Skip to main content

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a Global Town Townterview at the Newseum in Washington January 29, 2013. The Townterview, a mix of a town hall and television interview, is Clinton's 59th such meeting which comes just before her last day as S
Politico has some advice for Hillary Clinton should she run for president and it's a doozy. According to John Harris and Maggie Haberman (this is such high-level analysis it took two reporters to come up with it), Hillary should be sure of the following, among other inanities:
Don't turn into Mitt Romney.
Sure, Hillary is very popular while Mitt was seen as "awkward, elitist, insular, and just a bit odd," they acknowledge. But still! Her popularity will decline if she runs and becomes a more partisan figure, so ... well, they had to get Mitt Romney into this piece somehow, and apparently making sense was not really a priority.
Don't turn into Al Gore.
Obviously Gore had to make an appearance here, too, so he's dragged in to make the point that Clinton faces a challenge in distinguishing herself from Barack Obama without alienating his supporters. It's a basic point, but if you mention Al Gore in bold print, suddenly it's sexy and attention grabbing.
Define her record at Foggy Bottom.
"Foggy Bottom" is, of course, "state department" in Beltway-speak. So, duh, Clinton should have something to say about her last job. Again, it takes two reporters for this required analysis.
Get some ideas.
I'm going to go ahead and quote from this section so you get the flavor directly. "Few operatives think 2014 is the time to be plunging deeply into policy proposals and describing the details of a Clinton presidency." And then: "But ..." Have ideas, but only vaguely!
Get some rest.
Right. Define yourself, address a number of issues that only political reporters care about, seem warm and cuddly for the public, walk a balance beam with regard to the current president, develop your campaign themes without seeming to publicly talk too much about issues ... and get some rest.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:45 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What about her hair? (26+ / 0-)

    There must be something she should be doing about that!
    And those pantsuits!  Oy vez mir!

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:49:36 AM PST

    •  After all, she’s a fuzzy headed WOMAN…. (5+ / 0-)

      That has been a lawyer, first lady through ‘trying’ times, a Senator and Sec of State ..conferrring with over 200+ countries.  … What can she know? #waronwomen

      Proud to be part of the 21st Century Democratic Majority Party of the 3M's.. Multiracial, Multigender and MiddleClass

      by LOrion on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:02:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And a former Wal-Mart board member (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FuddGate, sierradeagua, Lonesome Jeff

        I'm all for having a woman as President.

        But please, please, please, could it be Elizabeth Warren and not this tired old Third Way DINO?

        See the children of the earth who wake to find the table bare, See the gentry in the country riding out to take the air. ~~Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote"

        by Panama Pete on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:02:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, we should nix Clinton... (7+ / 0-)

          ...for serving on Wal Mart's board in the eighties, and instead nominate Elizabeth Warren, who was a Republican until the mid-nineties?

          •  Or go with Sanders (0+ / 0-)

            who isn't even a Democrat.

          •  Hey, if you can't tell the differences (0+ / 0-)

            politically between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, you might as well vote for Hillary.

            I hope Elizabeth Warren stays right where she is, where she can have the greatest effect on financial regulation, but I am sick and tired of Third Way New Democrats, who will never ever be progressives.  That was why I voted for Obama in 2008.  I was wrong, he's another DINO, with the partial exception of his health care plan (which was written by the Heritage Foundation after all,) but he did sound like a progressive.  

            Since then I've learned my lesson--don't vote or volunteer for fake progressives.  Which is why I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton this time.  Surely we can find a better woman to run for President.

            •  You've got to be kidding (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jeremimi

              Hillary is the definition of progressives. She is the reason any healthcare improvements exist at all. She spent the last 30yrs working on it and will finish the job as president. She headed the investigation of the oil companies while her husband was president that held the oil companies to a fair profit at $1 per gallon when they tried to cry poor and jack up the prices. She single handedly and with her own money turned around the infant mortality rate in Arkansas when there was not tax money for programs, she stepped in and funded them herself and personally drove around in the mountains teaching girls how to breastfeed and how to care for their babies. How exactly is this a fake progressive?

              •  Well...kinda. (0+ / 0-)

                I wouldn't go so far as to label Hillary a progressive but it seemed obvious to me during the primary battles of 2008 that her politics were somewhat to the left of Obama. Likewise, I wouldn't call Obama a DINO but only because the current Party base is far more akin to the relatively moderate Republicanism of the 90's (and right of Nixon) while the Republican base is currently somewhere to the right of the mentally insane. The sad fact is, neither Stevenson nor Eisenhower would recognize their respective parties, today.

                My one hope for a Hillary Clinton presidency is my sense that she has far more intestinal fortitude for bloody battle than does Barack Obama. It takes a certain amount of puck, and dare I say, viciousness to be a successful president. FDR possessed those traits. Rather than seek consensus where none was forthcoming (ie Mr. Obama), FDR was not afraid to wield power and an acerbic wit to put idiot (and ever-lingering) Hoover Republicans in their place.

                We can only hope she's less of a corporatist than William Jefferson Clinton and Barack Obama but in 21st century America, it may be expecting too much of any well-financed candidate to be anything but a corporate shill.

            •  I didn't say... (0+ / 0-)

              ...that there's no difference between Clinton and Warren.  One difference is that Warren is currently espousing a more progressive line than Clinton is.  Another difference is that Clinton stands a much better chance of being our next president than Warren does. I'll be watching the results of this year's congressional elections for a sense of whether or not there's a progressive populist wave coming. If there is, then Warren's chances look better.

              Of course, the point of my comment was that you shouldn't condemn someone for a political stance they took in their teens when the candidate you're supporting took an equally bad (or worse) stance when they were in their forties.

        •  Why so down on Hillary? (0+ / 0-)

          Any negatives you hear are because she is the one person who scares the republicans the most. Tired? don't you get that if she is tired it is because she is out there every day fighting for YOU all by her self most of the time. She has spent her entire life and multiple millions of dollars making the world a better place. Even Elizabeth Warren says she could not have gotten to where she is without Hillary and that SHE wants Hillary to be the first woman president. If you truly respect Elizabeth Warren, listen to her about why she wants Hillary to be president. There is plenty of time for Ms. Warren, she is still learning from the master.

          •  I have pretty much given up on the idea of Warren (0+ / 0-)

            as president, though it would be nice. Warren doesn't have the same amount of political capital that Clinton does, and experience is only a part of that. It would also be a blow to give up one of the lone but strong progressive voices in the Senate.

            If the makeup of the Congress doesn't change much, I think that Warren would have a much harder time, both personally and politically, than Clinton, though it is much too soon to make this judgement before the midterms. And besides, it seems that a candidate really has to want to be president over all other things in order to even have a chance, and I don't think that Warren wants it at all, and I can't say I blame her.

            I hope that Clinton is using her down time making up lists of whom she wants in the government if she should win, and I hope that these lists do not include the tried and tired Beltway/Wall Street crowd that her husband and Obama have relied on. This would help to get a fresh, and maybe even progressive, agenda going, and it would also give her administration its own personal identity, rather than dragging in the baggage of former administrations.

        •  When she served on the Wal-Mart board, (0+ / 0-)

          it was not as totally evil as it is now.  In fact, Sam Walton was still alive and was being a rather reasonable boss in the day.  Hillary left before the Satanic takeover.

      •  Yes, and Politico shows itself as another sexist (0+ / 0-)

        rag, dull and disinterested in ideas or the actual complexities of running for office as a woman as compared to men.

        Putting the fun back in dysfunctional.

        by hawkseye on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:46:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  politico is leaving that for maureen dowd. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, Aunt Pat

      I think the superficiality beat is mostly hers.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:49:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  and the eyeglasses (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, vcmvo2, FuddGate

      which I don't like much either. But then, what have I done in my little life that comes even close to her accomplishments to date? Maybe I'm the one who needs different eyeglasses -- yeah, that's definitely the reason, nothing to do with how smart she is or how wicked hard she works.

      •  I personally don't like her eyeglasses either (7+ / 0-)

        and I often see people whose suits I think are drab and ill-fitting, and sometimes I see guys with that stupid stand-on-end gelled hair, and don't get me started on tattoos but .... as long as it's on YOU, I really don't give a fuck. And I assume her eyeglasses are to see and she likes them, so whatever.

        I still remember how they went on endlessly about her hair choices in the ’90s. And of course, the Washington Post distinguished itself during the 2008 campaign by printing an entire article about the fact that she showed some cleavage in a ballgown. Oh.my.god.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:56:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Thought Her Pantsuits Were Beautiful (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Australian2, sukeyna

          Go back and look at her debates.  She looked beautiful.

          "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

          by rssrai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:37:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can second that (0+ / 0-)

            With all of the publicity calling her a fat cow and showing unflattering pictures of her, I expected to see a large hard woman when she came to my city to speak. I didn't care what she looked like and did care about her ability to get a job done. I was in shock and awe when I actually saw her up close. She was a little bitty thing and absolutely not ugly or hard. She was pretty.  imagine that, I had no idea and because of what faux news is selling showed me another reason to make sure I never take their word as truth unless I can look into it myself first. She may be the most intelligent woman I have ever heard speak and have never taken the Hillary for President sign out of my window.

        •  the eyeglasses (0+ / 0-)

          Yeah, she really didn't get good advice from whatever optician sold her those things.  I know they're what's in style, but she should go with something classic, not trendy, and something that fits her face better.

          It has nothing to do with whether you're male or female, when millions of people see your face every day and are looking right into your eyes, you have to get the eyeglasses right.  

    •  No hair advice, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, collardgreens, Matt Z

      "get some rest" sounds kinda like "you look tired"- especially when they mention her neglecting to "get in good shape".

    •  I like her current hair style (0+ / 0-)

      Mid-length female professional cut. Not too old, not too young, falls naturally, doesn't hide her face, easy to manage. I like it.

      Of course, it would never occur to them to ask a policy question.

      The Republican brand is totally bankrupt.

      by vlyons on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:08:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The advice of those Beltway reporters is (12+ / 0-)

    awkward, elitist, insular, and just a bit odd.

    As usual . . .

  •  How do I get one of those jobs? (16+ / 0-)

    I mean really, I'm good at pulling crap out of my behind and flinging it against the wall, er I mean making an article out of it. And it doesn't need to make sense and can be self-contradictory? Perfect!

    Blue is blue and must be that. But yellow is none the worse for it - Edith Sidebottom

    by kenwards on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:04:07 AM PST

  •  Advice to Politico: (6+ / 0-)

    1. Find your ass.
    2. Insert head.

  •  The Romney and Gore advice isn't bad (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joesig, ColoTim, askew, Whatithink

    She's spending way too much time at fat cat dinners.  Makes me nervous.  Not doing diddly for me.  And I could see her running Gore's campaign as well, playing not to lose and picking some icky centrist like Mark Warner who's about as in touch with middle America as the Koch brothers.  

    As for rest, hasn't she been doing that for the last year I mean when she's not at the fat cat dinners.  If she needs more rest she's in trouble.  (Note to Paul Ryan, practice bounding up steps looking youthful and energetic and in the state department be sure you keep mentioning lots of those states west of I-95.  Not sure Hillary still knows we're out here.)

    •  I'm sure she's likely to earn your enthusiastic (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      voicemail, atana, vcmvo2, ord avg guy

      support, right?

    •  Yeah. Maybe had Al Gore ... (4+ / 0-)

      Been more of ... what again is it you wanted? ... He might have convinced enough asshole Naderites in Florida or New Hampshire that he really wasn't George W. Bush!

      Because it really wasn't obvious or anything.

      And hell he could even carry his own state of Tennessee, which he could have done by running more to the left ... er, well ... uh.

      •  Which way do you want it? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbastard

        I guess he just ran the perfect establishment centrist campaign designed to lose both Tennessee and the left.

        •  why is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wildthumb

          losing always on the agenda?

          The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

          by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:00:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The left likes to lose. That's their real agenda. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            But at least they have their "principles."

            And NO progressive legislation whatsoever.

            "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

            by Wildthumb on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:30:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL, o ya, that's what's been happening (0+ / 0-)

              the last five or so years. Obama and the Dems going big with all-out progressive legislation and rhetoric only to come up with nothing. Ayup.

              •  No, it's not "all-out" progressive legislation. (0+ / 0-)

                But it's some. You'd put up candidates who would get us NONE. Zilch. Nada. Niente. Because they wouldn't win.

                Get me a perfect society where we're on the same progressive page and we'll get somewhere. We could elect Greens as governors, more Bernie Sanderses as Senators, etc. etc. Until then, we'll get obstruction, Christianism, gun-nutism, anti-women's rights, "centrism," anti-every-fucking-thing, no union progress, more fossil fuel production, on and on and on. We're extremely lucky to get the kind of progress with healthcare that we did with how tortured this regressive, reactionary society is.  

                AYUP.

                "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

                by Wildthumb on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 04:34:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  go big (0+ / 0-)

          or go home.

          Democrats need to learn this and stop pandering to the right

          The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

          by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:35:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm thinking his loss of TN (0+ / 0-)

          was due, at least partially, to his selection of Lieberman.  Tennessee is a Bible Belt state full of fundamentalist Christians who, when it comes down to it, cannot bring themselves for someone who has rejected "Jay-sus".  Gore led in TN polls until around late September, when, after a month of positive press, the media reverted to its old ways and Gore was once again portrayed negatively.  This gave many Tennesseans an excuse to make the switch towards Bush.  At the same time, his selection of Joe alienated many on the left.  Nader, who was already determined to take votes away from Gore, went apeshit and redoubled his efforts after Lieberman's selection.

          "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

          by TLS66 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 01:32:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  At least she couldn't pick Cuomo as running mate (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, ColoTim, Egalitare, wuod kwatch

      unless he was willing to pull a Cheney and quickly establish residency elsewhere.

      He's about the worst name being bandied about.

      Oh wait, no. Some people have actually mentioned Rahm Emanuel. THAT is the worst. Maybe she'll pick HIM as her running mate. Blech.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:01:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think this is the real issue (15+ / 0-)

    Is Hillary Clinton Blocking a New Generation of Democratic Leaders? The former secretary of State's inevitability is good for Democrats in the short-term. But it masks the party's longer-term challenges.

    I have asked this question for years.  Our leadership is in their  70's.  Where are the inspirational leaders in their 40's?

    Hallo?  Anyone?

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:20:35 AM PST

    •  Who cares? (5+ / 0-)

      Why is someone in their 40s inherently better? I'm young in the context of this conversation, but I like to see older people succeed because it reminds me that I still have a lot of time left to do great things. We're all advantaged by the extension of societal opportunities into older ages, and disadvantaged by the worship of youth.

      "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

      by randomfacts on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:34:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just look at the Repug bench (5+ / 0-)

        Agree with them and most likely not but they are not in lock step behind inevitability any more. And that bench is young.

        As to the 70's thing, not being ageist, but internet? Social media?  Garnering/keeping the below 30 vote?  Hmm grama/grandpa loves you...Pelosi, Steyner, Reid, Schumer Durbin, Biden?  etc., etc.

        Good night Jon-boy?  (It's a reference to the Waltons, in case you never saw it...)

        "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

        by EdMass on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:42:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is (5+ / 0-)

          ageist. Hillary's doing great at social media. She has more Twitter followers than your kids. She is more in touch with the young people than Paul "rage against the machine was cool 20 years ago so it still is" Ryan. So not getting the point here.

          "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

          by randomfacts on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:46:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joesig

            you're clueless...

            Hillary's people and PACS are doing all of that.  My son's and their friends only have a vague awareness of Hillary and that's spill over from getting frosted in 2008 by the person they voted for.  Who was a minority and in his 40's and was inspirational.  Remember?

            We elect based on Twitter followers now?  Really?  

            We are truly f'd...

            "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

            by EdMass on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:52:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're moving the goalposts (10+ / 0-)

              you brought up "social media". So I mentioned twitter. then you castigate me for mentioning twitter.

              you say I'm clueless then you back up your argument with your son's and their friend's anecdotal evidence.

              the polls show Hillary doing well with people under 30.

              So let's recap.

              Me:
              1 million twitter followers
              polls

              You:
              Your son and his friends
              moving the goalposts

              "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

              by randomfacts on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:54:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I relent (0+ / 0-)

                How can one disagree with Twitter and unnamed polls...

                Just vote for whom you believe is qualified.

                As I will.

                Peace.

                "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

                by EdMass on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:01:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lol (4+ / 0-)

                  vote for who you want. But the ageist argument is invalid.

                  "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

                  by randomfacts on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:04:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How about the "accomplishments" argument? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ColoTim, wuod kwatch

                    How about the Iraq war argument?
                    How about the Bankruptcy Bill argument?
                    How about the Iran Hawk argument?
                    How about the Inspire Republicans argument?  

                    I like all of those better than the ageist argument.  You go ahead and ague about the "accomplishments" above I mentioned, and I promise I'll never ever bring up age.  

                    To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                    by joesig on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:09:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hilarious (5+ / 0-)

                      Hillary Clinton is not an undefined pol, we all know a ton about her.  And, what is the result?  Her personal popularity is at 65% or higher.  

                      In poll after poll Democrats want her to run as their candidate by an overwhelming percentage, over any named possible candidate (i.e. Biden, Warren,) and what is more, crosstabs show that Liberals/Progressives want HER to be our candidate much MORE than moderate/centrist Democrats (who on the whole prefer her also by wide margins but some want to see a more moderate/conservative primary opponent to emerge.)    

                      Forget the "aging" argument, you are on shaky ground on other arguments when it comes to the Liberal/Progressive community and Hillary Clinton, unless every poll I have seen that shows crosstabs is simply wrong.  

                      •  because (0+ / 0-)

                        once again Democrats are failling in love.

                        Why will this mistake never die?

                        The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                        by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:14:00 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  She has been extremely popular for many years (4+ / 0-)

                          This is not "falling in love," we have known her for a very long time.    This is the woman who was advocating for single payer health care for our country before anyone even thought about doing so.   She paid a heavy price for trying to change our health care system on a long march to universal coverage when the country was still very much delusionally happy with the existing system, but she was the driving force behind SCHIP as a "Medicaid for all" backdoor in 97 as "first lady."

                          Hillary Clinton's voting record and stances on almost every issue important to Progressives are decidedly progressive.  She is not perfect (her Iraq war vote was a mistake) but she is a reliable progressive voice on every conceivable social issue, and you can expect her to be a strong advocate for a national minimum wage increase and expanding the ACA to cover more people (with universal coverage as the ultimate goal.)  I also expect her to reject any "Grand Bargain" type language going into the primary/general election season, and draw a stark contrast to the Republican opponent on "bread and butter" issues Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, which the right wants to cut down to the bone.   There is also no question that there will be stark contrasts to the GOP opponent on issues like gay marriage, gun control, the Voting Rights Act, clean air, Immigration, etc.  

                          Good for us/her that a majority of the American public is finally on the "good" side on all of these issues.  

                          •  Hillary care was single payer? WTF. (0+ / 0-)

                            You've proven you're dumb, or in love.  Failed as policy maker as First Lady.  Failed in the critical votes in the Senate.  Do-nothing Sec State.  Andrew Sullivan had a long thread the other day challenging people to name her accomplishments: there are none notable.  Cautious manager at DoS was about as concrete as anyone can come.  

                            Ran a horrible campaign in 2008.  Backs the worst of Obama, like Summers and Geithner and that whole incompetent crew (and incompetent is as nice as I know how to say it).  She's a woman.  Got it.  Loyal to her husband.  Got it.  Good mother. Acknowledged.  Accomplishments, other than putting together a resume: none.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:26:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's a bit much as far as ad hominem attacks go (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger, randomfacts

                            "You've proven you're dumb, or in love" is as trashy as it gets.   I won't respond in kind, because I don't want discourse to go into the gutter.

                            As for "dumb," she believed that single payer health care was the best way to distribute health care 21 years ago, long before Bill Clinton became president.  Hillary Care was an attempt at getting something accomplished (in an obviously hostile environment) that eventually would lead to universal health care.  That is why her advocacy of the SCHIP program was so telling, because after its inception it has been expanded to include kids' parents, the income requirements have been increased as well by those states to allow them to decrease the amount of uninsureds in their states.

                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                            On Feb. 23, 1993, Blair joined the Clintons for a family dinner at the White House. The subject of health care reform came up.
                            “At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare,” Blair wrote.
                          •  HillaryCare set back healthcare reform for almost (0+ / 0-)

                            15 years.  It was the opposite of single payer: bureaucratic and insurance company based and arrogant.  No one had elected her....just her presence insured its failure.  

                            And Bill Clinton was president in '93, 21 years ago.  

                            And still waiting for genuine accomplishments.  Not clever remarks at dinner with Blair, or her successful law career in a corrupt southern state where her husband was president, or her "judgment" as Senator, or her incredible presidential campaign.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 12:50:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's agree to disagree, then. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            randomfacts

                            Now her advocacy for universal health care in 93 is a reason for your bashing her?   Incredible.  

                            Look, I see that you hold a lot of positions that most here would find "centrist" or "moderate," some even right of center,  on many issues from abortion to gay marriage to balancing the budget, et al.   Apparently the Iraq vote is your main issue here, so it is clear that you would prefer someone else.  It is cool.  We are not all the same.  Just don't get all into personal stuff.  Relax.  Let others believe or prefer as they wish, you can prefer Warner or Clark or whoever you think is best, and see what happens.  

                          •  Put down the Kool-Aid. You're allowed to think. (0+ / 0-)

                            I bash her Hillary Care attempt because it was a disaster: poorly run, poorly conceived, nepotistic, secretive, and a failure.  It foretold her 2008 campaign, another failure, in every detail.  It's who she is, and who she'll be.  

                            You're like the worst of the Beltway pundits: it's all horserace, all the time.  Analysis: not so much.  Trying to determine who will actually be a good and effective president: never.  

                            I find you deliberately obtuse, unable to understand that HillaryCare and the 2008 campaign characterize her leadership ability, the Iraq vote is a key insight to her judgment and character.  The bleating about her gender and her resume, unsullied by accomplishment, is merely a substitute for actually thinking.  Please relax, read a book instead of partisan blogs, focus on brain and judgment instead of gender.  You'll be ok.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:53:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  one thing (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JosephK74

                            ...she absolutely has to get right in the coming election is her education policy.  She should get some advice from deBlasio, who hit a homerun on this one.  She's got to change course from NCLB/RttT and step back from Bill Gates and the education privateers.

                      •  So you're saying the Lib/Prog community thinks... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        greenbell, Whatithink

                        a candidate too cynical or too stupid to realize invading Iraq was a bad idea...should be our candidate?

                        that the candidate most likely to inspire massive GOP turnout...is the way to go?  

                        that since hawkishness on Iraq worked out so well, hawkishness on Iran should just be the greatest thing ever?  

                        I guess I don't have a home in the Liberal/Progressive or Moderate/Centrist Dem worlds if they're inspired by Hillary's record and want more of the same.  You want to talk about popularity, I want to talk about policy: no wonder neither of us can understand what the hell the other one is thinking.

                        To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                        by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:23:56 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You know what would be best for progressives? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Wildthumb, ord avg guy

                          A candidate who actually has coattails. Whatever you say against Obama, 2009 and 2010 were great in terms of policy for the left - everything since has been a disaster. We need a popular candidate that can appeal to a wide swath of this nation so we have a chance at a secure Democratic House and more state governments - THAT will give us much more of a voice than the minutiae of differences on individual policies (which, btw, Hillary has never been as far away from the base as the base has always seemed to think). We also need a strong candidate who has the best chance to secure the WH because losing the WH and giving up Supreme Court seats like Ruth Bader Ginsburg's is not an option.

                        •  Massive GOP turnout? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

                          HRC consistently polls at 65% to 69% popularity.  By definition that means she is popular with a bunch of Republicans (the non-tea-party type.)   It is patently ridiculous to paint the specter of a "massive GOP turnout" as an argument against her candidacy when the facts shown in poll after poll refute your assertion strongly.  

                          •  I can't stress enough that your claim (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

                            that Hillary Clinton would bring out extreme hatred from the far-right and that we should therefore not "dare" to run her is so incredibly laughable, it deserves more ridicule than I can muster here.  

                          •  Your 69% support thing is just as laughable (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joesig

                            Any Democrat is going to get extreme hate from the far-right and running a woman after an African American is going to reinforce that kind of hate among many.  She'll get some new support from women but she's not going to be seen as a unifying candidate, not that anyone could be that these days, so looking at support in the 60+% is not going to happen unless the Republicans nominate a total wacko.  If someone figures out how to repackage Ryan into a more consumer friendly Irish Catholic they may have a shot.  

                          •  All we need is 50.1% (or better: 270 EC votes) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            Starting off with very high popularity (and, as an old pro instead of a fresh, new face that is unlikely to change much) gives you a strong position.  

                            The country is different now from the one you appear to envision it to be (I'd say you think of the country in terms of about 15 years ago.)   Being a woman candidate TODAY is a  net plus, not a net negative, especially one as accomplished as HRC.  

                            Who CARES about being a unifying candidate, really?  She is on the right side of about 95% of issues important to Progressives, and, luckily for us (due to a changed country) on the right side of about 80% of issues important to the nation as a whole.     That is a lot of wind in your back if you already start off highly popular with the nation as a whole.    Ryan (or someone like Jeb Bush) starts off in positions of less strength.  Already less popular they are, by virtue of today's GOP -even the mainstream version - on the wrong side of about 80% of issues important to the nation (looking at poll after poll.)    

                            With Hillary Clinton we have a good chance to win states that Democrats usually don't win (i.e. Georgia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc.) and to bring about major changes down the ballot.  I expect her candidacy to be transformative and have major positive implications on our other races for Congress, state governments, governorships, etc.  I just don't see that happening with someone like O' Malley.    

                          •  You've got the spin down but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dicentra

                            the country is not nearly where some people around here think it is.  There is far too much projection of future trends onto voters who are voting today.  While you're dreaming of Georgia, Kentucky and Arkansas she could have trouble in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio.   It probably depends as much on the economy as anything but the idea that the isolationist Midwest is just so darn enraptured with identity politics that they're thinking of nothing else when they vote is not how I'm seeing it.

                          •  And someone else would be better positioned in (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            states like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin if the economy is still "difficult" in two years?  Who?  

                            If to some the economy is the deciding factor, HRC is positioned especially favorable (over other notable Democrats) in mid western type states, because there are a bunch of people, especially "Moderates" from either party, who look at it still as a package deal with Bill, and they remember how much better the economy was in their states and nationally when Bill Clinton was president compared to the eight wasted George W. Bush years.    

                            Besides, where are we in terms of economic issues important to the middle class and lower middle class (combined by far the largest voting contingent)?  Strong demands  for raises to the minimum wage, opposed by Republicans.   Strong demands to leave Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone, which Republicans are threatening to cut to the bone or privatize.  Strong demands to extend long-term unemployment benefits, opposed by Republicans.  Strong disillusionment with "trickle down" and with that a strong distaste for the 1%, while Republicans still (incredibly) call for reductions to tax rates for upper income earners (in their minds the so-called "makers").     Many, many more economic issues where Republicans increasingly are seen on the wrong side of it.   And, Ryan?  Seriously, he would be a GREAT candidate to run against in those states - champion of gutting social security, medicare, social net, etc.  

                          •  At least Brown might carry Ohio (0+ / 0-)

                            Since Hillary has demonstrated that there's no where she won't go if it's expedient, I am not confident at all that she won't swing waaaaay right if she feels threatened at all by a backlash against 8 years of Democrats.  

                            I'm more afraid of Democrats cutting Social Security than Republicans.  Democrats seem to be convincing themselves that they don't need older white voters and the Republicans do.  The only way Social Security gets cut is if we get more of this 3rd Way b.s. because Republicans will never do it without cover from a shameless Democratic Party.

                          •  It's one reason, among many. Please address... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greenbell, dicentra

                            the others.  My principal point, having attended far too many memorial ceremonies, is that anyone too dumb, or too cynical (and feel free to choose) to not understand Iraq was going to be a disaster.....too dumb, too cynical for me.  

                            Her attitude on Iran is proof she's learned nothing.  Her popularity is, I believe, mythical: as proven in her race against Obama.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:06:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did address your points (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

                            Her Iraq vote is baked in at this point.  Sure, it was a mistake, but HRC is popular with 90% of Progressives, 85% of Democrats on the whole, 65% to 69% of the country.  

                            The hate she emits from the far right is fine by me.  They are loons.  Why should we cater to them or present a less controversial candidate?  I reject that line of thinking as particularly frustrating among some on the left.  

                            Clinton has always been a strong advocate of diplomacy over going to war (despite her Iraq vote.)   Sure, she does not remove "going to war" off the table when it comes to dealing with North Korea, Iran, Syria, but that talk is simply normal for anyone in a responsible position (i.e. Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense.)  Her advocacy to exhaust all diplomatic means is well established over the years.  

                          •  You're missing the point. WHY did she vote... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greenbell

                            for Bush's craziness?  This is a key question....dumb or cynical?  Why do you think she couldn't be bothered with reading the classified annexes?  

                            You spout this nonsense about her exhausting diplomatic means as well established: she's only had the opportunity to vote for/against one insane war: she was for it.  

                            Where is she on Larry Summers?  Name an accomplishment.  It's not just the far right that hates her....you were fooled by the GOP support of her to antagonize Obama....that will disappear with a vengeance as the GOP starts their attack Hillary phase.  And so damn much baggage.  Even, for example, Taibbi's fantastic Rolling Stone piece: suddenly it's Marc Rich and the pardon and Holder....all over again.  And this is just one example.  

                            You keep citing "popularity" like this is prom queen we're talking about.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:12:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  At this point the Iraq vote is baked in (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            90% of Progressives like her.  80% of Progressives want HER to be our candidate, more than the 75% of Democrats on the whole.  Why is that so hard for you to comprehend that her Iraq war vote is not an important issue for us at this point in time?  If it were you would not be seeing Liberals championing her above anyone else, in larger numbers than Democrats in general (Moderate Democrats are slightly cooler to her than Liberals/Progressives.)

                              We aren't going to litigate something that old, just like we reject Rand Paul's nonsense about Bill Clinton's affair all those years ago as indicative of Hillary Clinton's ability to be a champion for women rights.   Align yourself with the right-wingers all you want, the vast majority of Progressives and Democrats aren't with you.  

                            "Popularity" or "approval" numbers as it were, is what we have to go by, not what you personally think about her (obviously you are part of the precious few on our side who have a strong aversion to her.)   HRCs approval/popularity is rock solid and won't evaporate when the GOP attacks her, because we have all known her for a very long time.  A rapid turnaround of approval is much more likely with somebody you are trying to pull out of your hat (O' Malley? Warren?) because they are obviously largely  unknown to a vast majority of Americans and Democrats.  

                          •  You're more cynical than I am. Judgment still.... (0+ / 0-)

                            matters to me.  I'm not ready to just watch the horserace, and play with polling, and game numbers.  Your game: not mine.  

                            I'm aligning myself with right wingers because I feel her lack of judgment on Iraq is disqualifying?  Really?  For fuck's sake.  

                            I still want your opinion: dumb or cynical?  

                            You think she's a shoe-in in the general: I don't.

                            You think there are no more scandals: I don't.  

                            You think refusal to actually define her principles is smart: I think it's a sign she has no principals.  

                            On Bill: if Monica was his last affair, I'm with you: the issue is history.  If there are more, and especially if there's something current: you'll see the numbers turn.  You feel like taking that gamble?  

                            You think her Iran "toughness" is fine: I'm picturing a lot more memorial ceremonies.  Of people I know.  

                            I could go on....

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:03:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Align because you bash her like she (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bahaba

                            is our enemy.  Do i like everything?  No.  But she  is clearly a progressive (not centrist) on almost everything that is important to me, and apparently the vast majority of like-minded progressives.  She has the best chance of winning, and winning big.  I take that.  Now, if anyone else wins in the primaries, I'll be good with that.  Unlike you I don't hate any of them.  I look for someone to share my values on at least 70% of issues, and I am good.

                            Were you this incredibly opposed to Kerry in 2004?  What did you do, leave the country?

                          •  I did. I was in Iraq. She helped put us there. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greenbell

                            Does that make her my enemy?  No.  I went because it was what I did at the time, and chose to be in units that always go.  Others, like reservists, National Guard, poor schlubs who had no idea they were being sent into a meat grinder on a faked causus belli by either cynical or dumb politicians (still waiting for your pick!) didn't want to go.  And shouldn't have had to go.  And go.  And go.  Not to mention the easily predictable financial and moral costs to our country.  Hold it against her?: hell yes!

                            And I also disagree that she has the best chance of winning the general.  And I base my opinions based on actual facts and performance.  Unlike you.

                            I think her judgment sucks when it's important...because her judgment sucked when it was important.

                            I think she might lose an election so many are convinced is unlose-able...because she's already lost an election many (you?) thought was unlose-able.  See how that using facts to do analysis thing works?

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:43:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The contest was always close between her and (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama.  Who do you have in mind as the juggernaut who can take her to the cleaners (and presumably Barack and Michelle Obama's strong support and campaigning for her).   I don't see it.  You do.  We'll see.  I also think that having her as our representative will be just fine with 9 out of 10 of us.  

                            I ask again, were you as feverishly against Kerry in 2004, given that he

                            a) voted for the Iraq war

                            b) had/has a lot of centrist positions

                            Would like to know if you were fighting against Kerry as much as you are against a much more progressive candidate, given how he voted on Iraq?  What about Edwards in 2008?   It would be odd if you were so hateful against a progressive on most issues, but gave centrists like Kerry and Edwards a pass when they tried for the presidency.        

                          •  I'll answer your questions...though you refuse... (0+ / 0-)

                            to answer mine.  Again: cynical or stupid?

                            First, read my sig, up many years now: To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.  2004 I was for Dean, of course, and voted for Kerry in the general.  I respected Kerry's service, so it made it much easier for me.  And his vote was cynical: I'm genuinely not sure if Hillary's was also, or if she's just dumb.  

                            2008 I thought Edwards was a creepy loser, another cynical/dumb hack like Hillary, and wasn't in the least surprised when he imploded.  Obama, and Dean before him, made my life easy.  Sorry to burst your trial balloon...where you heading to some sort of misogyny accusation?  

                            Are you asking which Republican in the primary?  I have no idea.  I can see Kasich beating her.  Portman.  Even Mitt, who might not be done.  She'll beat a Tea Partier, if the GOP is that dumb.

                            She'll probably steamroll the Dem nomination; get overconfident and give Republicans lots of time to unite.  She'll hang on Bill's coattails, which might help and might drag her to the bottom if there have been new affairs since Monica.  She's blown it before, she'll do it again.  She's never stood for anything, and never actually accomplished anything.  

                            So, dumb or cynical, now that I've answered your questions.

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 12:36:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If given the two choices I would go with "dumb." (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bahaba

                            She believed the intelligence that was provided by the CIA at the time.  Interesting that you voted for Kerry, who is much more of a centrist (on tons of issues) and also voted for the Iraq war.  

                            I went all the way back in the DKos time machine and found that you advocated rescinding Roe vs. Wade and your preference for 2008 was a team of Mark Warner, VP Clark, Rubin at treasury and Zinni as DefSec.  As you put it:  " A successful budget balancing southern governor (Warner) millionaire businessman is our best shot."  

                            So, according to your stated preferences (from back then, but people don't change ideologies like underwear) an avowed centrist who makes budget balance his main goal and has successfully run a business is a great candidate for us?   Since you were a Warner fan back in the day, he stated on "Meet the Press" the following:

                            Ms. BUMILLER: Let's say you had been in the Senate. How would you have voted for the Iraq War resolution had you voted for it...
                            Gov. WARNER: Well, first of all...

                            Ms. BUMILLER: ...had been there?

                            Gov. WARNER: ...I think what we continue to see is the fact that not all the senators had all the information. I heard Senator McCain earlier, and I, you know, have tremendous respect for Senator McCain. But I think the Democratic Party ought to get over refighting how we got into the war and, again, continue to press the president on what he hopes to do in terms of how we will finish the job. I think there are three or four things we need to focus on. One, how do we keep the Sunnis involved in the government? How do we make sure that they don't feel excluded? Two, how do we make sure that as we go through the reconstruction of Iraq, that we don't continue to spend 30 cents on every dollar for security for folks like Halliburton and how do we get more Iraqis involved in the reconstruction? Three, how do we end up making sure that we truly keep that coalition involved? Because this is an international issue, not just an American issue. And four, I think we--one of the issues that will come out of Iraq--and I don't believe we have to set a arbitrary time line because--not only in terms of Iraq but Afghanistan and Iran, but we've got to make sure we look at this whole question of forced structure. Our military is so good at kicking out the command and control of the bad guys, but as we see in Iraq or in Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, what do we do afterwards in terms of restoring civil authority?

                            Ms. BUMILLER: But would you have voted for the war?

                            Gov. WARNER: Listen, I'm not go--I don't have all the information of what would have happened at that point. I think we ought to focus again how we finish the job, not go back and refight how we got there in the first place.

                          •  BTW, the Warner MTP appearance where he told (0+ / 0-)

                            Democrats to "get over refighting how we got into the war"  dates back to 2005.  

                          •  And yes, I still believe a successful and popular (0+ / 0-)

                            southern governor who has balanced budgets and run a business....is a good choice for a Democratic candidate.  You don't?  And I'm not "refighting how we got into the war".  I know how we got into the war, and just how predictable a disaster it would be.  I'm saying someone too dumb to understand that is not a good choice to lead us.  See the difference?

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 01:10:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Uh, for most progressives "balancing budgets" (0+ / 0-)

                            is not really important, indeed it is counterproductive.  Let's face it, with people getting older and older and the pool of employed  persons shrinking by the year (to pick up the tab) there is no way anyone can balance a budget anymore without massive cuts to social security, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, et al.     To many of us it is code and an excuse for austerity on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged.  

                            In 2005 Warner was explicitly asked about the Iraq war vote, and then he was adamantly opposed to any question about the Iraq vote.  In other words, he would obviously disagree with your reasoning here, in 2014.  

                          •  Uh, we were talking about electability, not.... (0+ / 0-)

                            economic policy.  An effective state governor who successfully handled a state budget is a selling point in a general election.  See Clinton, Bill.  Thanks for the basic talking points on austerity and spending cuts, though.  I'm not you--just because someone (Warner in your hypothetical, Hillary in your actual) says something, I don't blindly act like it come out of a burning bush.  Judgment in a president is huge: why would I support the fundamentally dumb?

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:42:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow. You don't know much about this subject. (0+ / 0-)

                            She couldn't be bothered to go into the SCIF and read the intelligence, despite urging by her Senate colleagues.  Warner did not have access to that intelligence.  And everyone who knew anything about intelligence didn't believe the crazy humint stories, once the inspectors were on the ground.  Did you read my diary on that....lo these many years ago?  Why do you think she never read the annexes: lazy?  Or just didn't care how many Americans she might be sending to their deaths needlessly?

                            I like Warner still, Clark as well, love Zinni.  Rubin not so much.  

                            You have some real stalker potential....right now it's just amusing.  Roe vs Wade?  Really?  I'm about as pro-choice as you can get, then and now: was it an off-hand remark about not giving the GOP an issue that drives their single issue voters to the polls?  And makes woman's rights our issue?  That sounds like me. But I'm not going to search every comment I've ever made since I joined DK to look it up.  That's something only a crazy person would do.  

                            And remember: Kerry in the general.  And I've never advocated for someone I thought was dumb.  Comfortable with that?  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 01:02:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I just looked at your postings from early 2005, (0+ / 0-)

                            when you began posting here, to see how, or if, you justified voting for Kerry, given that he voted for the Iraq war.   The Roe vs. Wade post was among some of your first here, so I just came across that by chance.  

                             Yes, your stated idea to just give the GOP Roe vs. Wade just so they can't hammer us with it anymore shocked me with its nonsense value.  Roe vs. Wade is a major pillar of the progressive value system.  Stating the belief that we on the left would benefit just as much as the right from simply giving it to them is decidedly non-progressive.

                             I realize that you feel that the Iraq vote is the most important indicator, but many of us are not with you, and with your support for centrists like Mark Warner, corporatist Rubin, etc  and your "interesting" ideas about important issues like Roe vs. Wade you appear more like a centrist single issue voter.  That is where the vast majority of progressives don't find ourselves, and that is why she is particularly popular with Progressives/Liberals within the Democratic party, more so than with Moderates/Conservatives in the party, many of who want to see a more moderate/conservative "budget balance first" candidate like Warner run.  

                          •  Do you think you're in a Kool Kids Klub....? (0+ / 0-)

                            And want purity and always to be in lockstep with your betters?  Your stalking game is interesting...but I'll play.

                            I'm in Africa, incidentally, so my posting times are different than yours.  

                            I explained Kerry, but you are incapable of comprehension.  I absolutely wanted Dean much more.  Resigned myself to Kerry.  Respected his military service.  Wasn't surprised he lost.  Is there something about that you don't understand?  It seems simple to me.

                            Unlike you, staring at polls all day, I'm out in the world.  I was mostly in Afghanistan during her SecState days.  State wasn't a player, she put mediocrities there, didn't insist on excellence, and was never part of the debate.  It didn't surprise me.  

                            I get you are blinded by your love for Hillary.  Got it.  I ask again (and I do appreciate you admitting she's dumb), why do you think she couldn't be bothered to read the intell annexes-despite the urging of some of her Senate colleagues?  Did she just not care about the Americans she was sending to her death?  Just wanted to look tough by supporting Bush?  Judgment issue?

                            Just out of curiosity, since you're now my informal DK biographer: have I mentioned Roe v Wade since 2005?  Any other comments you'd like to obsess about?  And when you say "corporatist Rubin" and then support Hillary: you know everyone thinks you're a joke, right?  I've learned that Rubin and Summers and the whole corporatist mob is a disaster: Hillary, not so much.  

                            I believe in looking at past performance as a way to guess the future.  I hope that Hillary loses the Democratic primary, but I doubt she will.  I think she's a weak candidate in the general, as proven by her disastrous performance against Obama.  Guys like you, fixated on polls, were convinced she was unbeatable: you were wrong.  I fear you'll be wrong again in the general this time, and the country will pay the price, either with an Iran war (Hillary win or loss) or the Republican providing the Supreme Court justices to end Roe v Wade once and for all, amongst other horrid decisions.  

                            And just to completely confuse you: if electability were not a factor, and just principles and policies (primarily economic) were: I'm a Warren guy, with Krugman at Treasury.  They have a history of being right, not wrong.   That matters to me.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 08:46:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I already stated that I just went back to your (0+ / 0-)

                            very first days posting here, just to see how you dealt with Kerry (since that happened to be 2005) and found the hilariously wrongheaded Roe v Wade quote in some of your first musings.  That is hardly "obsessing," since it took just a couple of minutes.  I looked no further but just a few posts around the time you first started posting here.  I saw another interesting post that sheds some light on where you are coming from, in which you argued with someone vehemently and practically yelled at that person that the Iraq war vote is tons more important than gay marriage, another stance most progressives don't agree with you on.    

                            However, let's not get on that high a horse here, your opinion is not imminently important to me, you engaged me and so I am trying to see who I am dealing with from at least a few previous postings.   I was mainly curious because hypocrisy is rampant, yes, even on the left, at times.   You voted for Kerry in the general because you respected his military service?   Even though he voted for Iraq just two years before that election, it was imminently fresh?  And, he claimed that he would have not changed his vote (he believed in that vote) even in retrospect?  That was not a deal breaker for you?  Odd.  Now, 10 years later, a vote that is no longer important to 90% of progressives is suddenly a deal breaker.  Got it.  

                            Also, Kerry hardly lost because of his Iraq war vote, at that point in time the war was still majority supported by the American public (although the support was already eroding some over where it was in 2003.)

                            This line "you are in love" is absurd and really cheapens discourse here.  I guess you just want to be confrontational instead of having a discussion.  

                            This is not 2008 anymore.  At that time the sitting president was highly unpopular, which took his party down into the dumps as well, we had just suffered a catastrophic economic collapse which most Americans laid at Bush's and the GOPs feet, the country was ready for a fresh face from the Democratic party whose mantra was "change and hope."  More than ready.   Now we are finding ourselves in a completely new situation.   We are trying to convince people to stay the course, which is a tad dicey because the economy is not yet recovered fully.  In this type of situation HRC is the ideal candidate.  She is popular with the American public (despite your nonsensical rantings about her
                            "disastrous loss" to Obama that hasn't changed throughout) and she has the gravitas and experience to convince people to "stay the course" even though the course hasn't been all that pretty.  Someone like Warren, with her limited experience, would not fit the times, someone like Warner, a centrist on everything, would be politically a disaster for us, would take us back many years.   I happen to think that HRC is by far our strongest general election candidate, and I think you could not be more wrong on that point.  But, you are entitled to your opinion, as you are to your vote or decision not to vote at all.  Just like Republicans are entitled to go with Ryan, Paul or Palin, and their vote or decision to not vote at all.   HRC is a proven progressive, her voting record and past statements/papers/op eds, make that clear.   Vote your conscience, but don't get all huffy when someone doesn't buy your exact brand of dislike (which appears to border on unabashed hate.)   You have but one opinion, and but one vote, just like all of us.      

                          •  You're amazing. Wow. (0+ / 0-)

                            You know Kerry ran against Bush, right?  And you're wondering why I voted Kerry in the general, knowing how I feel about the war?  

                            You're slippery, so I'll try to pin you down a bit, if you're willing.

                            Still waiting on your thoughts for why she couldn't be bothered with reading the classified intell annexes before giving Bush permission to invade a country with no WMDs and no participation in 9-11.  

                            Can you point out a policy success for Hillary?  Getting the entire country to feel sorry for her, or election successes, or being appointed to something doesn't count.  

                            Even as a kid, following college football, I'd read about a team going 1-10 but with high expectations for the next year because "lots of starters" are coming back.  That's my view on Hillary.  She's failed every time she's been tested: that's not experience, that's failure.  

                            Her economic team has always been the most centrist of the centrists, with Summers probably the main guy, along with Geithner, that sank any hope for a truly progressive recovery program.  Summers in particular is still a lead Hillary advisor, correct?  What does that tell you?

                            Goldman Sachs: is Hillary embracing or rejecting?  Is GS also part of the progresssive movement you seem to be such an expert on?  What were they buying for their half million?

                            Do the big banks fear Hillary, or are they ecstatic that she'll be the candidate, not Warren?  

                            I am hoping, for Dems sake and even for Hillary's sake that Bill's last affair was with Monica.  Do you think that continued cheating and/or current cheating will have an effect on the election?

                            My friend Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote a great book about Afghanistan, with quotes from COMISAFs Political Advisor, and others, about the DoS team in AFG being third-rate and deadwood.  How much of that is the fault of Hillary?--it was the biggest diplomatic effort in the world, after all.  

                            Do you think past performance is predictive?  

                            And not to intrude on your fantasy world, but you engaged me
                            first, not the other way around, as you stated.  And do you really think HillaryCare was single payer?  That comment was so astounding I meant to ask you about it earlier.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 03:45:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your obvious hate and disgust for HRC (0+ / 0-)

                            makes me wonder if you would vote for her in the general.  That is where I see a key difference.  You voted for Kerry, even though he had voted for the Iraq war just two years prior.  Did you bash Kerry into the ground in the runup to the election for it?  And his centrism/centrist advisors?  Doubtful that you did, because you "appreciated his service," which to me is a major copout.  

                            Bill's "last affair"? Now you are just being childish and silly.  THAT is a major strike against a HRC candidacy?  How sexist are you?  In any event, he is a major plus for her (and all of us, truth be told, he is the key push guy for Allison Grimes in Kentucky in her attempt to replace Mitch McConnell.)  Trying to "scare" progressives into not choosing her because "some scandal" might come up about Bill Clinton is plain ridiculous, smacks of right-wing scare tactics.  If she decides not to run and some other Democrat emerges, how do you know if that person does not have major issues yet undiscovered (see John Edwards.)

                            Now you invoke Warren?  She is NOT RUNNING and has signed a letter that urges Hillary Clinton to run.  Your remark about banks is nonsensical.  Pray tell, what kind of relationship with "big banks" would Mark Warner have?  After all, his close ties to JP Morgan are well known.  Heck, he even introduced legislation to delay the implementation of new rules to limit risky trading, primarily because he held money with a hedge fund.

                            http://www.virginia-organizing.org/...

                            Yet, you would be cool with him as our candidate, as you stated just yesterday?    

                            A Dean guy, eh?  What did he say recently?

                            http://www.nwherald.com/...

                            Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who sought the party's presidential nomination in 2004, said he expected Hillary Clinton to face a primary challenge. But Dean predicted she would "satisfy a large number of Democratic voters, including a large number of progressives."

                            "There are going to be issues where there is disagreement on. You can never please everyone," Dean said. "The people who are not going to be pleased are well-organized voices and not a lot of votes."

                            Asked if he were considering running again, Dean was blunt: "Nope. Not as long as Hillary's in."

                            Dean is an insider who knows his stuff.  He already knows what Hillary is going to do and say in regards to progressive values like the push to increase the minimum wage, income inequality, gay marriage, protection of the social net (SS, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.,) environment, which is why he predicts that she'll satisfy most of us progressives just fine, with very few dissenting "votes" (like yours) coming from the progressive side.  

                            I never stated that Hillarycare was single payer.  That is just your lack of reading comprehension coming through strongly.  I said that she was for single payer well before the country was even remotely ready for it, but could not say so publically because it would have painted her (and her husband by virtue of her being a close advisor to her,) at a time when the country was much more right-of-center than it is today, as a socialist commie.  The quote from the Blair papers is revealing, because they show what is/was "real."  A politician has to understand what can be achieved at a given time.  Hillarycare was an attempt at starting the long process towards single payer health care, as is today Obamacare.  You have to get something passed through Congress before you can refine it further, eventually turn it into single payer.  That is why her strong work for the institution of the SCHIP program was so important and telling.  SCHIP is meant to cover children that aren't covered by Medicaid (parents make too much money) and it has a built-in backdoor for states to be expandable to children's parents and even relatives.  Thus, several states have used SCHIP to expand full health coverage to adults who make as much as triple the poverty rate.   Right wing analysts rightly understood (and warned against) that SCHIP was Hillary's way of sneaking in single payer universal health care coverage through the backdoor, at least in states that are run by Democrats and want to use that program in such a way.        

                            I don't care to convince you, and I really can't devote this much time on a continuing back and forth, as I said before, Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.  You contradict yourself  (i.e. Bank darling Warner is "good", yet you use "big banks" against her) and you seem to have developed an irrational hate against someone who has done a lot of good for our side.  I find it reprehensible how you dismiss her contributions and achievements for us (our esteem around the world was worse than in the dumps after the Bush regime, she repaired it singlehandedly during her tenure as SoS,) but I take solace in the fact that the vast majority on our side likes her just fine.

                               Obviously if she comes out of the gate with primarily centrist viewpoints, talks about having to create a centrist bridge to Republicans, trying to find compromise with Boehner by cutting social security and Medicare as a means to get to a balanced budget, all that changes.  But, neither Dean nor any sane person expects that to happen, given the times we find ourselves in.  She is likely to run a populist campaign with a strong progressive tilt, just like her time spent as a Senator of New York was filled with strongly progressive votes (Iraq vote notwithstanding.)

                          •  Reading comprehension? How many times now.... (0+ / 0-)

                            have I said even Hillary is better than the GOP?  Enough straw man, please.  In the runup to the 2004 I was in fucking Iraq: I think I've explained that as well.  Kerry vs Bush on Iraq: pretty clear who I blame more.  Or is that a tough one for you to figure out?  

                            What's real is what someone does, and says in public.  Private dinner party chatter isn't "real".  

                            As to your slipperiness: of course you didn't venture an answer to why she didn't read the intell annexes: she didn't care.  She was preserving electability by being tough, and the truth of the Bush argument didn't matter to her.  And since no one she knows ever serves, to include herself, husband, and daughter: who cares about the poor fools about to die for their country?

                            Bill's affairs matter, and it's not sexist to discuss them.  They were part of the reason Gore lost.  They lead to a bogus impeachment.   I've been clear, and I'm curious where you disagree: If Monica was Bill's last affair, he's a huge asset to her campaign.  If there are more, and especially current ones, it will come out during the campaign and he will be a huge net negative for her.  Where do you disagree?  Your leveling of the sexism charge is typical of the fanboy genre. And since you brought up sexism:  was it sexist for Hillary and Bill to slander the character of the women Bill had sexual relationships with as crazy lying trash?  Which she did, you know.  It seems sexist to me, but apparently you're the expert.  Opinion, please.

                            A politician has to understand what can be achieved at a given time.
                            So the epic failure of HillaryCare was because she was a bad politician, and had no idea of what could be achieved?  Thanks for that.

                            SCHIP?  Sponsored by Kennedy, co-sponsored by Republican Orrin Hatch. Hillary applauded---now you want to give her full credit?  At least you're consistent in your delusions.  There's a guy, you might have heard of him, Barack Obama, who had a little teensy bit to do with restoring our esteem around the world.  The fact that you say Hillary "singlehandedly"repaired it is absolutely telling.  You might not be in love: it's a damn teen-age crush, blinding you to reality.  

                            No comment on the horribly weak performance of State in AFG under Clinton.  I asked you about her accomplishments: you've got nothing.  

                            And would you have me change my sig line to: "To avoid dumb wars, REWARD the dumb people who vote for them."?

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 10:53:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are projecting (0+ / 0-)

                            You are obviously some kind of hateboi.  I have no illusions whatsoever about HRC, if she comes out as a centrist and talks Grand Bargain, "getting along with Republicans" and wants to strive for a balanced budget with the understanding that the social net will have to be cut dramatically, I am done with her, will work against her in the primaries.  But, I highly doubt it.  Dean knows exactly what she is about and how she will present herself to us, which is why he made the predictions that he did.  

                            You are also wrong about the remark that was just revealed in the Blair papers.  That is when the truth is revealed, not in what some of them say in public.  At the time the country was clearly right-of-center and health care had to be tackled as a piecemeal project.  Stating categorically that you want to impose single payer health care on the country in 1993 would have not only been a massive distraction, but would not have served the long term goals, either.  Strange that you have trouble comprehending that.

                            Also, in regards to SCHIP, you could not be more wrong about the work HRC put in to get it enacted.  Smells of ignorance there.  Read up on the matter.  

                            Funny that you don't give HRC any credit for restoring our good name in the world, given the incredible amount of miles she logged during her tenure.   Typical for an illogical hateboi.  

                            Also interesting that you glossed over my point about your favorite Mark Warner and his chumminess with "big banks," which you apparently make a big issue with HRC, but not with him (likewise with Warner's many other centrist "qualities".)  

                            It is absolutely sexist to wring your hands about "Bill's affairs".  HRC is her own accomplished person, not an appendage.  You would not say "What if Mark Warner's wife had an affair with another man?  Oh, noes."  

                            As I said, this is futile on either of ours parts.  You seem irrational in your hate for someone, call yourself a hateboy and be done with it.   I could care less.  I'll drop HRC the minute she proposes centrist stuff (i.e. balancing the buget,) whereas you are meting out hate for no apparent reason other than "because."   You also seem perfectly fine with a centrist like Mark Warner running this nation, and given all your "grievances" with HRC that is beyond odd.   So, let's leave it at that.  I am not really into back and forths that don't go anywhere, ultimately.  

                            BTW, your insistence to get into minutae of a vote that was taken 12 years ago is uninteresting.  Don't you get it?  NOBODY cares about Lewinsky, NOBODY cares about the Iraq war vote anymore.  Well, as Dean put it "very few votes" do, like yours, but the vast majority of us don't give a crap.   Get over it.  There are tons of issues that are much more important to us than how someone voted back then.  Make the Iraq vote the disqualifier all you want, you are in a small minority.  Good for you, hate on her all you want.  Knock yourself out.      

                          •  This is amusing to me. Like a case study. (0+ / 0-)

                            What's fascinating is what you pretend to ignore.  Why didn't she read the annexes?  

                            So, Iraq war no big deal?  4000+ dead Americans, 100,000 dead Iraqis, and a trillion dollars wasted....no big deal.  Got it.  
                            "NOBODY cares", according to floridageorge.  Perhaps you could put together a campaign poster to that effect, and really help out your crush.  

                            I think for myself.  Trotting out Dean remarks now, because you scoured eight years of my comments to find I preferred him to Kerry in 2004....doesn't do much for me.  Same with old Warner comments.  It makes you sound silly.  Well, sillier.

                            You know she failed with Hillarycare with a Democratic House and Senate, right?  

                            SCHIP.  You know Kennedy sponsored it and experts unanimously give him the lion's share of the credit for its passage, right?  You know at one point Bill and Hillary killed it, and Kennedy needed to bring it back from the dead?  That Hatch fought his party to make it happen?  It was nice she was for it, and she no doubt helped, before killing it, I mean.  

                            Most amusing: you stated Hillary "singlehandedly" restored the good name of the US, completely negating Obama's role.  And then you want to accuse me of denying any credit to Hillary?  It's all or none?  Just for the record: Obama gets the lion's share of the credit, obviously.  Hillary helped on the margins.  You really think Hillary was more important than Obama?

                            I'm not wringing my hands about Bill's affairs, or Hillary's sexist role in attacking those women.  The opposite is true: I explicitly stated that if Monica was the last, Bill is a huge asset.  I hope it's the case, and we'll find out if it's not.  Are you saying that if there are more, perhaps lots more, it will have no impact on the race?  That seems crazy to me, but I guess we'll find out.  

                            I believe Meteor Blades's tag line is something like "Don't tell me what you believe.  Show me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe."  You're really arguing that what you say at a private dinner party is the key to character, public behavior and policy advocacy don't count?  You know that's crazy, right?

                            I'm hoping Warren runs, and wins.  Policies I much prefer, much less baggage, much more judgment.  If you're wondering  where I am in 2014, that's your answer.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 07:49:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  While reading your comment, it occured to me (0+ / 0-)

                            that Obama's willingness to cut Social Security (which disgusts me by the way) may be a ploy to help the next Democratic presidential candidate to come out as the defender of Social Security. This smacks of wishful thinking on my part, but it will be very telling how Hillary handles this baton from the previous administration. That is, if Obama actually fails at cutting Social Security as Bush did before him.

                          •  huh? (0+ / 0-)
                            And I also disagree that she has the best chance of winning the general.  And I base my opinions based on actual facts and performance.  Unlike you.
                            This is pure speculation, as any prediction as to how anyone will perform will be.
                          •  Did you read what came after? (0+ / 0-)

                            She has a history, don't you agree, of blowing an election everyone thought she would win?  Being strident and unlikeable, running a campaign that was a masterpiece of incompetence and wasted resources.  

                            I know past performance doesn't predict the future...but it's a pretty damn good guide.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 12:39:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes I read it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bahaba

                            A lot depends on the circumstances, which appear radically different this time.
                            For one, is there another Obama type candidate out there?
                            There doesn't appear to be. Certainly not Schweitzer, Feingold or O'Malley, all of whom I'd happily vote for in a general election.
                            Yes, the HRC campaign lost, and some of it was her fault and some of it was the campaign. A lot of it was simply the fact that Obama ran an excellent campaign. I think people take away from the awesome campaign that Obama and Co. ran when they go with the "Hillary blew it" meme.
                            Even with the loss, it's important to remember these facts as well:

                            1. Clinton still convinced a ton of people to vote for her. The cumulative popular vote total was actually very close. She also got more votes than the GOP winner.
                            2. She won two very early primary/caucuses in NH and NV.  So she's proven she can win early, which is key.
                            3. She also proved her ability to win in all regions of the country. New England, Mid Atlantic, Deep South, Appalachia, Industrial Midwest, Plains states, West Coast. She's got infrastructure build in in all regions, someone no other candidate has.
                            4. She raised a ton of money. NO other candidate out there has her proven fund raising abilities. Not even close.
                            5. She was able to garner many key endorsements and appears to be picking up those who didn't back her last time, like McCaskill.
                            6. She's a good debater. She won most of the Democratic debates according to the polls and the competition was  pretty stiff: especially Obama and Edwards.

                            I think a big question is whether she learned from the mistakes she did make, like hiring Mark Penn. If she did, she will be very hard to beat, if not it is possible that a repeat of 2008 can happen, if someone of note runs.

                          •  It's the general that worries me.... (0+ / 0-)

                            She'll probably steamroll the primaries.  All that corporate money, and a feeling that it's her turn, and a desire to see a female president.  

                            Her judgment is horrible.  Her ability to manage a campaign weak, whether it's HillaryCare of the 2008 race.  No one knows  if Bill will be an asset or blow up in her face because of new affairs.  And like any old candidate, she has to worry about exhaustion, and showing it.  There are many reasons she lost to Obama: you named some of them.  I worry that we'll be compiling new lists of excuses after she loses the general.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:01:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Her Iraq vote is very important to me (0+ / 0-)

                            Tens of thousands died because we invaded Iraq.  That's more significant than closing a lane on a bridge.  I totally don't trust her on Iran.  

                          •  HER vote wasn't the deciding vote (0+ / 0-)

                            It was not close at all.  So, making HER responsible that people died in Iraq is complete nonsense.   It is the same as the right wing making her personally responsible that four service men died in Benghazi.   Funny that the same people who now talk as if SHE single handedly sent troops in harms way voted for John Kerry in the general, at that point those "concerns" were wiped away, ceased to exist.

                          •  She was voting for what most Americans wanted, (0+ / 0-)

                            at the time. Support for going to war with Iraq varied from 50 to 70% before the invasion. It is hard to hold the Iraq war vote against Hillary when eventually 70% of the country was for going to war. What politician is going to go against that number. If she were actually against the war and voted her conscience, she would have been vilified for going against her constituency. The Iraq war vote, politically, seemed a no win situation for most politicians at the time, and it was the Bush administration with its lies and manipulations abetted by the media that put politicians in that position.

                            I wish there had been more congressmen who voted against it or at least debated the issue honestly, but the feeling of most people at the time was hostile. I know because I was against our going, and I was surprised by the number of people I know who were all gung ho! I knew once people realized the true cost, which I had realized because of Vietnam and couldn't understand how people had so quickly forgotten, that their attitude would change, but look how long that has taken. There is still not much of a general outcry for the U.S. to get out of Afghanistan, and I wish we would.

                            Yes, Hillary Clinton shares a part of the blame for the U.S. invading Iraq, but she is no more guilty that the vast majority of the American public who supported the idea to one degree or other before they realized they had been conned. I wasn't one of them, but I don't hold it against her any more than I do people I was acquainted with who thought it was a Rambo of an idea.

                            Hopefully, people have gotten wiser now, at least for a little while, and it won't happen again anytime soon.

                          •  What attitude on Iran? (0+ / 0-)

                            Has she called for a ground invasion? Is she trying to scuttle the current interim deal?

                        •  One more thing: Hawkish on Iran? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

                          That is ALSO patently false.

                          http://guardianlv.com/...

                          Hillary Clinton, former US Secretary of State, is in full support of Obama’s plan to continue negotiations over Iran’s nuclear development instead of using sanctions.  US Congress has been debating the idea of sanctions against Iran and Obama feels that is a step in the wrong direction, Clinton agrees with that the current negotiations should continue.

                          Clinton and Obama both feel that imposing any new sanctions on Iran may drive them away from the negotiating table and that Congress should hold off on the debate while the current talks take place. Many feel this is a delicate situation and any misstep could lead to a place no one wants to be; war with Iran.

                          In January, Clinton wrote a letter in response to Democrat senator Carl Levin’s plea for guidance. In the letter Clinton made it clear that she supports Obama’s stance on the Iran sanction debate and that the current sanctions are responsible for “driving Tehran to the negotiating table.” She also said now that current negotiations are under way “we should do everything we can” to see if a final solution can be achieved and as President Obama stated “We must give diplomacy a chance.”

                          While a bunch of Democrats in Congress were trying to undermine Obama's push for a diplomatic solution in Iran (by siding with Republicans trying to impose additional tough sanctions)  Hillary has come down on the side of diplomacy instead, backing Obama's strategy strongly.  
                          •  Did you even read what you quoted? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greenbell

                            Let's look at your last sentence, and actually do a little analysis.  It might be a first for you, but give it a try:

                            She also said now that current negotiations are under way “we should do everything we can” to see if a final solution can be achieved and as President Obama stated “We must give diplomacy a chance.”
                            "now that  current negotiations are underway": which tells you that this is a recent change in her opinion.

                            "We must give diplomacy a chance".....before what?  What if diplomacy fails, and Iran breaks off talks?  If diplomacy fails, the Iran war hawks, like Hillary, are ready for war.  

                            Rational, non-Iran-war hawks, don't see diplomacy failing or an Iranian nuclear program, as cause for war.  Hillary does, as she has been consistently saying all these years.  Hence: Iran war hawk.  

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:16:45 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow. You parse "hawk" from the word "now"? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            Stunning.  Nothing indicates that Hillary Clinton is ready to go to war with Iran post haste, that is just an incredibly ridiculous assertion on your part.   Are you saying that those Democrats in Congress who were on board of more sanctions (countering Obama and HRC) and backed off only when pushed to,  are going to rush to war immediately as soon as negotiations "break down"?   What a far fetched assertion.  That is the point of the "additional sanctions" that they backed off on only when faced with wrath from Obama.  

                            To move things along in the negotiation process you have to give some sort of "ultimatum vs. reward" decision to Iran, but the next step, were negotiations to break down, would be additional sanctions.   At this point, that does not look likely it looks like we are headed for a positive result there.

                          •  This one is pretty simple. Try to follow along. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            greenbell

                            Some people, like Hillary and most Republicans, think that continued Iranian enrichment programs, and most certainly an Iranian weapons program, is cause for war.  They're called hawks.  See also, Netanyahu, Israel.  

                            Other people, while firmly for sanctions, and firmly opposed to Iranian nuclear weapons, don't find an Iranian enrichment and even nuclear weapons program cause for war.  They're called reasonable.  Pakistan, far crazier and more unstable than Iran, has nukes.  Isn't cause for war.  And shouldn't be.  

                            I'm in the second camp.  Hillary is in the first.  Hillary was in the Iraq-hawk camp as well, so she's certainly consistent, which you might think is a good thing.  

                            And you still haven't cast your vote for cynical or stupid, in reference to her authorization of Bush to invade Iraq.  I'm curious, actually, where you come down on this one.

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:42:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Clinton has form on this (0+ / 0-)

                            She was for bombing Syria.

                            So I do not think you can say that "nothing" indicates she will be bad on foreign policy

                            The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                            by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:20:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  tell me (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    greenbell

                    which candidate supports Keynes-style expenditure.

                    If we keep voting for the wrong policies, we will get them

                    The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                    by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:04:10 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  atana, wuod kwatch, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                  We do need a new generation of leaders, but we don't need to dismiss the first woman with a good chance to be President because she's not young enough. We need to win some Senate and House seats. Our bench is strong and will get stronger.  

                  I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

                  by voicemail on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:57:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  candidates (0+ / 0-)

                    need to be qualified.

                    What is it that makes Clinton qualified to tackle the big issues?

                    The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                    by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:16:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Really? (3+ / 0-)

                      There are a lot better angles to attack Hillary from. Experience is probably the top of the list for her pros.

                      •  no (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joesig

                        All that "experience" led her to support bombing Syria, to giving speeches to Wall Street.

                        Talent is a big factor here and she lacks the judgement we should be looking for

                        The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                        by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:27:24 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And accomplishments and judgment at the bottom.... (0+ / 0-)

                        To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                        by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:40:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  The list is long... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...not of qualifications, but of candidates and Presidents who are/were unprepared to tackle the big issues. Some did well, some did not. Seriously, Gideon, what is it that makes anyone qualified to tackle the big issues? Who was the last President who did? Was he old, young, experienced, inexperienced, a governor, a senator, a teacher, a parent? Tell me what's on your list?

                      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

                      by voicemail on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:37:53 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry but Hillary enthusiasts (0+ / 0-)

            are primarily older white professional women. I seldom run into young people excited by Hillary. And "your kids" is not a fair comparison. She's a celebrity. How does she stack up to other celebrities?

            Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

            by anastasia p on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:11:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it would be terrible (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew

          to have an older ticket against a much younger but dangerous GOP ticket. Sorry but Hillary is not going to face off well with a Paul Ryan. Kirsten Gillibrand could eat him for lunch. Hillary will seem like his mom.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

          by anastasia p on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:08:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep, a Paul Ryan/Ted Cruz ticket would (3+ / 0-)

            eat Hillary for lunch.  What a ridiculous argument you are making here.  Hillary is popular with 67%, 69% of the American public, Ryan and Cruz are upside down, are unpopular with at least 60% of the public.  But don't let facts deter you.  Clearly, when Hillary's team pounds into the public's conscience that Ryan proposed to privatize social security and to privatize Medicare it would not further harm his already underwater popularity, presumably because he lied that he has run in an actual marathon.   /sarc

            •  Hillary's "popularity"...didn't I hear that song.. (0+ / 0-)

              in 2008?  Somehow they made popularity rhyme with inevitability....how'd that work out?  She ran a horrible campaign and once more displayed her poor judgment and inability to excite a crowd.  

              To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

              by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:43:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I suppose than you have nothing to worry about (0+ / 0-)

                Someone unknown will just swoop in and be the "progressive" champion because she can't possibly win the nomination.   But, likely not to be a woman, as all 16 Democratic women Senators (including Warren) have signed a letter urging Hillary Clinton to run.  

                So, let's get this clear:  If HRC gets the nomination you'll vote for the GOP representative or a minor party candidate?   Maybe Nader runs again?  

                •  That stupid argument? Who mentioned voting.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dicentra

                  GOP?  You're pathetic.  

                  This time I don't have high hopes that someone will swoop in and steal the nomination from it's rightful owner.  

                  This time I fear some Republican moron will steal the general election from Hillary.  And you'll be sputtering about her great resume and all her experience and how much money she had, and sounding like Karl Rove, unable to accept that your inevitable candidate lost.  

                  See the difference?

                  To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                  by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:15:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You're very wrong (0+ / 0-)

            and you misread millennials. Only Warren could outperform Hillary amongst millennials at this point.

          •  Please. Hillary can be tougher than anybody. (0+ / 0-)

            you won't see a "mom" at all up against a GOPer.

            "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

            by Wildthumb on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:34:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not better just don't want to wait 8 years (5+ / 0-)

        for an opportunity.  The party is pretty much frozen seems to me.  Nothing on the horizon but centrism several times warmed over.  But Hillary certainly isn't the only problem there because most of my favorite Democrats are old and older.   The older they are the less likely they are to be captive of whatever the insiders are doing to steal their souls.  I mean I'd elect Tom Harkin over Cory Booker any day of the week,

      •  Yes, older people can do great things (0+ / 0-)

        and I know some people are thin-skinned when age is brought up. But I am Hillary's age and I know realistically there are responsibilities it's time to pass on. Of COURSE there should be opportunities for older people but the most powerful leader in the world is not one of them. It seldom leads to good things.

        In addition, she's not going to excite younger voters and activists. She's so 8 years ago. Let the GOP be the party of geezers, OK? Although this near-geezer won't give them even a fleeting consideration.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:07:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I care. Hillary Clinton is old and shrill (0+ / 0-)

        with a horrible sense of fashion or style. Those statement necklaces and chokers she wears to convey a sense of power and wealth appear ostentatious. The sound of her voice with its chronic underlying  tones of superiority and entitlement is unbearable. What HRC does not convey is youth and optimism. This has nothing to do with her chronological age; it has to do with the fact that she has no promising vision for the future of the country. It is very, very sad.

        •  This is disgustingly sexist (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

          Do you work for the RNC?

          •  No it isn't. It is imporaant to read the signs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dicentra

            and symbols of power and interpret them. Women's signs and symbols in dress and attire are most often different than men's but are equally important. Clothes and jewelry make statements and have done so throughout human history.

            If someone doesn't care for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton political machine; they are immediately considered Republican? Right, and George H.W. Bush considers Bill Clinton the son he never had. Go figure.

            •  It's one thing to not care for someone (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              randomfacts

              "Shrill" is generally associated with right wing attacks on HRC.
              Same as if someone called Obama "a socialist" on here, I'd suspect GOP talking points as well. It's fine not to care for him either, but leave the RNC talking points at home.

              •  Points taken. Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

                However, my views are taken neither from Republican or Democratic positions. I don't adhere to the thinking of either party and I don't codify my language; I rely on dictionary definitions.

                Again, thank you, and the best of luck with the running of HRC.
                 

    •  This is her fault? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, Loge, Chas 981
    •  They're on their way up (6+ / 0-)

      Look at Allison Grimes, for starters. Look at the women newly elected to Congress, and working their way up in state governments. Look at my mayor, Angel Taveras of Providence, Hispanic, early 40s, now running for Governor. For that matter, look at the Obamas, just 50.

      Yes, we need to be cultivating the next generation(s) of leaders. I'm not worried about that, frankly. But I don't see any of them in a position to run for the top post, which rarely has gone to someone under 50 (and when it has, they get blasted for "lack of experience).

      Ideally I'd like to see Clinton paired with a younger VP who would then be positioned to run in 2020. Maybe we should be crowdsourcing a list of names, as there's no obvious candidate. (Obama needed an older VP to balance the ticket and act the elder statesman role.)

    •  Totally TOTALLY agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, joesig

      Driven by CLinton loyalists, nostalgists who want a do-over from 2008, and a media hungry for a familiar name, we're being told this "meh," last-generation candidates with centrist roots who would undoubtedly disappoint us more than Obama is a done deal.

      We've got plenty of good candidates in their 40s and early 50s, but the "Hillary is unstoppable" campaign has caused them to stand down for the time being.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:04:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Our base is young and diverse (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew

        Millenials aren't going to be excited about voting for a 70+ year old women when the Pubs have plenty of diverse young candidates on their side no matter how crazy they are. Our bench is thin right now but we do have people like Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar who could run if Clinton bows out. But it's concerning that most of our leadingship in Washington Pelosi, Reid, and now Clinton are over 70 when our base is so young.

      •  We need to win in 2016 (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueKS, atana, pamelabrown, Wildthumb, Penny GC

        That should trump how you feel at her age, whether or not she is too centrist, or our opinions about how the youth vote will go. If we don't turn the Supreme Court around soon, we will simply continue to get the judicial coup we've had since 2000.

        I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

        by voicemail on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:04:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary could never dissappoint me as much as (0+ / 0-)

        Obama has. In fact, he has seemed worse than what I expected of Hillary, but so far we have survived it. I realize that the comparison is unfair because we will never know how Hillary would have handled the same situations in his place. Another problem that I have in judging Obama's track record is that it is difficult to discern what his strategy is or was exactly and whether it is by accident or design. Considering the hostile political climate, this would make sense, but it doesn't give one a sense of security or confidence. The third problem was my expectations were too high and naive. I never had that problem with Hillary, and I don't have that problem with her this time around. I always said that Bill Clinton was a Republican in Democrat's clothes. After joining this site not too long ago, it became clear why, and things started to make more sense.

        I think that she is a better candidate this time around than I did the first time. Both she and the times have changed. Maybe they are ready for each other. I certainly don't think a Republican would do a better job than Hillary.

        At this point it seems that we have to work with what we've got. I don't think forcing Warren to run is a good idea, but I do think that her supporters continued support for her to do so is a good idea because it pushes the party centrists more to the left. In fact, if Warren's supporters keep up their support, and Warren keeps out of the primaries, the other candidates are going to have to appeal to her supporters to get nominated. A sort of halo effect.

        As far as Hillary goes, I can only hope that she will do what I like. Maybe she will surprise me and maybe she won't.

        I do think that women's rights and issue are very important, and I think they are interconnected with a lot of the economic issues we are facing. I think that Hillary is the best hope of awakening the latent power that the women in this country feel they are denied. I wish I could describe how I feel about this, but I just don't have that insight at present. But I do think that Hillary will be a catalyst for positive changes because she will broaden the political power of women in this country.

        It would be nice if I could whole-heartedly endorse her, but because of my ambivalence, I can't right now, I want to see if the primaries bear out what I've been feeling and thinking.

    •  Hard to accept that Barack Obama was the only (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      one of his generation capable of stepping up.

    •  I think Obama showed this is a crock. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      He was a younger leader and he did OK.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:49:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Waiting for Maureen Dowd... (8+ / 0-)

    ...to invent a fictional sceanrio where she can insert The Pantsuit telling President 'Obambi' how she plans on reinventing her political identity by distancing herself from him.

    This type of CRAP is not limited to Politico -- it appears on the Opinion Page of the prestigious New York Times.

    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:21:59 AM PST

    •  All's fair (0+ / 0-)

      in love and pragmatic corporate power centrist neoliberalism.

      "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

      by ActivistGuy on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:37:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We'll see. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radiowalla, atana, vcmvo2

        Looking into my crystal ball, I can see very little being written by Dowd regarding any position (real or imagined) that Clinton holds.  What I can see as the fog in the center of my psychic conduit clears, is the masculinization of Clinton in Dowd's columns -- talk of her fat ankles and lack of feminie style and how she has to prove that she's just as tough as the guys as she tosses back yet another boiler maker with a couple of union Joes.

        Standard fare for MoDo, who probably won't even bother to scour Clinton's voting record in the sentate other than to trot out that fateful vote we all know she fucked up on.

        Yep, all's fair...

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:47:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thomas Friedman: Give her another 6 months (8+ / 0-)

    before we judge her administration.

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:46:51 AM PST

    •  I fear Hillary is just exactly what Tommy wants (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ActivistGuy
      •  Does your fear extend to... (6+ / 0-)

        ...what Barbara Boxer, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillabrand, and a number of other Senators want?

        I believe they are all supporting a Hillary run for 2016.

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:17:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't remind me of that letter!!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boogalord

          Where they strong armed every single woman into signing a letter supporting Hillary because everyone knows women cannot think for ourselves.  Oh, no.  We must be told what to do and all do the very same thing.  

          Sorry, this woman is contrarian and I think for myself.  I'm not going to vote for Hillary because all the girls at the middle school decided she is our extra special BFF.

          I mean can you imagine men being asked to do something like that?  

          •  Just asking if your fear... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            randomfacts, atana, Wildthumb

            ...extended to them.

            And I'm happy to know that Tom Friedman's potential endorsement carries as much weight with you as the letter signed by 16 Senators encouraging Hillary to run.

            I agree, which is why I think it's pointless to to throw Friedman's name in there to stoke a backlash.  You can't do that without expecting SOMEONE to name countless other people in politics whose postions cut left who are encouraging Clinton to run.  Hell, Jesse Jackson all but endorsed her the other day.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:32:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I seriously think she and Tommy are on the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tb mare

              same page.  It's the same hawkish right of center foreign policy with cuts to middle class programs at home to fund it.

              I mean I could be wrong.  Maybe she will disavow the 3rd Way, Fix the Debt(which seems to have become too visible and is being put out to pasture), DLC, Blue Dog elitists and give us a populist message aimed at the middle class in middle America.  But she's been hanging around with Tommy's friends for a long time now and I'm not going to let identity politics distract me from the issues no matter how hard the Clinton machine is working to distract me from them.  

              •  The distraction... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                randomfacts, vcmvo2

                ...wrt to identity politics cuts both ways.

                But I do like the way you frame the rest of your argument in your comment.  And I agree, except that Clinton does have some solid ground to stand on when discussing world economic issues as they relate to women.

                I don't think, as a political figure, that she's as 2-dimensional as her supporters and her detractors would have us believe.

                Lot's I don't like, but quite a bit that I admire.

                all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:51:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  She could convince me (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  4kedtongue

                  So far she's not trying so I'm filling in the blanks myself.  She's going to have to watch her timing or the Republicans will define her before she defines herself.  

                  •  she is already defined (0+ / 0-)

                    Campaign promises are worthless at this point.

                    Politicians will promise you the moon if they think it will get your primary and non-primary votes

                    The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                    by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:11:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I watch what they don't say (0+ / 0-)

                      With centrists it's important to deconstruct the spin and find out what they are not saying.  For example, they will give you an unconditional commitment to fully support Israel but they will not give you an unconditional commitment to fully support Social Security.  

          •  All the girls at the middle school? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Loge, atana, vcmvo2, sweatyb

            Egads.  That's a pretty nasty and sexist way to be describing Elizabeth Warren and Barbara Boxer.  

            It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

            by Radiowalla on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:13:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well who's stupid idea was it to have only (0+ / 0-)

              all the women endorse her before she's even made one speech on policy?  What is that but a BFF lovefest?  I repeat, this would NEVER happen with men so the idea of this letter was sexist.

              •  Well, maybe if there had never been a single (6+ / 0-)

                solitary male president of the US,  the guys might think of getting together to support a male candidate.  Making history and all that….

                But never mind about that.   You don't like Hillary Clinton.  

                It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                by Radiowalla on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:02:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've liked some things about her (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  4kedtongue, askew, Boogalord

                  I liked her when she championed healthcare.  I didn't like that she abandoned the issue when the going got tough.  I didn't like how she expediently voted for war with Iraq.  

                  She's experienced and competent. She could convince me.  So far she isn't bothering to try.  I know Warren isn't running but she's working for interests that matter to me.  She can make a clear and simple statement on Social Security -- the ultimate women's issue.  Why don't I know where Hillary stands on the issue?  Is she for CCPI - a dagger aimed at the oldest of old women and championed by former surrogates like Ed Rendell and centrist darling Mark Warner?  I need to know.

                  •  If she decides to run (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    4kedtongue, atana, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    then she will be obliged to answer all of these questions.  I expect that she will.  

                    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                    by Radiowalla on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:21:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It won't make any difference.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ....how she answers them.  If she gets the nomination, the only alternative will be the Rethugs' batshit crazy du jour.  I'll hold my nose and vote for her but it's really sad that the best we can come up with is a former Wal-Mart board member and closet Republican.
                       

                      See the children of the earth who wake to find the table bare, See the gentry in the country riding out to take the air. ~~Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote"

                      by Panama Pete on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:20:27 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  This. No principles. No hard beliefs. (0+ / 0-)

                      You're a fan....and yet you have no idea what she actually believes on something as fundamental as CCPI.  

                      This is why the non-cynical can't stand her.  

                      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                      by joesig on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:50:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  sure, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sweatyb, sukeyna

            but if you're going to beat the Clintons, you can't be "strong armed" like that.  So, even if it's not a matter of personal endorsement (of which there's no evidence), none of these folks will be worthy adversaries.  

            I like Martin O'Malley if Hillary doesn't run.  If she does, what's the point.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:00:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, but that's just saying we have machine (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dicentra

              politics and no one dares take on the Clinton machine and that just leaves me cold.  I just really don't like this coronation business.  I don't like their sense of entitlement.  I mean if she is such a done deal couldn't she at least do the Prince William and Prince Harry thing and come out and visit with the commoners now and then? I mean at least they showed up at the Gawd damn wars the elitists keep waging.  

              Yeah, I get there is no other candidate but to me that's just a symptom of what's wrong.

              •  i don't think that's so (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                atana, sweatyb, Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

                We certainly have hardball politics, and anyone who wants to be President has to know how to play it.  Hillary got beat in '08, remember, but by someone who could step up.  I think calling it a coronation ignores all of the work she has done to build a positive reputation for herself.  It's not impossible for there to be another good candidate, there just doesn't happen to be one as good as Hillary Clinton at this moment.  The Republicans don't have one as good as Andy Freaking Cuomo.  

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:24:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But the reputation isn't on the economic issues (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dicentra

                  that matter to me.  I know she's done plenty to position herself as Commander in Chief but the last thing I want is another war and she's done nothing on domestic policy is years.  

                  •  Her economic positions... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and her senate voting record were to the left of Obama when they were opposing each other in the 2008 primaries.

                    She was the first of the candidates to address the housing foreclosure crisis and had a plan to help home owners who were in -- ever increasing numbers as the crisis began to unfold in the midst of the primaries -- finding themselves under water with their mortgages.  During her debates with Sen. Obama, she stood by her argument that health care reform required a mandate -- demonstrating that she understood the issue and refused to pander by suggesting that reform could be achieved without it, which was exactly what many wanted to hear.  Her senate voting record showed a willingness to distance herself from the Free Trade policies of her husband's administration.

                    Now, she's making speeches to Wall Street fat cats and raking in some pretty hefty speaking fees in the process, which should give us justifiable pause.  

                    But I'm looking forward to seeing what her economic plan is if she decides to run.

                    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                    by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:04:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It will be interesting to see (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      4kedtongue

                      I would really like to know her budget priorities.  If I buy all the spin that she's going to be an electoral juggernaut and sweep all before her in the election and in Congress, it matters a heck of a lot what she wants to get done.  Obama saved my Social Security by not being powerful enough to strike the deal he wanted to cut it.

                    •  TPP (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      4kedtongue

                      She has not spoken out against TPP.

                      The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                      by GideonAB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:29:49 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  As people and politicians they're free to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tb mare

          use gender as a means for determining who is best to administer this country.  My standards are far different (things like policy stances and other twaddle), but it's their free choice to make.  Am I disappointed that Warren would sign such a thing? Yes.

          Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

          by The Dead Man on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:44:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Best DKos headline this month... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, Chas 981

    Says it all.

  •  politico doesn't count... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, voicemail, Chas 981

    All the "very serious" villagers are waiting for the advice that krauthammer and kristol give.  They're the only ones qualified to give any Democrat advice, at least since david broder and bob novak died.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:56:24 AM PST

  •  I'm over the "inevitable Hillary hype but ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, dicentra, joesig

    I had to open this diary to find out whether one of the inane pieces of advice was to "move to the center" or "emphasize her willingness to find common ground with Republicans."

    In the former case, where the heck is "the center"? If you go by D.C., it's the far right. If you go by where Americans are, you'd have to veer hard to the left.

    As for the second, dream on.

    Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

    by anastasia p on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:53:53 PM PST

  •  Beltway commentators... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    offer idiotic advise..and the sun comes up in the east.

  •  That's a shame (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, FuddGate

    she could just come here for that.

    For free.

    •  :) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, vcmvo2

      Just imagining her posting here (and what screen name she might be using) made me biff my coffee through my nose -- and I drank it at 11AM.

      all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

      by 4kedtongue on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 03:15:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, she'd get a lot of first rate, super (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4kedtongue

        high quality advice here as well.

        I just say that because often different DailyKossers offer 180 degrees diametrically opposed advice wrt what she should do.

        So, it stands to reason that half is completely idiotic and the other half is totally first rate.

        The trick, I suppose, would be for her to figure out which is which.

  •  How about Chris Mattews? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sybil Liberty, sawgrass727, vickijean

    He's already gamed out the 2016 general election - nearly three years before it's due to even happen!  If it were up to him, it'd be time to coronate Queen Hillary...er, I mean inaugurate President Clinton already!

    I think Chris Matthews is permanently brain-damaged by lack of oxygen...due to his chronic habit of talking so breathlessly (and so unceasingly) that he never properly inhales!

    All that is necessary for the triumph of the Right is that progressives do nothing.

    by Mystic Michael on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 03:54:20 PM PST

    •  star-struck ---> Matthews is, (0+ / 0-)

      was and always will be. Had a hand in getting ahnold elected in CA's recall, spending weeks in the run-up broadcasting his show from the beach in Santa Monica. "Ain't it fun to watch ahnold run?"

      breathless from excitement and given to chills running up his leg

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:54:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My Advice: Don't run. You've already got enough $ (0+ / 0-)

    You've already "won" the game of life -- go on a long relaxing vacation.  Enjoy your estate(s).

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:40:57 AM PST

  •  I can use a single finger to convery my advice (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    voicemail, vcmvo2, here4tehbeer

    to beltway reporters and I'm not really even a Hillary Clinton fan.

  •  convey my advice that is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2
  •  The last time she took advice... (3+ / 0-)

    ...it was from someone named Mark Penn and it ruined the surest sure-thing in American political history.  She'd do well not to listen to anyone every again, at least when it comes to winning elections.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:48:29 AM PST

    •  Despite Penn... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bahaba, Dr Swig Mcjigger, Rich in PA

      ...she came within a hair's breadth of winning.

      I think you're correct, however.  She's probably the only person who doesn't need advice, handling, or re-packaging.  She's great on the stump, and she proved that she was able to hold her own in debates.  And her stint as Sec. of State took her out of the political sphere, where she proved that she was an effective manager of a huge bureaucracy.

      I've read the comments here.  Everything from her glasses to her hairstyle to her age.  She should ignore it all and talk about what she knows, which is a GREAT deal.  Let the consultants advise Sarah Palin regarding glasses or contacts or whether Soccer Moms prefer her hair down or up in a professional twist or that jeans work better in Des Moines as opposed to a dressier casual in Chicago.

      I'm sure she realizes that most people hold strong opinions about her -- good and bad.  She has a remarkable capacity, however, to reach those few who reserve judgement and maintain an open mind.  

      all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

      by 4kedtongue on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:54:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just on a bigger stage (0+ / 0-)

    A theme of all campaigns is the parade of people who want to tell the candidate why s/he is doing it wrong. S/he may be. But I always tell candidates from dog catcher on up to make the best campaign plan they can -- and stick to it!! Wave off the advice, politely of course.

  •  Free bad advice putting Mark Penn out of job! (3+ / 0-)

    Why pay for bad advice when you can get it for free?

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:51:28 AM PST

  •  This is why (5+ / 0-)

    these brain dead reporters get paid 6+ figure salaries?

  •  one thing i can (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Patango

    tell the media experts if hillary runs and whether she wins or loses it won't be because she took any advice from the conservative media.

    save america defeat all republicans and conservatives

  •  I'd expected Beltway (0+ / 0-)

    reporters to start abandoning the GOP Titanic and jump on board the train of leadership, success, and all things Progressive.

    Welcome!  

  •  Don't be Al Gore is good advice. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FuddGate

    The Al Gore who ran in 2000 bore little resemblance to any Al Gore seen before or since.

    You can sum up how badly he performed with one simple sentence: He lost to George W. Bush.

    It's probably advice she doesn't need, though.  At this point in her life and career, HRC seems to have a pretty good idea of who she is.  By the time the 2008 primaries ended, she had become pretty good at letting people see who she is, and they liked it, albeit too late in the game.

    She will have to strike the right pose on her State Department tenure because of Benghazi, but I'll bet she knows how to do that as well.

    Her biggest problems will be beyond her control: the calendar and the economy.

    She'll be 69 in 2016 and far from a fresh face.  That's not fatal -- Ronald Reagan managed it.

    The economy, however, could do her in.  When Reagan ran, he ran against the bad economy and bad management of the economy.  HRC won't be able to do that.  She needs a rebound that people can actually see in their own lives.

    Unless,  of course, the GOP continues on its implosive course and nobody rises up to take its place.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 07:58:46 AM PST

    •  Reagan had brilliant staff (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac

      They packaged him perfectly.  He did the "morning in America" thing which was spot on after dreary Carter in his sweater.  They gave him a clear conservative message to sell with a smile (something today's Republicans don't get) and if Reagan could do one thing it was sell.

      What is Hillary's message?  I don't have a  clue.  The restoration of the House of Clinton isn't quite enough.

      •  That's one reason why the economy is so important (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell

        If the nation is happy about the state of things, she can put together some theme that sends a message of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

        Could work well in another way, again, depending on the state of the electorate.

        HRC was behind a much bolder health care initiative than ACA during President Clinton's first term.  It failed, but not necessarily on its merits.

        Again, depending on the mood of the electorate, she could campaign as somebody who is keenly aware of consumer health care needs and prepared to fix the problems -- both mistakes and concessions to political reality -- that afflict ACA.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:31:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  They forgot the P.S. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, vcmvo2, Patango, Chas 981, pamelabrown

    If you somehow thread this impossible needle, we'll still conclude that you are unworthy of the Presidency.

    Because cooties.

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:04:07 AM PST

  •  Ah! She's won already. Thanks Beltway reporters. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FuddGate

    I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong. Seldom turns out the way it does in this song.

    by mungley on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:09:09 AM PST

  •  "Tiger Beat on the Potomac" living up to its name. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Raynfala, Egalitare, pamelabrown
  •  Candidate for lamest advice of the year?"news (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Australian2

    I thought the lowest-hanging fruit for absurdly obvious advice was this:

    Do oppo on herself
    That advice clearly missed the obvious problem when it stated,
    Clinton’s aides might fairly suppose that there is nothing new that either she can learn about herself or opponents can unearth about her.
    That statement should have been supplmented with:  
    Her oppo researchers should also think creatively about the ways that Republicans will fabricate fake controversies.  They spent $60 million (of government money) on Whitewater and the stakes are even larger now.
  •  Politico? Really (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbastard

    Why does anyone pay any attention to. as Charlie Pierce calls it, Tiger Beat on the Potomoc

  •  I Think She Will Pick Somebody From The West (0+ / 0-)

    as VP.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:38:56 AM PST

  •  It's sad (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ddn, Militarytracy, Egalitare

    that reporters seem to be even more out of touch than our career politicians.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:40:31 AM PST

  •  Policy ideas? Here's one! (0+ / 0-)

    Remember that it's no longer the 1980s or 1990s, Hillary - it's 2014, and the right person (by whom, I mean you, Madame) could tap into the ever-growing popular discontent with the economic status quo and become the next FDR. You could make the political and policy changed that will reinvigorate the US middle class for the next several generations and make yourself a household name for decades to come.

    Or you can run as a DLCer, probably win unless the GOP manages to do something smart, and become one of those presidents about whom the best that can be said is that they did very little evil themselves.

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:41:08 AM PST

  •  SOS during much global upheaval (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    Often called one the best SOS our nation has ever had, but she must spell out what she did because same reporters were........not being paid to pay attention?

    Is this where reporters are going to get fair and balanced?  Where Hillary Clinton gives them her State Department resume and then same reporters phone up all the Fox News nutjobs they have on speed dial, and then they write another story about new and improved Benghazi concerns?

  •  Run on the fact... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that despite what ultra-Orthodox newspapers publish, she was in the room when we killed Osama bin Laden.

    You can't spell "Dianne Feinstein" without "NSA".

    by varro on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:44:43 AM PST

  •  I've Got One! (0+ / 0-)

    Be A Woman!  Pretty Sure She's got that one down.....

    "Seek above all for a game worth playing- such is the advice of the oracle to modern man." - Robert S. de Ropp

    by FuddGate on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:48:21 AM PST

  •  Heh, the comments are great. BUT . . . (0+ / 0-)

    There IS one bit of superb advice she should take.

    Rest.

    I doubt that anyone here has run a national campaign. It is unbelievably grueling, trying, troublesome, and unhealthy. Sleeping in different cities every day, having no time for friends or family, eating fast food, only because time is so precious, and always the fund-raising. It is a fool speed marathon that lasts months, not just 26 or so miles.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:06:31 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site