Skip to main content

RNC Chair Reince Priebus speaks at the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference.
Reince Priebus
The Republican National Committee is pushing a brand-new spin on democracy completely pathetic effort at online organizing. The new Republican hotness? A petition to "Keep the Clintons out of the White House ... again."
Remember all the #Clinton scandals http://t.co/... That’s not what America needs again
@Reince
Thing is, unless Republicans manage to change the Constitution pretty dramatically in the next two years, the presidency is not actually determined by online petition. (If it was, we could probably get Elizabeth Warren elected right now.) And—also relevant—to win the presidency, you need to convince people to vote for your candidate, not just against the other one. Or her husband, as the case may be.

If, come November 2016, the Republican Party wants to encourage its voters to stay busy signing petitions rather than turning out voters to actually, you know, vote, that would be great. I am all for that. But no, this is just list-building for the RNC. And that's where we circle back around to it being pathetic. Because if you're the kind of person who signs a petition to "Keep the Clintons out of the White House," chances are you're already on every single Republican list in existence.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:13 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

  •  Reince is an Underpants Gnome. (8+ / 0-)

    Step 1. Get a petition to keep HRC out of the White House.
    Step 2. ???
    Step 3. Profit!

    Actually, Profit is step 2. It's the step 3 the RNC seems to be shaky on.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:20:37 AM PST

  •  I don't know - I'd sign that petition ... if (10+ / 0-)

    it were tied to a "Draft Warren" appeal, or something similar.

    •  Yeah, it's really scary when I agree with (0+ / 0-)

      this nutcase.

      Somebody MAKE HIM STOP!!

    •  When I read comments like yours here, (5+ / 0-)

      it overcomes my concerns about Hillary Clinton and makes me want to give her money.  If the loser left is agasnst her, she'll probably win.  

      By the way, Elizabeth warren, a good leftist who wins, endorsed Clinton.

      Why the disconnect?  Because Clinton-hate is the new Obama-hate among the loser left.  No one is ever good enough.  

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:48:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dont forget to hate Deblasio (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, Ahianne

        all the cool kids are doing it.

        •  yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DMentalist

          When I read some comments here, I think of what Obama said about the Republicans.

          "If I said the sky was blue, they would say no"

          We need to stop the circular firing squad.  Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not make them a hater.

          Hitler is Hitler.  Calling someone else Hitler just shows you are not interested in discussion.

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

          by GideonAB on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:17:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I like DeBasio. (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry I don't fit your stereotype.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:55:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, many of these comments are no different (0+ / 0-)

        than what we see from the bizarre nutty tea baggers.  

        Before I write garbage like "I can't believe I agree with Reince" or "I can't believe I agree with Paul Rand" I would chop both my arms off.    

      •  I'm only "against" her up until the point she (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, DMentalist, JVolvo, zed, schnecke21, Ahianne

        wins the nomination, if in fact she does.  Until then, I'd like to think we might have a better choice.

        I'm simply afraid that she is too centrist, to ready to try and placate the GOP like Obama has done, to much a career politician with all the baggage and obligations that carries.  

        Once the nomination is in, I will support any Democratic candidate as clearly a much better choice than any potential republican opponent.  On any ticket at any level of government.

        I didn't use to think that way - I've voted republican in the past when I thought it was appropriate.  Now, with the republican party as screwed up as it is and their priorities as wrong as they are, I don't think I can even consider a republican candidate for anything.   Especially when "reasonable" republicans have to switch parties - like Crist in FL.

        •  Hillary is very unlikely to "placate" Republicans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne

              While I respect your right to prefer a different candidate than Hillary, on this one point I think you are quite incorrect.  

               I voted for Hillary in 2008, and when Obama eventually got the nomination, I was really worried that Obama was going to have a Presidency like Jimmy Carter's.  Jimmy Carter was a pure liberal and a pure idealist, and he won as the outsider candidate in 1976 as the result of the backlash of public outrage against the extreme corruption of the Nixon Presidency. Likewise, Obama won in 2008 as the outsider candidate because of the backlash against the extreme corruption and failure of the Bush Presidency.  

               But when Carter actually became President, his idealism and his inexperience with Washington politics made him a totally ineffective leader, and his Presidency was so inept that he paved the way for another backlash and the election of Reagan in 1980.  

               Obama has not been nearly as much of a disappointment as Carter was.  But Obama DID make all of the stupid, rookie mistakes that I feared he would.  He spent his first years in office bending over backwards to get bipartisan support, offering concessions in advance, out of a naive, idealistic belief that Republicans and Democrats could all just get along if everyone would just compromise, while Republicans were planning total obstruction from the start.  Obama wasted precious time trying to get at least some Republicans to like him so that he could fulfill his vain, idealistic goal of being the great consensus builder who "changed the climate" of Washington, time which he should have been using to aggressively pursue a progressive agenda.  In 2010, his time ran out, he lost his Democratic majority, and he's unlikely to get another opportunity to make real progressive change like he had in the first two years of his Presidency.  

               Even if you might prefer another candidate over Hillary, I think one thing you can say in her favor is that she is the ONE candidate who quite likely WON'T make the kinds of stupid, rookie mistakes that any other newly elected President probably would.  Virtually every new President takes office believing that he is the GREAT EXCEPTION, the one who can do the thing which every predecessor has tried and failed, the one who has the intellectual and leadership skills to CHANGE the way Washington works.  The same types of stupid rookie mistakes that Obama made from 2008-2010 were also made by  Bill Clinton from 1992-1994, with similar results.  For that matter, Hillary ALSO made the same rookie mistakes during that 1992-1994 period, with her failed healthcare reform initiative being a prime example.  

               And that's why you WON'T see such stupid, rookie mistakes from Hillary if she wins in 2016.  She's been there.  She's already experienced the disillusion of believing that the "right leader" can "change the tone" in Washington, only to be proven wrong.  She's already experienced the disillusion of believing that if you offer concessions to Republicans in the spirit of compromise, they will offer concessions in return, only to be proven wrong.  She's already experienced the disillusion of learning that no matter how much you try to co-opt Republican support by including Republican policy goals like deficit reduction in your agenda, today's Republican Party will still do everything in its power to ensure the failure of ANY Democratic President.  

               So I don't think Hillary is likely to try to "placate" Republicans.  She's been down that road, and she knows where it leads.  She knows the Republicans will hate her and try to destroy her no matter what she does, so she's prepared to simply accept it and move on with actually GETTING THINGS DONE.  And she won't just WANT to get things done, she'll also know HOW.  If she runs in 2016, her resumé will include experience in a state governorship, two Presidential administrations in the Executive Branch, a Senate career in the Legislative Branch, and foreign policy experience as the Secretary of State.  Few Presidents in history have had such diverse experience in so many branches and levels of government.  

               While I understand the appeal of a fresh face with fresh ideas for 2016, I can also see the appeal of electing a President who, for once, won't spend the first couple of years in office fumbling around, figuring out what the rules are, being disillusioned about what can and can't be done, before possibly stumbling on a realistic way to actually accomplish something.  I like the idea of a President who won't waste a SINGLE DAY of her Presidency just learning the job, because she already knows the job inside and out.   I  like the idea of a President who's had the experience to really KNOW  what she's doing, starting from DAY ONE.  

      •  Gosh, Tom, I usually love your posts. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        But I think your attack on marking time is completely unwarranted. He just mildly expressed his preference for a Presidential candidate without slamming Hillary at all. I support Hillary in the primaries too but we are going to have to have much thicker skins than this.

        Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

        by Matt Z on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:27:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "loser left"? aWes0me PS Congrats! Rove, Luntz (0+ / 0-)

        and Preibus are thrilled you've bought in and are doing their work for them.

        "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

        by JVolvo on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:45:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are worse things than President Hillary... (5+ / 0-)

      ...such as, a President Christie or President Paul or President Huckabee or President Santorum or President [insert any potential GOP alternative].

      In the democratic primaries, go ahead and support whomever is on the ballot that you prefer.  Heck, go the write-in route if they aren't on the ballot.

      But once the nomination is decided, IF the nominee is indeed Hillary Clinton, it's time to consider that the only realistic outcome other than Clinton winning the Presidency is for the GOP nominee to win the Presidency, and what the  comparative consequences would be for the latter vs the former outcome.  We have an excellent, and recent historical example to consider - Bush v Gore v Nader in 2000.  Let's concede for argument that Gore's own mistakes as a candidate and the blundering of the democratic-controlled Monroe County board of elections in their ballot design were at least or more so decisive in his narrow defeat than the choice of 100k Florida progressive-minded voters to cast ballots for Nader instead of Gore, and that with a better campaign he should have been able to defeat Bush despite Nader's presence on the ballot.  Let's take that distraction off the table.  EVEN SO, what did your vote for the more progressively pure general election candidate over the establishment-compromised democratic party candidate get you?  Bush as President for eight years, with the vast array of damage he did to the policies, the courts, the financial condition of the government...and so on (long list).  Yes, we all understand the counter-argument that unless we support better progressives with our votes over supposedly more pragmatic impure, more establishment candidates we'll never get the true progressive change the country needs, and which you believe the country would support if it had the choice.  However, the example of 2000 also shows that this is a high-risk choice if you don't actually win elections, and bitter enemies of progressive reform win instead who are hell-bent on not merely blocking progressive change, but on destroying existing progressive achievements all the way back to the foundation of the New Deal and salting the earth (e.g. upcoming Supreme Court nomineees, for just one f'rinstance) to make it virtually impossible for a long time to come to ever ressurect even what we had and took for granted.

      Purity ponies don't come for free.

    •  Draft Warren..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DMentalist

      ...for Secretary of the Treasury.

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

      by varro on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 04:58:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't recall #Clinton scandals. (23+ / 0-)

    I do remember years of #GOP-manufactured scandals, obstruction, government shutdown, disrespect and poutrage.

    And you're right, Mr. Priebus. That's not what America needs. But it's all your party seems to do now.

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:48:05 AM PST

    •  So did the public (22+ / 0-)

      Even back then, as witness the spanking Republicans got in 1998.  Demonizing Bill Clinton again for a human mistake, after a dozen years of Right anti-woman legislation and gay-bashing, comes off as as unhealthy concern with people's crotches -- especially when their own ledgers aren't exactly clean in that department.

      Maybe the Republican symbol shouldn't be an elephant, but instead that friend's annoying dog which jams its snout in your personal area every time you come for a visit.

    •  And I rember (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crashing Vor

      When Bush the First lied to the american people about the viability of tinkle down economics, and had to raise taxes, which many agree cost him reelection.  And how he sold those weapons to terrorists.  And the war thing.  Yet many wanted more of the same.

      •  Not only did he lie (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, Crashing Vor, mmacdDE, Ahianne

        He actually changed course. When Reagan was in the primaries in 1980, GHW Bush was one of his biggest critics, calling Reagan's "trickle down" theory "voodoo economics." But once he was tapped to be Reagan's vice president, he suddenly changed his tune.

        I remember this pretty clearly, but sometimes I have to stop and remember that there are college graduates visiting this site whose parents were still in middle school in 1980.

        So this West Virginian walks into a bar and says, "Fix me a Green River."

        by Omir the Storyteller on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:37:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary gained symparthy from GOP move. Why does (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crashing Vor

      RP think that will change if this thing is recycle.

      •  Okay, I'll bite. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, JVolvo, DMentalist, Ahianne

        Yes, He lied. Under oath.

        And the majority of Americans, upon hearing the questions being asked, said, "Well, I probably would have, too."

        And that, lying to keep his wife from finding out he'd dangled his wangle with an air-headed young intern, was worth two years of America's time?

        I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

        by Crashing Vor on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:42:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not to mention the fact... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crashing Vor, Ahianne

              that he "lied under oath" in a deposition for a case that was ultimately DISMISSED as being completely without merit.  So if he lied, he lied to protect his family and himself from intrusive and humiliating questions about a subject that was nobody else's business, and the Court eventually AGREED that it was nobody else's business, that those questions never should have been asked, and that asking them was a waste of the Court's time, and the country's.  

                But technically, he didn't actually lie.  He gave a misleading answer.  He read the question carefully, and based on the way he interpreted terms which had been very precisely defined for him IN WRITING, he gave an answer which was literally true, even though it was evasive.

                Here's an example of the difference:

                When Karl Rove said "I didn't give her name", that was a misleading answer, NOT a lie.  It was literally true that he didn't give her name.  He didn't say "Valerie Plame is a CIA agent."  He said, "Joe Wilson's WIFE is a CIA agent."  So he DID commit treason, but technically, he didn't LIE.  See the difference?

               On the other hand, when George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," THAT was a LIE.  And since he said it in a State of the Union Address before Congress, he was in fact LYING TO CONGRESS, which is indeed an IMPEACHABLE offense.  Fortunately for Bush, the lie was only 16 words.    There must be a clause somewhere which states that prosecuting a President for lying to Congress requires a 20-word minimum.  

          •  some crimes are not as bad (0+ / 0-)

            When the criminal is the Democrat.  Got it.

            •  I do try to be respectful to everyone, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bryduck

                  Honestly, this about the DUMBEST comment I have ever read.  

                   Sorry for being so blunt.

                    Some crimes ARE not as bad as others, and it has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican.  

                   For example, when Vice President Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, that was WORSE than when Dick Cheney accidentally shot Harry Whittington in the face.  Is it worse because Aaron Burr was a Democratic-Republican, instead of a Republican? NO, only an IDIOT would say that.  It was worse because what Cheney did was a stupid accident, and Harry Whittington wasn't killed, whereas Burr INTENTIONALLY shot Hamilton, and Hamilton WAS killed.  

                   If Mark Fuhrman was accused of perjury for his testimony in the OJ Simpson trial, that was WORSE than if Bill Clinton was accused of  perjury in a civil deposition.  Is that because Bill Clinton is a Democrat?  NO, only an IDIOT would say that.  It was worse because Bill Clinton was deposed in a frivolous civil suit, and the only consequence of his lie was that it temporarily spared himself and his family from embarrassment, whereas Mark Fuhrman testified under oath in a CRIMINAL MURDER TRIAL, and his possible perjury may have allowed a MURDERER to go free.  (And by the way, Fuhrman was NOT fired from his job, and he only paid a $200.00 fine for his alleged perjury...so why should a President be impeached for a much LESS serious case of perjury in a much LESS important civil suit that was dismissed as without merit?)

                   If Karl Rove disclosed the identity of a covert CIA operative, destroying her career, compromising our national security, and endangering that operative and all of her contacts, that is WORSE than lying about a sexual affair because you don't want to be publicly embarrassed for your bad personal behavior.  

                   If George Bush lied to Congress about evidence that led America into a war that has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, both of Americans and Iraqis, that is WORSE than lying about a sexual affair because you don't want your wife to find out about it.  

                   Here's a few more examples, in case you still just don't get it:

                   If the speed limit is 55 miles per hour, and you drive 56 miles per hour, that is NOT AS BAD as driving 600 miles per hour.

                   If you take a penny from the tray on the convenience store counter because you need a penny, that is NOT AS BAD as going into a bank with a machine gun and stealing 12 million dollars.  

                   If you have an occasional glass of wine with dinner, that is NOT AS BAD as shooting heroin into your veins 3 times a day.  

                   If you tickle somebody's feet, that is NOT AS BAD as stabbing somebody in the chest with a knife.  

                   Yes, it is true.  Some things are NOT AS BAD as other things.  Some things are WORSE than others things.  Most people figure that out pretty early in life.  Astonishing that it seems like you still need someone to explain the concept to you.  

                   I just noticed that for some reason your comment has a signature link that links to a law firm.  Don't know if that means you are a lawyer, or work in a law office, or if you're just being paid to spam the link, but whether you're a lawyer or have merely been exposed to lawyers, that just makes it all the more astounding that you could say something so utterly STUPID.  In general I find lawyers and those who associate with them to be well-educated, articulate and worthy of my respect, even when I disagree with their viewpoints, but I guess there's an exception to every rule.  

                   I know that Kos has a "Top Comments" diary, but you make me think that we need place for "Bottom Comments"...

                   I truly am sorry to sound so disrespectful, but really.

                  DUMBEST. COMMENT. EVER.

    •  yup. and abu ghraib. i will never forget that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      I am tired of laughing at the irony of their stupidity.

      by stagemom on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 03:20:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Blather, Reince, repest... (9+ / 0-)

    ...and you can quote me one that!

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:06:53 AM PST

  •  The RNC is trolling for a (11+ / 0-)

    calling / mailing list.

    I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

    by CFAmick on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:16:06 AM PST

    •  I would bet (5+ / 0-)

      there's a "DONATE" button somewhere near that petition, too. Mailing list and money. Gotta separate those poor stupid suckers from whatever pennies they have left after 3 decades of the ascendancy of Republican economic policy.

      "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

      by NWTerriD on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:49:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course they are (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, DMentalist, Ahianne

      There are only two things online petitions are good for, on either side. Manufacturing outrage, and raising money. Getting names for the mailing list is a subset of #2.

      And I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority (90% or so) of people who sign RNC PR BS' petitions are already on the mailing list. That's actually a third thing they're good for: making someone feel good because they signed a petition. It certainly isn't about actually defeating Clinton at this point. They need her too badly as their Emmanuel Goldstein figure.

      So this West Virginian walks into a bar and says, "Fix me a Green River."

      by Omir the Storyteller on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:41:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like every other one (9+ / 0-)
    But no, this is just list-building for the RNC.
    That's all online petitions are for.  Just ask MoveOn.org, or the DCCC, or Daily Kos.

    Just soliciting volunteers to be spammed and begged for money $3 at a time.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:17:49 AM PST

  •  if it energizes their base to get out and oppose (0+ / 0-)

    "Billary", then it may be a non-zero affair.

    I've never been a HRC fan at all, not since she and Bill did their ridiculous health care reform in which they huddled in a sealed room with no stakeholders, wrote a 3000-page plan to take over 15-20% of the US economy, and when people griped loudly, they threw up their hands and walked away, muttering something about letting the market take care of it.

    I don't like her, or trust her, or expect anything but some nice shiny cultural things - which matter, but won't be real change.

    Centrist, neo-lib, corporatist, war hawk history. Not inspiring at all. A vote suppressor effect just waiting to happen in an election when turnout will be crucial. Her only hope is that the repubs run someone so horrible that people flock to her to save from Teh Crazy. Meh.

    Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

    by p gorden lippy on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:24:17 AM PST

    •  You come on here to voice your explicit agreement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      with Reince Priebus.  

      Meh.  

      •  no, simply to disagree with the premise of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joesig

        post, which was that RP was acting as if this was how prez elections work. I say that his actions are typical partisan politics of energizing his base, not an election substitute.

        I seriously doubt RP would criticize HRC for being a corporatist, Wall St. friendly, health reform wrecking, Bush war supporter. Nothing to do with "scandals." The right has never been able to explain just what it was they suspected the Clintons of doing in Whitewater, despite years and millions and millions wasted.

        I just fervently hope the dems can do much, much better than to nominate HRC. If you think that's agreement with Priebus, then OK.

        Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

        by p gorden lippy on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:40:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'd vote for... (5+ / 0-)

    a scandal-ridden, perverted Democrat over a squeaky clean Republican any day.

    I vote to elect someone that shares my politics, not my ethics.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:24:46 AM PST

  •  Well, how could anyone not understand (6+ / 0-)

    that since Bill had his shot, that counted for Hillary too?

    She's his wife for pete's sake, cleaving and all like that, not like she's a separate person.

    Jeez, liberals.

    sh

  •  We don't need all the Clinton "scandals" again. (7+ / 0-)

    So if Hillary is elected, the Republican Party needs to find something more productive to do.

    See you in Heaven if you make the list. R.E.M.

    by Akronborn on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:27:43 AM PST

  •  Stop non-GOP voters so GOP 2 be elected President (0+ / 0-)
  •  Voters Would Love The Clinton Scandals Again (9+ / 0-)

    if they would get the Clinton economy as well.

    •  Well yeah, yes and no (7+ / 0-)

      with the "no" being for those savvy enough to connect the dots on how his administration put job outsourcing efforts on steriods and completely obliterated all regulatory efforts that might have prevented the '07/08 financial meltdown.

      •  Agreed (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, ColoTim, Calamity Jean

        What the 8 years of the Clinton economy did show compared to the 8 years before and after it is that raising taxes does not hurt the economy. If this economy would shift into higher gear, Obama would be more popular than Clinton.

        •  In that regard Clinton was a beneficiary (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, schnecke21, bryduck

          that the GOP of that era was stuck in weird gray area between being partially but not yet completely bat shit crazy.

          Partially, because Bush the Older was actually a key ingredient in raising taxes that benefited the Clinton Administration.

          Of course the GOP crazies were already gaining enough traction to hold that against him in a way that may have been enough to swing the '92 election to Clinton.

          Bottom line, he was one lucky, lucky SOB. . .

        •  Which is why the Republicans have been at work (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DMentalist, JeffW, Leo Flinnwood

          since Obama was elected, not just inaugurated, but elected, to make sure he wasn't successful in restoring the economy.  We're still below the number employed when the Great Recession started.  Sure the stock market is at record highs, but more people are being hurt even while that's going up.

      •  I'd be happy (0+ / 0-)

        to go back to only the level of outsourcing we had during the Clinton years. :/  

        Yeah, he put us on the path, but we've gone further along it since.

        "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

        by NWTerriD on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:55:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Essentially very major outsourcing took place (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfarrah

          during his administration (in all fairness, it was mostly a continuation of trends started by Bush/Reagan - but his policies accelerated rather than slowed the process).

          Since then, technology has further cut down on domestic jobs in manufacturing, and services to some extent.

          His trick, or luck as the case may be, was that job growth in other sectors (e.g., selling pet food over the internet) was fairly robust at the same time, masking the hollowing out of traditional US manufacturing.

          •  During Clinton admin (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW

            you could still buy products that didn't say "Made in China." Yes, technology changes have eliminated many jobs. But many jobs have also been offshored during the Shrub and Obama years. Just rewinding that would help.

            "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

            by NWTerriD on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:04:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You still can, if you try hard enough (5+ / 0-)

              But if one just randomly bought stuff, which I did back then, there was a night and day switch between "Made in the USA" and "Made in China" during the Clinton years in things like textiles, children toys, and even kitchen appliances and garage-type tools.

              I know this because my wife has recently been "urging" me to go through the piles of shit that have accumulated in our house (and get rid most of it), and in the process seeing  a 30 year snapshot in time has made this trend crystal clear.

    •  If, by "Clinton economy" Ya mean: (7+ / 0-)

      BALANCED Budget?
      ACTUAL deficit reduction?
      HIGH employement?
      BOOMING stock market?

      THAT EVIL SHIT?

      Yeah, I could deal with that again.

      "I did not have sex with that bridge"

      by Scottsdalian on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:45:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Repeal of Glass-Steagal. NAFTA. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChuckChuckerson, dfarrah, mmacdDE

        Take the long view.

        •  "Glass-Steagal/NAFTA" Yes, I know and Yes, I know. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim

          He was far from perfect, as you point out.

          But, for me personally, I would rather get fucked in a good economy that in a bad economy.

          Life is full of poor choices. And, yes, the American People DO seem to get fucked either way. :-(  

          At least under Clinton, they had fulltime jobs while getting fucked.

          "I did not have sex with that bridge"

          by Scottsdalian on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:57:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Telecom act of 96. End of "Welfare as we know it" (0+ / 0-)

          To be fair, I don't entirely blame Clinton. The Republicans in Congress must shoulder a lot of the blame.

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

          by anastasia p on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:29:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Those Issues Not A Problem In General Election (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DMentalist

            If she gets a primary opponent from the left those issues will resonate with many Democratic voters. On some President Clinton has expressed some regrets. She would be greatly helped if the economy improves. If it doesn't she might she be forced to differentiate her approach from the Obama handling of the economy.

      •  Voters Have Same Attitude Towards The Clintons (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, DMentalist, Ahianne

        as Lincoln had toward Grant's drinking (find out what he is drinking and give it to the rest of the generals). Bill Clinton's charisma helped make him a successful President but the economy is the reason he is remembered fondly. The GOP has a real problem with a Clinton return.

  •  thank you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, Ahianne

    Hillary isn't Bill, but, if the Rs treat her as such, victory is guaranteed.  Bill is the lone super star in American national politics--Hillary should be so loved.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:35:03 AM PST

  •  I've voted "against" a POTUS candidate in every (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey, NWTerriD

    election since 1984, except for one: Obama's first election.

    Sadly, then it was back to normal.

  •  LOL. Good catch, however. . . (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMentalist, Loge, dfarrah, NewDealer

    Does the Daily Kos front page really have standing to criticize entities that circulate spurious petitions?

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

    by cardinal on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:36:05 AM PST

  •  Reince & RNC know it's Santorum's turn . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne

    . . . so any "petition signing" nonsense is just practice for the big ask of sending in money to support another failed & rejected GOP candidate trying to sell failed & rejected GOP policies. Reince will have a hard enough job polishing the Santorum turd; petitions and lists are the least of his worries.

    Above the clouds, what's to be found, I have to wonder - will I be around--Paul Weller

    by Above the Clouds on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:40:56 AM PST

  •  I get this crap from the left all the time too (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfarrah, NewDealer

    I get emails all the time from various Democratic Party organs and organizations on the left telling me I need to "send a message" to McConnell or Boehner or Limbaugh or Cruz or whoever the bugaboo of the moment is, by adding my name to some petition. (I even get those from this site.) It's all just list building. Nobody is going to change their mind or their position just because they got a list of emails who allegedly think they should. So the R's do it and it's lame, and the D's do it and it's lame.

    Now if only I can get them to stop telling me every single day how I can meet the President.

  •  They don't even understand conservative women (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMentalist, drmah, mmacdDE, schnecke21, Ahianne

    Wow-

    Do they understand that Bill's issues made Hillary a hero to a lot of women, especially conservative women, who praised her for sticking with the marriage?

    How well do you think blaming the victim (Hillary) for Bill's cheating is going to go over?

  •  Go for it! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim

    I for one would welcome a Fox/Tea party effort to remind voters of the Clinton years.  For many people those were the best years they can remember.

    The Fox/Tea party has demonstrated that they will denigrate anyone who runs against their anointed.  At least with Clinton everyone knows what the scandals are and they are now boring.

    I did not support Senator Clinton in 2008, largely because I thought Bush the Lesser had given nepotism a bad name.  I am not sure if I will support Sect. Clinton for the 2016 nomination.

  •  BILL CLINTON SCANDALS (6+ / 0-)

    no one died . George Bush Jr scandals thousands died Iraq, Kathrina.

  •  ye gods, I hate agreeing with that puddle (0+ / 0-)

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

    by The Dead Man on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:44:04 AM PST

  •  Elections are sooooo 20th, 19th, and 18th (0+ / 0-)

    century.

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

    by dinotrac on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:45:08 AM PST

  •  Young voters neither remember Bill Clinton (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, NewDealer, mmacdDE

    nor do they care.

    Moreover, they'll see right through the ruse and become incensed at its cheapness and the audacity of its perpetration, provoking more of them than ever to see to it that they vote next fall.

    Make Plutocratic influence on the Government so small you can drown it in a bathtub.

    by thenekkidtruth on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:52:57 AM PST

  •  I propose my own petition... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, anastasia p, Ahianne

    To rename Reince Priebus "Prince Riebus" because that's how I read his name in my head whenever I see it.  It also makes me think of him as a sort of "Little Lord Fauntleroy" young entitled upper-class twit.

  •  We got a robocall at 8AM this morning from Newt (0+ / 0-)

    trying to get me to click "1" to sign a petition to elect more conservatives so that they could undo the terrible damage done to America by the Obama White House.  I stayed on through the end to try and press "2" to be removed but unfortunately all I got was a quick 800 number to call and be removed.  I didn't have something to write it down and it wasn't something memorable like 1800EatShit so I'm stuck on their list (and all they'd do anyway is take me off one list and put me on 20 more).  Next time I get a live person, I'm going to tell them I'm going to call ten Republicans every time I get a new phone call and I'm going to tell them lies so they hate Republicans and don't vote for them.  Maybe that would get me off a few more calling lists than just telling them I'm going to knock on ten more doors for Democrats.  They want their voters to turn out?  Then they better not call me.

  •  Lets's face it - all any online petition does (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RUNDOWN, JeffW

    is harvest e-mail addresses for future fund raising & propaganda purposes.

  •  All of this effort tearing down/building up HRC (0+ / 0-)

    will seem like an awful waste when As Yet Unknown Progressive Challenger wins the Democratic Primary.

    It won't be the ravings of the GOP that deflate Hillary's campaign, it will be direct questioning about her long and lucrative relationship with the wealthy malefactors of America. It will be her silence while the anti-Wall Street populist message increases in volume in the coming years.

    •  Yet, Hillary Clinton is strongly popular (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DMentalist

      especially with the Liberal/Progressive community, even more so than the "Moderate" or "Centrist" wings.   Care to explain, since you seem convinced that she is going to be defeated primarily by the progressive wing of the party?  

      •  No other Democrat is running (0+ / 0-)

        ... or is perceived to be running at least.

        Once some other Democratic candidates show up and start directly confronting Hillary on populist issues you will see the poll numbers start to divide.

        She won't be defeated by the progressive wing, she will be defeated by people that just value traditional Democratic Party principles.

         We are going to be entering the 2016 race with our economy having been in the toilet for 99% of America for eight full years, not only due to Republican intransigence but also due to the cozy relationship between the Democratic Party leadership and the banks / Wall Street / corporate America. People are getting desperate. Hillary will be very easy to paint as "more of the same" because that is exactly what she is.

      •  I don't get it either (0+ / 0-)

        and I'm not so sure it's true.

        Hillary definitely a more moderate candidate than we really need. She's not as far right as Andrew Cuomo or (gag) Rahm Emanuel, but she'll disappoint those people who fantasize her kicking ass and sticking it to the Republicans in a way President Obama has not.

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

        by anastasia p on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:36:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  RNC "Petitions" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMentalist, JeffW

    Fees start at $500 to add your name.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

    by RUNDOWN on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:26:54 AM PST

  •  Monica & Bill Could Never Topple Hillary..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev

    Bill's an old man & Monica must be close to middle age by now.
    This is Hillary's last shot.  Bill will keep his mouth shut & do Hillary's bidding if he has a brain in his head.

    They don't seem like much of a threat.  

  •  Wait Wait Wait! Doesn't anybody remember... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, ipsos

    the triumph of Ted Cruz back in October?

    "We went and made the case to the American people. Launched a website, dontfundit.com. In a matter of a few weeks, two million Americans signed that petition on dontfundit.com."
       TWO MILLION! That's A LOT!!!!!  That's like, EIGHT TIMES the 250,000 signatures on the petition to deport Justin Bieber!  That's like, two thirds of the almost THREE MILLION people who visited Healthcare.gov on October 1st!    That's like, only about a million or so less than the 3.3 MILLION who have enrolled in Obamacare to date.  Boy, are those 3.3 million people going to be disappointed when they find out that Obamacare has been de-funded thanks to Ted's petition!

         Come on, people, we need to take this seriously!  What if they get TWO MILLION signatures on the petition to keep Hillary out of the White House?  I mean, Hillary only got like 18 million or so votes in the 2008 primaries...can she really weather the storm of 2 million Americans willing to do whatever they can to stop Hillary, provided that they can do it in 2 minutes or less with a mouse and a keyboard?!!  

         Come on, TWO MILLION is a REALLY BIG NUMBER!  It's like, 1,995,000 MORE than the 5,000 years the Earth has EXISTED!  

         Why don't people seem to be more worried about this?  Think about it!  They might get TWO MILLION signatures!  Maybe even more than that!  But not many more, I'm sure.  I mean, how many people can there BE in America?

  •  Well, I guess that rules out..... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, schumann, Ahianne

    ...a run by Jeb Bush.

    Remember all the #Bush I scandals
    And all the #Bush II scandals
    That’s not what America needs again
    — @Reince
    -
  •  He makes Michael Steele (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev

    Look like a political genius....these reTHUGS have some serious derangement syndromes

    When you follow your bliss the universe will open doors where there were once walls.

    by BlueFranco on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:55:20 AM PST

  •  You bet . . . (0+ / 0-)

    The article parenthetically mentions that if the presidency were determined by online petition, Ms. Warren could be elected now.  Indeed.  And what promise the future of this nation would then hold!

  •  Uh, pot meet kettle? (0+ / 0-)

    I mean, this site leads America in pushing for signatures on petitions that presumably provide benefit only in the data harvesting that occurs.

  •  True, but this IS how most online petitions work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BleacherBum153

    That is, they serve the purpose of generating email and contact information to produce mailing lists -- which are themselves the lifeblood of political fundraising and GOTV efforts.

    In this case, the purpose of Rinse Pubeius (snark) is to collect the names of gol-darn Red-Blooded REPUBLICAN Clinton-hating A-merkins so the GOP can cram their email In Boxes and snail-mail mailboxes with requests for money.

    "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

    by Technowitch on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:12:36 AM PST

  •  Reince, this is how it works. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMentalist

    the candidate that your party puts up needs to attain more electoral votes than the other party's candidate.

    Period.

    •  Yes, but that will be easier for Reince... (0+ / 0-)

          Once he achieves his awesome plan of convincing Republican-controlled state legislatures to change the laws to award electoral votes in proportion to results in gerrymandered Congressional districts, instead of that weird, arcane system we have now of awarding electoral votes based on the way the majority of people VOTED....

  •  Lest we forget, it's all for the donation attached (0+ / 0-)

    Don't be silly!  Everybody - except apparently dumb *ss Republicans know that there is always a "HELP US DEFEAT THE BIG BAD DEMONIC DEMOCRATS BLAH BLAH WHATEVER BLAH" and a DONATE HERE button as big as your head.  By signing some nothing, useless, petition, ignoramus Republicans think they are actually DOING something that matters.

    When to the Republicans, all that matters is their constituents $. Not their constituents.

  •  does reince priebus (0+ / 0-)

    have a green card, why, that's what he would ask me if that was my name.

  •  I wonder what he'd think... (0+ / 0-)

    ....about JEB! running for President?  

    Turnabout is fair play....and you might have noticed that "Corruption of blood" phrase in the constitution?  It applies to Hillary.

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

    by varro on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 04:53:00 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site