Skip to main content

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks to a breakfast with Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Istana in Singapore November 17, 2012. REUTERS/Matt Rourke/Pool
With Hillary Clinton out of politics in her role as secretary of state, and overwhelmingly popular to boot, Republicans have for the most part taken a four-year break from attacking her. (Hasn't it been nice?) But with her departure from the role of secretary of state, and the potential that she will run for president in 2016, Republicans are once again considering when and how they will attack her, and even whether they can get the old Hillary-hating magic back at all.

Some Republicans are thinking the unthinkable—that after using Hillary as a boogeyman, or worse, a boogeywoman, for nearly 20 years, they're going to have to find a new trick:

“She will not be the lightning rod she was 20 years ago, for reasons to do with her and more to do with conservatism, which is, I don’t need to tell you, deeply troubled,” [former House member and Fox News host John Leboutillier] said, calling it “an exhaustive, spent volcano at the moment. That encapsulates everything except the tea party, and they don’t have anything to do with Hillary Clinton.”
Others, like Ralph Reed, are optimistic:
“The intensity of the opposition to Hillary Clinton on the right has abated somewhat during her years at the State Department for obvious reasons,” he said. “She’s been a diplomat, not a candidate. But should she begin to test the waters of a presidential candidacy, there will be renewed scrutiny by both the media and her critics, and at least some of the old dynamic will likely return, perhaps with renewed vigor.”
But in the end, both sides are probably right. Hillary Clinton will be attacked in vile and misogynistic ways by the right, because:
One Republican strategist, speaking of the Hillary-hating industry, was more blunt: “If she works in the mail and on the phones with small donors, she’ll get hit. We’ll look stupid. But when did that ever stop us?”
The "we'll look stupid" part of that is important, though. If the media outside the right-wing echo chamber doesn't go along with it, the attacks may raise money against Clinton, but they won't have the same reach and resonance they've had in the past. Who knows, they may even cause enough of a backlash to be counterproductive.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:22 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

  •  The woman has a 66% approval rating (8+ / 0-)

    The answer to the question on when us the right time to attack her is: never.

    •  That's today (6+ / 0-)

      Two years from now is an eternity in politics, so it's a little premature to guess at how she'll be perceived as a presidential candidate.

      •  Do we really need to go backwards instead of (7+ / 2-)

        forwards.  She is a blast from a horrible Conservadem past, no Progressive and with more problematical baggage than United Airlines.  She and her co-president husband manged to set back gay rights 20 years through the gay marriage ban and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  She has done enough damage to this country.  Someone new, please.  BEcasue you will lose the younger generation with such a superannuated nominee.  SHe will be 77 by the end of any 2d term, or as it would be called, Bubba's 4th term.  ANyone who has taken care of even healthy parents in that age range knows it's no time of life for Presidential responsibilities.

        GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

        by SGWM on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:26:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She'll have to be more progressive. (14+ / 0-)

          I still think she can find a role as the Reagan of the Left, if she plays it right.

          She'll have to realize that, unlike the 90s when conservatism was ascending and the Dems were basically playing defense, progressivism is now ascending and she'll need to be the elder stateswoman of that movement, like Reagan was the elder statesman of ascending conservatism in the 80s.

          Or something....

          "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

          by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:45:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I really like the way you put it, thanks. n/t (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            exterris, SGWM, Bush Bites

            It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

            by karmsy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  We can hope this is the case (4+ / 0-)

            We'll see if she learns anything from "No Drama Obama", which I hope is the case.  

            HRC campaign in 2008 was too full of drama. Now that the nomination is virtually hers if she wants it in 2016, we can hope she moves more to the left and gets rid of Penn (I think that was pollster) and others who value political intrigue more then results.

          •  Reagan of the left? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DownstateDemocrat, snoopydawg

            That role's already filled, thanks.

            •  If you're talking about the current president... (0+ / 0-)

              ...who I admire greatly and supported in the 2008 primaries, I disagree.

              First of all, Reagan came into office when conservatism was at its zenith, while the country is just starting its swing to the progressive side now.

              The first president in such a cultural swing -- Nixon/Ford and Obama -- are bound to have less power to make change than later presidents who come in when the change is at its strongest -- Reagan and whichever Dem follows Obama.

              Second of all, Reagan had a lot of years as an elder statesman of conservatism before he came into office. Hillary will have to brand herself in a similar way, but as an elder stateswoman of progressivism.

              Obama was too new to come in as an elder statesman.

              "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

              by Bush Bites on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:36:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I partly agree with this comment, (6+ / 0-)

          and I'm tipping it. HRC is by no means perfect, and thoughtful progressives would occasionally have reason to question her core convictions. I've grown sick of hearing her spout RW talking points, during periods of candidacy. And I've never really forgiven her for her big flop on HCR during her husband's tenure. I also suspect you aren't merely sounding cautionary notes about her age BECAUSE she's a woman; this isn't sexist.

          But, say what you will, HRC has been an awfully shrewd, talented legislator and political appointee. She gets a lot done. She is, generally, somebody you want on your side.

          It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

          by karmsy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:50:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wait a Minute... (9+ / 0-)

          Although there is a lot to agree with in your post, and your reasoning, I take issue with the "set back gay rights 20 years..." line.  

          DADT was extremely forward moving at the time, as a compromise that advanced Clinton's campaign objective of allowing LGBTs to serve.  It is shocking sometimes how fast the issue of gay marriage and gay rights have moved, but DADT moved from a position where the military could confront, harass, and force out people who were SUSPECTED of being gay.  DADT protected them until society could get caught up.

          •  I take exception. (5+ / 0-)

            Gay activists at the time did not consider DADT "extremely forward." They recognized it as the shit sandwich compromise that would--and did--lead to witch hunts. And there were civil disobedience arrests at the White House the day it was signed.

            These activists were told to pipe down and let Clinton sell his dumb compromise as a victory.

            Just like NAFTA protesters and welfare reform protesters were told to do. (and didn't that work out great?)

            Don't care about relitigating the past. But let's not rewrite it.

            DADT was a vicious policy that "protected" nobody and empowered homophobes. That it "protected" gay Servicemembers is an extremely offensive right wing talking point.

            "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

            by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 12:22:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree DADT was that giant step needed to get (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rhauenstein, JamieG from Md, Lysis

            to the point that gays could serve openly.

            Lets not forget Hillary fought and took a pounding on the battle field of universal health care.

            Though her effort was a failure it was the first bold step toward the national acceptance of the some kind of universal health care.

            It also was a huge step for women in politics.  She could take a lickin' and keep on tickin' as well or better than any male politician.  And she was smarter than most and they hate her for that.

            The right and the LSM savaged her for her efforts.  She has more balls that Boehner, McConnell, and more smarts than Paul Ryan and the Newt all rolled into one.

            If anything she is over qualified for the job.

            •  It wasn't a neccessary step. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn, Scottie Thomaston

              They could have left the regulatory ban, which would have been easier to repeal or modify at a later date than undoing a legislative statute.

              Passing the law was just Clinton's way of throwing in the towel and maintaining the status quo and still pretend he had a victory.

              It was typical DC political kabuki not a worthwhile compromise.

              "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

              by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:21:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Great, she's got more "balls" (0+ / 0-)

              Than Boner, McConnell, and Ryan?  The let the Republicans recruit her.  I admire Hillary for many reasons, and I applauded her for the real, foundational work she's done in creating space for women in American Politics.  She's been amazing.  But.  The Democratic Party needs to be moving Forward into the future.  We need to stp cranking our heads over our shoulders and looking to the past for our leadership.  It's time for us to move with the new progressive era, and begin electing real progressive leadership.  I love Hillary, but I don't think she's progressive enough to meet the needs and challenges of our future.  She is at heart, and always will be a 90's conservadem.

              •  I would fall in line behind a Hillary nomination. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FogCityJohn

                I think, from an identity politics standpoint, any female Dem nominee would be their best shot at a third term (giving Ds a good chance at replacing Scalia and Thomas in the SC). But HRC is not my first choice in female nominees.

                And I also don't fool myself that a Hillary Clinton administration would be as liberal, progressive goodness as we'd all hope it would be. She's always been way more cautious and centrist than anyone believes.

                I can't really think of a single progressive issue she pushed in eight years she served as my Senator. I remember her working to ban flag-burning and video game violence, two conservative populist and pointless issues.

                And she can surround herself with real tools like Mark Penn and listens to them.

                "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

                by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 04:13:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  NO, DADT was a backward step and a severe blow. (4+ / 0-)

            Prior to DADT, the ban on gay service members was not statutory.  It was merely a Presidential Executive order, instituted by Ike, durng the McCarthy hysteria, in 1954, I believe.  As an executive order, it could have been rescinded by Ike or any President.  As a statute, however, it required CONGRESSIONAL action to change it which is why ist was so horrible and took so much time to do so.  During DADT ther was no change in the loevelm of harrassment.  Prior to that there was no anti-gay rule in the military, where lots of gay men served honorably and often openly in WWII and earlier..  In fact, before DADT, there were no federal anti-gay statutes.  DADT took it to a new level of backwardness.  Outness, if I may use that term was a local, unit matter.  I had been dating an air force enlisted man, on base, in his quarters, and we frequently used the (TV) lounge onn his floor and got to know a great many of his fellow airmen.  THere just was no big deal with the airmen.  The problem was the psychotic fundamentalist officers.  Becauswe of DADT, we lost 20 years in the struggle for gay rights, because this one issue is and was, as history has shown, pivitol to all other gay rights matters.  BTW, SGWM means Single Gay White Male, the descriptor we used in personal ads back then snd still do in some quarters.  I would urge a certain amount of caution on  your part, if you are not familiar with the history.

            GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

            by SGWM on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:40:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I feel moved to add, (4+ / 0-)

            Saying DADT "protected" gays is exactly like saying Jim Crow protected blacks until the south was ready to desegregate.

            It soft-selling a discriminatory, oppressive and bigoted policy as a benevolence for the poor pitiful people who were victims of it.

            Tell yourself what you need to excuse Clinton's and the Democrats part in it, but do not fool yourself there was benevolence in DADT, there was none.

            DADT and the 200 year history of how gays in the military have been treated needs to be remembered as fondly as FDR's Japanese internment camps. It was a mistake and a shameful one made only out of political expediency, not benevolence or thoughtful policy.

            Gratefully we have moved on. But that was the result of 50 years of hard work by LGBT activists, not the benevolence of our dear leaders.

            "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

            by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:17:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  DADT was a Congressional (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn, Scott Wooledge, SGWM

            enactment that for the first time codified deliberate anti-gay sentiment  against gay and lesbian servicemembers who chose to fight and die for their country (as someone already noted below, there was only an EO before this). The fact that Congress even got involved in the first place is enough to suggest that it set gay rights back 20 years. It was yet another Act of Congress that we needed to repeal to remove deliberate anti-gay discrimination from our laws.

            I'm sorry but in NO other context would a deliberately discriminatory law be called "extremely forward moving."

            I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
            @indiemcemopants on Twitter

            by Scottie Thomaston on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:53:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like to see who else steps up to the plate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bnk, MikePhoenix

          I think Hillary would be a powerhouse in the general election. By now she has vast, peerless experience, and immense credibility. As long as she doesn't make any silly mistakes (e.g. landing in Bosnia under fire), it will be very difficult for any Republican to beat her. As offensive as it was, her vote on AUMF will not carry enough weight to matter all that much.

          I would be happy with her, were there no other credible choices. At the same time, I'd like to see who else steps up to the plate. Hopefully a left-handed batter: I'm not a fan of political dynasties, third-way centrism, and Clinton/Obama economics.

          “Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one - can stop us. ”-- Elizabeth Warren

          by Positronicus on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:52:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't entirely agree with this comment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SGWM, FogCityJohn

          and am actually open to Hillary running for a number of reasons. However there was nothing in this comment that deserved on HR, so I uprated it.

          If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

          by MikePhoenix on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:14:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why was this comment HR'd? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SGWM

          I can see why people might disagree with it, but I don't see anything in it that makes it hide-worthy.  I hope the users who HR'd it will follow the rules and explain.  

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 05:35:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That will crash once she re-enters political arena (6+ / 0-)

      She'll probably campaign for McAuliffe in Va. Gov race and it has been mentioned that she could get involved in Ma special election as well to help the eventual Dem candidate against Brown.  

      Giving political advice to a Clinton is silly, but I think she should stay out of the politics game for as long as possible before announcing her WH run again (if that is her desire).  Start a Empowering Women international foundation who's mission would be to get women involved in the electoral processes both as candidates and voters around the globe (and of course in the States).  

      The NRA is the Gun Manufacturer Lobby. Nothing more. Their pontification about the second amendment is nothing more than their ad jingle. They're the domestic version of the Military Industrial Complex.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:39:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She has high approval because she is outside (4+ / 0-)

      politics

      "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

      by LaurenMonica on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:38:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But the 34% who don't approve are REAL 'Mericans (5+ / 0-)

      the majority of the 66% who are the 47% moochers, the rest are bamboozled by the lamestream media.

      That's how they think, and no there is no logic you can present that will change that!

      -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

      by dopper0189 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:10:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  she wants to make history. she will run. and win. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, cocinero, JamieG from Md, RUNDOWN
    •  She has yet to testify on Benghazi (0+ / 0-)

      Methinks her approval rating might drop just a tad..

      Or, the GOP members of whatever committee she testifies at will look like they are attacking her too hard and she will look even better than before!

      But, in any case, I will hold my opinion of Hillary's future political chances until after she testifies before Congress.

    •  Oh Boy Oh Boy..... (8+ / 0-)

      The GOP attacking a potential woman candidate.

      THAT should really buttress their standing with women voters...especially since, if the Tea Party is leading the charge, their mouthpieces will blurt out stuff that will further muddy the waters.  See Aiken, Todd and Mourdoch, Richard and Santorum, Rick.

      Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

      by dweb8231 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:55:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Back in 2008 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, cocinero, Errol

      The local Tea Party here in Texas was actually pushing their members to vote for Hilary in the Democratic party primaries, because they figured she had enough negative baggage that she would be easy to beat--and also because they didn't want the other Democratic candidate anywhere near the "white" house. (That's part of the "take my country back" meme.)

      They may still think she's an easy candidate to beat. Reality isn't part of their world.

  •  I assume with Benghazi working so well on Rice (6+ / 0-)

    they'll now turn it against Clinton.  Especially if she has to face the senate on the matter before she officially leaves.  I assume if she's replaced by Kerry before testifying (concussion issue) she could then have her hearing behind closed doors - so there would be no political theater.  

    GOP will have to watch out on attacking her as "Another Clinton..." because they could be looking as "Another Bush" as their best candidate come 2016.  

    The NRA is the Gun Manufacturer Lobby. Nothing more. Their pontification about the second amendment is nothing more than their ad jingle. They're the domestic version of the Military Industrial Complex.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:33:09 AM PST

    •  Benghazhi-gate = two for the price of one (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Larsstephens

      Of course, the main point was to trash President Obama leading into the election. But I have no doubt that the GOP also saw an opportunity for a pre-emptive strike against a possible Clinton 2016 campaign.

      Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

      by susanala on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:58:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's still a hot button for the vocal RW fringe, (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Voodoo king, bwren, kat68, Nespolo, Errol, RUNDOWN

        and HRC's recent illness / fall / concussion has been like pouring Liquid Hannity onto a Bill Ayers bonfire.

        They're convinced the "concussion" was/is nothing more than a ploy to keep from testifying about Benghazi -- for which, of course, the entire Democrat party must be impeached.*

        These are the same folks who have tiny "Benghazi 4" ribbons on their Twitter profile avatars right next to the little Israel flags sitting beside the bald eagle head pasted over the Declaration / Constitution / 10 Commandments.  Not kidding.

        Also note that many of these same fringers are now posting pro-gun / anti-Obama / Agenda21 articles from places like http://english.pravda.ru and http://www.canadafreepress.com because CHEMTRAILS!!! FREEDOM!!!

        Sigh.

        *(For proper effect please convert the above to ALL CAPS and add 7 to 10 exclamation marks).

        [exception: undefined object]

        by here4tehbeer on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:15:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They will not allow Kerry hearings until she (0+ / 0-)

      testifies.

      They can hold up the Kerry hearings forever.  She can only dodge them for so long.

      •  Why after everything that (4+ / 0-)

        Hillary has contributed to this country do you assume in a very republican way that "she's dodging" the Benghazi hearings?

        I think the repugs are in for a big surprise. Hillary is a very smart and very tough woman. They won't look good trying to beat up on her, plus she will give as good as she gets.

        She's still SOS. And why shouldn't she rest after an illness and a concussion. In the last 4 years alone she has been a whirlwind, never stopping or taking time off.

        I don't know how she keeps it up and I'm about 10 years younger than she is.

        Another thing, I don't think she's running for President in 2016.

        In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

        by vcmvo2 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:30:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think she is either (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MikePhoenix

          but I still doubt the Repubs will let her off the hook as far as testifying.

          Yes.. she deserves to rest after an illness.  I don't begrudge her that.

          But.. sorry if I am skeptical as to the seriousness of her "injuries".  She has a concussion so bad she is out of commission for a month and never even went to the hospital?  It stretches credulity.. but we must give her the benefit of the doubt.

  •  "War on Women" cost them big time in 2012. (8+ / 0-)

    A fusillade of tone-deaf Hillary-bashing won't exactly help repair that rift!

  •  Yes, the main concern of the republican party (7+ / 0-)

    is to pick the best time to attack people. It's about the only thing they actually do.

    There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.

    by pollbuster on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:54:48 AM PST

  •  They'll be after her birth certificate, but this (4+ / 0-)

    time because it says she's way too old, which is bad, unless you're Reagan.

    "God bless us, every one!" ~ T. Tim

    by jwinIL14 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:07:09 AM PST

    •  In a way I agree with them (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      Voting for Obama was the first time I'd ever voted for a President who was way younger than me. I decided that among his other virtues, it was probably time for us to have a President who was too young to remember the traumas of the 1960s and the Vietnam era. I feel that way even more now. I appreciate the gifts of experience, of course. But I think it would be better to have a President and party leader who is younger and relates more easily to the up-and-coming 18-40-year-olds.

  •  I'm sure Tweety will add his chirp to the chorus. (4+ / 0-)
  •  I was under the impression (5+ / 0-)

    that Republicans had never found a WRONG time to attack Hillary Clinton.

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:20:06 AM PST

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

      Don't disturb the illusion that they're being noble while she is SOS....

       

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:45:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fox certainly never misses an opportunity. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      But Republican leadership and lobbyists never watch their favorite news1 channel, and the ONLY network on which they'll appear.

      ___
      1"news" to be accurate

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:52:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They can attack her all they want (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Larsstephens

    She's like the Hulk, if you remember the years when she was First Lady, the GOP then went on an all out attack and her approval ratings soared.

    She was seen as a strong woman for standing by her man.

    Then when she ran for Senator they tried again, it failed then as well.

    So yeah, let them go ahead and try and see where that gets them. They were smart to keep their pie holes shut these last four years.

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:20:26 AM PST

    •  No, she wasn't seen as (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl, grover, vcmvo2

      "a strong woman for standing by her man." These "woman should suck it up and stay in a marriage even if the man threatens her life" types attacked her endlessly for being a doormat and not publicly condemning Bill and walking out on him. She couldn't win with that bunch.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:07:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ironic, that. (0+ / 0-)

        But as we just saw, that group is a dying breed, and i mean that literally for many of them (although yes, there are plenty of younger haters too)

        And four years from now is four years from now. The law of attrition is what it is, and it tends to be ruthless.

        (Is there an official "law if attrition"? There should be.)

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Its all part of the Obama Derangement Syndrom (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Larsstephens

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:34:49 AM PST

  •  'We’ll look stupid' (4+ / 0-)

    "But when did that ever stop us?"

    That quote says it all.

    The GOP never passes on an opportunity to organize a circular firing squad while alienating as many voting blocs as humanly possible.

    There should be no doubt that in 2014 they will nominate a fresh group of misogynistic, immigrant-bashing, contraceptive-banning, gun-loving hatemongers.

  •  I really like Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    but hope she doesn't run. It just feels like ground hog day all over again. How about someone new?

    being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:49:57 AM PST

    •  We Need Someone Who Can Step In And Run (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      without having to introduce them to the entire country.   2013 will not be the time to play amateurs in the role of candidate.  If there is a chance for someone new they MUST establish a presence now.  They will be up against a Christie or a Bush.  The serious Republicans will not allow another replay of 2012.

      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:05:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's fine with me. eom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        being mindful and keepin' it real

        by Raggedy Ann on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:16:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You mean 2016 rather than 2013? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens, tikkun

        "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

        by gritsngumbo on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:27:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        winsock, IM, Portlaw, DSPS owl

        People get "introduced" to the country all the time, especially in presidential campaigns with the vast amount of money and exposure they get. To insist on running the same ol' same ol' is a failure of vision and imagination. No, the GOP won't run Jeb Bush. He's out of politics, he polls worse than any other Republican, and the GOP still won't be able to admit his brother's existence. That he might be their candidate is a failure of vision on OUR part as well.

        The Republicans can't HELP another repay of 2012 unless they do some serious revamping of their party. And everything  happening now is showing that they CANNOT do that or they'd be doing it in the current "fiscal cliff" negotiations. They are internally stalemated. Yeah, that might change enough by 2015 to allow a Christie (assuming he has lost a ton of weight) to emerge (Jeb is a non-starter. Just stop it. It's over). But it's not likely.

        I don't consider the many candidates who have been floated to be "amateurs." They may be newcomers to national politics, but their name recognition will soar in the next few years.

        We absolutely need to get past our inability to envision a world beyond a Bush/Clinton matchup. Even in 2008, I knew people who liked Hillary but were very uneasy with the dynastic tilt that was going on.

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:12:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, Raggedy Ann. N/T (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raggedy Ann

      Mother Teresa: "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other."

      by Amber6541 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:10:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sort of agree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raggedy Ann, AbyssAndApex

      She'll have to run as an elder stateswoman to make it work, but it will still kind of be old hat.

      She'll need an intriguing Veep, that's for sure.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:29:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bullseye Comment! (12+ / 0-)
    We’ll look stupid. But when did that ever stop us?”
    Most totally accurate thing the right has ever said about itself!

    Jon Husted is a dick.

    by anastasia p on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:04:06 AM PST

  •  Similarly, I'm looking for the right moment... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, RUNDOWN

    to attack a grizzly bear with a whiffle ball bat.  I'll keep you posted.

    As for the Republicans attacking Hillary: please proceed, Governor.  

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:08:52 AM PST

  •  Warren 2016 nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    quinn, randomfacts, geez53

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:13:48 AM PST

  •  So exhausted is the poor Fox News (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, grover, vcmvo2

    person that he uses the wrong word:

    it “an exhaustive, spent volcano at the moment
    There is little exhaustive about conservatism except perhaps their exhaust fumes.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:14:51 AM PST

  •  Instead of focusing on Hilary, maybe (0+ / 0-)

    republicans should "heal thyself physician."  

    I do suspect the whole Bengazzi thing is a Hilary set up for 2016.

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:19:04 AM PST

  •  when hate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    v2aggie2, RUNDOWN

    is your only asset its not surprising that a hate campaign would be the gop's only avenue to oppose sec of state clinton in anything she might attempt in politics.

  •  She's not running, so what's the point? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Errol, vcmvo2

    It's nice that vile people fear her and good people (well, some good people) root for her, but I really don't think she's running.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:25:11 AM PST

    •  I agree that she's not (0+ / 0-)

      running and I'm a fan.

      In one sense I don't mind the self-admitted "stupid" right wing going after Hillary while we work on someone else to surprise them with. Julian Castro maybe, Kirsten Gillibrand?

      In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

      by vcmvo2 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 04:13:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Repubs can't do subtle attacks. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, grover, vcmvo2

    It will be vile sexist attacks in no time and the gender gap will become a canyon.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:25:13 AM PST

  •  GOP: We’ll look stupid. But... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, condorcet, grover, Errol, vcmvo2
    One Republican strategist, speaking of the Hillary-hating industry, was more blunt: “If she works in the mail and on the phones with small donors, she’ll get hit. We’ll look stupid. But when did that ever stop us?”
    Indeed!
    Bravo, GOP! Bravo!

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:27:48 AM PST

  •  When will the left blogosphere (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, vcmvo2

    decide on the right moment to attack Hillary Clinton?  That's another question worth pondering, because it is sure to happen.

    Right now, Hillary is benefitting from a lull in the attacks because she is serving Obama very well and is a credit to his administration.  Once she is back on her own, I'm not so sure she will have so many friends in the left blogosphere.  

    But that's probably a question better left for another day and another diary.

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:27:53 AM PST

    •  We'll see. (2+ / 0-)

      She can engage the left, or she can run a Mark Penn-type campaign aimed at "Target moms" and "security dads."

      If it's the latter, she'll have a rough time from the blogosphere.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:31:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The left-centrist blogosphere (5+ / 0-)

      is capable of being just as irrational and hysterical as the right wing.

      Some people can't get over the fact that she ran against Obama in the primary and I dread seeing all that hate against her resurface.  They can be just as bad as the GOP.

      Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

      by Betty Pinson on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:40:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you have that the other way around. (7+ / 1-)
        Some people can't get over the fact that she ran against Obama in the primary....
        Hillary was the nominee in waiting and Obama was the guy who was supposed to be getting Bill Clinton's coffee.

        "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

        by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:51:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think not. My issues with her were (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grover, Lysis, evangeline135, vcmvo2, RUNDOWN

        temporary when she was running against Obama in the primary. If she runs, I'll be just as enthusiastic for her as anybody. And I'll defend her mightily against attacks. She deserves the best after all her contributions. And when her husband and Obama are behind her she'll be more than formidable.

        "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

        by Wildthumb on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:57:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If Hillary Clinton runs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BleacherBum153

          depending who else runs in the primary I will be as enthusiastic as anyone.

          I will defend her from attacks. But the Clinton machine is also capable of attacking its opponents with great gusto.

          I admire and respect Secretary Clinton. I always have. I expected that if she ever ran for president, i would be first in line to support her, but a man from Illinois put his hat in the ring, and he inspired me. I never supoorted anyone else after that. That's how politics works.  I am committed to my husband for my whole life and my dogs for their whole lives.

          Politicians don't get that sort of automatic commitment from me.

          Politicians have to earn my support, my time and my treasure, and my criteria are my own idiosyncratic  standards. Nothing is automatic.

          So yes, if HRC wants to run, then I think she should run.  And if someone smart, experienced and capable wants to run against her in the primary, then we do what we are supposed to do.

          And may the best Dem earn our trust, respect and nomination.

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:19:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I know, and the joke of it will be that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sukeyna

        the main charge will be that she is too right leaning, and this from people who think Obama is a-okay...

        He is way further to the right than I every imagined he would be in 2008.  Just as right, or even farther, than Hillary was/is.

  •  Clinton Attack Fatigue (11+ / 0-)

    The Republicans have been attacking Obama for four years constantly, and the public tuned out the attacks. They had already examined them and moved on. After four years, Obama Attack Fatigue set in.

    The Republicans are going to dredge up 20 year old attacks against the Clintons, and the public is pretty fatigued of these attacks.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:29:15 AM PST

    •  Good point. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia, condorcet, vcmvo2

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:34:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And no one under 40 will care (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BleacherBum153, Egalitare, vcmvo2

        Go ahead and let the GOPs try that routine. Any Gen Xer or Milennial will find that type of misogyny ridiculous, and it'll make the GOP sink even lower among these groups. No one that grew up in the '80s, '90s or 2000s is impressed with old white men who are threatened by strong women like Hillary.

        I'm not even her biggest fan (I find her a bit too pro-war and too pro-Wall Street, and I strongly supported Obama with that in mind in 2008), but there's no doubt of Hillary's capabilities of handling the job, and I think her time as SOS has answered any concerns that might have remained. The fact that this scares the shriveldicks in the GOP is something I view as a benefit.

         

  •  Hillary would have my vote but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, DSPS owl, bnk

    I'm not sure she could get the large turnout necessary to win.  It has nothing to do with her politics but with her birthday.  She will be sixty-nine and could she at her age appeal to the large number of the under forties needed to swamp the Republicans?

  •  Vast right wing Benghazi conspiracy theories! (0+ / 0-)

    Vague platitudes regarding this have become a matter of faith for Republicans, even if they can't define exactly what Clinton or Obama did wrong. Outside wingnutistan, I don't think such lunacy will have much currency. But, we'll know soon enough, when the midterm campaigns begin and the race for President starts all over again.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:35:08 AM PST

  •  Or maybe, exhausted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover
    calling it “an exhaustive, spent volcano at the moment.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:37:03 AM PST

    •  Oh, Sheeze. (0+ / 0-)

      There you go again, thinking words have specific meanings again....

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:28:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Which is why, if there's any chance (or desire.. (0+ / 0-)

    on her part--and that's a big if, IMHO) of her running for office in 2016, the Democratic machine needs to get in gear and dismantle every one of the GOPer swiftboater lies, pieces of disinformation, and outright BS.  It's the time for them to strategize going on the attack against republicans who Outed ‘undercover CIA operation in Libya’ on C-SPAN.  Republicans who deliberately...

    ...endang(ed) American national security...
    ...in order to play domestic politics.
    "...It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

    In a nutshell, the State Department was briefing the congressional Republicans, at an open hearing that the Republicans called, and were showing commercially-available satellite images of the area of the attack.  Suddenly, Republican Chaffetz and GOP Committee chair Darrell Issa (another piece of work) both suggested that the images showed classified information that could endanger current ongoing operations in the area.  As Milbank points out, this confirmed two things – one, that the picture was apparently of a CIA base, and two, that the base might still be in operation even after the attack that killed our ambassador...

  •  They can't stand women (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake formerly of the LP, vcmvo2

    who don't parrot their talking points, or at least aren't doormats.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:38:35 AM PST

  •  She supported a Woodstock museum !!!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:40:05 AM PST

  •  After eight years of Obama Conspiracy Syndrome (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover, evangeline135, vcmvo2

    "Hillary killed Vince Foster" will sound boring.

    And as we all know, boring equals NO STORY.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:44:26 AM PST

    •  Old news = not news. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zenbassoon, vcmvo2, sukeyna

      The Republicans are going to have to manufacture crap up out of thin air to get any sort of traction.

      Oh, I don't doubt they'll try. That's what birtherism is, after all. Americans know HRC. They either like her or they don't. The boogey man woman game wouldn't work with her.

      Only Fox would cover that tired old crap. And its (rapidly shrinking) viewership won't vote for HRC anyhow. Nice thing? She doesn't need them too.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:38:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Counterproductive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, exterris

    The Republican's entire raison d'être.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    by Ex Con on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:44:42 AM PST

  •  Much as I love Hillary (5+ / 0-)

    and would love to see her run, I almost hope she doesn't - unless she really, really has the fire left.

    She has given the country 30 years of her life. I'd love to think of her doing her work with women and children of the world, and having time to just do fun things that interest her.

    Plus, watching all of the Hillary-haters swallow their tongues as she heads off gracefully into the sunset would cheer me up to no end.

    Of course, if she does run, I'll work my fingers to the bone for her.  I'm just saying.

  •  GOP Mantra (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, LSophia, vcmvo2
    "We’ll look stupid. But when did that ever stop us?”

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:58:56 AM PST

  •  Hillary? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    merrywidow

    I can't figure out why progressive Democrats would be the least bit enthused about Hillary Clinton.  She represents the same-old, status quo politics of Washington.  I'd love to see the party nominate a woman for President--  let's go with Kirsten Gillibrand.

    How can we have a third party when we don't even have a second party?

    by Eagleye on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01:22 AM PST

    •  b/c she would almost certainly win. (7+ / 0-)

      it is not like the inevitability of 2007, b/c HRC clearly had a weakness on the left b/c of the iraq war and the general lack of enthusiasm on the left since WJC.  those are no longer powerful enough to block her.

      D's already have a significant advantage in the electoral college, demographic advantage, and HRC is white instead of black.

      HRC would get favorable media coverage, fundraising to rival obama (which is extremely important after citizens united), and probably very high turnout which is the key to regain control of the house of representatives, which is much more important than which D is president.

      which party controls branches of government is extremely important, but which individual person is president is not very important.

      her election could secure long term control of the judiciary, which is extremely important.  same with federal bureaucracy and state governments.

      R party is very shitty and extremist, but b/c US has a 2 party system, R's will always get big opportunities when D's are unpopular.  3 D terms could force R's to reform their disgusting party into something more reasonable.

  •  A good start... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb, merrywidow, DSPS owl

    ...would be to account for her vote in favor of sending American soldiers off to die in support of George Bush's ficticious wars.  A vote that she's never said she regrets, if I recall correctly.

    With so many bright, competent candidates recently sent to congress and statehouses across the country, isn't it about time to start looking forward?

  •  Dear GOP: (0+ / 0-)

    We are in this for the long haul so you better know when and how to go after Hillary Clinton because she will have the full force of the better part of the American community for her or at least postively disposed to listen.  And then there is the "Big Dog Educator" that you also have loved to hate.  If I had a dog that big I would be fearless.

  •  Yesterday. See "Benghazi nontroversy" for more. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a Democrat - I believe that government has a positive role to play in the lives of ordinary people.

    by 1BQ on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:20:03 AM PST

  •  Well, this morning on facebook... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl, grover

    ...I saw a comment suggesting that the concussion Clinton suffered a few weeks ago was a ruse designed to allow her to plead amnesia when called upon to testify on Benghazi.  

    So, I'm thinking it's always a good time for them to attack her.

  •  Hillary Clinton (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, Radiowalla, sukeyna

    Hillary will also be attacked in vile and misogynistic ways by so-called "progressives", who almost word for word in 2008 attacked her just like the right did in the nineties. In other words, what this showed was that many progressives are sexist and misogynistic, just like many of their right wing counterparts.
    And don't give me that garbage about not wanting another Clinton in the White House because it will end up like having another Bush in the White House.
    This is also sexist claptrap from progressives.
    We Hillary supporterss will not forget the blatant sexist attacks in 2008 during the primary season.

    •  See, this attitude is the one way she loses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BleacherBum153

       "We Hillary supporterss will not forget the blatant sexist attacks in 2008 during the primary season."

         This kind of whininess and hiding behind gender was a major turn-off for a lot of us who would have voted for Hillary in a general election, but favored Obama in 2008. You need to drop this act, NOW.

          Hillary lost because of her incorrect vote on Iraq, and her misreading of the tone of the time- using Washington insider DLC attitudes at a time when Wall Street and D.C. was failing the country west of I-95. And relying on DC insiders and heavy use of the gender card instead of her many positive and qualifying attributes is the one way Hillary would blow a presidential run in 2016.

        Both her and the Big Dog are viewed more positively in 2012 vs. 2008 because of their good work with President Obama, and in taking a more progressive tone in public. Take the hint.

         

    •  Hopefully the sexism on all sides will be gone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      And, ideally, not replaced or enhanced with ageism.

  •  ROTFLMAO - and the gulf between teh GOP & women (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evangeline135

    gets even wider

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:36:27 AM PST

  •  HillaryCARE, ObamaCARE. MediCARE...GOP hates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla

    anything with the word "CARE" in it, but I think it started with Hillary.

  •  There are rumors she is not well. (0+ / 0-)

    I sure hope she is ok, she would have the presidency if she only said, yes.

  •  Hillary's margin of victory over McCain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    evangeline135, sukeyna

    would have been roughly the same as Obama's.

    They can hate on Hillary all they want. If she decides to run for President in 2016 she will be our next President... unless Obama really fucks things up between now and then... and he won't.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:47:17 AM PST

  •  Benghazi, right? (0+ / 0-)

    The GOPs have gotten Susan Rice with it and will pick the moment to go after her boss. They'll use it to hype misogynistic fear of a female Commander-in-Chief.

    But will they be able to win that fight considering Hillary's role in the operation that took down Bin Laden?

  •  no way dems can 'get her back' w/out a talk radio (0+ / 0-)

    strategy.

    and there hasn't been one for 20 years going back to when it killed clinton/hillary early attempts at health care reform, making single payer impossible, reducing it to public option, and then stopping that..

    get used to the benghazi-type bullshit over and over- that wasn't just for susan rice.

    their success with benghazi and rice was classic RW radio swiftboating and yet fox gets most of the credit, as usual, while the left sticks their iPods in theirears and walks right past the coordinated carnival barkers on every corner and stump in the country.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:08:46 AM PST

    •  the am radio freaks are all just jabbering to (0+ / 0-)

      themselves at this point.  I don't think they are so important as they were.

      •  i think the rice tragedy shows it still works well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        evangeline135

        for them

        their chickens are coming home to roost but in large parts of the country they still have way too much say in who gets blamed. they still keep the country from learning the lessons of what not to repeat again and again. and a lot of their effect is local so it really escapes notice of national thinking progressives.

         i suppose they may fade away but not soon enough for me.

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 04:39:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's been such a big juicy hate-target. (0+ / 0-)

    When given a choice between hating a black man or a white woman, the Rs pick racism over misogyny.

    Besides, they've had Michelle Obama to hate for 4+ years - this is probably where they've been channeling a lot of their misogyny (mixed well with racism, of course).

    The War on Women gave them something to sink their teeth into in the meantime. But Hillary's campaign would bring it out of hiding like a big homely cicada coming out of its lumpen cocoon.

    •  Not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover

      The white woman that they did pick on happened to be the Speaker of the House.

      Nancy Pelosi caught much more hell than Harry Reid.

      Dial it up to the 4th or 5th power and that's exactly what would have happened if Hillary Clinton was President.

  •  Hillary is above those freaks! (0+ / 0-)

    They haven't managed to destroy her yet. At this point I don't think it's possible.

    But they're too stupid not to try! I agree with that!

    In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

    by vcmvo2 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:21:52 AM PST

  •  Hehehe (0+ / 0-)

    Ah, will they drag out and dust off the playbooks from 1999?  Or will they go for the New York Touchdown in the Senate playbook?

    I think  they will go back to a planned murder and a failed land development.  Something many voters today will say "what? Who cares?".

  •  If she decides to run, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AbyssAndApex, Lysis, vcmvo2, sukeyna

    which I think she will....I hope she does, because I think she is clearly the most formidable candidate the Dems can put forward,at least right now.

    I want to win,again,and again. We need another 8 years after the President leaves to have a good chance at really seeing the fruits of more progressive policies.

    I would love to see Hillary crush Christie or whoever they put up,and really send the GOP into a spasm of self-hatred.

    It is very hard for either party  to win three straight times,let alone four. That is why the Dems need  the best damn candidate to win this again in 2016. Having the historic candidate like Hillary is a perfect formula to offset the natural tendency for the electorate to want to change parties in the White House.

    And honestly, I think that many voters will see Hillary as uniquely prepared to be that historic first female POTUS...clearly she is.
    After her, then all the barriers will be down in terms of fitness for president,but like having a bi-racial first minority POTUS, the country needs some help to really make historic leaps. Hillary knows the White House like no other possible candidate....she is the one...as for the GOP detractors....bring'em on. The more they attack her, the better she will look to the non-crazy voters of America.

  •  If she definitely decides not to run, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, RUNDOWN

    I'm pretty confident that the right wing can gin up enough hatred and fear-mongering no matter who the Democratic candidate is. The Clintons were accused of murder, for god's sake, and Obama was the Kenyan-born, un-American, socialist/Marxist/terrorist from whom they had to take "their" country back. Their belief is that no Democratic candidate should ever be entitled to be president. A white Democratic male is bad enough, but when you add a different race and/or gender into the mix, then they unleash an even greater fury.

    "The Democrats have moved to the right and the Republicans have moved into an insane asylum." ~Bill Maher

    by Constant Comment on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:59:58 AM PST

  •  I thought King Bloomberg deigned Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    The worthy successor to his throne?

    "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

    by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 12:13:12 PM PST

  •  Since anyone who was, say 10, at the turn of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AbyssAndApex, Lysis, RUNDOWN

    the century knows that the Republicans have verbally assaulted, and smeared Hillary, in the national news, since Clinton announced to run for the Presidency.  I really don't see how the Repos and TeePeeers expect to get any more converts than they already have.

    If they savage her in Congressional hearings about Bengazhi now they won't have much of that PR left by 2015 if she decides to run.  And if the really savage her now that is PR video that can help her later

    I see her biggest disadvantage to be the same she had running against Obama, if she starts her run a year before the election people will be tired of seeing her in the news and any novel Dim candidate who is reasonably qualified will over take her in the polls.

  •  If Republicans had half a brain, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dumbo

    They wouldn't be attacking her, they'd be recruiting her...

  •  All the more reason for her to run (0+ / 0-)

    For any number of reasons, but if for any other reason - just to piss them off.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:08:37 PM PST

  •  Maybe they'll attack her for her 2002 AUMF vote (0+ / 0-)

    that enabled Bush's war of adventure in Iraq.  That didn't turn out very well.

    ... OH!  You mean Republicans are going to attack Hillary.  Well, there's some ammo for them.

    I don't get it.  This is a democracy, not a monarchy.  Daniel Inouye thinks he can just "will" the senate seat to a crony, and we're all supposed to think Hillary is "due" the nomination because it was so grievously disappointing for her to lose in 2008.  At least in the UK they have the sense to keep their royalty as figureheads and out of politics.

  •  Not the Repubs (0+ / 0-)

    It's not the GOP, it's other Democrats and Democratic supporters who are waiting to pounce.

    Matt Taibi, Randi Rhodes, the execrable bloggers at Salon.com? They were a few of the all-star cast of lefties who made Hillary and Bill out to be the biggest racists in town and worked very hard to derail her campaign for Obama's sake.

    So it was never the GOP Hillary had to worry about, and that will be true if she decides to run in 2016. Suddenly everyone on the left will remember they hate the Clintons. And if Obama has even a moderately successful second term, I'm sure we'll all hear "how will Hillary compete with the Obama legacy" at every turn.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site