Skip to main content

Reading Kos' FP post today about Hillary Clinton's inevitablity got me thinking of this topic and my many concerns I have with her. There's a view among most Kossacks that HRC would not be a significant departure from Obama in any recognizable way. Either Obama is a corporatist, war-mongering sellout and Hillary would be the same, or he's been a good president and, again, Hillary would be the same. I think thats a big mistake, and the reason for people making it is our tendency to compare Obama and Clinton based on their 2008 platforms which is not only dated, but also a policy document that isn't always predictive of governing behavior. I think her stint as SOS does shed some light on where a HRC  presidency would be a turn for the worse, particularly on 2 issue, the environment and military interventionism.


If you read Steve Coll's book on Exxon, he talks about how during the 2008 primary Big Oil was not threatened by the Clintons because they had a good working relationship with them in the 90's, and, most importantly, they had access to her campaign due to her having several advisors who basically oil industry lobbyists.  Even more important, after Bush came into office and shilled for Big Oil the democratic party as a response became more antagonistic towards the industry so Exxon developed a model for ranking Senators based on cooperativeness to their industry demands. A "1" ranking was a Senator from a state where their economy relies on the industry, like Louisiana, and and basically the entire republican caucus. Basically the Senate contingent who is in the bag. A "2" ranking was for Senators who did not agree with them on everything but who they had a good relationship with and believed would get a good hearing from. The top 2 people on this list were Schumer and HRC. The "3" ranking were the Senators who they felt would only use them as a tool for demagoguery and not trust worthy. Obama, Dick Durbin, and Barbara Boxer were in this category.

Exxon believed Obama, who they believed refused to meet with them during the campaign, and who they basically had no working relationship with any of his team, would only use them for political hits. This made them fearful that, due to not having a relationship, an Obama presidency would force them to use a Congress only approach. Now, of course this has worked cause Obama has been calling for ending their subsidies for 4 years and basically been ignored, even when Democrats controlled the Senate.  

So is it a surprise that as SOS Hillary Clinton installed many people in advisory roles that had ties to her campaign and the oil industry, and we saw the flagrant result of that when the chief architect of the first State Department report was an official from her campaign who also had durect ties to TransCanada as a lobbyist. So, for those who care about the environment, and have rightly critiqued Obama from the left by not being forward looking enough, we'll be sorely disappointed in HRC. Ask Bill Mckibben, who has been tough on Obama , about comparing him to HRC and he says its not a contest, because of her ties to segments of the oil industry, the Clinton's historical ambivalence to the climate change issue and her being a force in the administration that advocated for those policies.


Many people, like myself, feel Obama has basically maintained Bush's counter-terrorism policy, where we maintain a permanent war footing, but doing it with a light footprint via drones. But I do believe that there is a lack of appreciation for the turn against traditional interventionism Obama has taken in the past year, a trend that will probably continue for the rest of his presidency. Its pretty obvious that WH policy right now is basically avoid at all costs foreign intervention apart from counter-terrorism, and leave Afghanistan with as few boots on the ground as necessary to continue said counter-terrorism policies, approximately 3,000. This is where Hillary would be a break from Obama's recent posture, and there are 3 case studies to prove this point:


All reporting regarding the Afghan surge in 2009 shows that the debate was a split between the military advisors and the WH. Basically, all the WH advisors from Biden, to Donilon, to Emanuel were against a surge, for the obvious reasons. Its also pretty evident that Obama was, in reality, not for the concept but was basically boxed in by his campaign commitments to promising to escalate in Afghanistan as an innoculation for being soft, and the smart maneuvering from Gates, Patraeus, and Mcrystal. There is a reason why he kept on pushing back his deadline for making a decision on the surge. Ultimately, all Obama could get out of them was this deadline to remove the surge troops in 18 months, which was a giveaway to this being a political solution by the WH. If you believe in counter-insurgency you do what the Bush WH did, you make the commitments open-ended and never make withdrawal commitments that can box you in.

But there was one exception to the divide in the administration on this issue, and it was Hillary, who was unabashedly for the surge and was more vocal about her support than even Gates. Whats more, I've seen zero evidence that the surge's biggest supporter in the administration, outside of DOD, has learned that lesson. Frankly, if her vote for the Iraq war, which led to her '08 loss, didn't scar her from being interventionist, nothing will.

Syria & Libya

While Obama ultimately supported helping topple Qadafi in Libya via military force, its very important to look at how he and Hillary reached that conclusion. Hillary was the primary pusher, along with Susan Rice, basically from the get go and thought we should have led the rest of the world into taking action, as opposed to letting France and the UK take the lead with us in a support role, as Obama did. Obama managed to have the UN, Arab League, and Europe take the lead on this issue and take ownership by demurring long enough for them to ask us to help. This gave us the leverage to set the terms of agreement with France and the UK to be us setting the playing field for the no-fly zone, but their planes having to enforce it after that with us providing the necessary refueling for their planes. Once the decision to use force in Libya was made, we used the most multi-lateral involvement possible, with the least possible skin in the game for us.

We also have Syria, where we now know HRC and Patraeus presented Obama with a plan to arm the rebels last fall. We also know that Panetta and the Joint Chiefs supported the plan, but thankfully Obama vetoed that idea and has still been resisting it, despite enormous pressure from segments of Europe and the Arab world.


Lastly, HRC concerns me when thinking of Iran, since she has the same view as Menendez, Schumer, Gilibrand and any democrats from that area. One of the enduring visions I have of the 2008 primaries was HRC's relentless attacks on Obama for even entertaining the idea of negotiating with Iran. Like many democratic Senators, she views Iran as irredeemable and thus doesn't mind having the US do provocative things that box us into a conflct. While I have problems with Obama's willingness to let the Senate bully him on this issue, its pretty obvious he is not keen on going to war with Iran, and has basically been pleadng with Israel to not do something stupid by going it alone.

So the picture we get on foreign policy, is that HRC is a traditional liberal interventionist, and where there's an ongoing conflict with an oppresive regime that has a chance of inflicting bloodshed on a sizeable scale, her first instinct is always to intervene. Obama, at heart, is a realist, with all the pluses and minuses that entails. He's not some pacifist, but he basically thinks we should only commit ourselves to whats in our direct national interest, which in his view would justify the aggressive counter-terrorism policies. But thats a big difference between the two, and something that should not be glossed over.

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

  •  A GOP presidency would be a bigger (12+ / 0-)

    move to the right.

    If not Hillary, then who?

    •  The time to start developing a better candidate (5+ / 0-)

      is NOW.

      Russ Feingold?

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:38:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like Russ Feingold, but ... (6+ / 0-)

        I'm guessing a lot of people would say "Who?"

        The GOP candidate is probably not going to be very strong, but that will matter less in 2016 - change will be a strong force.

        Clinton would would be favored to win, while another candidate  would make the race a toss up. In my humble opinion.

      •  Yup, right now! (5+ / 0-)

        The current list - brought to us by our friends at Wikipedia - is a tad scary:

        Democratic PartyThe following have been identified as possible candidates:

        [edit] Publicly expressed interest

        Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States since 2009; U.S. Senator from Delaware 1973–2009[3][4][5]

        [edit] Other potential candidates

        Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator from Indiana 1999–2011; Governor of Indiana 1989–1997[6][7]

        Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, New Jersey since 2006[8][9]

        Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio, Texas since 2009[10][11]

        Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States Secretary of State 2009–2013; U.S. Senator from New York 2001–2009[12][13][14]

        Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York since 2011;
        Attorney General of New York 2007–2010[5][15][16]

        Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago since 2011; White House Chief of Staff 2009–2010[17][18][19]

        Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator from New York since 2009; U.S. Representative from New York 2007–2009[20][21][5]

        Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California since 2011[6][22]

        John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado since 2011, mayor of Denver, Colorado 2003–2011[23][24]

        Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator from Virginia since 2013; Governor of Virginia 2006–2010[25][26]

        John Kerry, United States Secretary of State since 2013; U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 1985–2013; 2004 presidential nominee[27][28]

        Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator from Minnesota since 2007[29][30]

        Jack Markell, Governor of Delaware since 2009; Treasurer of Delaware 1993–2009[12][31]

        Janet Napolitano, United States Secretary of Homeland Security since 2009; Governor of Arizona 2003–2009[32][33][5]

        Jay Nixon, Governor of Missouri since 2009; Attorney General of Missouri 1993–2009[34][35][36]

        Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland since 2007; Mayor of Baltimore 1999–2007[37][38][39]

        Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts since 2007[40][5]

        Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana 2005-2013[41][5][42]

        Kathleen Sebelius, United States Secretary of Health and Human Services since 2009; Governor of Kansas 2003–2009[43][44]

        Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles since 2005[29][45]

        Mark Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia since 2009; Governor of Virginia 2002–2006[8][5]

        Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts since 2013[21][46][5]

        with the odd brightspot, of course.  But those are few and far between
    •  Howard Dean /nt (5+ / 0-)

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:46:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  New Diary Up Calls for OH Sen Sherrod Brown (5+ / 0-)

      He's been ranked most liberal Dem at times. Of course he's way behind Clinton in name recognition at this point.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 01:08:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He'd be WONDERFUL. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'd come out of retirement to work phones or whatever else for him.  But I have to be skeptical about whether he would give us as good a chance of winning as Hillary.

        What about Hillary with Brown as Veep?  Get him into the spotlight and give one of the strongest advocates for progressive policy a bully pulpit of his own to preach from.

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

      In BBB's diary re Clinton, I awaited the start of the Hillary Wars II, and wondered which side the pragmatists would fall on.

      Now I have an idea.

      The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

      by TheOrchid on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 01:39:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And since you can't beat someone with no one (8+ / 0-)

    Who can you put forward who (1) beats Hillary if she wants to run and (2) also reliably beats the GOP nominee?

    Hillary is a moderate, no doubt. The GOP contains none such.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:37:44 PM PDT

  •  Say it with me: President Rand Paul... (8+ / 0-)

    Now, tell me the horrors of a second Clinton Presidency...

    Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

    by Love Me Slender on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:39:21 PM PDT

  •  She's a Goldwater Republican. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, offgrid

    She CAMPAIGNED for him.

    Why is this a surprise to anybody?

    (She may still be the best choice, but that's what Primaries are for.)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:45:07 PM PDT

  •  We need a vigorous primary. (10+ / 0-)

    She was inevitable last time yet she lost to a guy who was a state senator only two years before and who was black.

    Don't be fooled by people who conflate inevitable with invincible. There are others out there, including some Governors who should be thrown in the mix.

    In any event,the internet and media clamor is not reflective of the voting public. I think many are already starting to get resentful from being told that they will have no other choices. Even Carville said giving the nomination to one person would be a gift to the Republicans who would otherwise lose.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:46:45 PM PDT

  •  Dean, Obama, Clinton (5+ / 0-)

    I campaigned for Dean (and then Kerry) in '04, Obama in '08  and '12, and I will campaign for Clinton in '16. If you can find a viable alternative, please let me know - but for now, she has my vote, support, time, energy, and money, because the only way we can lock in the minor shift to the left we have all fought so hard for is to get another D into the White House, and work on a fully Dem Congress. Concern trolling with no alternative is not helpful.

    Howard Dean made me believe, Barack Obama made it real.

    by el ganador on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:46:49 PM PDT

  •  Senator Clinton was in the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    top 20 on the liberal side of the senatorial list - not in the top 10 but definitely a liberal - per VoteSmart back in 2008.  Senator Obama was not.  I don't see Hillary shifting right in her old age, thank you.

  •  The only other viable candidate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    We Shall Overcome

    I can see right now is Andrew Cuomo.

    Who else?

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 01:01:11 PM PDT

  •  I'd rather not lose (5+ / 0-)

    and feel gloriously pure and noble in defeat as President Rubio or President Jeb Bush steps over, say, Andrew Cuomo's crushed Dukakis Meets Gore campaign and goes on to appoint John Bolton Secretary of State and Liz Cheney Secretary of Defense and replaces Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Anthony Kennedy with Scalito wingnuts.

    Give me a name.

    Who do you think is a better option.

    There are things Hilary believes in that I'm sure I don't.

    Since Bernie Sanders isn't going to be my President, that's true all over the Democratic Party.

    Don't just tell me about how you fear she's more Rightwing that Obama. I can probably cherrypick a bunch of things and post them that will make her seem more liberal than Obama. But that's more faith-based confirmation bias than I care to be engaged in these days. I don't believe in the Force. I'm not a mindreader. I don't see Hilary as more to the Right than Obama. I see a woman who is more saavy with bad faith operators than the current President. I watched far too many people look at Obama and see him as a liberal because they projected that onto him. Hilary Clinton is certainly not going to fall for the GOP's bad faith, and she is not going to waste years of her time in office chasing a post-partisanship unity unicorn.

    That matters as well.

    This isn't about ideology, every viable Democratic candidate is going to be to the Right of me. Brian Schweitzer, who is my personal choice for a Democrat who is not addicted to trying to appease the bad faith Movement Conservative Right and has Red State, Purple and Blue State appeal, probably won't run if Hilary gets in. In that sense, I have a candidate I'd prefer, but I don't think he's going to take a run at Hilary because he sees what the rest of us sees. Hilary will be a juggernaut. That being the case as I see it, this is about who can win. Hilary Clinton can win, and win with coattails that can prevent the sort of paralysis we have been plagued with even when Obama had a Democratic Congress.

    I'd be more than happy to support somebody who is going to crush the GOP like she would, and be more in line with my own beliefs.

    Name that person, and give me the reasons why I should believe that they can be anything but a bug on Hilary's windshield and I will certainly consider the option.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 01:05:41 PM PDT

    •  And let me say this: (3+ / 0-)

      Hilary Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a luxury, so is chasing a purity candidate, I would go so far as to call it a vanity, that we simply cannot afford.

      We have to win in 2016.

      We have to.

      Social Security is at stake. So is Medicare. The ACA. Student aid. Low income housing and food services for the poor. The GOP wins, and they have a Teahadi House, and maybe a post-2014 slim Senate Majority and it might take 50 years to get back what they will gut out of our country. Demographically, the GOP's last best chance to catastrophically fuck up the New Deal/Great Society safety net is going to be the winner of that race. 2020 or 2024 is probably the point where a Teahadi will be a 40 state loser nationally.  

      Andrew Cuomo, if he is our nominee, will get crushed like nobody has been crushed since Mike Dukakis back in 1988. Even if Jeb Bush is the GOP nominee. We can't even count on W.'s legacy if we get stuck with Mario Hamlet Cuomo's kid. We might as well nominate Harold Ford to run with Evan Bayh while a Michael Bloomberg and Angus King suicide pact of a ticket courts the Village.

      Al Gore got robbed, this guy is going to get creamed by both the Village and the GOP.  

      If it's Hilary, I'm there.

      I just don't have the time, patience, or the naivete to waste on hating on Hilary and projecting mine, or anybody else's, Worst-Case Hilary in My Head on a really important race.

      I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

      by LeftHandedMan on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 01:17:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you disputing that (0+ / 0-)

      HRC is to the right of Obama on interventionism? This isn't cherry picking cause the evidence is pretty one-sided. There are HRC state Dept.  loyalists like Anne Marie Slaughter who mention this difference between the two, but mention it as a critique of Obama for being too passive. So that notion isn't controversial and something most FP experts would view as accurate.

      •  I strongly dispute it (0+ / 0-)

        I have 4 years of an Obama Presidency as my evidence.

        •  Elaborate please (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Remember we're not talking about counter-terrorism issues but broader FP issues on intervention. Show where they have parted ways with HRC being to his left. There is well documented evidence of Hillary to his right on Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, when the WH has had deliberations on these issues. By the way this is reporting that has never been challenged by HRC and her folks and has been corroborated by multiple reporting. Frankly I think she's fine with that perception because its the political sweet spot for the GE.

          She has also been more skeptical in reaching an accord with Iran than Obama, at least based on what she said on the record during the '08 campaign and her time as a senator. This was a view she used to proudly beat Obama over the head during the campaign, so its not she hid the ball. Now being as how campaigns are inherently dishnest and there being less reporting on her private advice to the president than the other issues, there is less clarity of what she would do on this issue and she could surprise us.

          •  That's simply ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

            To his right on Libya and Afghanistan would require Obama to have disagreed with her on intervention in these countries.

            On Syria, I am not aware of any "documented" evidence.

            Base on their records on Iran, Obama was as belligerent as Clinton.

            Obama proudly pretended he would never agree with the terrorist naming of the Iranian intelligence service.

            Except we he proposed it of course. You are pretty selective in what you want to remember.

            I.e., attacking in Pakistan? Remember that? Of course not.

            Not a dime's worth of difference between them and any one who looking at the evidence reaches a different conclusion is deluding themselves.

            You know who agrees with me? Obama and Clinton. See 60 Minutes interview.

  •  For those who are saying (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Wolf, Portlaw, PorridgeGun

    her superior ability on being able to win the WH and keep it out of republican hands far outweighs these warts, I am not challenging that premise. Especially on a day like today with Paul Ryan reminding us what they would unleash if they had the power, I am sympathetic to this view.

    My point is we should view HRC with full knowledge of the possible implications of her presidency and understand that she's more hawkish than most democrats and less environmentally freindly than most.  Too many things about her seem to get glossed over and when she is critiqued it's usually part of the traditional critique against the broader democratic party from the left, which papers over differences within the party today.

    •  I appreciate your analysis (0+ / 0-)

      I assume that Hillary would be a lot better on women's issues and probably better on LGBT. I think she would probably be about the same on immigration and efforts to end gun violence.

      I wonder if she would be better on labor. Obama has been pretty mediocre. I've been surprised by this given how much he owes grassroots labor campaigners for getting him a win in places like Ohio. But he immediately abandoned his promises on trade. Bill Clinton surrounded himself with DLC people and Obama seems to have brought in many of the same people. Would Hillary do the same?

      Anybody got any thoughts on this?

      •  Don't know. Hope the Clintons have changed (0+ / 0-)

        because I remember well Bill's presidency when his BFFs included Joe Lieberman and Tony Blair. It sure seems from Hilary's 2008 campaign that she is inclined to bring in advisors from that era. For example, Andrew Shapiro, who had worked for Lieberman's campaign in 2000. Ugh.

  •  The nomination is Hillary's if she wants it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    And Obama will campaign for her, which will bring around most people who have voted for him. It will not bring around the people who supported Dennis Kucinich or John McCain in 2008. No second Obama is likely to appear to derail her campaign in 2016. She has done everything right to position herself as the front runner.

    The only question is -- does she want it? Does she want out of politics so badly that she will withstand all the pressure on her to run? There are no signs yet of that much resistance. She has formed her PAC. Kirsten Gillibrand wants to be her campaign manager.

    I think we are finally going to have a woman US president in 2016. It's about time -- it will then have been 96 years since US women got the vote.

  •  Amazing how SoS Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    compelled President Obama agree with her on foreign policy.

    If only the Czar knew!

  •  If Hillary is the most electable... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and it appears so...that's what we have to go with.

    Besides - Hillary's mind isn't static; I bet she's softened on war since 2002 - as have most others.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 01:51:55 PM PDT

  •  As far as I'm concerned (0+ / 0-)

    neither party has a credible potential candidate.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 01:52:29 PM PDT

  •  I look forward to a Hillary win, and the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lcj98, RandomNonviolence, Heftysmurf

    Frustrati holding her feet to the fire just as vigorously as the black guy.

    "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

    by second gen on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 02:29:28 PM PDT

  •  Tried and true? (0+ / 0-)

    I hear that the keynote speaker at the previous convention makes a good choice.

    [compare Obama/Castro]

    Discuss amongst yourselves...

  •  Here's a novel idea... (0+ / 0-)

    How about waiting until people start announcing their intentions to run?

    The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

    by lcj98 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 02:58:17 PM PDT

  •  While I don't (0+ / 0-)

    really want to rule Hillary out -- I LIKE her -- you have raised valid points that deserve consideration.  At the least, if she is inevitable or if we decide that she is our best shot despite her flaws, it behooves us to strategize how to best contain her worse inclinations.

  •  Hillary's ideological soulmate is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Barack Obama. I supported Barack over Hillary because of his "no-drama Obama" demeanor, while Hillary was sometimes overly and overtly dramatic, but there wasn't a ton of daylight between them when it came to the positions they took. Even their Senate voting records were eerily similar.

    If she runs in 2016, she'll get my vote with the same amount of enthusiasm with which I voted for Obama in 2008. Since I'm far to the left of both of them, that vote wasn't cast out of passion for Obama's positions on the issues, but for the historic nature of the nation's first African American President. Similarly, although I suspect Hillary will be too conservative for me, I'll gladly help elect the first woman President!

  •  No No No!!! (0+ / 0-)

    The complete stranglehold of narrow corporate interests on our political system is killing us and has to stop!!!!!

    Exxon is blocking us from addressing climate change which is ruining the planet!!!!

    The causes of the financial meltdown have still not been adequately addressed.  More corporate shills in the White House is unacceptable! Corporate raiders can still drain away any gains workers have achieved. Consolidated Debt Obligations are the new ticking time bomb!

    Until wages rise, we will continue to see "jobless recoveries." Until we do more to tax the rich and corporate profits, the power of the plutocracy will continue to grow.

    Voters will not be inclined to head for the polls for more of the same!

    I say lets work for Elizabeth Warren! I also like my state governor, Deval Patrick) or Sherrod Brown.

    People, don't be cowards! Think Big!

  •  It's OK. 2008 is long over. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site