Skip to main content

View Diary: Priorities USA embraces Hillary, Obama 2012 campaign manager takes organization's helm (255 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More preemptive stuff (12+ / 0-)

    With the Republicans trying to shorten THEIR primary season so that the clown car aspects aren't as obvious, this appears to be how we're fighting back. I'm waiting to see if she's moved leftward on anything before I get upset by this.

    •  HRC was the Prohibitive Favorite in 2008 (12+ / 0-)

      And she blew it.

      She was a flawed candidate in 2008.

      And she'll be a candidate with more flaws (advising the President to embark upon war against Syria) in 2016.

      HRC represents the reactionary, intransigent wing of the Democratic Party.

      We can and will do better than she.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

      by PatriciaVa on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:13:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All candidates are flawed. (5+ / 0-)

        by DAISHI on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:24:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  She seems to be wrong for 2016. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PatriciaVa, dhshoops, Nannyberry

        We seem to grow tired of parties after two terms in power.  George H.W. Bush bucked that trend and HRC might, absent some serious upturn in the economy and lots of people going back to good jobs, she seems to old, too well-known, too more-of-the-same for 2016.

        I say that as somebody who wished she had been the candidate in 2008.

        She's had a good run.
        She's served her country well.
        She has much yet to offer.

        I just don't see President of the USA in her future.

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

        by dinotrac on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:24:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Something is not just telling you this... (9+ / 0-)

          I agree that this is not so much a disparagement of Hillary Clinton. It's more that the timing of a candidacy is essential to its success. Lincoln was the right man at the right time, and I believe President Obama has been as well. The country may need a more powerful dynamic of societal fairness than Hillary can produce. I doubt we are ready to elect a "more of the same for eight years" candidate.

          •  Amen! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, Helpless, Nannyberry

            I am NOT going to be enthused about supporting the crew that brought us NAFTA,the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Summers, Geithner, and all the other sellouts of the great American middle- and working-classes.
            That said, if the voters do choose her, I'll obviously support her over whatever nutcase and/or serial liar the Pubbies put up.
            But let's all hope it doesn't come to that.
            And after 30+ years of plutocratic takeover, there's no reason at all that it should.

          •  Right Candidate for the times (4+ / 0-)

            Who knew that "hope and change" would win over millions,especially the youth vote in 2008.  The "we are at war with Osama", didn't.  Hillary lost because Obama got the message for his time.

            2016 will be the same. The only candidate so far that has emerged with a great economic, "expand the Middle Class" is the Freshman Senator from Massachusetts who is fighting to control banks, reform WallStreet, expand and improve Social Security and will not Brooke more economic sanctions on Iran and its new generation of it's Green Revolution.

            Unless, Hilary can embrace that, then it will be difficult for us to embrace her.  I do believe we are ready for our first woman president.  But that woman president must defend and reform Washington not defend it.

            •  There's a great opportunity for somebody who (0+ / 0-)

              actually embraces ordinary Americans as being important to the country.

              Somebody who can make us believe they are on our side could go a long way.

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

              by dinotrac on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 06:37:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. GHWB was the only (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          3rd consecutive term for a party since the office was term limited after Roosevelt. That's actually a factor that scholars use in their prediction models for presidential elections, though it pales in comparison to the impact of the economy and approval of the incumbent president.

          It's hard to say what the economy will be doing, but short of a miracle, it's likely that Obama's approval will be low enough to be a net negative for the next Democratic nominee. So indeed it might not be her time.

          You won't believe what this gay dolphin said to a homeless child. First you'll be angry, but then at the 1:34 mark your nose will bleed tears of joy.

          by cardinal on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:18:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If that's the case (0+ / 0-)

            it doesn't matter who we nominate, since anyone will lose.

            •  Maybe. If the fundamentals of (0+ / 0-)

              the election suggest a toss-up, then the nominee can matter greatly. But in lopsided years it doesn't matter. I'd say it's too early to tell at this point; but if we're going by current indicators, then the fundamentals are bad but not horrible for Democrats, thus suggesting that the nominee can matter.

              You won't believe what this gay dolphin said to a homeless child. First you'll be angry, but then at the 1:34 mark your nose will bleed tears of joy.

              by cardinal on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 12:07:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  "...can and will do better than HER" (0+ / 0-)

        The objective case is "her"; the subjective "she".

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:00:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct -- but.... (0+ / 0-)

's a common, and understandable, mistake.
          In a different, but superficially similar, context -- such as, "I can do [task xyz] better than she [can]," -- the subjective case would be called for, even though it would sound jarring to many ears.
          Pronoun case is often a stumbling block for even the best-educated and most articulate, especially when it comes to the "relative pronouns," such as "who" and "whom."

      •  No one remembers Syria. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rainmanjr, Dr Swig Mcjigger

        As Nate Silver once explained, voters' interests shift quickly, and no one will remember or care about a military  intervention that never even took place. Unless there's significant American involvement (like Iraq or Afghanistan ) most voters don't care about foreign  policy to start with (anyone recall the Libya intervention ?)

      •  "She was a flawed candidate in 2008." (0+ / 0-)

        IMO it was more about dem voters not wanting B Clinton part 3

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:52:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually Hillary won (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

          among registered Democrats.  

        •  Partly, but mostly it was about HC (0+ / 0-)

          I think our Party recognized that single payer wasn't going to be possible and that's what Obama tapped into.  His adoption of Rmoney-care was the middle ground most believed was possible.  That and his charisma is why Obama won the nomination.  The odds were pretty good that either Dem would win the WH after what W did but it was going to be more certain with Obama.

          "If it takes all night / that'll be alright / if I can get you to smile before I leave." Jackson Browne

          by rainmanjr on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:23:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because Obama ran to the right of HRC (0+ / 0-)

            Single payer vs. Romneycare was just one example where Obama took the more moderate, centrist position compared to HRC.

             I think the country as a whole has moved to the left (marriage equality, legalization of marijuana, women pay equality, etc.)  HRC would probably be the right candidate for these times, she was a tad too "leftist" (when compared to the more centrist Obama) for the average voter 8 years ago, but with the country's leftward lurch we have seen over these last 8 years it would be a better fit.   I expect HRC as president to start the groundwork to move from managed care to single payer coverage for starters.  

            Warren is good, but she would be an underdog against someone like Jeb Bush in an election we have no business losing (given the demographic shifts strongly in our favor.)  Given a choice between them, I would rather not take the chance on Warren losing the race because we MUST win this next election at all costs because of the serious Supreme Court justice implications and the relative freshness of the ACA, which could at that point still be rolled back to previous status quo by a Republican president and a sympathetic House.    

      •  4 years as Sec. of State (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

        was a nice add to her resume.

        Clinton may not be a favorite choice, but she is the most electable candidate.  It is easy to love Warren with her more populist agenda, but she will likely be more effective in the Senate or a cabinet seat than in the Oval Office.  (She would be a fine VP choice.)

        Say what you will about Clinton.  At the very least, even a bad Clinton presidency would be far better than any GOP presidency.  And the Dems won't damage her by putting her through the primary thrash that Romney went through and the GOP hopefuls for 2016 are doomed to repeat.  

        'As our area of knowledge expands, so too does our perimeter of ignorance.' - Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by American Expat on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 12:14:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary is slam dunk for nom; most electable Dem (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smartalek, American Expat, sukeyna

          I agree that Hillary is the most electable Democrat.  

          If she runs, she'll get the nomination.  No one could beat her here in the PA Dem primary.

          Because many nationally connected Republicans have known her ans worked with her over the years, she also tends to dull their partisan swords against her.  They will still oppose her and scream Benghazi (or whatever), but there will be less frothing at the mouth from most establishment Republicans.

          She can also say that when her husband was President and Democratic tax and spend policies were adopted (without a single Republican vote in Congress) we actually had federal budget SURPLUSES - in fact, not just trickle down theory. Only time in almost 45 years (since 1969) when federal budget ran surpluses.

    •  This is how Goldman Sachs is fighting back (12+ / 0-)

      Hillary's financial base is Wall Street and big corporate through and through.  

      The corporate board of directors of the Democratic party is doing its damnedest to make sure uppity voters don't get any ideas.  They want the "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the party -- otherwise known as Democrats -- to be enthused for 2014, then squelched before they get any ideas about creating a competitive primary for 2016.  

      Just like in 2008, they're trying to present Hillary as the fait accompli, to shut down any upstarts they'd have to go to some trouble to co-opt.  I don't think it'll work any better in 2016 than it did in 2008.  

      We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:30:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah they suffered so badly under Obama! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Where do you think up this things?

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:01:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ...and they still hate him... (0+ / 0-)

          ...because he's "anti-business."
          Obama raised far less from Wall St in '12 than he did in '08.
          Where have you been for the last 3+ years?
          Just two of many well-known sources on the subject:



          •  But he still is objectively (0+ / 0-)

            no less pro-business than Clinton would be. I think Wall Street doesn't like Democratic Presidents, especially black ones. However, to the point that Clinton is some kind of rightwing monster in Democratic clothing, I think you may be quite surprised at how much progressive legislation she may get done. She is widely admired for her pragmatism and toughness. She is also more liberal than either Obama or her husband, but without the aloofness of the former or the emotional neediness of the latter.

            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

            by Anne Elk on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 01:35:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunate, but apparently true (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CoyoteMarti, liberte, smartalek

        I like Hillary Clinton; I only wish I could trust her positions or her policy instincts.  This is the senator who flipped on the disastrous pro-Wall Street bankruptcy bill, who still seems to think that she was right to vote for the AUMF, who I see no obvious reason to trust on sovereignity-destroying trade agreements, on standing up to the security state, on standing up to IP maximalists, on pushing back against the overreaches of the financial services industry.

        I'd like to be persuaded otherwise: I respect her as an honorable woman and public servant, and I respect the strength she's shown under difficult circumstances.  I only wish I thought she would show the same strength on core policy issues that she has in response to political attacks.

        •  Flashmans (0+ / 0-)
          I'd like to be persuaded otherwise:
          I know what I would be getting from Hillary , there is no guessing about who and what she is , for me any way , and after watching Obama flip flop all over the place , there shouldn't be much doubt for anyone else on how she will govern , if she would be honest about how she would govern  , that would at least be a refreshing change for everyone

          Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

          by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:07:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Dallasdoc (0+ / 0-)
        to shut down any upstarts
        They learned their lesson last time , this time they will go in early and buy out anyone who tries to get some traction  

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:01:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  non-binding (0+ / 0-)

      Primary campaigns are not binding and so I think it would be better to evaluate her now, in the light of her actions, rather than hope she will suddenly "see the light".

      We need to get out of damascus politics.

      Damascus politics is failed politics

      Hillary Clinton is the "Bomb Syria" candidate

      by GideonAB on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:54:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Waiting (0+ / 0-)
      I'm waiting to see if she's moved leftward on anything before I get upset by this.
      Like California is waiting for rain, Minnesota for the polar vortex to go away and the East Coast is waiting for it to stop snowing.  Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

      Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

      by Helpless on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 06:46:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Leftward? (0+ / 0-)

      Dave, leftward of Cargyle-Hilary is still too far Right for America.  Either real Democrats primary challenge her or the rest of us (we outnumber the wealthy Blue Dogs but only have our votes, not lots of bucks) will bail in precedent-setting numbers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site