too. But it’s not just electing a woman — despite all her flaws, and despite my being sick of the Clintons, she will without doubt be a million times better than any Republican candidate who’s likely to be nominated. And her Supreme Court picks would probably be fine.

  35. 35
    Morzer says:

    @Johannes:

    Michelle Bachmann would like you to know that Elizabeth Warren is in no way a populist.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l.....o-populist

    “Dodd-Frank is the biggest insider legislation giveaway that there’s ever been,” Bachmann said. “If any one is aligned with elites, it’s Elizabeth Warren. She is in no way reflective of where the average American is, because what she did through Dodd-Frank was institutionalize bailouts for the major investment banks forever. That’s what she did. So now the taxpayers are on the hook for who? The Goldman Sachs of the world? I mean, really? So that’s what she’s behind, so she is in no way a populist. Her views are among what the American people are rejecting.”

    I am sure there’s someone on the internets who can translate the above from Bachmannese to English.

  36. 36
    gogol's wife says:

    @Morzer:

    I’m already getting requests for money in the mail, so I consider her campaign to have started.

  37. 37
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @hildebrand:

    Of course, that is damning with faint praise. Anyone over the age of five with a working conscience would be better than any of the usual suspects from the Republican side of the aisle.

    This, this, this. The alternative is more utter disaster of the type we experienced during the third Bill Clinton term and the Barack Obama pre-election term.

  38. 38
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Morzer:

    I am sure there’s someone on the internets who can translate the above from Bachmannese to English.

    Not even Ralph Wiggum would deign to take that on. Unpossible.

  39. 39
    Schlemizel says:

    @Morzer:
    If there were other candidates running for the nomination the shit bucket would get spread around. As it is she is the only person currently running on the D side so who else would there be to target? This sort of thing is why most early front-runners don’t win the nomination and smart organizations try not to start too soon.

    The trade off, the item that her campaign hopes to exploit, is that an early “inevitable” candidate can suck all the cash out of the room and starve campaigns that count on money. One of the reasons BHO was able to topple her inevitability in 08 was that his campaign relied on people not money.

  40. 40
    Kropadope says:

    @Morzer:

    Could we at least wait for some sort of official announcement that she is running before people line up with their boutique buckets of shit to pour over her head?

    By then it will be too late.

  41. 41
    WaterGirl says:

    @Morzer: Unlike my experience when Palin opens her mouth, I completely understand what Bachmann is saying, and I think it’s completely straightforward. I think my apolitical sister would understand what Bachmann is saying.

    It’s all the lies that are a problem. It can be difficult to comprehend something when part of your brain is screaming, “that’s not true!”

  42. 42
    Morzer says:

    @Schlemizel:

    You know, maybe we could wait a little and see who else is running before we line up with our fecal matter containers? It’s going to be a long, long two years with people on here doing their best to douse any enthusiasm there ever could have been for HRC. I just don’t see the point in doing the GOP’s work for them for free. It seems like a somewhat unprogressive way to behave to me.

    And the reason BHO won in 2008 was simple – his people knew how the system worked. The actual difference between the campaigns in terms of the votes for each candidate favored HRC by roughly 300,000.

  43. 43
    Steeplejack says:

    @Alex S.:

    “Hypnotized.”

  44. 44
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @WaterGirl:

    It’s all the lies that are a problem. It can be difficult to comprehend something when part of your brain is screaming, “that’s not true!”

    Like Obama in the first debate with Romney in 2012?

  45. 45
    amk says:

    @Schlemizel:

    that an early “inevitable” candidate can suck all the cash out of the room and starve campaigns that count on money.

    Yup. downright cynical, manipulative and corrupt.

  46. 46
    Betty Cracker says:

    @gene108: I’m not so sure about that. I think a lot of people were unprepared for how profoundly emotional and powerful a moment it was when Obama clinched the nomination. It was for me.

    I remember watching that hack from the Women’s Independent Forum or whatever that GOP front group calls itself — can’t remember the hack’s name at the moment, but she’s a black woman, and she broke down in tears and disbelief during MSNBC’s live coverage when Obama won the nomination.

    Anyway, I think a lot of us female types will experience something similar when the first woman gets nominated for the top of her party’s ticket. Obviously, I’d rather that woman be someone like Elizabeth Warren, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. My point is, the nomination of the first woman for president is going to be a powerful thing.

  47. 47
    Morzer says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I think that’s absolutely right, although as person of the other gonadal configuration I won’t be able to feel quite the same emotional and historical resonances. Nonetheless, it will still be a good thing to do and the right thing to do – and a day with deep meaning for much of the American people.

  48. 48
    PJ says:

    @Morzer: It helped that Obama had consistently been against the war in Iraq, where Hillary never even acknowledged she had done something terrible.

  49. 49
    Kropadope says:

    @gene108:

    IIRC Hillary was more liberal than Obama WRT to gay marriage and gun control.

    That’s what I was trying to say!!! I mean despite the MSM narrative that tried to make everyone believe the opposite (successfully). The former wasn’t enough to win my vote, however, and the latter I don’t even personally see as a benefit.

    Also, I think the fact she will not eclipse the career accomplishments of her husband will sooth fragile male egos that feel they are losing their place in the world.

    Oh, god help me if that’s true. All her husband accomplished was being president in the 90s and laying the groundwork for W to eff us.

    if a Republican wins, you’ll have the Bush & Co. flunkies in charge again, just like the Watergate flunkies were in charge during the Bush & co. mis-Administration.

    You got me there, I guess.

  50. 50
    Morzer says:

    @PJ:

    I was an Obot from the get-go, as was my wife. We both thought that HRC’s campaign was badly run and at points downright foolish. That said, I think that too many people on here are starting to sound like they think the GOP was right to denounce all things Clinton back in the day. I don’t see the value in that. Yes, I preferred Obama and I am very glad we got him as president – but I know that I will do my utmost to get whoever gets the nomination for us elected in 2016. I just don’t see any point in this endless series of attacks on HRC this far out. Let’s at least see who the other choices are and cast our votes for a positive reason, rather than bitching and whining before the contest even begins.

  51. 51
    rikyrah says:

    @beltane:

    tell me about it.

    she was ‘inevitable’ in 2007.

    and she is ‘ intevitable’ again.

    why does she feel the need to be coronated?

  52. 52
    maya says:

    Well, I for one, am ready for the Oligarchy to begin. Gentlemen and Danica, start your engines.

    Must start off slowly though. Perhaps with a kids TV show – Kukla, Fran & Oligarchy.
    Then into serious/comedy series –Oligarchy & Hooch
    And then on to the Sunday AM talk show circuit. Meet The Press et al.

    I think I may have this backwards.

  53. 53
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Morzer: Same here — Obot from jump, hated the 2008 HRC campaign and slightly concerned about folks on our side buying into wingnut anti-Clinton tropes. But bitching and whining — it’s what we do, man!

  54. 54
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Morzer:

    it will still be a good thing to do and the right thing to do – and a day with deep meaning for much of the American people.

    Many of the latter don’t post on the internet much, though. So we won’t hear much from them, Especially about how they’ve been sold out.

    Life’s funny that way.

  55. 55
    Kropadope says:

    @Morzer:

    I am sure there’s someone on the internets who can translate the above from Bachmannese to English.

    Mine’s rusty but I’ll give it a shot.

    If any one is aligned with elites, it’s Elizabeth Warren

    She’s an elitist college professor.

    She is in no way reflective of where the average American is, because what she did through Dodd-Frank was institutionalize bailouts for the major investment banks forever.

    I TOTALLY understand the content of this bill that she was TOTALLY in the Senate to build and vote for.

    That’s what she did. So now the taxpayers are on the hook for who? The Goldman Sachs of the world? I mean, really? So that’s what she’s behind, so she is in no way a populist. Her views are among what the American people are rejecting.”

    ::Blows raspberries::

  56. 56
    Chyron HR says:

    @Morzer:

    Could we at least wait for some sort of official announcement that she is running

    If you’ve got a campaign logo, a campaign slogan, and a campaign staff suing people for infringing upon them, there’s a chance… that you might be running for president.

  57. 57
    Amir Khalid says:

    It’s like seeing one’s football team led by an erratic star striker, isn’t it? For what it’s worth I don’t think Hillary’s all that bad as campaigners go. She ran a good race against Obama and even led him for parts of it. My own misgivings about Hillary are more about her age than her policy agenda. She could be nudged towards a more progressive domestic policy, I think, if she saw it as a winner. And I do hope she’s taking notes on Obama’s judicious foreign policy approach of engaging but not unduly interfering.

    My foreigner’s feeling is, the Democratic party’s next presidential nominee should be of Obama’s generation rather than Hillarys. But I would still feel optimistic about an older nominee if it were she or Joe Biden.

  58. 58
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Chyron HR: Is “Ready for Hillary” run by, authorized by, or endorsed by HRC?

  59. 59
    Morzer says:

    @Chyron HR:

    And who are the other choices? Why don’t we pre-emptively denounce Biden for.. oh I don’t know, screwing up the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas clusterfuck? How about those lovely ties to the banksters? The gaffes? The age? The hairplugs? The possibility of endless bloody stories about Scranton Pennsylvania? And I haven’t even begun with the rich array of targets presented by Andrew Cuomo. Don’t like HRC? Wrap your mind around the endless pleasures to be derived from a Cuomo campaign!

    In other words, before you denounce HRC out of contention, bear in mind that the alternatives may not be exactly ideal either.

  60. 60
    Jose Padilla says:

    A supposed liberal criticizes HC, who wisely decides to withdraw a cease a desist letter, and the writer, a supposed liberal on a suppoosedly liberal website crows that HC had her nose wiped in it.

    I’m interested if Mr. McCall has made any shirts making fun of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, etc. There seems to be some low hanging fruit there.

  61. 61
    Aimai says:

    @Starfish: tokenism? What the fuck? She has been both a senator and secretary of state. Many men have run for president in much less but they are not called tokens. Ffs.

  62. 62
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @gene108: Dunno about Hillary not being a capable campaigner. She knew how to do it at one time – she apparently did very well campaigning for Senate in NY. Yes, she wasn’t as good as Obama in 2008, and some of that was due to her staff choices. Things like that are fixable. She’s not a far-removed lump like Huntsman or Mario Cuomo.

    I still don’t think she’s going to run, myself. I think she’s playing the “write a book and be coy about running for President” game to get visibility for herself for things she really cares about like empowering women around the world.

    Some point to the longevity of women in her family. But I still think she may have health issues and lack of fire-in-the-belly to want to run for President when she could do as much or more good globally outside of elected politics. Remember her “sniper fire” comments. She seemed exhausted, to me, near the end of her primary run and her Secretary of State term.

    Maybe she believes that she has an “obligation” to run to help keep the Senate and flip the House. Maybe that calculus is correct – I dunno. I do think she wants to shape the debate and policies of the Democratic Party.

    But I also do think that it is very early. I suspect she won’t be the only candidate in the primaries even if she does announce that she’s running.

    Do note, though, that my predictions about her future haven’t been great thus far – I didn’t think she was going to run for Senate. So, take these comments for what they’re worth. ;-)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  63. 63
    ruemara says:

    Is it ok to not really care about Hillary Clinton? Look, sounds fascinating, but I’m more concerned about 2014. And, frankly, being critical of such bold missteps before you even have a n announcement of running, sheesh. It makes one hope she’s paying attention and will correct things before the campaign starts. I wasn’t pro-Obama, or Hillary in the campaign of 2007-8. But, after her tone deafness on “hard working white people”, I made my choice. I don’t want a replay of that nonsense. But first things first, I want the Senate and the House.

  64. 64
    Cassidy says:

    @Amir Khalid: Saying HRC is a bad campaigner compared to Obama is like calling someone a bad boxer compared to Mayweather.

  65. 65
    Red Apple Smokes says:

    @Johannes: We’d have to change the constitution for Granholm to run. She was born in Canada, and I’m pretty sure that she doesn’t have the same set of circumstances that Ted Cruz has. Of course, on the off chance we actually did change the eligibility requirements, we could have the Schwarzenegger administration predicted in the movie Demolition Man.

  66. 66
    Schlemizel says:

    @amk:
    Actually its the smart thing to do in politics. BHO was an exception not the rule. Unless there is someone that can light a fire like he did this could be her shot.

    @Morzer:
    If you are the only target in the shooting gallery its pointless to whine everyone is shooting at you. As for vote totals you do know that Gore had more votes than Bush? There also have been World Series winners that were out scored for the series by the loser. Winning one game 12-1 means only one game not the whole deal.

    One of my complaints about HRC is that she surrounds herself with those sort of bloated, conventional wisdom money fueled people. It does not give me hope for an invigorating administration.

  67. 67
    Marc says:

    @mai naem: Agreed. It’s way too early to start having gaffes for the 2016 cycle, but Clinton just seems rusty. If that question threw her off, no way is she ready for a primary let alone a general election.

    Then again, this is someone who only ever ran in three campaigns herself, and lost the last one.

  68. 68
    Morzer says:

    @ruemara:

    Right. Whoever we nominate in 2016 is going to need a House and Senate full of sane, constructive Democrats to get stuff done. Not to mention sane, constructive Democrats running statehouses and holding governorships so that things like.. Obamacare!!! ….can actually be implemented.

    Whining about HRC or Biden or Cuomo or Fantasy Candidate X ain’t going to get it done.

  69. 69
    hildebrand says:

    @Morzer: Again, I am not looking for a pony, just a few more horses in the race, and I really don’t care if the pedigree isn’t perfect – I just want some options. Clinton’s ‘inevitability’ is not good for the party.

  70. 70
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: I also doubt that she will run. I think that 2008 was her shot and she got beaten by a better candidate. Age and health come into play, and I don’t think she is going to be up for it in 2016. I also could be wrong.

  71. 71
    Suffern ACE says:

    @PJ: yep. I’m willing to let bygones be bygones on Iraq. (Not really, but I can try). She was in favor of that. I would like her to explain why she was in favor of Libya (I may be confusing her with Samantha Power, but I remember the insider reports at the time were State for, defense against). If she would provide us a list of leaders she would like to topple, we can move our discussion on from there.

  72. 72
    amk says:

    @Morzer:

    is going to need a House and Senate full of sane, constructive Democrats to get stuff done

    Now if only HRC said that forcefully in public and pledged to campaign towards that end, folks wouldn’t be so critical. But, she didn’t and so folks are.

  73. 73
    Tripod says:

    They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.

    The world of her youth had fallen into pieces and rebuilt itself without her ever noticing. This hard bright blindness, her incapacity to recognize change, made her children conceal their views from her, justas Archer concealed his. She died thinking the world a good place, full of loving and harmonious households like her own.

  74. 74
    Marc says:

    @Jose Padilla:

    A supposed liberal criticizes HC, who wisely decides to withdraw a cease a desist letter,

    After unwisely deciding to send it. Meet the Streisand effect.

  75. 75
    Schlemizel says:

    @Morzer:
    you have not been a Democrat long have you? Its what we do!

    FWIW if Biden had anything even close to the HRC operation running I’d have some thoughts on that too. But nobody does.

  76. 76
    Morzer says:

    @hildebrand:

    But that’s the thing – the only people talking about HRC’s “inevitability” are.. the folks who worry more about her “inevitability” than anything else. Most people in the country don’t care about her inevitability either way. They want someone with experience, competence and some set of policies and beliefs that they can believe in. The inevitability nonsense is just something the likes of Jokeline and Fox cook up to sell horse-race stories to the gullible rubes who believe in that kind of thing and make it into a little tinpot god that they can dance around under a gibbous moon as the squamous worshippers chant unspeakable abominations to the piping of eldritch flutes.

  77. 77
    gene108 says:

    @Kropadope:

    All her husband accomplished was being president in the 90s and laying the groundwork for W to eff us.

    I think the 1994 mid-terms caught the Democrats off-guard. They had bee in charge of the House for so long, they did not realize the general discontent in the electorate.

    Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, in 1992, and launched a 3rd Party because people were generally sick of politics as usual.

    I think Bill Clinton was more liberal than liberals give him credit for, but his early liberal push blew up in his face.

    1. Healthcare reform to achieve universal healthcare went from salting his Presidency as truly transformational to giving him a huge legislative defeat that set the stage for rewarding outright Republican obstructionism to come.
    2. Getting gays to serve in the military met with a lot resistance from the military. He settled – to liberals disappointment – for DADT, as a compromise.
    3. Gun control legislation passed, but hurt Democrats in the 1994 mid-terms.
    4. The 1993 budget/tax bill was the only liberal-ish thing Clinton got done that did not hurt him later on.

    He recalibrate his priorities to what he could manage to get done.

    The Clinton Administration was involved in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and was close, as closest as we’ve come in ages, to some sort of solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Hell, when Clinton left office, Israel’s neighbors – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. – were willing to give diplomatic recognition to Israel, in exchange for giving some land back, from the 1967 war, and have a framework for peace there.

    The loss of life, as far as American military causalities go, was pretty minimal in the Balkans.

    Bill Clinton’s team did figure out (a) al-Qaeda was a thing, (b) they were serious about hurting Americans/America, and (c) we needed to do something about it. As much as Bush and his flunkies blamed Clinton for not doing enough, when the WTC bombing happened in 1993, people did not know al-Qaeda existed. It went from a non-existent priority, in 1993, to the biggest focus of Clinton’s security team in 8 years.

    I also vaguely remember something about the Clinton Administration having a hand in the IRA-British peace talks.

    Despite thinking Wall Street had figured out how to manage itself and thus Great Depression era regulations could be rolled back, which was a tragic, costly mistake, there was a hell of a lot of competence in the Bill Clinton Administration in other areas that gets overlooked.

    The rank-and-file in the Obama Administration cut their teeth in the Clinton Administration, such as Susan Rice, Eric Holder, and others I cannot think of off the top of my head.

    EDIT: The 1990’s DOJ focus on busting the mob probably was a contributing factor in our lower crime rates.

  78. 78
    Morzer says:

    @amk:

    Given that her campaign hasn’t actually started, maybe we might allow as how two years out is a little early to start pre-judging what she’s going to say in 2016?

  79. 79
    Tokyokie says:

    @Morzer: I cannot translate that into coherent English, but I can point out that it was passed in 2010 and that Elizabeth Warren didn’t join the Senate until 2013.

  80. 80
    Morzer says:

    @Schlemizel:

    you have not been a Democrat long have you?

    All my American life, thanks for asking. I was a leftist fetus.

    Its what we do!

    And believe me, Ronald Reagan is more grateful than he can say for that tendency of ours. He’s going to send us all fruit-baskets, just as soon as he gets back from his tour of the afterlife.

  81. 81
    ellennelle says:

    anne marie, could not agree more on your sentiment that hillary does not know how to run a campaign, and by extension, a government. this was the principle observation that pushed me over the edge from her side to obama’s; she is most decidedly NOT a good manager, and does NOT know how to pick people who are. how would she recognize them?

    it’s becoming increasingly clear that she plans to run, tho, which ticks me off beyond words. it will be a brutal, throwback campaign season, and i’ll join most of the other dems in half-hearted support, dreading the half-assed, fully entitled presumption to the throne she is seeking.

    sorry to be so negative about her; truth is i do love her and always have in so many ways. but my feelings for her plummet when she is so blind to the huge potholes that await her should she run, and – far more importantly – her demonstrable inability to navigate them.

    sigh.

  82. 82

    @Kropadope: You don’t remember the 80s, do you?

    I have a busy day ahead so I’ll confine myself to dropping the following: There used to be a country called Yugoslavia. (Look it up!) It exploded. Things had to be done to avoid a second Holocaust in Eastern Europe, and the right people made those decision.

    Bush the Elder had his advisers from the Vietnam era telling him what the US role in the post-Cold War world was going to be. He lost re-election because of the recession, but Bill Clinton’s people were anything but status quo managers on the one issue (foreign policy) where GHWB was truly evil. With all the best intentions.

  83. 83
    gene108 says:

    @Morzer:

    I am sure there’s someone on the internets who can translate the above from Bachmannese to English.

    A great indoctrination into double think.

    Dodd-Frank is the biggest insider legislation giveaway that there’s ever been,”

    Which is Wall Street went ape-shit trying to kill it in Congress, and subsequently tried to weaken its implementation.

    If any one is aligned with elites, it’s Elizabeth Warren. She is in no way reflective of where the average American is, because what she did through Dodd-Frank was institutionalize bailouts for the major investment banks forever.

    She is so much in the pocket of Wall Street that Wall Street’s Republican lackeys in the Senate blocked her appointment ot the CFPB. Of course what Dodd-Frank did do is create a way to unwind large banking / financial institutions that was not accounted for in existing regulations. That’s different than eternal bailouts.

    That’s what she did. So now the taxpayers are on the hook for who? The Goldman Sachs of the world? I mean, really? So that’s what she’s behind, so she is in no way a populist. Her views are among what the American people are rejecting

    Again two contradictory positions that have no basis in reality. Elizabeth Warren is not a populist, but a shill for Wall Street.

    Orwell will be proud.

  84. 84
    Chyron HR says:

    @Morzer:

    Gee, you’re right, it’s weird how nobody treats Biden or Cuomo like they’re running for president. Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that’s because they, unlike Clinton, aren’t running yet. But, no, obviously the actual reason is Hillary Derangement Syndrome.

  85. 85
    Morzer says:

    @Chyron HR:

    Last I checked, HRC wasn’t, in fact, running yet either.

    Please proceed.

  86. 86
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @gene108: People forge the context.

    Here’s the 1992 Dem. field. Which one would you confuse with Eugene V. Debs?

    Clinton, Jerry Brown, Tsongas, Kerrey (the with-an-e Kerrey, from Nebraska) Harkin, Wilder, Eugene McCarthy, and Mayor Larry Agran of Irvine, California.

    I’ve left the long-shots and send-a-message candidates in there., perhaps Harkin was arguably more liberal going in, but after the ’94 midterms, which one of them doesn’t basically do what Clinton did?

    (Remember, whiie Brown ran against NAFTA, and for a higher min9mum wage, he also ran on platformm calling for a flat, single-bracket income tax, term limits, and abolishing the Department of Education,)

  87. 87
    Suffern ACE says:

    @gene108: well I agree on that one. A real populist would set out to destroy the banks for the hell of it. Because who needs banks? If they all were to disappear tomorrow, we wouldn’t notice. So unlike a real populist, she wanted to regulate the behavior of banks. No true populist would ever do that. True populists favor gold as the peoples currency.

  88. 88
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @ellennelle:

    anne marie, could not agree more on your sentiment that hillary does not know how to run a campaign, and by extension, a government.

    This is the mindset that gets you a government-as-permanent-campaign, which is part of the problem. Exhibit 1 — recovery summer, and the pivot to austerity.

  89. 89
    Morzer says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    To my eternal shame, I had forgotten the existence of Mayor Larry Agran. I guess he was just an also-agran in my mind.

    I shall now don my silk cilice and flagellate myself. Gently.

  90. 90
    GxB says:

    @Alex S.: Tusk: “Don’t tell me that you love me / Just say that you want me – Eye-yeeee!”

  91. 91
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Morzer: I used Google. All I could remember free-style was his career as the corporal of F-Troop.

  92. 92

    @Davis X. Machina: Eugene McCarthy? For reals?

    (I was off the grid that school year, so you could literally tell me anything you have the energy to put in Wikipedia before 7pm PDT. Prank opportunity!)

  93. 93
    Baud says:

    FWIW, this is the first I heard of T-shirt-gate.

  94. 94
    moonbat says:

    Hillary — if she runs, and I hope she won’t — lost my good will when she recently started dumping on Obama’s non-interventionist approach to the Middle East and some other “distance yourself from the incumbent” crap. It gives me zero hope that she will be more progressive or even as progressive as Obama. She and Bill just want to win for winning sake, the rest of us be damned. I foresee more of that triangulating to the right of center crap at which her husband was so masterful, as if passing bad bipartisan legislation like NAFTA and repealing banking/investment firm regulations were better than passing no legislation at all.

    Yes, electing our first female president would be very inspiring, but it’s not an end in itself to me. Broaden the field, let’s hear some new/different ideas. I’m not ready to coronate anyone.

  95. 95
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @PhoenixRising: Yep. It happened.

    In 1992, returning to the Democratic Party, he [Eugene McCarthy, ed.] entered the New Hampshire primary and campaigned for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but was excluded from the first and therefore most important televised debate by its moderator Tom Brokaw of NBC. McCarthy, along with other candidates who had been excluded from the 1992 Democratic debates (including two-time New Alliance Party Presidential candidate Lenora Fulani, former Irvine, California mayor Larry Agran, “Billy Jack” actor Tom Laughlin, and others)

    I live in Maine, the debate flap was covered on our local (Portland ME) media. We catch a lot of NH primary backwash.

  96. 96
    Death Panel Truck says:

    @amk: In 1966 Nixon campaigned his ass off for more than 100 GOP House candidates. The party gained 47 House seats and three Senate seats. Say what you will about that bastard, but he earned his way back into the party’s good graces.

    I think if Hillary’s going to run, she should show her loyalty to the party by doing the same thing Nixon did before the mid-terms. I don’t see her doing that. Either it’s because she’s not going to run, or that, as I suspect, she just can’t be bothered.

  97. 97
    Morzer says:

    @Baud:

    You wait until the media decides that the gates on the Clinton Summer Palace are the wrong shade of off-white. Gategate is going to be the BIG EVENT and may even win the morning.

    Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!

  98. 98
    Kropadope says:

    @PhoenixRising:

    You don’t remember the 80s, do you?

    No, that’s a time-period that covers me up until about age 6. I get what you’re saying that he was better than GHWB, especially along the lines of foreign policy advisers. Though Gulf War 1 shows us that Bush was at least able to keep his party’s worst FP instincts in check. Did you see the sequel?

  99. 99
    gene108 says:

    @moonbat:

    Hillary — if she runs, and I hope she won’t — lost my good will when she recently started dumping on Obama’s non-interventionist approach to the Middle East and some other “distance yourself from the incumbent” crap. It gives me zero hope that she will be more progressive or even as progressive as Obama. S

    What does it say about Obama’s instincts that he tapped the head of the Senate Judiciary committee, during the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas controversy and helped revise bankruptcy laws to make it harder to discharge individual debt and impossible to discharge student loan debt to be his VP?

    I’m sorry, I am not seeing the Hillary-is-bad-because-she-surrounds-herself-with-bad-people issue, when there are cases to be made against the liberal bona fides of Obama’s top underlings.

    EDIT: Obama and Bill Clinton are probably the two best campaigners I have ever seen. Bill’s team, in 1992, was revolutionary for its time.

    I’m not all in for Hillary, but I do not see a reason to be so against her, as a Democrat or a liberal, at this point in time.

  100. 100
    Suffern ACE says:

    @moonbat: I think domestic policy wise she will be fine. I don’t think her foreign policy stances will be popular. I hope, if we can, to get her to start talking about what a post Arne Duncan education department looks like.

  101. 101
    Ruckus says:

    @gogol’s wife:
    Who is asking for money?
    Is it Hillary or is it some PAC that wants you to give them money?
    Because that is an important distinction. The Hillary support group the original post was about is apparently an independent group and I’d bet there are others, all with their hands out.

  102. 102
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Kropadope: Well, all of it is, to be polite, fibs and canards and…oh, fuck it, they’re all outright lies, but it’s precisely the sort of shit I expect from Second Amendment actionable scum like Bachmann.

  103. 103
    maya says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Ah, yes. That incomparable journalist, news personality, author, austerity economics professor and prescient historian, Tom Brokaw. I hope someday someone possesses a good memory and a spray paint can to inscribe across his tombstone; “Now that we own Iraq, Mr. President.”

  104. 104
    gogol's wife says:

    @Ruckus:

    It’s Ready for Hillary. I don’t really believe they’re independent.

  105. 105
    J R in WV says:

    A little off topic, but people have said a lot about George Will’s amazing column about college rape, and this is the perfect analysis of that kind of behavior on Will’s part:

    http://theweek.com/article/ind.....rge-f-will

    And it is sad, I say this who has hated every word that Will has ever written, including “the” and “a”!

  106. 106
    Kay says:

    @gene108:

    Obama and Bill Clinton are probably the two best campaigners I have ever seen. Bill’s team, in 1992, was revolutionary for its time.

    Bill Clinton gave the main speech at the Ohio Democratic Party dinner last night.

    1. He didn’t appear with the candidate, Ed FitzGerald -they “met privately” after
    2. He didn’t mention Kasich by name

    I know they all do it. I know they all carefully position themselves, but for goodness sakes. It’s (now) obvious he doesn’t think FitzGerald is going to win and it’s also obvious (to me) that he’s carefully avoiding going after Kasich (who is a DC person, after all, from the Clinton years).

    He can’t let the Ohio Democrat have a front page photo onstage with him?

    Here’s the headline: “Clinton Says Little About FitzGerald”

    http://www.dispatch.com/conten.....erald.html

    Take a risk, Bill. Just throw caution to the wind!

  107. 107

    @J R in WV: One of the this writer’s examples of thoughtful conservative thinkers includes Douthat. I don’t know how seriously we should take him.
    @Kay: Bill and Hillary are still stuck in the 90s.

  108. 108
    Violet says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Bill and Hillary are still stuck in the 90s.

    Yeah, that’s my impression too. I don’t want to go backwards. Obama was young and looking forward. I’d like to see someone from his generation or even slightly younger take over the job. But only if that person is a Democrat.

    The Republicans have younger people, and I think on stage that is going to be a stark comparison and not in a good way for Dems.

  109. 109
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Kay: Bill got to and stayed in the presidency by being careful. The one place he wasn’t careful nearly brought him down. He is not going to throw caution to the wind. Ever.

  110. 110
    Baud says:

    @Kay:

    Didn’t Bill campaign for Grimes, who’s no sure bet? I wonder why Fitzgerald is different. I can’t believe Ohio is about to reelect Kasich.

  111. 111
    Kay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Nina Turner is an AA candidate who is an amazing person and should be promoted. She’s really an original, has a lot of presence, with a lot of attention she would (I think) increase turnout based on the voter suppression issue.

    This is the sort of “retail politics” he’s supposed to excel at. Instead it’s all positioning positioning, positioning.

    I’m surprised he didn’t call Kasich up so they could get all misty-eyed over welfare reform.

    An advocate of personal responsibility, John chaired the historic congressional conference committee that overhauled the welfare system. Building on his commitment to limited government, John also championed defense reform and the elimination of wasteful government spending by effectively building coalitions with members on both sides of the aisle.

  112. 112
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Kay: wow. Is he worried that if he gets his picture taken supporting a candidate who loses, we will lose faith in him? I mean, it’s not like we’d start confusing him with Sarah Palin.

  113. 113
    Kay says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    My sister and I were talking about this and we call it “Morning Joeism”

    It means “sounding like any of those horrible people on that show”

    I sometimes listen to that show on the car radio so I can narrow down just exactly what it is I hate about the Democratic Party :)

  114. 114
    Kay says:

    @Baud:

    Grimes is the Senate.

    DC. 6 years. Hillary’s Congress.

    She’s also a member of a big Democratic family in that state, and that state is part of the Clinton Appalachian Caucus of States :)

    You remember. They win those.

    She is the daughter of Charlotte (née Case) and Jerry Lundergan, a former Kentucky Democratic chairman and state representative.

  115. 115
    the Conster says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Bill and Hillary are still stuck in the 90s.

    Politics in the 90s was pre-internet. That’s just too long ago and far away. Can you imagine her just showing up on Reddit? Not in a million fucking years. Like I’ve said before, I want Hillary on my team because she’s smart and works hard, but I don’t trust her judgment, and don’t want her calling the shots.

  116. 116

    @the Conster: Not to be shallow but she needs to fire her stylist and get out of those horrible pantsuits. Wearing one color head to toe makes her look like a teletubbie.

  117. 117
    Kay says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    I think he did it for Chris Redfern, who is the chair of the Ohio Democratic Party and not a wonderful human being but an effective and powerful person in the state Party.

    I just think if he’s going to do this positioning it would help if he’d do it well.

  118. 118
    Kay says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    I think Bill is going to be more of a problem than Hillary. Not for the reasons people usually give, not the occasional pettiness and crankiness and huge ego, but for this sense I get that he’s much more, I don’t know, roundtabley than he used to be.

    I liked Hillary better than him by the end of the 2008 primary.

  119. 119
    Corner Stone says:

    @Kay: I read the article you linked to at 106, but I couldn’t tell from it. Why do you think Bill Clinton positioned himself the way you think he did?

  120. 120

    @Kay: I agree with you, that Bill is going to be a liability for her if she decides to run.

  121. 121
    the Conster says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    It is shallow, but it’s a thing. Hair and makeup is also. I thought she always looked amazing when she was campaigning in 2008, but that was a long time ago for a woman her age. Men can just shower and dress. Women politicians – at least in this country – don’t have the luxury of appearing in front of a camera of any sort without everything being “done”, and in the world we live in, she’s at a disadvantage because of her age. I hate that, but denying it doesn’t help.

  122. 122

    @the Conster: I think she was more relaxed about her own appearance when she was SoS, and she looked and carried herself better than when she was either the First Lady or a Senator. Also too, dressing in one color, makes her middle look a mile wide.

  123. 123
    Kay says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Because FitzGerald is 10 points down and Bill Clinton knows Kasich and Kasich was a key player in the Bill Clinton Brand of “getting things done in Washington in a bipartisan manner”

    Hillary Clinton is popular here. She’s popular in the state. I thought her interview with Terry Gross (I listened to it) was frank and refreshing from her. I don’t think it was a gaffe at all. She sounded strong to me, and you know what? That issue IS complicated. It was complicated for all of them. They used just that issue in this state to re-elect Bush. They brought out evangelicals and Catholics and they dragged that crook over the finish line. She was there for all that.

    They don’t have to be this careful. She’s fine. It’s early.

    I wonder if Bill Clinton protecting his legacy will hurt her, not help her. NAFTA is going to come up again in this state. Trade is huge here. She was incoherent on it last time. Obama was lying too, all Democratic Presidential candidates lie about trade when they’re in this state, but she was a mess. That’s because it’s her husband’s legacy. I wonder if he boxes her in more than helps.

  124. 124
    the Conster says:

    @Kay:

    I thought her interview with Terry Gross (I listened to it) was frank and refreshing from her. I don’t think it was a gaffe at all. She sounded strong to me,

    I love ya Kay, but I couldn’t disagree with you more. It was cringeworthy – the defensiveness at what should have been an easy question to answer created Terry Gross’s escalating insistence that she answer it. I really didn’t understand why she didn’t handle it better. Even the liberal Chris Hayes was all like WTF.

    Bill will hurt her more than help her. Take it to the bank.

  125. 125
    the Conster says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    As long as we’re being shallow, I hated her look as SOS, which is her look when she doesn’t care about her look, and it’s because she wasn’t in the spotlight. My sister and I -both genetic liberals – were both like “Hillary needs to get a haircut” every single time we saw her. It’s a distraction that Obama never has to deal with. In fact, he has said that he only has dark suits and white shirts because it’s one less decision he has to make every day. Amen.

  126. 126
    Kay says:

    @the Conster:

    I heard Jake Tapper on it and they were doing the “not ready for prime time!” super-savvy thing they do, but I disagree with that.

    Clinton has to be what she is. if she hadn’t have lost the primary people would have found out what she is, good and bad, but she lost so they didn’t.

    It sounded real to me. Like a real person, and not in the “gaffes expose character!” way but like someone who lived this whole thing and insists on giving a complete, complex answer. I ask people questions all day long in my job. If I had asked her that I would have been impressed with the response.

    They don’t have to coach her in that campaign, they have to trust her.

  127. 127
    Corner Stone says:

    @Kay: Ok. To me, the article seemed written with a slant, so I read through it a few times to see what it was actually covering. Overall, it seemed like a workman like performance from Bill. The article indicated he did the “resume reading” schtick a few times, including for Fitz.
    We do a lot of mind reading around here because it’s fun sometimes, and in this case your assessment may be spot on.
    Sometimes it’s dead easy to get what’s up, like when even Rick Scott didn’t want to be at the same event as Gov Christie.
    The Clinton’s, specifically Bill as he has more panache, are notorious for repaying campaign loyalty to people/candidates who stuck with them or up for them. This obviously didn’t seem like one of these cases, IMO, but just a standard party fundraiser.
    Until Obama can get on the campaign trails and assist the D party, WJC will continue to be the biggest gun they can rope in. I don’t see anything circumspect with him not going all out, all the time. I guess it’s a fair question to ask if he should since doing so would help the D president (now and in near future).

  128. 128
    the Conster says:

    @Kay:

    She sounded real alright – real uncomfortable. The question wasn’t exactly easy to answer but so what, and didn’t really require a complex answer. She could have used humor, but her attitude automatically flipped to a weird hybrid of attack and defensiveness – I don’t know. It sounded really off and unnecessary given she’s on the right side of the issue. Your Mileage Obviously Varies.

  129. 129
    Violet says:

    @the Conster:

    Bill will hurt her more than help her. Take it to the bank.

    He’ll do both, but yeah, he’ll hurt her in ways for sure.

    It’s going to be interesting to watch. We’ve had other “legacy” candidates–W is the most recent. But Hillary is the first spouse of a former president to run. It’s an odd thing and can help in some ways and hurt in others. I think we’ll sort of be figuring out how it’s going to work as it goes on.

    I think she’ll run. But we’ll see. If she isn’t going to run I wish she’d go ahead and decide so others can move forward more confidently.

  130. 130
    Kay says:

    @Corner Stone:

    And it is biased, that paper is a right wing rag, but the distance in Clinton was palpable.

    His big skill is “retail politics”. Nina Turner got more applause than he did, because she’s a lovely person. I just would think Mr. Uber Natural would make more of effort since he’s there anyway.

  131. 131
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Morzer:

    Why do I have a horrible feeling that every day is going to be sniping at Hillary day from now on? I am not even a Clinton fan, but I am getting mighty sick of the constant jabs at her. Could we at least wait for some sort of official announcement that she is running before people line up with their boutique buckets of shit to pour over her head?

    I am 100% on board with this. Why do I feel like when HRC does it, it’s bitchy and if some male candidate does it, it’s leadershippy?

    I’m even willing to entertain the idea of a different candidate. But until I see one, I’m going to suppress whatever sexism I regrettably harbor and try to see her in the same light I saw BHO.

  132. 132
    the Conster says:

    @Kay:

    Yeah, this is why I think Bill is a net loss for a Hillary run. Too much attention as to what he’s doing, who he’s meeting with, what they’re talking about, what he said, what it all means for Hillary. He’s catnip for our lazy media who are all too willing to go back to the 90s, to say nothing about what he’s been doing with his little friend while Hillary’s been traveling on business. UGH. I want them both to go away now, or at least to work towards making the party stronger for a different candidate.

  133. 133
    Trentrunner says:

    For me, the upsetting part of Hillary’s Fresh Air interview wasn’t her testiness about her views of marriage equality; it was this:

    “You know, somebody is always first, Terry,” Clinton said. “Somebody is always out front, and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who join later, in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change, are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across our country if nobody changed their mind, and thank goodness so many of us have.”

    “Somebody”? “Somebody”?!?! You know what we call those “somebodies,” those people who are “out front”?

    Leaders.

    It’s telling that she doesn’t even think she needs to try to make herself look like a leader on this issue.

  134. 134
    Kay says:

    @the Conster:

    I think authenticity matters more than anything else, especially with her because fair or not people have trust issues with her. That’s true in my work, too. I cannot coach a witness into being a completely different person. It doesn’t work. I don’t know, really, how “Hillary Clinton” answers questions. They wouldn’t let her off a leash last time long enough for anyone to find out.

    Ultimately, though, SHE has to do that. She has to tell them “this is how I talk and I’m 65 (or whatever) and it’s unlikely I’m turning into someone else”

  135. 135
    eemom says:

    Charisma is an actual thing in politics, and it has nothing to do with gender. Hillz doesn’t have it. She doesn’t lack it as glaringly as, say, a Mitt Romney, but she still doesn’t have it.

  136. 136
    MaryRC says:

    @constitutional mistermix: And Ï;m ready for Hillary” implies that the next sentence is “Because it’s Hillary’s turn”. It’s the equivalent of “OK, next!”.

  137. 137
    the Conster says:

    @Kay:

    They wouldn’t let her off a leash last time long enough for anyone to find out.

    Who’s “they”? If you’re talking about her 2008 campaign, then you’ve made my point and Trentrunner’s above – she’s not a leader, she’s a follower. Hard working, smart and quick, but she doesn’t trust her own judgment enough to be a leader. Which explains her whole campaign, actually. It was a clusterfuck of firings, infighting and leaks.

  138. 138

    @the Conster: I actually liked her I give a damn attitude and the longer hair.

  139. 139
    the Conster says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    In some sense I did too – she was like the Honey Badger. She’s at her best when she’s relaxed and given a task to do because she’s indefatigable with the world’s largest rolodex – but she was tasked by Obama who has the vision and calls the shots. As president though, that look won’t work in the media glare because it’s too symbolic. It’s all around a ridiculous situation, for any woman.

  140. 140
    Morzer says:

    @eemom:

    You know who had charisma and a mustache that made Tom Friedman’s toes curl with envy and invaded Poland and was also a Steeler back in the day?

  141. 141
    Corner Stone says:

    @Morzer: Stalin?
    Who I denounce, by the way!

  142. 142
    askew says:

    @Kay:

    I think Bill is going to be more of a problem than Hillary. Not for the reasons people usually give, not the occasional pettiness and crankiness and huge ego, but for this sense I get that he’s much more, I don’t know, roundtabley than he used to be.

    I liked Hillary better than him by the end of the 2008 primary.

    The problem with both Clintons is that everything they do is for themselves. They won’t lift one finger to help the party unless there is something in it for them done the road. It used to be Bill could cover up this cold calculation with his charisma and great politicking. He’s lost enough of a step that he can’t cover up his ego and short-comings. Hillary’s never had the ability to do so.

    That’s one of the reasons we need a long, competitive primary. Let’s see if they can hold their tempers for the primary season or will they melt down like Bill did in South Carolina or Hillary did in Ohio.

    It looks like O’Malley is definitely running so at least we’ll get a choice in the primary.

  143. 143
    Kay says:

    @the Conster:

    Right, which is exactly the same point we got to in the 2008 campaign, she was responsible for the horrible campaign because she’s the leader of it. I get that part.

    I didn’t support Clinton in the primary in ’08. We worked really hard to beat her in this state. We lost, horrible Clinton campaign and all, her insane appearance with Ted Strickland where both of them were yelling at us and all. I think her actual performance as far as votes in the ’08 primary was under-rated, all that “seat the Michigan delegates!” bullshit aside.

    I don’t think it matters what they do to “coach” her. What she is will come out if she’s up there long enough, and she will be up there a long time. I think she’s better off betting on what she is than betting on the genius of Marc Penn.

    But you’re right. It would take a certain amount of courage for her to take that risk.

    Romney was risk-averse, too. It was so funny that he was portrayed as this bold business person. His caution and opaqueness and lack of trust in revealing himself makes my head hurt. I watched “Mitt”. There’s a scene in that movie where he is watching FL returns on some device, Ipad or phone, and he says really quietly “doesn’t look good” yet he is surrounded by these delusional cheerleaders. Maybe he knew all the time, all thru the skewed polls, all that. Who knows? The man is a cipher :)

  144. 144
    askew says:

    @the Conster:

    I love ya Kay, but I couldn’t disagree with you more. It was cringeworthy – the defensiveness at what should have been an easy question to answer created Terry Gross’s escalating insistence that she answer it. I really didn’t understand why she didn’t handle it better. Even the liberal Chris Hayes was all like WTF.

    Bill will hurt her more than help her. Take it to the bank.

    That interview showed reporters exactly what they need to do to get under Hillary’s skin and make her lose her temper. And it showed that her political skills have not improved at all. As the general public gets more and more interviews like that, her favorables are going to start to fall again. The public likes the idea of Hillary a lot more than they like the reality of Hillary.

  145. 145
    askew says:

    @Trentrunner:

    “Somebody”? “Somebody”?!?! You know what we call those “somebodies,” those people who are “out front”?

    Leaders.

    It’s telling that she doesn’t even think she needs to try to make herself look like a leader on this issue.

    Hillary has never been a leader. She’s very cautious and definitely a follower. She lacks that vision thing that makes leaders. She’d be fine as a workhorse in the Senate like Feinstein or Leahy, but she really has never been a leader. She’s certainly never successfully lead on anything. If Republicans weren’t too afraid of the media backlash, they’d go after her thin list of accomplishments now. There just isn’t a whole lot there. Yes, she’s held a lot of important positions, but she didn’t do anything with that power.

  146. 146
    Keith G says:

    In football jargon, the players are not even at camp yet, and still folks are picking winners and losers. Silly. Even more comical are those with an ax or two to grind from 2008 letting their unresolved issues fester up into pronouncements over who is good enough.

    Meh.

    I hope there is a competition of ideas and a chance to measure temperament. I hope Hillary is part of the mix because she has a record of achievement and is a force within the party. And I hope that there are others who have the guts to enter the fray. We need them.

    But for any who are waiting to see what Hillary is going to do…Please go fuck yourself. That is a candy-assed way to act. Either you want the job and are ready for it or you are not. If you are not committed enough to take on Hillary (assuming….) then you are too chickenshit to be my president.

  147. 147
    Keith G says:

    @askew:

    She’s very cautious and definitely a follower.

    One might say that she leads from behind?

  148. 148
    askew says:

    @the Conster:

    Who’s “they”? If you’re talking about her 2008 campaign, then you’ve made my point and Trentrunner’s above – she’s not a leader, she’s a follower. Hard working, smart and quick, but she doesn’t trust her own judgment enough to be a leader. Which explains her whole campaign, actually. It was a clusterfuck of firings, infighting and leaks.

    Actually one of the problems was the lack of firings because Hillary was too afraid of making a decision is what led to such chaos on her campaign. Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Penn both were given equal amounts of power and they hated each other so nothing got done in the campaign. PSD quit because Hillary brought in a 3rd person to help run the show. Plus, Bill and his team were doing things on their own and Hillary refused to reign them in. Hillary showed during that campaign that she doesn’t have what it takes to be a leader. It was a clusterfuck all around.

  149. 149
    askew says:

    @Keith G:

    I would say she follows behind and then when someone else’s decision is proven successful she takes credit for it.

  150. 150
    Kay says:

    @askew:

    I wish Democrats had strong governors to run but we don’t. We have Martin O’Malley and Jerry Brown and perhaps Hickenlooper, I don’t know enough about him.
    It will be the perfect setting for a governor, I think. Republicans may have four: Perry, Kasich, Walker and Snyder. Perry is a horrible candidate and so is Walker but Kasich or Snyder could be better.
    The (normal, not Tea Party) Republicans here want Jeb Bush. They love him as much as they loved his brother and they loved GWB at the time.

  151. 151
    sdhays says:

    @gene108:

    Also, I think the fact she will not eclipse the career accomplishments of her husband will sooth fragile male egos that feel they are losing their place in the world.

    Where do you get that idea? If President Obama is succeeded by a Democrat, that President will be starting out with an 8 year head start and with the Republicans staring into the void of demographic oblivion. Her husband did some good work cleaning up from the Reagan and Bush I administrations, but his accomplishments (not all positive) aren’t the stuff of history book chapters. Hillary could easily surpass her husband’s accomplishments in her first year or two alone, as Obama did.

  152. 152
    Cervantes says:

    Because Hillary’s people made a fuss about this obviously First Amendment-protected parody.

    Humorless clods.

  153. 153
    Jewish Steel says:

    I wish we could take a page out of British politics and call our national Democrats what they are; coalition leaders. No candidate who aspires to represent more than 50% of the electorate is going to sing your favorite deep cuts off of your favorite album. It’s always going to be more of an, “Oh, Bachman Turner Overdrive is playing at the state fair this year.” feeling.

  154. 154
    Keith G says:

    @askew: She has quite a record of accomplishment. She has been out in front in many key issues. She has among her credits a respectable list of “first ofs”. That’s not quite the behavior of a shrinking violet.

    So could you help me see how she qualifies as definitely a follower?.

  155. 155

    @Kay: What about Deval Patrick? Is he toast because Massachusetts Health Care website is still not operational?

  156. 156
    Corner Stone says:

    @Keith G:

    So could you help me see how she qualifies as definitely a follower?.

    She lost a primary to a better campaigner and then continued serving her country when asked to take a position of significant responsibility.
    Clearly a follower.

  157. 157
    Corner Stone says:

    @askew:

    in the Senate like Feinstein

    I’d pay good money to have Di-Fi bow out to any other D candidate for Senate.
    If that’s your standard…

  158. 158
    Corner Stone says:

    @askew:

    Hillary has never been a leader.

    Do you mean her positions have “evolved” after heavy consideration and a change in the political zeitgeist?

  159. 159
    Corner Stone says:

    It’s so interesting to see how many one track partisans we seem to have accumulated in the D party.

  160. 160
    the Conster says:

    @Keith G:

    Can you let us know what key issues she has been “out front” of? I just googled her senate accomplishments, and found this from the GOS – Nate Silver who knows a thing or two about analysis. The most memorable thing was her co-sponsorship of the anti-flag burning law with one of those Utah senators – Bennett, I think. Bravery! Leadership!

  161. 161

    @Corner Stone: Do you think Balloon Juice is representative of the Ds?

  162. 162
    gene108 says:

    @askew:

    It looks like O’Malley is definitely running so at least we’ll get a choice in the primary.

    I’d feel better about O’Malley, if he’d leave the Maryland pension fund alone and not raid it to fill short term budget gaps and go back on a deal he struck with the state employees, a few years ago.

    Pensions are a good thing and government employees are the last people left with pensions.

    We need to be promoting stronger pension systems and not have state governments gut them for short-term gain, like the private sector has done.

  163. 163
    RaflW says:

    @the Conster:

    “money doesn’t vote – you do”. I don’t think Hillary’s team fully understands, or doesn’t want to understand, or understands but doesn’t want to act on, the ground up nature of electoral success.

    I don’t think Hillary understands populism. I think she’s from the Democrats need to triangulate era and will not change her spots – especially on economics.

  164. 164
    gene108 says:

    @sdhays:

    Where do you get that idea?

    It’s something I’ve seen from men, especially older men, with regards to a woman’s proper place in the world. They are O.K. with women working up to the point where women get authority over men.

    YMMV.

  165. 165
    Corner Stone says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I don’t know, what do you think?

  166. 166

    @Corner Stone:I defer to your expertise. I have no idea.

  167. 167
    the Conster says:

    @RaflW:

    Practicing populism as a politician is something you can do or you can’t – demagogues are the best at it, because it requires appealing to true believers. I don’t really know what Hillary really believes because she’s so calculating and cautious which is a great skill set to have as Secretary of State but not so much for inspiring people to follow you.

  168. 168
    Corner Stone says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I think BJ has a significant core of Obama partisans, quite a few of which have held grudges to a degree that makes them less than rational.
    There is a significant cross-pollination between these Obama supporters and overall planks in the national Democratic Party, but the motivation is reduced, no matter who the nominee will end up being.
    People asking about “leadership” make me think Fournier is smiling to himself tonight while he pours a generous Cabernet by the fireplace. It’s amusing to see politicians being charged for being politicians. Unless it’s your guy.
    I find myself smiling a little thinking back to all the purity tests conducted here when people get seriously red faced angry demanding that anyone who offered even the mildest critiques of Obama pre-2012, give a name of a definitive candidate they would recruit to primary Obama. I mean, just ridiculous inoculations against heresy.
    And yet, here we are over 2 years away from a presidential election, and less than four months away from a critical mid-term election. And this is the kind of analysis that matters? Whether Bill was enthusiastic enough at a party fundraiser, whether Hillary had the right “tone” for a reporter on a detailed subject?
    So, in sum, no. IMO, BJ is not representative of the D party but it does contain a significant chunk of one track mentalities I mentioned.

    I agree with Keith G on at least this one thing. If you’ve got the ego and drive to be president then it doesn’t matter a damn what Hillary is up to, and should not matter much to your supporters. It didn’t matter to Obama, who put a better group in the field, got some good results and made the absolute most of them. The dialogues here make me think that there’s an obvious candidate or candidates people here prefer. I commend them for that vision and hope they work just as hard as they can to help that candidate move forward.

  169. 169
    Jewish Steel says:

    People asking about “leadership” make me think Fournier is smiling to himself tonight while he pours a generous Cabernet by the fireplace. It’s amusing to see politicians being charged for being politicians. Unless it’s your guy.

    Absolutely.

  170. 170
    the Conster says:

    @Corner Stone:

    @Jewish Steel:

    So, wanting leadership qualities in your party’s front runner -who has been on the national scene since 1992 – is what? Too much to ask? Too soon to ask? Too irrational to ask for? Really? Ego and ambition is not good enough, and that’s all I see.

  171. 171
    Jewish Steel says:

    @the Conster: National politicians will always reflect popular will more than drive it.

  172. 172
    eemom says:

    @Corner Stone:

    The dialogues here make me think that there’s an obvious candidate or candidates people here prefer.

    Not for me, and I’m gathering not for most here.

    I frankly don’t get what you and others are bitching about. To a man/woman here we’re all saying we’ll support HRC if she’s the candidate. We’re discussing why she’s maybe not the ideal candidate. Your implication is we’re supposed to just STFU about all our reservations and go all Hillbot before she even IS the candidate. That does not make a lot of sense to me.

  173. 173
    Corner Stone says:

    @the Conster: Politicians by nature are careful folk. It’s not rational to ask for a politician to put their neck out there on a routine basis.
    Let’s take 3 examples for our current president, President Obama.
    1. Marriage equality
    2. Legalize marijuana
    3. Use of the term “enhanced interrogation techniques” v torture

    He didn’t lead on marriage equality. His position evolved. Well after a screaming majority of the public were onboard.
    He made a joke about smoking bud during a conference call, and out and out dismissed it. Maybe legalizing it is a good thing, maybe it is not. But he certainly didn’t lead on a complex issue that entails elements of the war against the poor, war against people of color, and the incarceration industry.
    During his campaign in 2008 and also as president, he used the word torture to describe certain techniques, such as waterboarding. He’s now been using the epithet of enhanced interrogation techniques. When we all know what the fuck torture is.
    Any of those “leading” ?

  174. 174
    the Conster says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    Define “popular will”. Whose popular will? This country is split 50/50, and we’re in the fight of our lives. The popular will is to be lazy fucking morons getting fat in front of the TV. Leaders articulate a vision and inspire people to care and believe and get off their fat asses, instead of sitting around feeling cynical and hopeless about both sides doing it. Say what you will about the Teatards, and we do, they get on their Hoverrounds and fucking vote.every.single.opportunity.

  175. 175
    Corner Stone says:

    @eemom:

    Your implication is we’re supposed to just STFU about all our reservations and go all Hillbot before she even IS the candidate. That does not make a lot of sense to me.

    No, no, no. That is not even close. I’m wondering about the perspectives and expressed viewpoints here. If you can find anywhere I have expressed that we need to coronate Hillary I would be really happy to read it.
    I, myself, am torn about her running in 2016. I so badly want the first female president to be a Democrat, and I also find her more competent and compelling than a lot of people here do.
    But I want more than anything to win the WH, solidify advances in the ACA, and have a chance to nominate federal judgeships and SCOTUS candidates that may come open.
    If we pick O’Malley, or a Castro or a Warren or anyone who survives the bruising ego test – that’s who I want suiting up in Jan 2017.

    I just find the intense overly catty bullshit here to be amusing and unwarranted. The R’s have spent 20+ years telling us all how she is a lesbian, drug running, murderer. Now we’re going to do some part of their jobs for them?

  176. 176
    Jewish Steel says:

    @the Conster: is that what leaders do? Or do they carefully guide almost unpalatable, just barely progressive legislation through a den of thieves via some gruesome sausage making techniques?

  177. 177

    @Corner Stone: Good analysis! I have to admit that I am not a fan of Hillary, she does not excite me. I want to see who else is running in the primaries before I become a Hillbot.

  178. 178
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Jewish Steel: My point being that the only way to get anything meaningful done will involve a great deal of pandering to constituencies with whom you or I will have no sympathy with.

  179. 179
    AxelFoley says:

    Corner Stone is in fine trolling form today.

  180. 180
    the Conster says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    That “den of thieves” was popularly elected. Do you really think Obama wouldn’t have signed more progressive legislation into law, if he’d had more progressive legislation to sign? I suppose you can make that argument, but we’ll never know will we since he hasn’t been presented with more progressive legislation, BECAUSE HE DOESN’T MAKE THE LAWS. That’s why midterms are so critical.

  181. 181
    David Koch says:

    @Keith G:I didn’t know you were a dead-end Hillbot.

    All of your whiny-loony attacks on Obama for not being liberal enough were just a front to disguise your anger over DLC Hillary losing.

    That is hilarious!

  182. 182
    Corner Stone says:

    @the Conster: You’ve been yapping about leadery leadership.
    Here, let me re-post myself:
    1. There are things that can be done. Those are called Obama victories.
    2. There are things that can’t be done. Those are called Congressional failures.
    3. There are things that should be attempted but are not. Those are called “pragmatic decisions”, or lately, “politics over policy”.
    4. There are things that should never be attempted but are. Those are called a “Grand Bargain” or “11 D Chess”.
    5. Some things wound the soul of a US Citizen so deeply they can’t be properly reconciled. Those are called “looking forward, not backward”.

  183. 183
    Corner Stone says:

    @AxelFoley: Hey, One Note Troll! Good to see ya!

  184. 184
    askew says:

    @Kay:

    I wish Democrats had strong governors to run but we don’t. We have Martin O’Malley and Jerry Brown and perhaps Hickenlooper, I don’t know enough about him.
    It will be the perfect setting for a governor, I think. Republicans may have four: Perry, Kasich, Walker and Snyder. Perry is a horrible candidate and so is Walker but Kasich or Snyder could be better.
    The (normal, not Tea Party) Republicans here want Jeb Bush. They love him as much as they loved his brother and they loved GWB at the time.

    I think we have very strong governors in Deval Patrick and Martin O’Malley. If Jerry Brown wasn’t so old, I’d include him as well.

    Patrick and O’Malley can point to their economic success over Walker, Kasich or Snyder. They also have a whole list of other accomplishments to run on.

    As for those bitching about the leadership comments, all I ask is name one issue that Hillary led on that resulted in legislation passed, etc. because of her leadership. There’s a reason she ran on her husband and other people’s leadership in 2008. She had nothing of her own to run on. She took credit for Dodd’s FMLA and said she worked on the Irish Peace Treaty (she didn’t), etc.

    Obama led on taping police interrogations in the IL State House. In the Senate, he got 3 bills passed in his 4 years there which is a lot for a freshman Senator. As president, he ended the Iraq War, he repealed DADT, he got ACA enacted, he has a whole host of liberal executive actions done, he made the hard decision to kill OBL. And all of these things would not have happened without his leadership. Yes, there were other key people involved but it was his leadership and decision-making that led to these things happening. I am looking for a candidate who shows that same potential to get stuff accomplished. Not just pick fights with the Republicans or the media or even fellow Dems. I don’t care about that. I care about leadership ability which I don’t see anywhere in Hillary’s resume. I see a lot of proof she is a hard worker and can follow through on other people’s visions of what should be done. But, that’s not president material in my mind.

    That’s why right now Patrick or O’Malley are the two people I am backing for president.

  185. 185
    David Koch says:

    I’m gonna have so much fun watching the civil war break out between the Hillary and Greenwald coalition.

    Greenwald has already started to switch his conspiracy mongering and venom on to Hillary.

    I told you guys, but you hated Obama so much for beating Hillary you wouldn’t listen. But as President Kennedy warned, “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.”

  186. 186
    Jewish Steel says:

    @the Conster: You have chosen a difficult task, O Conster. You have chosen to argue for an abstraction and against an actual person. What eemom said above is true. This is a pointless exercise so early out. Also that carazzmuh (h/t Diamond Dave) counts for a lot.

    Now, you want to tell me why O Malley, Patrick, Biden is a better choice, I’m all ears. Truly! But I’m not buying an argument against Hillary because of leadership. That sounds like so much inspirational talk, biz dev horseshit.

    I’ll be here in County Hilbot until someone can convince me to move.

  187. 187
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    I’ll be here in County Hilbot until someone can convince me to move.

    Apparently it’s something to do with her having the wrong haircut.
    Maybe John Edwards can tell her a good stylist? Or maybe she should sit on the tarmac in LA for four hours while she gets the right cut.

  188. 188
    MuckJagger says:

    Not so much “I’m ready for Hillary” with me, but more like “I’m resigned to Hillary” or “I’m grudgingly accepting of Hillary.”

    Still, I’d crawl over broken glass to vote for her if there’s even a chance we get more legitimate justices on the Supreme Court than the nitwit Gang of Four.

  189. 189
    karen says:

    @mai naem: I had a different take when I listened to it- Terri was going after something she was never going to get- Hilary admitting she was being politically expedient and taking a position ( against gay marriage) that didn’t align with her beliefs. How in the hell is any politician going to admit that? And Terri just wouldn’t let it go.While I generally like Terri ok,but I think she is very limited in her interviewing skills. I have not heard her be nasty very often, but every once in awhile some one rubs her kitty fur the wrong way. I heard another interview she did with a young writer, Alison Brosh, and she was pretty relentless in asking very very personal questions about her suicidal depression. I thought it was at best insensitive, and at worst vicious.

  190. 190
    Pattonbt says:

    Primary vote: no
    General Election vote: yes

    See foreign policy hawkishness and Iraq war vote for primary vote reason (and, yes, dynasty / Clinton fatigue – irrational, yes, but so be it)

    GE, any dem no matter their faults is light years better than any R. Supreme Court, domestic agenda, etc.

    But HRCs foreign policy default positions disgust me (as do most establishment party members of both parties for that matter – Obama is more restrained than most, which is nice, but still not my preference).

  191. 191
    John M. Burt says:

    Clinton is the colonoscopy.

    The potential GOP candidates are the polyps that showed up on the x-ray and need to be excised and biopsied.

    Hell, yes, I’m ready for my colonoscopy.

  192. 192
    Johannes says:

    @Red Apple Smokes: Damn. Didn’t know about the Canadian birth. Ah, well. Then Warren’s my first choice if she wants it.

    Hilary, well, she’s competent, smart, but I think she is a poor politician–too willing to blandify herself Romney style, and try to be all things to all people. When she’s spontaneous, she’s much better, but it’s so seldom.

  193. 193
    LAC says:

    @Corner Stone: who the fuck are you calling one note? Took time out of your World Cup of drinking to shit on yet another thread about folks concerns about Hilary Clinton?

  194. 194
    Corner Stone says:

    @Kay:

    His big skill

    His big skill is something neither one of us will have the most remote chance of ever grasping the outside edge of. It’s foolish to impute something we think about “retail politics” onto probably the most naturally gifted politician of the last 50 years.

  195. 195
    Corner Stone says:

    @LAC: I was calling AxelFoley a one note troll. Can’t you read, you simple piece of shit?

  196. 196
    Donovan says:

    @beltane: Excuse me, but Hillary don’t have a campaign yet. It’s the Ready For Hillary folks who are supporters but not her campaign. The “creator” took their logo and that is what they have issues with.

  197. 197
    LAC says:

    @Corner Stone: all I have been reading is your simple piece of shit. Every time an interesting conversation comes up about Clinton, you have to insert your tired one note ass in it It. And your ‘unbiased’ assessment about bitter Obama supporters is laughable. The amount of projecting you do could run a movie theatre. We get it- you are voting for her. Your vote and numerous attempts to shut down discouse among others are duly noted.

  198. 198
    Corner Stone says:

    @LAC: And it seems that the only thing you have to contribute is to come along into a dead thread and complain about me. I never see you make any comments about any of the topics where you dead thread your way into.
    My first comment on this thread was 119, a question to Kay about her perspective on something. I’m not sure how, exactly, that shuts down discourse.
    But in any event, you can keep ankle biting long after anything’s been discussed. Although you seem to be intensely interested in me and my actions, I can assure you it’s not mutual.

  199. 199
    Leah says:

    @Kay:

    Ive seen Lina Turner on MSNBC; she is awesome.

    I agree about Bill Clinton’s recent appearances; he’s become so comfortable with his centrist framing, he’s doing real damage to Hillary’s chances for support from the Democratic Party’s liberal base. His defensiveness about having repealed Glass-Steagall, and his insistence that it’s absence had nothing to do with the housing bubble and the increasing risks the big banks built into the economy to the point at which it finally blew up was especially disheartening. I think the worst recent comment I’ve heard was the one about the liberal base’s inability to be appeased by whatever steps Obama might have taken to bring any kind of accountability to those who broke the economy, as if, feeling the need for such accountability amounted to becoming a mob.

    Odd, too, because out ex-President did quite well in his support of Obama’s 2012 run for a second turn. I wonder what’s going on?

  200. 200
    LAC says:

    @Corner Stone: I am not as interested in you as you are in flapping your drunk mouth.

  201. 201
    Corner Stone says:

    @LAC: Wow. Showing up at midnight, again?
    Sorry, honeypots. It seems you doth protest too much. Dead threader.

Comments are closed.