I have nothing against Hillary. While I lean more toward the Warren-Sanders wing, I think Hillary is talented, tough and is more progressive on some things than we give her credit. I also think that if she looks like she'll be a near-sure winner in the fall, we can't afford to take a chance on letting Jeb Bush or Rand Paul appoint the next 3 SCOTUS justices.
That said... you never put all your eggs in one basket. We have seen fine, fine people and candidates destroyed over non-issues (the Dean scream), poor journalism (Kerry swiftboating), or outright lies/conspiracy/hatred (the multiple issues Obama overcame).
I think given her history, Hillary is a) tough and ready to defend herelf and b) as well vetted as any candidate in history, so while its less likely to happen, we need a back-up. Explore the issue below the squiggle.
Kos wrote about the boom and bust cycle, how Republicans win every off year election, Dems win every Presidential year, and no one has any incentive to change.
Fuck the incentives.
The Boom and Bust cycle is BY DESIGN. It benefits the people at the top immensely.
How does it work? Below the fold...
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback isLOSING to Democrat Paul Davis by 6 pts.
Four months out and the KSN News Poll shows sitting Kansas Governor Sam Brownback losing to his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis in the November General Election. In that race, Davis leads Brownback 47% to 41% with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
This is BIG BIG news. Brownback is like Scott Walker on steroids w/a very red legislature backing him. I don't have much to say except - please SUPPORT PAUL DAVIS.
Yet again, we are treated to an unflattering image of an older person on the front page.
The story of the computer-illiterate doctor quitting did not feature a photo of the actual doctor (which would have been OK and interesting), but instead a stock photo of an older person making a face.
It's safe to say that if such unflattering images were used to make light of any other class of people (immigrants, poor people, various ethnic groups) it would be deemed obviously inappropriate and not in keeping with the philosophy of a progressive community.
So I'm a little puzzled why Daily Kos continues to promote such obviously ageist imagery.
We keep hearing calls for Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016, to keep Hillary honest in the Democratic primaries. This ignores the fact that
1) Warren would be a reluctant candidate (as Kos recently said)
2) Warren is not a particularly good candidate - she tends to come off as shrill (I love the woman, but being honest) with non-partisans
3) She hails from a state (she'll get as many votes in Oklahoma as Obama got in Kansas) - MA - that is already in the bag electorally and may not translate all that far in the Dem primaries.
I agree it may be necessary to keep Hillary honest by running someone to her left.
So... why not Sherrod Brown?
Chris Christie will be the GOP. And you are naive to think otherwise.
You can make the argument that tea-party conservatives just won't vote for him in a primary, but in a race with 2-4 solid tea-party candidates, some (Brownback) with money (Koch Bros.) and others who will do or say anything (Cruz, Rand Paul), he doesn't need a majority.
Further, the corporate masters of the GOP, the ones who want Keystone, who want their slice of the pie, will not tolerate losing. They will back a winner. And that is what the media have deemed Christie. Even MSNBC was gushing about his "victory" (despite his making sure he's not on the ballot with Booker).
And make no mistake, Christie is a true Conservative/tea partier. He's just smarter and shrewder than some of the others and hides it better.
More in extended...
I understand a general opposition to military intervention. What I am having trouble with is the naivete on this site about the politics.
You do realize that the same people that have undermined everything Obama has done (i.e. Obamacare implementation) are the same people you are sharing your opposition to action in Syria.
Do you think these hawkish tea-partiers and red-state Dems (Joe Manchin anyone?) are really acting on principle? No. They (I won't include Manchin in this) have proven again and again that they are not patriots, they are political opportunists whose first mission is to see Obama fail as President. GOP Leadership can act "responsible" and maintain the precedent of Congressional leadership universally backing foreign policy choices, knowing full well their rank and file will vote to cripple Obama.
You all do realize that Obama's second term hinges on the Congressional Syria vote? If Obama loses this vote, several things happen:
1) He loses credibility around the world.
2) His hands are tied for the next three years on foreign policy.
3) Like his other capitulations, this weakness only encourages his domestic enemies.
More below the squiggly.
There is a lot of sentiment in Congress and on here calling into question the reason we would take military action against Syria. I am going to go through the reasons we should consider supporting Obama here -
They fall into 3 categories -
3. Political (domestic)
#3 should not really be a consideration, but let's examine the ramifications anyway. Below the fold.
I have a sneaking suspicion.
And it is this:
The real significance of this SCOTUS term has been the consistent grinding away at the American Dream - your right to class action, the dismantling of voting rights, employee rights, I'll even go back to Citizens United.
The Corporatists in charge couldn't give a rats ass about whether you are gay, who you love, or even abortion. They want power and money and want to hold you down to achieve it.
Bans on gay marriage are only important if they represent a means to oppress or control a portion of the population. I'll argue that they don't need it anymore because they have many other, more effective means to control more people.
More in extended...
As a longtime Kossack (no. 1200), I have been around long enough to see every pie fight and controversy within the site. I also haven't really ever been involved in one of these, and have observed from the sidelines - I usually have better things to do. Since I have a spare moment, I wanted to share a thought on the recent controversies.
I work with people with Autism and am the parent of a young man with Aspergers. I've worked with people with disabilities for 20 years. I have a pretty good handle on what people who experience the world differently than others, through a different physical, emotional or perceptual experience (or all of the above). Here is my observation:
I think some people are less gifted than others in how they express themselves, and a few people who are extremely gifted use their talent to bully, shame and drive these people away- instead of reaching out, practicing patience and tolerance.
More in extended...
Its never too soon to look at what the Senate holds for 2014.
Did the Dems build up enough of a cushion to insulate them in 2014, where they will be facing a similar-to-2012 20-13 difference in seats up for re-election?
Democrats should immediately approach Susan Collins and offer her whatever swag she needs to become an Indy like King and caucus with the Democrats. Mainers have proven they'll vote for an Indy, and she's getting primaried anyway - so she may as well do it now and gain some power.
Predictions below the swirly.
Remember the first debate in 2004? George W Bush was practically incoherent.
First 2004 Presidential Debate
Kerry, of course, went on to lose that election, despite Bush appearing almost unqualified to be President. Watch that tape and compare to Obama's performance, which was not even close to being that bad.
This will probably move the needle 2 percent in Romney's favor. The Vice-Presidential debate will move the needle none (ask Vice President Bentsen about that).
The next debate is a Town Hall format, which favors Obama - I'll be shocked if Mitt gets through it without insulting someone (and you know he'll get a 47% question from the crowd). The foreign policy debate will favor the guy who killed Osama Bin Laden. Romney is out of his depth.