Skip to main content

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughs before delivering remarks on American leadership at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington January 31, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
In case you were hoping that the random blurts about Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton and 2016 from Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus represented something other than the the full-fledged return of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I have bad news for you. CDS is back, and it's probably here to stay—unless Ted Cruz comes up with something even crazier to talk about.

Here's a perfect example: Thursday's Wall Street Journal has a long piece taking seriously the notion that the CDS fantasies of the 1990s are going to play a big role in 2016.

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — The three-page memo to Hillary Clinton came from a veteran Democratic operative trying to prepare her for the perils of campaigning for a New York Senate seat.

“I strongly urge that a comprehensive ‘book’ be prepared on all of the ‘personal issues,’ such as Whitewater, Vince [Foster], Rose law firm, commodities trading, Monica, etc.,” wrote Harold Ickes. “This ‘book’ should include all of the tough questions that you will be asked (and, if you decide to run, you will be asked) in this regard.”

Mr. Ickes sent the letter in April 1999, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was still fresh and the first lady was mulling a Senate bid.

Fifteen years year later, Mr. Ickes’s advice still seems timely. Should Mrs. Clinton enter the 2016 presidential race, it’s doubtful she’ll be able to sidestep the old questions. And it’s not hard to visualize someone in the Clinton high command dusting off the “book.”

Please read below the fold for more on this story.

Yeah, you read that right. According to the WSJ, the 1990s are back. Including Vince Foster. Just perfect. The only question I have is this: Since they're preparing to go full-on nutter, why no mention of Ron Brown? And where are the state troopers? Actually, I think I know the answer: They probably think they're holding back "the good stuff" until the election gets closer.

Aside from the bizarre spectacle of grown adults convincing themselves of conspiracy theories every bit as crazy as the notion that President Obama was born in Kenya, the thing that's really strange about all this is that the CDS crowd actually seems to believe that they are the the kryptonite that will destroy Hillary's presidential ambitions. But the opposite is true: The more they share their delusions, the better it will be for Clinton.

Even Mitt Romney, who isn't exactly a genius political mind, understands this:

I think Hillary Clinton, if she becomes a nominee, will--will have plenty to--to discuss about her own record. I--I don't imagine that Bill Clinton is going to be a big part of it. That being said the--the times when he was president were by and large positive economic times for the country.
But while Mitt is right that it will be a mistake for the GOP to harp on the 1990s, that's exactly what's going to happen. And the funny thing is that at least when it comes to the economy, I'll bet 99 percent of Americans would happily trade the way things are now for the way things were then.
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

  •  This isn't really news (33+ / 0-)

    Just read the comments of any Clinton related diary on Daily Kos.

    There is definitely some derangement afoot.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:06:18 AM PST

    •  CDS is heavy and deep at dKos (18+ / 1-)

      Some believe HRC is a secret progressive, waiting until inauguration day to peel off her corporatist mask.  Others think that if only we elect a handful of progressive congresspersons, HRC will cave to their demands.  A smaller contingent are convinced that HRC didn't actually support the Iraq war, but she was forced to stand by her vote because she needed to convince those with sexist preconceptions of her "toughness".  

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:21:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And that's obviously derangement (13+ / 0-)

        because sexism never, ever plays a role where Hillary is concerned.

        •  She's a hawk, a hardcore hawk. (16+ / 0-)

          That's not what gender she is, it's a policy thing.

          Here's a couple questions for her

          1) Was your vote for the Iraq War wrong?

          2) If yes, Why?

          3) Do you think you owe the families of the dead an apology for your vote?

          4) What lessons have you learned from the Iraq War?

          5) Are you willing to use force to alter Iranian policies in the Middle East?

          6) The US Government has tortured prisoners in the Bush-Obama wars.  What have you done to stop that? What information have you been given that was garnered from torture? Does that make you a co-conspirator?

          7) Do you agree with the Obama Drone bombing campaign?
          If not, where have you dissented?

          8) Will you publish the Kill list?

          9) will you publish the criteria for the Kill List?

          10) Will you Publish the Yoo Torture memo?

          •  So easy to dismiss and forget (13+ / 0-)

            New York's trauma, the popular weight of that trauma (meticulously goaded by Junior's team of PNAC desk-warriors) on one of its Senators and the now-irrefutable manufacturing of purported 'intel' after Cheney slinked up and down the corridors of CIA, leaning on analysts for selectively supportive interpretations of that 'intel'.

            Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq — October 10, 2002

            "... So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

            "... This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

            "... I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

            "... A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

            ... whereupon Junior, Cheney and their Neocon-infested administration promptly dropped the ball at Tora Bora, where the whole show could have been ended, ordered the weapons inspectors (who'd found NO WMD) out of Iraq and launched their excellent "shock and awe" invasion... with popular approval exceeding 70 percent! The rest speaks for itself.

            Not an especially proud moment for enlightened reasoning, but the list of principled opponents of invasion could, at the time, have fit on a cocktail napkin.

            •  And HRC was not on that napkin (5+ / 0-)
              Not an especially proud moment for enlightened reasoning, but the list of principled opponents of invasion could, at the time, have fit on a cocktail napkin.

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:45:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  All lies (10+ / 0-)

              She voted for a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.  Using that as an excuse was because she was either too lazy to read all the evidence against the lies or because she was a coward.  And since she has never been accused of being lazy, that leaves coward who took a politically expedient vote.  

              Does not mean I will not vote for her if she is the nominee but it is why I did not vote for her in the 2008 primaries.

            •  Great comment on the Iraq resolution (4+ / 0-)
              The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
              Tom Harkin, who is no hawk, voted for the resolution with assurances from the White House that they just needed the authorization to strengthen their hand in negotiating with Saddam Hussein.
              •  Would YOU have believed "assurances" (6+ / 0-)

                from the Bush White House about anything at all? I doubt it; you seem reality-based.

                What does it say about Sen. Harkin or anyone else that they DID "believe" those assurances? Anyone who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq did it for one of three reasons: they supported the war, they were gullible to the point of idiocy, or they were disingenuous for cynical political reasons.

                I don't know which of those is the worst... but I do know that none of them cast the warmongers in a favorable light.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:58:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Mmyeah... (4+ / 0-)

                  As I remember it, the entire press establishment was challenging the PNAC lies wholesale, the American public was clamoring for reason and peace...

                  ... and a flight of small piglets was circling over your house, awaiting landing clearance.

                  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

                  •  Did YOU believe Powell and Bush and the rest (10+ / 0-)

                    of the motherfucking liars? No one is disputing that the American press and much of the American people were gung-ho in favor of killing some Muslims and didn't much care who they were...

                    but 23 Senators--21 of them Democrats--managed to buck that ugly mood and vote against the Iraq War Resolution. Ms. Clinton had plenty of political cover to justify a "no" vote, but she opted for the destruction of Iraq anyway.

                    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                    by PhilJD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:22:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The old saying (6+ / 0-)

                      "Just because your friend jumps off of a bridge...."

                      Victim of the system~Bob Marley

                      by LaEscapee on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:34:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  She only (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      atana, cocinero, SmallTownTexan

                      "opted for the destruction of Iraq" in your fervid imagination... certainly, NOT in her floor statement!

                      I'd have preferred a "no" vote, but a list of the things I prefer would exceed the word limit (if there is one).

                      In the face of what the GOP has to offer, cling tightly to your idealist's grudge... if it keeps you warm at night.

                      •  What's with the overuse (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PhilJD, DeadHead, Aunt Martha

                        of the word "cling" in this context already? I've seen it put up in discussion in this fashion no less than 3 times in the last 24 hours.

                        New meme of some sort in the making?  

                        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                        by lunachickie on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:40:22 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm confident her floor statement brought (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        greenbell, Aunt Martha, Portlaw

                        enormous comfort to the parents of dismembered Iraqi kids.

                        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                        by PhilJD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:43:12 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're referring, no doubt, (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          atana, Ga6thDem, SmallTownTexan

                          to the dismembered and murdered Iraqi children, their maimed and murdered parents — numbering in the hundreds of thousands — and the nearly 5,000 Americans who were "dispatched" by a gang of war criminals who'd lobbied unsuccessfully for the invasion of Iraq for more than a decade (Google PNAC), were first blown off by Bush, Sr., then by Clinton, but finally hit the jackpot with a useful idiot when Junior stumbled into the White House.

                          If you're gonna point a finger at culpable perpetrators, make sure it's pointed at the criminal fuckers who ENGINEERED the nightmare, not the (frequently) weak-kneed legislators who were hoodwinked by them... along with most of the American people.

                          ... and don't forget honorable mention for the slap-happy, stenographic "news" industry that — with a few outstanding exceptions — was too busy feeding off the tragedy of 9/11 for "human interest" splashes to ask any fucking hard questions of those "engineers".

                          Get your 'bad guys' straight if you wanna dance.

                      •  so where was her Apology in 2008? (8+ / 0-)

                        She defended it, because she was a hawk.

                        Had she said "It was a terrible mistake", ok.

                        Had she said "They lied to my face", Ok.

                        But she said "If you want an apology, find another candidate".

                        And she still won't say it was wrong.

                        When the big calls have come, she's blown them.

                        She blew TARP. She Blew Iraq, She Blew Bankruptcy.

                        Name a big call she got right?

                        •  Well, despite her past as a "Goldwater girl," (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          TheMomCat, DeadHead, enhydra lutris

                          Ms. Clinton DID eventually become a Democrat.

                          In the eyes of some here, that's the only damn thing that matters.

                          Name a big call she got right?

                          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                          by PhilJD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:07:40 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. Cuomo is a Democrat in name only (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            He would be a horrific candidate for us.  That is not the case with Hillary Clinton, whether you care to admit it or not.  

                          •  Just because Cuomo would be a horrific (4+ / 0-)

                            candidate doesn't mean Clinton would not also be a horrific candidate.  It's not a zero sum game.

                          •  Well, I was responding about a poster that (7+ / 0-)

                            essentially claimed that HRC was a Democrat in name only, nothing could be further from the truth.  That is true, however, for Cuomo.

                            As for "horrific," most Progressives disagree with you.  Indeed, all the polls have shown that Hillary Clinton becomes more popular (and is more seen as the desired candidate for the general) the further left on the ideological spectrum one goes.   Check out the latest PPP poll for verification, but all other polls show the same thing.   Thus, it might be so for you personally, just not for the vast majority of your fellow Progressives.      

                          •  What those polls show is that she is currently (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD, DeadHead, CenPhx, patbahn

                            popular.  That has nothing to do with a) whether or not she will be popular when it actually matters in terms of running for president, and b) whether or not she would be horrific.

                          •  You are wrong (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            atana, skohayes, Ga6thDem, cpresley, Lysis

                            She is extremely popular with Democrats, and it isn't even remotely close to the next name Democrats (i.e. VP Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Patrick, O'Malley, Gillibrand, etc.)  

                            It is downright silly to claim that polls that ask specifically WHICH CANDIDATE the polled person wants to see us nominate as our representative in the general election is merely a poll about "popularity," as in "personal popularity."   No, that is not at all what the polls are addressing.   Going way beyond "personal popularity" they ask specifically about the 2016 election and preferences for that election.  

                            And, of course, it is clear that if 80% of Progressives WANT her to be our candidate, it implies that those people DON'T think that she is "horrific," quite the opposite.   Heck, even of the 20% who aren't quite onboard with her as a candidate I would imagine only a tiny minority to consider her as "horrific."   Apparently you do, but that is your personal issue, not an issue the vast majority of us Progressives have.      

                          •  Which polls are you referring to, exactly? (0+ / 0-)

                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:52:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The PPP poll has the best detailed crosstabs (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cpresley, atana

                            but you get the same kind of info from the ABC/WaPo poll and the CNN/ORC poll when you look at the crosstabs.   I can link to the PDFs for each of those polls, as I have done before.  

                          •  Where did I say that she's not popular (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            with Democrats?  I didn't.  What I did say is that that's meaningless at the moment, when it's more than 2 years before the next presidential election.  As I recall, she was popular with Democrats long prior to the 2008 election, and we can see where that got her.

                            So if you want to claim that her popularity now means anything in terms of 2016, then the only person being "silly," to quote you, is you.  Enjoy it.

                            As for your 80% of Progressives, you mean that of the 416 Democratic voters polled nationally, with a margin of error of +/- 4.8%, 77% of the 11% who identify themselves as "very liberal" have a favorable opinion of her?  That's just a resounding piece of evidence to support your argument.

                          •  We know her very well. So, it is in no way (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            skohayes, cocinero, cpresley, atana, Lysis

                            meaningless.   She wasn't nearly as popular with Democrats, and specifically Progressives, in the run-up to the 2008 election.   Besides, her losing to Obama in no way meant that she lost it with Democrats.  It was a close election, Obama was just that transcendental candidate we only see once in generation.  He was also right for the times, after 8 years of Bush the country was ready "Change and Hope."   2016 is an entirely different type of election, one in which we are asking the American voters to stay the charted course, keep the direction, on Obamacare, jobs effort, while the GOP will bash and claim they have a better solution for jobs.  It will be them trying to sell "Change and Hope" this time.  

                            BTW, most people in the know are convinced that she would easily win the nomination, if she runs (amongst them Markos, Howard Dean, etc.)  so how is that for "silly"?   Enjoy, indeed.   To use Kos' words, you are in the "deep minority" here.  

                            As for polls, are you SERIOUSLY going to try to "unskew" the polls we have seen?   4 polls have been published over the last 3 weeks, all of them test the Democratic nomination by presenting Democratic voters with names and ask to state a preference.   ALL of them show the same things.   Hillary Clinton gets about 75% of Democrats to prefer her over any other candidate (with Biden and Warren getting about 7% to 9% and candidates like Gillibrand, O'Malley, Schweitzer, Patrick, Cuomo, Warner showing dismal support of around 1% each.)     but, more importantly to the context I presented, crosstabs show that while Mark Warner and Biden get into the low teens with moderate/centrist Democrats, Hillary Clinton's support goes UP the further left on the ideological spectrum you move.    ALL 4 POLLS show the same thing.  The EXACT SAME THING.    

                              So, while you parse and unskew, perhaps you want to take a step back and review reality.  

                          •  She's Inevitable. (0+ / 0-)

                            we Heard that in 2006 too.

                        •  How would an apology change anything? (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          atana, StillAmused, cocinero, cpresley

                          Everyone fell all over themselves to "forgive" John Edwards when he groveled for votes by apologizing for his AUMF vote (and never brought up the fact he was a cosponsor of the vote).
                          There is no point in her groveling for votes like Edwards, they would just find something else to attack her for.

                          Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                          by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:35:12 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It would go a long way towards... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Repairing the damage that it clearly caused with a lot of people.

                            But you're right, why should she bother trying to atone for that vote?

                            She doesn't need the votes of such grudge-holding whiners, so why should she ask grovel for them?

                            She's got plenty to spare.

                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:48:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it's called learning from Mistakes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            HRC does not admit to mistakes, she does not
                            learn to question her thought process.

                          •  She's admitted to plenty of mistakes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            even her Iraq war vote.

                            Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote, and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

                            Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                            by skohayes on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:00:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Talk about Clintonian. (0+ / 0-)

                            She's blaming a lack of information
                            as opposed to saying "With the information,
                            I had I made the wrong call".

                          •  Semantics (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            It's the same thing.

                            Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                            by skohayes on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:24:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  because The Clintons could never take the hit (0+ / 0-)

                            That's why they weren't liked.

                          •  Hmmm... (0+ / 0-)

                            Bill Clinton: 66% approval, overall (NYT/CBS, last)

                            Hillary Clinton: 59% approval, current overall (Gallup)

                            Then, there's you...

                          •  Ask Bill Dale. (0+ / 0-)


                            The White House travel office controversy, sometimes referred to as Travelgate,[1][2] was the first major ethics controversy of the Clinton administration. It began in May 1993, when seven employees of the White House Travel Office were fired. This action was unusual because although theoretically staff employees serve at the pleasure of the President and could be dismissed without cause, in practice, such employees usually remain in their posts for many years.
                            The White House stated the firings were done because financial improprieties in the Travel Office operation during previous administrations had been revealed by an FBI investigation. Critics contended the firings were done to allow friends of President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to take over the travel business and that the involvement of the FBI was unwarranted. Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role.
                            They indicted this poor SOB because they couldn't take the hit of firing a half dozen people to replace with their friends.

                            The guy was an at-will employee, all they had to say was "We are re-organizing this office, the Press travel will run
                            independent of the EOP, and it's being moved over to the Press Club".

                            Instead they sacked him and sicced the FBI on him.

                          •  You left this out... (0+ / 0-)

                            — Independent Counsel Concluded Decision To Fire Employees Was Lawful. In a June 2000 report on the firings of White House Travel Office employees, Robert Ray, a Republican-appointed independent counsel assigned to investigate the Clintons, wrote that the decision to fire the employees was "lawful" and that "the evidence is insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt" that either former White House director of administration David Watkins or Hillary Clinton "committed perjury or obstruction of justice during the course of their testimony before GAO, the Congress, and this investigation." [Media Matters, 10/18/07]

                            ... but, please, proceed with your obsession.

                          •  nobody disputes they could have fired Bill Dale. (0+ / 0-)
                            This action was unusual because although theoretically staff employees serve at the pleasure of the President and could be dismissed without cause,
                            what was so lousy was they smeared him and ruined
                            him to avoid the hit for sacking him.
                          •  Politics ain't beanbag. (0+ / 0-)

                            Compared to the hundreds of thousands DEAD and maimed, thanks to the previous occupants at 1600 Pennsylvania, Dale got off easy.

                            Keep your outrage stoked... you can get even (if and) when Hillary faces one of the character-impaired cases of arrested development warming up in the GOP bullpen.

                            You'll show 'er.

                          •  why yes, Bill Dale was a Politician (0+ / 0-)

                            Why I believe he had been elected to , oh, that's right.
                            He was an at-will employee of the white house,
                            just like cooks, chefs, gardeners, drivers,
                            secretaries, and a few hundred other functionaries.

                            Nobody disputed The President could have fired him, or
                            asked for his resignation or even just re-orged him out
                            of a job.

                            What was so sleazy was the guy was popular with the press.
                            HRC wanted to put her friends into that gig.

                            Nothing wrong with that.

                            Instead of saying "We have decided to outsource this
                            function, we thank you for your service, you are welcome
                            to apply to the new vendor for a job",  they smeared
                            him and got him indicted.

                            Now look, There is a lot of beanball in politics, and
                            sure, you catch "Pete Russo" drunk in a car with a call girl,
                            or Larry Craig ina  mens room or Wilbur Mills with
                            a stripper in the tidal basin,  that may come out later.

                            but some functionary, who is an at-will employee?
                            and instead of just asking for their resignation, you
                            get them indicted?

                            I've worked with lots of congressional employees, and one day they are there, one day they are gone. It's a big kids
                            racket and, the boss gets sick of them, or a bell goes off
                            in their head and they are sacked.

                            lots of white house staffers get into some minor scrape.
                            A pissing match with a general, a minor to-do with a diplomat,  they get asked to resign, hell, sometimes it's just
                            a budget problem.  

                            Do they get indicted for that?

                            Can you see what's so wrong about that?

                          •  Since I don't know any of the players (0+ / 0-)

                            personally (or the granular, inside details of the story), I'll meet you halfway and concede the guy got a raw deal.

                            ... one of the reasons why, after decades as an unpaid advisor to campaigns, manager of one and longtime campaign media producer, I never sought — and wouldn't have accepted — a patronage job.

                            In the light of what I see from the Republicans... their chronic dishonesty, harboring of certifiable nut-jobs and willingness to crash the economy out of sheer malice (not to mention TWO fabricated, murderous occupations that warrant war-crimes trials)... I find myself in a very forgiving mood concerning a couple of insignificant personal peccadillos and a touch of political hardball.

                            ... and I'm a fool for genuinely smart players, warts and all (as opposed to well-rehearsed parrots).

                            "The perfect is enemy of the good."

                            We'll let it rest there.

                          •  Richard Nixon was Smart (0+ / 0-)

                            Raw Deal.  Sacking an at-will employee a year
                            before they qualify for their pension

                            Raw Deal. Telling somone "Get this done" and then
                            sacking them because the wolves are baying for their head.

                            Raw Deal.  Promising someone a Position, a promotion,
                            and then having to give it to someone else for purely
                            political reasons  

                            If you watch "House of Cards", lots of people get raw deals

                            But let me explain something

                            No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
                            Taking someone who is "Inconvenient" and throwing them
                            into the grinder?

                            To seek to jail someone who is "Inconvenient"?

                            This is Nixonian.  THis is what Karl Rove used to do.

                            How is that different then to what happened to
                            Don Siegelman,  but, Dale was a nobody.

                            A pipsqueak, who could be fired at any time, was arrested,
                            fingerprinted, indicted. Forced to hire a lawyer? Faced
                            criminal charges?

                            Please, I respected Nixon for being smart, and doing
                            positive things, like the EPA, but, i was cheering
                            when he was facing impeachment.

                          •  Are you related? (0+ / 0-)

                            ... or does Dale owe you money?

                            Please... ENOUGH!

                          •  It's just the wrongest thing in the world. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you want to measure character, look at how someone
                            has wielded power.

                            Would you want to be working somewhere and instead of
                            your boss laying you off, they trump up charges and
                            have you arrested, solely because they don't want to
                            pay Unemployment?

                          •  PROVE TO ME (0+ / 0-)

                            that he was arrested because they didn't want to pay unemployment! Was it gonna come out of THEIR pockets? Do you REALLY think they gave a fuck about unemployment?

                            You're OBSESSED... seek treatment.

                            ... and, if you wanna talk about "the wrongest thing in the world", take a peek at the hundreds of thousands killed and maimed — U.S. military and civilians — in Iraq and Afghanistan. THAT'S HOW I MEASURE LACK OF "character" and how CRIMINALS "wield power", and the sonsofbitches aren't getting as much flak as you're raining on the Clintons.

                            GO THE FUCK AWAY. Click "hide" on this comment if it'll relieve your distress.

                          •  sit down with any criminal defendant (0+ / 0-)

                            who has been smashed by the system, solely for the

                            bureaucratic convenience?

                            If i can chose between Wrong and More Wrong, I will
                            chose true.

                            and if you don't think HRC never saw a war they didn't like,
                            well, she was the one voting for the Iraq war.

                            so those maimed and dead, she helped pull the trigger.

                          •  Your circuits are FRIED! (0+ / 0-)

                            I asked you to PROVE Dale was prosecuted in order to deprive him of unemploymentYOUR CLAIM! — and you went wandering off into the underbrush, waxing incoherent.

                            You're spinning your wheels here. Go take action on your neuroses... volunteer with Li'l Randy's campaign, or Teddy 'Gaucho' Cruz, or one of the other off-the-wall, end-of-the-world crazies. That'll show 'em!

                            ... or, as an alternative, have yourself checked for brain dysfunction. Your psychotic belief that HRC "pulled the trigger" on Iraq displays not only an abject ignorance of the events that led to Junior's excellent invasion and occupation — the historical documentation is readily available — but, as well, an inability to comprehend what you read in my ORIGINAL comment.

                            The Koch brothers DREAM of assholes like yourself — pedal to the metal on a dead-end railroad siding — when they tuck themselves in at night after a nice cocktail.

                            IMPORTANT NOTICE: END OF THREAD! Direct all further prattle into the mouth of the nearest subway tunnel.

                          •  please don't build strawmen. (0+ / 0-)

                            I said Dale was indicted because it was more
                            convenient then firing him.

                            I then drew an analogy to someone getting indicted
                            because their boss doesn't want to pay Unemployment.

                            That's where you went insane.

                            I'm sorry you went off the rails.

                            Just because I don't care for someone who is
                            greedy, votes for the Iraq war, seeks to
                            enrich bankers, takes Banker money,

                            doesn't mean i'm voting for Cruz, or Rubio.

                          •  That's the most laughable comment (0+ / 0-)

                            I've read on Daily Kos in a long time!

                            Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                            by skohayes on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 02:04:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  If it's "idealist" to expect Democrats (5+ / 0-)

                        to recognize and push back against right-wing lies, then I'm proud to consider myself an idealist.

                •  You (6+ / 0-)

                  know what? Hindsight is 20/20 and in hindsight no one should have trusted Bush but something like 90% of the country trusted him.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:07:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I get what you are saying about the WH (6+ / 0-)

                  but don't forget that the person who made these assurances stick the most was Colin Powell, who at the time was highly respected, including from the left, as an honest person, someone with impeccable integrity.  

                  Many of those voting against the war resolution did so out of principle of avoiding war at all cost, even if WMD were found as claimed, not necessarily because they were questioning the evidence presented.    Later it became clear what had happened, but I confess that when it was first presented I did not question it with the fervor hindsight allows today, primarily because I thought Colin Powell had integrity.   He was nothing but a damn liar, doing the dirty work for Bush/Cheney.  

                  BTW, anyone believing that Bush would NOT have gone to war all by his lonesome (with 85% of the country backing him) had the Senate voted against going to war is not really in tune with reality, IMHO.    That does not mean that the players should not be held accountable for their votes, but HRCs Iraq vote is obviously baked in by now, yet virtually 80% of Progressives want her to be our candidate over anyone else, including Warren and Biden.   Harping on it now when it is already included in our overall knowledge of the possible candidate, and has been for a dozen of years, is not very effective, IMO.    

              •  so it was right, because everyone else was (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, Portlaw, CenPhx

                doing it?

                Don't we tell kids to resist peer pressure?

                Shouldn't a US Senator, especially one who was a
                first lady be more capable of withstanding peer pressure?

                Byrd gave the best speech of his career when he said
                "Even if only one old man stands, I remember the vietnam war".  It's a paraphrase, but he was dead on.

              •  Wellstone, Dayton and Ellison voted against it (0+ / 0-)

                How it nice it was to have had 3 genuine progressives representing me in Minnesota at the time.  I fear the vote from the 2 Senators representing me today would not be the same.  

              •  Without wanting to involve myself too deeply here (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Portlaw, StillAmused, greenbell

                I think Harkin's motives are suspect here. He may not have been a hawk but he was a Senator in a crucial swing state in a tight re-election contest and he probably voted for IWR because his campaign team was telling him he'd be toast if he didn't. Only one Senator seeking re-election that year didn't vote for the IWR and that was Paul Wellstone (who was in a similar situation but stayed true to his principles). Harkin probably sought assurances from the White House in the hope that they could be believed but I think he must have known in his heart that they wouldn't be honoured

                With Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and John Edwards, there were Democratic "strategists" and political consultants running left, right and centre telling them they had to vote for IWR or their presidential ambitions would be over. I can't remember who it was in Clinton's office whom I read about employing this tactic but Bob Shrum was telling it to Edwards and Kerry also had a key strategist (can't recall his name but he was fired later during the campaign) who was feeding him the same line.

              •  So was Jack Reed more astute than Hillary? (0+ / 0-)
            •  Look, I'll support her if she's the nominee but (6+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilJD, TFinSF, lunachickie, patbahn, hooper, askew

              your defense of her is that she didn't want war, she just willing put what she described as "awesome responsibility" regarding choosing when and how to go to war with Iraq in the hands of George W. Bush?

              Isn't that more dangerous than giving your 8-year-old a handgun and telling him to be careful?

            •  Millions of principled opponents of invasion (11+ / 0-)

              were out in the streets protesting the coming destruction of Iraq. I was one of them.. as were many other Kossacks.

              That's a pretty fucking big cocktail napkin.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:48:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  and HRC was the one defending that in 2008 (7+ / 0-)



              Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.

              Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

              Edwards voted for the Iraq War and gave a clear
              apology calling it "His Greatest Mistake".

              and Do you hear her distancing herself from Drone Bombing?

            •  you write that it (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, hooper, PhilJD
              So easy to dismiss and forget New York's trauma
              I certainly don't forget it. Nor do I dismiss it. Far from it.I saw the towers go down. And for that reason, I and many other New Yorkers have never forgiven her for that vote.  She's either a hawk, stupid, or politically expedient or perhaps any combination of those.
          •  Pickin' and a-grinnin' (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            howie14, Ga6thDem, mdriftmeyer

            PICK those talking points. GRIN while you make sure that we wait through 8 long years of Obama's frozen government policies let the economy stall ever since the first and only round of stimulus.

            She may or may not invade Iran, but I know one thing she'll do: Twist some fucking arms, starting with the odious Blue Dogs. Hillary will either pound the podiums in every Blue Dog district in time for their various primaries, or else the threat to do so will be enough to make them fucking vote her way--or they lose their goddamned jobs.

            Hillary knows how to make a mandate work. And not just because her husband knows, too.

            "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

            by DaddyO on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:32:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, that explains how we got HillaryCare (7+ / 0-)

              and all of those other Progressive Clinton policies through Congress.


              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:34:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cazcee, skohayes

                If Hillary is elected I expect her to get, on a scale of 1 to 10 for cooperation from fellow politicians...maybe a 3.

                Right now Obama gets on a good day -1 cooperation.

                Bill Clinton on a good day got about 5, on a bad day (blue dress) 2.

                Bush, before 9/11 he got 7 after 9/11 he could have told the populace that he wanted to be made king and have us all salute him at high noon and he would have gotten it.

                Dems will never have cooperation.  Just how much obstruction they get depends on the reasons why they are hated by the right.

                •  Ah. An optimist. (0+ / 0-)

                  I expect, on your scale, that Hillary will get -3 cooperation to begin with, and that it will decrease as long as Republicans can hold on to 41 Senate seats, unless we nuke the filibuster on legislation and get rid of blue slips for judicial nominations. Not that Republicans actually hate women more than Blacks, of course. The Tea Parties have just gotten that much worse over time, and clearly will continue to get ever louder and ever nastier as they shrink toward irrelevance, and drive more and more voters to Democrats.

                  Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                  by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:50:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I would love to be an optimist, (0+ / 0-)

                    but what scenario would drive more voters to Democrats? Those on the right are clinging tightly with everything they've got--they only know how to hate, the House is gerrymandered, and the states are under Republican voter suppression, and now, the voting machine tampering brigade.

                    How long is this country going to be on this hellish racist carnival ride? I am so tired of hearing how "the Obama Economy" is terrible, and how "Obama Policies" are steering the country in the wrong the Right is entitled to its justified anger. I resent the "Hating Patriots". They have been sufficiently successful in preventing economic recovery and they have stolen this nation of its potential for greater good

                    "The devil can quote Scripture to serve his own purposes."

                    by SpringHopeCarolina on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:34:12 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is an observed fact (0+ / 0-)

                      in fact, many observed facts in many polls over decades, that the Right has been losing millions of its children and grandchildren every year on all of the major issues, and has only been able to make up the difference in gerrymanders and voter suppression. (See Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 for examples.) Millions more Democrats went to the polls than Republicans in 2012. The Republicans only hold the House through electoral shenanigans, which can only hold on against the rising tide for so long before they collapse completely.

                      It will look like the Marriage Equality fight, where one side had it all their way until the tipping point, and then started losing regularly in legislative and popular votes, administrations declining to defend unconstitutional laws and state Constitutional amendments, and the courts. Marriage Equality will become settled law either when the Supreme Court takes it up, or when pending cases get to every Circuit Court of Appeals, as two have done in the Tenth (Utah and Oklahoma), and one is about to in the Fourth (Virginia). Unless all of the states in some circuit go voluntarily.

                      Romney won only one swing state in 2012, North Carolina. All of the others are trending Blue, and various Red states are turning purple. When Texas goes (as Battleground Texas intends to be sooner rather than later), there will be no path for a Republican to become President.

                      Republicans have declared open war on everybody, including each other. There is no segment of society that the Party is willing to recruit, in the manner of the Reagan Democrats, in the environment in which the Tea Parties are attempting to purge everybody else.

                      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                      by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 06:52:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I doubt it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              patbahn, greenbell

              What makes you so sure she is not a Blue Dog?

            •  How is Hillary not a Blue Dog? (0+ / 0-)
          •  You are wrong (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana, cpresley, skohayes, Lysis

            On Iran she backed Obama's push for diplomacy and rebuked the efforts of the 15 Democratic Senators who were seeking to pass a highly destructive (to the diplomatic efforts) tough new sanctions bill that would have led to war if the conditions of the sanctions weren't met.  If you read the bill, it was practically impossible for Iran to keep to the conditions of the sanctions, so war would be right around the corner.  

            Those Democrats have since backed off after a stern rebuke from Obama, and his vow to veto the bill if it came to his desk, but they were ready for war sooner rather than later with that bill.   Hillary Clinton's statement serves as a rebuke of them, and a strong backing of a diplomatic response rather than tough sanctions that would lead to war in short order.    BTW, Kirsten Gillibrand co-sponsored that bill.  

            So much for hardcore hawk.   She is not a dove, but her tenure as SoS was marked by her insistence to give diplomacy first, second and third chances before going to sanctions, then war, a welcome change from the previous regime.  


          •  You forgot "Where do you stand on (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            deregulation?", "Where do you stand on the TPP?", "Where do you stand on corporate welfare?", etc.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:29:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Please quote (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          because sexism never, ever plays a role where Hillary is concerned.
          The text where I state this.  Otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion is that you're suffering from HDS.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:56:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana, floridageorge, cpresley, skohayes
            A smaller contingent are convinced that HRC didn't actually support the Iraq war, but she was forced to stand by her vote because she needed to convince those with sexist preconceptions of her "toughness".  
            (bold added)

            You manufactured the quote to "explain" why some here supported HRC, that is, you made the claim that some of her supporters gave her pass on her vote on Iraq by claiming justification against sexism.  I didn't support the war or Clinton in 2008, in part, because of her vote on Bush's war.  But to pretend that the hurdle of sexism is only a manufactured one by those who support her is disingenuous, and deserved atana's snarky retort.

            The terrible sexism that permeated this place in 2008 was horrifying.  The words people used to describe her or her policy choices were embarrassing and unforgivable, because they were directed at her as a woman, as a wife, as a mother.   Not as a centrist politician.  

            We were guilty of CDS then, and I'm sorry to say, it still exists, just as racism still does.  I wish we could simply argue merit, policy history.  

            But you brought up the word "sexism" in your original comment, even if it was to deny it exists, suggest it's a false defense, or pretend it doesn't matter.

            "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:41:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is what I love about HRC supporters (0+ / 0-)

              You are so predictable.  Anyone doesn't support your candidate, it must be because that person is a sexist, or doesn't accept that sexism exists (a variant of the sexist charge), or some other hooey.

              I did not question the existence of sexists who question any woman's toughness.  My problem is with Hillary trying to appease these sexists with belligerent policies.  (if that really is what she's doing.  I suspect she's just a warmonger at heart).

              It's an elementary distinction, so I don't believe you don't understand it.  I think you just find it comfortable to tell yourself that anyone critical of HRC is a sexist.  That's a lot easier than it is to accept the flaws in your favorite candidate.

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:28:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You make grandiose statements not based on fact (0+ / 0-)
                "This is what I love about HRC supporters",
                Did you not read that I did not support Senator Clinton in 2008, and I consider her a centrist?  In fact I wrote a diary criticizing her in 2008.  

                You clearly don't read closely and write in a broad brush that reflects your intellectual sloppiness.  

                And for the record, my favorite candidate is....wait for it...Elizabeth Warren, who will not run.

                Have a good day, and I hope you consider rethinking and rereading what you post, before you do.

                "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

                by Uncle Moji on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:48:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I don't hate Hillary Clinton (11+ / 0-)

          but I have sincere concerns about both foreign and domestic policy in a Clinton administration, just as I would in, say, a Dianne Feinstein or Evan Bayh administration (to name a couple of corporatist Dems who voted for the Iraq resolution). Fortunately I'm not faced with a choice of Feinstein or Bayh in 2016. And if Clinton is the nominee I will probably vote for her, though being in a safe state I could probably get away with abstaining by leaving the choice blank if I really felt a vote for her would go against my principles (such as they are).

          I'm not going to deny that sexism may play a role in some people's opinion of Hillary Clinton (just as racism may play a role in some criticisms of Obama), but it's not the case for everyone.

          There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

          by Cali Scribe on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:33:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tipped n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:47:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I live in Illinois, also a very "safe" state... (6+ / 0-)

            and I'm among those who will find it very difficult to vote for Hillary Clinton if she indeed is the Democratic nominee in 2016.

            I'm sorry, but my opposition to the destruction of Iraq was neither transitory nor something to be mitigated by other concerns.

            Ms. Clinton's support for that immoral war is a deal-killer for me, until such time as she convincingly renounces it. "Convincingly" means for me her acknowledgement that she knew full well there were no WMDs in Iraq and voted to authorize our intervention anyway, for reasons of craven political calculation. A politician can--I guess--be redeemed from that sort of cynical vote, but only by means of sincere, heartfelt and brutally honest apology. It's not enough for her to "admit" she fucked up; she needs to explain without spin exactly why she did it.

            The alternative--that she truly believed the lies of Powell, Bush et al--is a deal-killer in a different way. I knew beyond any doubt that the lies were lies; I would have bet my house and my cats that nothing would be found, with complete confidence in winning that bet. If Clinton somehow looked at the same facts and managed to draw a different conclusion, she simply isn't qualified to be the leader of the sole remaining superpower.

            I's possible I would decide differently if I lived elsewhere. I live where I live though, and the ball's in her court.

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:11:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  For me it's not just her support for the Bush war (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilJD, Aunt Martha, Cali Scribe, Portlaw

              against Iraq. It's also the intermittent bombing of the place under the bizarre "no fly zone." And the sanctions which barred the Iraqis from obtaining medical supplies and materials to repair their sanitation system - a form of biological warfare that had the effect of killing 500,000 children, "a price worth paying" according to Bill Clinton's Secretary of State.

          •  America doesn't have a foreign policy. (0+ / 0-)

            It has domestic concerns that sometimes involve other nations.

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

            by Anne Elk on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:28:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I was wondering when this would bubble to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead, hooper

          surface. Bwahahahahaha.  You just won yourself a kewpie doll.

          Neoliberal, establishment, third way new dem, imperialist hawk, free trader who happens to be female is, first and formost, perhaps exclusively, a woman.  Bwahahahahahaha.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:46:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And yet she beats every Republican (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and every Democrat too, if it comes to that.

            That must be very galling to you. We are going to have a woman in the Oval Office for the first time in this country.

            It's our turn.

            •  The only thing galling to me is that we cannot (0+ / 0-)

              do better than her politics, your sleazy insinuation to the contrary.

              We used to hear how all criticism of Obama was racist, and at that time I knew that we'd hear this simplistic bullshit about Hillary too, because defending her politics is so difficult.

              But, I can easily find a ton of folks here who criticise both Obama and Hillary who have nothing but praise for Barbara Lee. Hate to bust your bubble, but you'll have to find some real arguments, becasue baseless sleazt accusations are simply that, and simpl;y discredit the maker.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:55:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You think she cares about you? (0+ / 0-)
              •  When I was little, my father told me no woman (0+ / 0-)

                could ever be president because "women are crazy every month".

                For the sake of all little girls to come, I want it in their history lessons that America has had a woman president.

                •  Doesn't matter who it is, or whether (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  she's best choice policy-wise.

                  You're voting for her gender.

                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:30:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ah, male privilege! (0+ / 0-)

                    It's what's for dinner every day on DK...

                    •  You forgot... (0+ / 0-)

                      "Hillary Hater," I think. You're slackin'.

                      Sorry, there was no "male privilege" exhibited in my comment, despite your efforts to declare otherwise.

                      My first sentence had to do with policy, which has no gender, and therefore cannot have "male privilege," ascribed to it.

                      My second sentence was an observation about the motivations behind YOUR vote, based on your prior comment above. I'm confident I can find more than couple women who will reach a similar conclusion.

                      By the way, I'm fully aware of how you operate. I've seen you in action several times before. You will play the "male privilege/sexist" card at every available opportunity.

                      So I don't plan on engaging with you after this, if I can help it. I'm not really sure why I did this time. Your tactics are toxic to this debate.

                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:20:23 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  HRC advised President Obama to wage war.. (16+ / 0-)

        ..against Syria.

        No one disputes this.

        A vote for HRC is a vote for the reactionary, intransigent wing of the Democratic Party.

        HRC inevitable?

        That's what they said back in 2007, when Intrade listed her at 90% to win the presidency.

        Dems can and will do so much better.

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

        by PatriciaVa on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:28:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rec x 1000 (7+ / 0-)

        I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, no matter who is running against her.

      •  I'll add this little nugget: at some point some (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean, lunachickie, hooper, askew

        will make the claim that Hillary owns the economic success of the 1990s. Even though she was elected to as much responsibility as Socks the cat was, she gets credit. For reasons.

        Oops. Already happened in this FP post.  

      •  we have to elect (10+ / 0-)

        a LOT of progressives, not just a few.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:39:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't have any illusions about her politics (13+ / 0-)

        Except that

        1) She is tough as nails and will stand up where, perhaps, Obama hasn't always

        2) She has been progressive on women's rights throughout the world and I promise this sexual assault in the military thing gets addessed

        3) I have no doubt she is going to be able to get some things done- you could have the most progressive person in the world but if they can't get stuff done, it doesn't matter  

      •  There's Definitely Different Types of HDS (7+ / 0-)

        or as I prefer: Hillary Denial Syndrome. i.e. IF elected, she'll not govern more or less exactly like the fence sitting conservative in the position now.

        that's exactly what she'll do, so I'm not interested in supporting her.

        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

        by Superpole on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:02:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  hijack (0+ / 0-)

        with this comment you have shifted the topic from rightwing delusion about HRC to your critique of her.

        This is a classic hijack. This diary idn't about you, and your issue.

      •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        People have their opinions. I think people who think Hillary is going  to be the shining progressive savior we need after the triangulating of Obama will be as disappointed as those who thought Obama would be able to wave a wand and fix things. But no one here thinks Clinton-era scandals that didn't impact BILL Clinton's popularity are going to be what sinks Hillary. Well, I suppose there are a handful of doomsters who do, but these are the people who think everything will always go wrong for us.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

        by anastasia p on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:42:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder how some here will cope if she (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        becomes our nominee.  It sure looks like she will be, given that she will have both Obamas by her side, all 16 Democratic women in the Senate (including Warren and Gillibrand) will endorse her as soon as she declares - they all signed a letter urging Hillary Clinton to run.

        Some here appear to be filled with so much disgust and blank hate when they write about her that it seems basically impossible for those individuals to pivot back to a position that does not distract from the stated mission of this site.  I am not talking about posters who have specific positions of disagreement with her while maintaining a level of respect for our likely nominee, but a lot of the posts I am seeing are akin to right-wing blogger posts in their tenor making this strong Democrat and in many ways strong Progressive out to be some sort of "devil."   It is fine for now, she hasn't even declared yet, but once it becomes clear that she will be our nominee (and that point might be much sooner than might usually be the case, depending on endorsements and the like) it really helps nobody here to continue to read posts that are indistinguishable from right-wing attack posts.  

        •  Coping is easy enough (0+ / 0-)

          I'll vote for her in the general, no problem there.  But there is no way in holy hell that I do anything beyond that for her.  After her resort to racism in the 2008 primaries, I have nothing but disgust and contempt for the Clintons.  She couldn't even bring herself to confirm that Obama was born in the USA.  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:37:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Berg thing? Really? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Link please about your claim that "she couldn't even bring herself to confirm that Obama was born in the USA."  Seems like another ridiculous thing to bash her with, but let's have a link to verify this.    

            If what you claim were true it is hardly possible that Obama would make her his Secretary of State.  They are best of friends.  It is also clear that both Obamas would immediately support Hillary Clinton, were she to declare, and campaign for her.    

            So, how would you cope in terms of posting on this site?  I mean, if she runs and wins the nom, this site would dedicate a good portion of its coverage to electing Hillary Clinton (who Kos predicts will be a "great President,) writing frontpage articles about various GOPers attacking her from different angles,  and fighting her opponent every day.  We would be dissecting GE polls primarily for the presidential race (then secondary for Senate and House  races).   Would you just not post, or post "warnings" about her lack of appeal to this or that group, how much she is wrong for us?  

              I think it is fair to ask that question now, because she polls so far ahead of everybody else, and she has such a strong level of support from the major players at this early stage (likely both Obamas, all 16 female Democratic Senators, including Warren and Gillibrand, Howard Dean, DeBlasio, etc.) that it is likely to keep most viable candidates, who might have some level of infrastructure potentially capable of putting up a fight, out of the race (i.e. perhaps Biden, Dean, O'Malley, Warner, Cuomo.)

            •  When asked if Obama was born in Kenya, (0+ / 0-)

              HRC's craven response was "Not as far as I know".  

              She just couldn't bring herself to confirm he was an American-born citizen.

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 06:34:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you have a cite for that? (0+ / 0-)

                I don't recall that question being asked, though it sounds remarkably similar to her answer to another question, which was shamelessly distorted by Obama supporters at the time.  

                •  Sorry, it was about him being Muslim (0+ / 0-)

                  Here's a source.

                  No need to shamelessly distort it, HRC's craven response speaks for itself.

                  "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                  by Subterranean on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:51:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The over (0+ / 0-)

                    the top response by the Obama campaign team gave another life to the Obama is a Muslim meme. And the overreaction justified the evangelicals hatred of Muslims.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:32:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Nothing wrong with what she said. (0+ / 0-)

                    I remember reading the transcript at the time, and it was literally the fifth or sixth time he asked her that question, and she finally replied, exasperated, "not as far as I know".  

                    Now, if it had been me, I would have gone with, "do you have any questions that aren't stupid?", but that's not really her style.

        •  I wish I could say I wonder how you'll cope (0+ / 0-)

          In the event she isn't.


          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:07:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Uh, she IS, if she wants the nom. And, I have (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes, cpresley, Lysis

            been here a lot longer than you have, have been very active in GOTV efforts for Obama and local candidates in both 2008 and 2012.  Also Kerry and Gore in 2004 and 2000.    

            I support all candidates we have, fully.  Always have.  Worked my behind off for Dukakis in a futile effort (a fellow Greek descendant, after all.)  Heck, even if the Democratic party were to nominate Cuomo or Warner (fat chance of either, but let's just say the Dem party were still in that era.)    Can't say that about those voices who write about our likely nominee in the most hate-filled terms.  I guess you'll be here through the GE constantly reminding us how terrible she is, and every time the polls get close telling us "I told you so"?  Or would you actually support and vote for our candidate?  Hard to believe, but maybe you can pivot that way.  I guess we'll see.    

            •  No matter who is nominated, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bill W

              they will never be pure enough for the "real" progressives on this site.

              Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

              by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:55:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't care about purity. I am to the far left (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skohayes, sukeyna, cpresley

                of most Democrats myself.   I am a socialist on health care (single payer,)  education, a proponent of draconian gun control (what do we need guns for anyway?  Stupid.)  Proponent of a Swedish/Finnish/Norwegian style social net (happiest people alive are the Scandinavians, for a reason.)  

                It is the blank hate expressed here that I have a problem with.  Given that HRC has been a progressive on many, many issues a lot of the animosity has to do with something else, more personal.    Apparently the poster I responded to has a beef due to the 2008 primary cycle, but if Obama (whose team did not mince words and was just as tough) views it merely as the rigors of a close primary and became strong friends with Hillary Clinton, even made her his trusted Secretary of State, why should anyone else hang onto such a grudge stemming from the 2008 primary?  Seems odd to me.  Definitely counterproductive to the mission of this site IF she decides to run and posts like these continue on after her nomination is decided.      

              •  I'm kind of hoping... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...that Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination, so we can have a wagering pool on when the first "I'm so disappointed in Warren [D-sellout]" diary gets published.

                •  If I recall correctly (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Bill W

                  The first "I'm so disappointed in Obama" that I saw on the internet was about March 2009, it took a bit longer for that to show up here.

                  Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                  by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:01:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  And no matter who's nominated... (0+ / 0-)

                The pom-pom squad will be there to act as a counterbalance.

                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:07:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  true, maybe, but does that mean we have to elect (0+ / 0-)


                or those who rep for them?

            •  Um, no, she's not, she hasn't even announced. (0+ / 0-)

              And I don't give a shit if you've been here longer than me.

              You've posted 1,128 comments in seven years.

              Your first year's commentary looks much like what you've been feverishly posting these days, oddly. You went about two years without posting any comments at all, it appears, too.

              So spare me the seniority crap.

              And I don't need to pledge fealty to your preferred candidate, nor do I need to submit my Democratic credentials for your approval.

              As a Democrat, it's my responsibility to criticize Democrats.

              If that bothers you, tough shit.

              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 06:59:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh, let's take this one slowly, one by one (0+ / 0-)

                1. I stated that if she wants the nomination, it is hers.  Which is what virtually every front pager here as well as prominent Democrats (i.e. Howard Dean) have stated as well , so take it up with the universe if you don't like it.  Why would you respond "she hasn't even announced" when my qualifier was clearly "if she wants the nomination"?

                2. You claimed "poof!" when I have been posting here for years.  Obviously your claims hold no water.  It is called reality.   If you are interested, those two years I posted primarily and daily on MyDD and Openleft (both Chris Bowers creations,) then when both were abandoned by their creators I was here again.  Weird that you even care to do such "research," but, hey, whatever fever you need to still.

                3. Talk about "feverish," you don't see the irony in yours and others' Hillary Clinton bashing in a thread written by a front pager specifically pointing out right-wingers' Clinton Derangement Syndrome?   You knowingly align yourself with right-wingers on that because?   I can just hear it now:  "I hate to agree with Rand Paul on her, but...."  "I hate to agree with the Koch brothers here, but...."  

                4. I don't engage you at all.  I already know where you are coming from, it is expected.  I really don't care, paint yourself in a corner you can't get out from once the primary season is over, that is your prerogative.  I don't have such a problem.  If Hillary Clinton does not care to run I will choose from a field that likely consists of Warner, Schweitzer, O'Malley, Cuomo and Patrick, and I don't see any reason to go after one or the other with venom, just because one or the other candidate (i.e. Warner and Cuomo) does not match my exact POV.  From that field I would probably choose O'Malley, but I would worry about his ability to beat back the immense GOP machine and the Billion buckaroos they are likely to spend on this.     Make no mistake, the "engagement" comes from your end.  Knock yourself out, but don't give me "If that bothers you, tough shit."  If it "bothered" me, I would engage you upon reading a post I disagree with, one that doesn't directly attack me upon you reading my post.    But I don't, so it doesn't.    It is you who apparently can't stand someone elses point of view if it doesn't match yours.   To that I say tough shit.  

                •  Um... (0+ / 0-)

                  1. No, you presumed her nomination when you said:

                  Uh, she IS, if she wants the nom.
                  The qualifier was tacked on at the end. That's why I responded the way I did.

                  2. I claimed "poof!" because that's essentially what you did when she lost the nomination last time, or it sure looks that way, given the timing. If you don't want people like me scrutinizing your comment history, don't pull the seniority card in the first place. I've been quite an active participant here since joining on 2009, and when I see this username running around posting comments that sound just like this one, I start to get curious about who I'm dealing with.

                  3. No, I don't see the irony, because I haven't "bashed her" in this diary at all, as my comments herein will reveal. Most of those comments are me objecting to the introduction of the term "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" into this debate in the first place, because it will serve as linkable "ammo" for people like you in the future.

                  4. I don't care if you engage me. I engage you when I object to your comments. Whether you initiate the exchange or not is irrelevant.

                  And no, you're the one who can't stand anyone else's point of view, not me. The proof is in the sheer volume of comments you've posted to everyone who hasn't jumped on the Hillary bandwagon, which, coincidentally, happens to be your fallacious argument of choice.

                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:14:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I only respond in kind to the handful of people (0+ / 0-)

                    who are particularly nasty in their commentary, much of it stemming from ignorance.   Ignorance, regardless of whether it happens to come from someone on the far right or far left deserves a response, at least that's the way I see it.

                    There are many more people posting here who don't want to see her be the nominee, preferring another candidate instead, for reasons that make sense.   Age may be a factor because the campaign is rigorous and long, for instance.  If I engage them at all it is to point out that since she is well known by the majority of candidates, things that are being brought up are already included in the assessment of her as the nominee (i.e. Iraq vote, Monica, etc.)   Someone writes "I don't want blood lines determining the candidate," that deserves a mocking response here, no?  "The constitution should disallow spouses and relatives of former presidents from running" is a similarly poor choice of reasoning that deserves a response.  And so forth.

                    The same handful of people were admonished by Kos in his diary the other day.  Apparently he is getting annoyed with people posting here about how much they hate Hillary Clinton, urging them to move on from it, concentrate on other races because if she wants it, the nomination is hers, and besides, she will be a "great President."   He sees the polling as it is and understands that there is no Obama around this time, nobody who gets Democrats excited like Hillary Clinton does, nobody who has the means, the infrastructure, the power, to withstand the expensive GOP machine in a somewhat difficult election for us (immediately following a somewhat unpopular presidency, with the economy not recovered to a helpful point.)   75 to 9 is as clear cut as it gets, his argument goes.  Calls those who oppose her the "deep minority" on this site.    It is obvious that he finds the constant bashing of her as a "terrible person," "I despise her," "she is nothing but a corporate, inc., Wall Street loving, war mongering Republican" quite annoying.  

                    Attacks like that aren't based on reality, they are as cartoonish as anything the bizarre right wing tea baggers come up with when they talk about Obama or Clinton or any Democrat who is a threat to them.  Polls show that Clinton is actually quite popular with the far left, more so than with moderates, centrists or conservatives in our party, so why all the venom here?  Don't we, in some way, represent the Progressive wing of the party on this site?

                    You asked in another post what polls show that Hillary is more popular to Democrats the further to the left you go, so here they are:

                    PPP poll testing all Democratic name candidates as for preferences:


                    Scroll down to page 30 to look at the crosstabs of this poll.  Hillary Clinton gets 79% support from the group "very liberal."  In that group (the group furthest to the left) people like O'Malley, Schweitzer and Gillibrand don't register at all, not even to the tune of 1%.   Here we also see the least amount of "someone else/not sure" with only 4%.   Moving a tad to the right to the "somewhat liberal" group you get some small registration for Gillibrand, O'Malley, Schweitzer and Booker, but very small amounts (2% to 3% each).  The further right you go, the more Hillary Clinton loses support from Democrats.  Those Democrats calling themselves "Moderate" support her to the tune of 71%.  The "somewhat conservative" Democrat gives her 41% (with Joe Biden at 16%, and someone else/not sure at a full 28%.)   The "very conservative" Democratic voter likes Hillary Clinton only to the tune of 16%.   This poll makes clear that Hillary Clinton's support among Democrats comes primarily from the far left of the ideological spectrum.    

                    In the recent CNN/ORC poll you see a similar dynamic.


                    Scoll down to page 14 and you see that on the question whether the nominee should be Hillary Clinton or an unnamed "more liberal" candidate or a "more conservative" candidate, HRC gets support from 70% of Democratic-leaning respondents, with Independents liking her to be the nominee to the tune of 66% with 18% polling "more conservative" and 10% "more liberal."   Registered Democrats as a whole group gave her 72% support, moderate Democrats gave her 63%, whereas Liberal Democrats gave her a full 75% support.  Again, the further left you go in the crosstabs, the more support she gets from Democrats.  

                    Also, the recent ABC/WaPo poll shows the same thing:


                    Click down to the Party/Ideology crosstab and on the question of "do you view Hillary Clinton favorable or unfavorable" you see that she is viewed "favorable" by 92% of "liberal Democrats" (and 8% unfavorable) while "Moderate/Conservative Democrats" view her favorably to the tune of 82% to 13% unfavorable (rest "no opinion")

                    Also, in the same poll when you look at polled direct comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, respectively, the same dynamic again.

                    Q: (AMONG LEANED DEMOCRATS) If the 2016 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: For whom would you vote?


                    73% of leaned Democrats support Hillary Clinton for the nomination, 12% prefer Joe Biden, 8% want Elizabeth Warren.  But when you scroll down and look at crosstabs for the ideological groups you see that "Liberal" has Clinton at 74%, more than the other ideological groups "Moderate/Conservatives" within the Democratic party.  

                    Also, from yesterday, two new polls showing her strength against GOP opponents.

                    Quinnipiac Ohio poll:


                    PPP Louisiana poll:


                    Oh, and dismiss the polls all you wish, that does not make it any more wrong as if you were Dorothy clicking your heels and wishing it all away.  That is yet another thing the "deep minority" on this site and the idiotic right-wingers (remember "unskewed polls") have in common these days.  

      •  the hillary wars are back! uprated vs. stupidity (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
      •  Get something thru your brain (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        70%+ of the US is NOT PROGRESSIVE. Ten years ago that number was 80%+.

        You will never see an unhinged Progressive. It's as asinine as an unhinged Right-Winger.

        Being Left of Center is a balanced position.

        Being Right of Center is an unbalanced position.

        Being Far Left of Center is unhealthy, albeit not nearly as unhealthy as Far Right of Center.

        HRC was a magnificent SOTUS. She has International Diplomacy credibility like no other, including her husband.

        Hillary was more progressive on her Health Care Plan than President Obama.

        She was more progressive on SS and Finance Reform than President Obama, yet you whine about her as if she's a Right of Center plant.

        Go back to POLITICO.

    •  There's no derangement syndrome here. (20+ / 0-)

      We just prefer other candidates, and to have an actual primary process.
        That's fairly rational actually.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:28:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep, critic derangement syndrome, where (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, CenPhx

      people positively lose it whenever somebody criticizes when of their beloved political actors, even to the point of calling critics deranged and otherwise flinging shit due to a lack of anything remotely substantive or intelligent to say in response to the criticisms.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:25:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The things you dislike about Hillary are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      far less important than the potential supreme court that would exist if she (or another democrat) wins compared to if a republican wins.  
      She also is good on woman's issues and healthcare.
      I do not want to consider an ideal progressive vs Hillary, unless that ideal progressive has at least as good a chance of election as Hillary.
      We will know if this is true, by following the polls that were accurate in the last election.  

  •  They are scared beyond belief (25+ / 0-)

    They can read all the polls we have seen, too, where Hillary Clinton cleans the clock of every Republican with some name recognition.    Now they are scrambling.   Vince Foster?  Rose Law Firm?  Really?   Laughable.  

    •  Running against Obamacare a total loser too (6+ / 0-)

      The Republicans are such terrible politicians I'm constantly amazed they make it all. Replaying the 90's is asinine, but running against healthcare is almost suicidal.

      We hear all these horror stories that turn out to be fake about Obamacare, what about all the true stories that are about to surface when lives are saved? When children are saved?

      A politician is going to run against that? Beyond stupid. Furthermore, those Republican idiots who denied Medicaid expansion into their states are wide open to devastating attack, all a Democrat has to do is point to the children who were saved in blue states and then inevitably ask the question: why were our children and people allowed to die here because, well, Obama?

      What cruel fools. Yet somehow they'll keep the House. [sigh]

      •  In Florida converted Democrat Charlie Crist has (13+ / 0-)

        been using Rick Scott's lack of fighting for expanded Medicare (which was shot down by the Florida House) in the strongest of terms.  He states publicly that as long as we don't have expanded Medicare SIX people will die in Florida as a result of it.    Not coincidentally his poll leads over Rick Scott have gone from a tie and a 2% lead to now showing 8% and 7% leads, respectively, in the two most recent polls.  

        Telling it like it is in terms of actual deaths suffered by Florida's poor and elderly (the two aren't always exclusive, either) due to a lack of expanded Medicaid works.  

      •  They are looking at the poll numbers without (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        thinking that they might go up very soon or there is more to it than just a disapproval number.  

        The poll numbers suggest that most are against it, okay true enough, but it does not show that most of those could be against it because they want it to go further and/or want a single payer system instead of a capitalistic give to the insurance companies.  The poll numbers are not just a given "I hate it" or "I love it" is somewhere in between.  

      •  You know what (0+ / 0-)

        I WISH the people that denied the medicaid expansion would be open to devastating attack but really all I can talk of is what is going on here in GA and since people never got the Medicaid expansion in the first place, well, it doesn't seem to be making a difference.

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:03:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Medicare expansion is the smart and prudent thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to do for any state.  They basically are forfeiting monies that the state needs because of their intense Obama hate.   So, effectively the state loses Millions, something a fiscally responsible person would not be in favor of, regardless of whether one liked Obamacare or not.  

          Jason Carter would be well advised to use Deal's failure to expand Medicare for Georgia citizens early and often, leaving money the state sorely needs on the table and denying health care coverage for tens of thousands.   So far he has not done so, in fact he has attacked Obamacare on the level of how the GOP has attacked it.   No wonder he is far behind Deal, trying to out-Republican Republicans.   In contrast, Michelle Nunn, who has categorically stated that Obamacare should be kept (but fixed, to work better) is doing well so far in polls for the open Senate seat Chambliss' retirement has created.  

        •  The public hospitals will take the hit (0+ / 0-)

          They are losing millions in federal funds that were taken away when the ACA was implemented.

          Hospitals in the nation’s poorest regions are becoming collateral damage in the ongoing political battle against the Affordable Care Act, as medical centers in states refusing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion are being forced to slash their work forces and even close up shop entirely.
          At least five public hospitals have shuttered their doors and many more are cutting staffing and services in non-Medicaid expansion states, according to Bloomberg. Three such hospitals have shut down in Georgia, while North Carolina and Virginia are experiencing similar closures. Patients who relied on the closed hospitals will be forced to make treks as long as 40 miles to receive the care they need from another facility.

          Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

          by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:08:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Healthcare would definitely be a winner for her. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley, atana

        Given that she chaired a task force, when Bill was President, that came up with a healthcare plan that was more progressive than Obamacare. Now people would understand what they were trying to do.

      •  It's called the gerrymander, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Wendell

        which is becoming increasingly fragile in swing states and those becoming swing states. Their trick is to pack Democrats into overwhelmingly Democratic districts, and maximize the number of reasonably safe Republican districts with margins of 5–10%. But when the margins start to erode, as they are doing, there is soon no margin for error.

        One wave election, such as HRC vs. any Tea Party nut job, and it's over for any future national Republican hopes, Presidential or Congressional. We should be strategizing now for a new Voting Rights Act to require non-partisan redistricting in every state, along with the other voter protection measures we know about.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:49:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Check out Red State. Its graph explains it all. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, joe from Lowell

      At Redstate, they don't want anyone to conduct any polls as according to them, "its too early".

      Of course the real reason as you note is made vivid in their graph of the polling to date.  If you just take a look at the graph you will see the real reason for their fear.

      As can be seen from the graph, they are already circling the wagons.  Hillary has them surrounded.  Dems need to improve on this graph by making it animated, so that in real time everyone can see who is driving the clown car.

  •  Wall Street journal... Oh, you meantheWells-Fargo (8+ / 0-)

    Journal.   But why would they attack Clinton, Inc?  It's so confusing trying to figure out what the Corporate Elite think I'm supposed to think.

    Hard to have a government when one-third of your representatives are insane and the other two-thirds have been sold to the highest bidder.

    by Rikon Snow on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:11:38 AM PST

  •  Thank You RW For Underscoring That Obama (6+ / 0-)

    derangement syndrome is not "because" he is Black.

    That does give the RW special ammunition in his case, but it does show that that's not why he is a target.

    I really didn't think they would provide us a controlled experiment.

    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 Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:16:05 AM PST

    •  To some it is because he is black (5+ / 0-)

      but to most he is just a commie pinko guy who wants to take away everybody's guns and wants to turn the US into Euro style socialism.  That was exactly the type of thing they used when Bill Clinton won the presidency.   The tenor went that "his feminist wife wants to turn the US into Euro socialism-communism with Hillarycare and 'It takes a village.' "  

      With strongly changed demographics and people much more receptive to talk about income inequality, the 1%, giving people a living wage, those things simply don't work anymore.   And, they didn't work against Obama, either.  

    •  The form it takes reflects his race, though. (10+ / 0-)

      The Republicans would certainly express some kind of derangement syndrome against any Democrat, but with Obama, that underlying, free-form hostility comes out with a heavy coating of racial dog-whistling.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:47:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How To Use the Concepts of Racism and Sexism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in a Campaign Narrative.

      You have to clean up the concepts of racism and sexism first before you can make use of them in a campaign context, because you don't want people thinking about the rampant poverty that effects POC, or about single white mothers raising their kids in homeless shelters while they work two jobs. You want people to think about how many Senators or Presidents have been black or female (or both) instead. In a pinch, you can also have them think about how an extreme lunatic fringe commits hate crimes on women or POC, but you will have to make sure to keep that narrative under control; you don't want it to become a society-wide critique. Especially you don't want it applied to cops.

      Just make sure to remove all the connections between economic oppression and racism or sexism first. And seriously downplay the civil liberties side of things. Don't talk about poverty or anything to do with money in the context of racism or sexism.

      Racism and sexism now equate to two things: 1)POC and white women don't get into positions of political power often enough, and 2)the extremist fringe of American society commits hate crimes on women and POC. (But make sure never to include a cop in that extremist fringe. Police are automatically in the mainstream and can abuse whomever they like).

      Now you've revised racism and sexism, and you can use it in any Hillary 2016 narrative you like.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:53:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, she's never done anything for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ga6thDem, cpresley

        the poor (although women, usually single mothers, are a large percentage of the poor).

        In 1977, Rodham cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.[33][76] Later that year, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had been the 1976 campaign director of field operations in Indiana)[77] appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation,[78] and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981.[79] From mid-1978 to mid-1980,[nb 4] she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so.[80] During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million; subsequently she successfully fought President Ronald Reagan's attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.[69]
        Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents could not provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.[140] She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.[141] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.[45] The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.[45] Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.[45] In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.[45][142] In 1999, she was instrumental in the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.[142] As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),[143] on Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),[144] and on Children and Adolescents (2000).[145] She also hosted the first-ever White House Conference on Teenagers (2000)[146] and the first-ever White House Conference on Philanthropy (1999).[147]
        Clinton announced the most ambitious of her departmental reforms, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which establishes specific objectives for the State Department's diplomatic missions abroad; it was modeled after a similar process in the Defense Department that she was familiar with from her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee.[291] (The first such review was issued in late 2010 and called for the U.S. leading through "civilian power" as a cost-effective way of responding to international challenges and defusing crises.[292] It also sought to institutionalize goals of empowering women throughout the world.[155]) Clinton unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative at the annual meeting of her husband's Clinton Global Initiative.[293] The new initiative sought to battle hunger worldwide as a strategic part of U.S. foreign policy, rather than just react to food shortage emergencies as they occur, and emphasizes the role of women farmers.[293] Another cause Clinton advocated throughout her tenure was the adoption of cookstoves in the developing world, to foster cleaner and more environmentally sound food preparation and reduce smoke dangers to women.[279]

        Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

        by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:33:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not the point. The point is, what are her (0+ / 0-)

          policy positions now.

          What is she likely to do when she gets into office? Will she push for the restoration of the New Deal? Will she push for the restoration of the New Deal's regulatory structure? Will she use her Justice Dept to investigate and prosecute Wall St bankers? Will she deficit-spend, if necessary, to rebuild America's infrastructure and create jobs? If not, is she willing to tax the rich and the corporations enough to rebuild America's infrastructure and create jobs? What is her position on education? On Social Security? Does she believe in more free trade, and will she support the TPP, or is she going to support American small businesses and oppose offshoring jobs? What is her position on fetal deformities and diseases that come from pregnant mothers living near toxic waste dumps? What is her position on police abuse of women, which is becoming a more widespread problem every day, it seems? How about keeping people in their homes and stopping foreclosures, so that that working mother doesn't have to raise her kids in a homeless shelter?

          Is she willing to confront the powerful on the issues that cause working women and their children suffering? Or is she going to continue the current Administration's program of favoring the wealthy in matters of taxation, government spending, employment, wages, education and the environment? To say nothing of Social Security and Medicare? If she's going to do some of each, where is the line drawn? When will she fight for working women and their families, and when won't she? Can we count on her to follow through on what populist policies she does support, or will she talk the centrist talk but only walk the right-wing walk? When it's time to hear the needs of women who aren't rich, will they have a seat at the table, or will that end up being another illusion?

          These are the kind of questions we used to ask our candidates as a matter of course.

          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:10:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary was the first subject (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Urban Owl, Laconic Lib

      I really don't like calling this "derangement syndrome" because that implies it is an irrational response, when it is not. This is a political tactic: activate the base to hate the opponent with white hot passion by vilifying them in whatever way works, including lies, conspiracy theories, racism, sexism and everything else. It's the old "drag your opponent into the mud" tactic, but cranked up to 11. It's a cold, calculating, utterly anti-social, warlike strategy, and I imagine Limbaugh had something to do with developing it.

      As far as I'm aware, this was first used against the Clintons, and especially Hillary, since she has always been popular and there was fear that she would eventually run and win, which she did, and if she runs against them again she will win again. So it would seem to be a failed tactic, but I think it has other functions which are now primary, such as turning out the base to vote in off-years, providing excuses for calculated obstruction and anti-voter laws, and fund raising. These are all important for a party resigned to permanent minority status that wants to still retain enough power to effectively serve it's patrons.

      "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

      by quill on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:23:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She's always been popular? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dallasdunlap, lunachickie

        This joke was going around during and after Bill Clinton was president:

        Clinton and the Genie

        Bill Clinton was walking along the beach when he stumbled upon a Genie's lamp. He picked it up and rubbed it and lo-and-behold, a Genie appeared. Bill was amazed and asked if he got three wishes.

        The Genie said, "Nope...Due to inflation, constant downswing, low wages in third world countries, and fierce global competition, I can only grant you one wish. So...What'll it be?"

        Bill didn't hesitate. He said, "I want to be remembered for bringing peace to the Middle East, instead of that other stuff with Monica, and Jennifer, and the rest of those women. See this map? I want these countries to stop fighting with each other."

        The Genie looked at the map of the Middle East and exclaimed, "Jeez, Fella!  These people have been at war for thousands of years.  I'm good, but not THAT good. I don't think it can be done. Make another wish."

        Bill thought for a minute and said, "You know, people really don't like my wife. Even though she got elected, they call her a carpetbagger. They think she's mean, ugly, and pushes me around. I wish for her to be the most beautiful woman in the world and I want everybody to like her. That's what I want."  

        The Genie let out a long sigh and said, "Lemme see that map again."

        Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

        by JamieG from Md on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:22:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Jefferson Derangement Syndrome (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is well documented, and continues to this day. One source describes events this way:

           From 1794 to 1797, Thomas Jefferson operated as the informal leader of what would become the nation's first opposition political party, the Democratic-Republicans...As was the aristocratic custom of the day, neither Adams nor Jefferson personally campaigned. Rather, the campaign battles were waged between the political party newspapers, a propaganda device rooted in the anti-British pamphlets of the American Revolution. These publications mercilessly criticized their respective opposing candidates.

            Given the intense rivalry and conflict involved, it is not surprising that the 1800 election reached a level of personal animosity seldom equaled in American politics. The Federalists attacked the fifty-seven-year-old Jefferson as a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. With Jefferson as President, so warned one newspaper, "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." Others attacked Jefferson's deist beliefs as the views of an infidel who "writes against the truths of God's words; who makes not even a profession of Christianity; who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary, and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians."

        Even George Washington got some of it. The fight against Hamilton's Whiskey Tax and the Revenooers also continues to this day among the bootleggers and their customers, friends, and neighbors.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:59:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  it never really went away. (15+ / 0-)

    it just morphed into Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    a better name for it is Democratic President Syndrome, and it goes back to "that man in the white house," AKA FDR.

    "The only thing that ever changed the conservative mind was the Union army." –Driftglass

    by mellowjohn on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:17:38 AM PST

    •  It's gotten far worse in recent years, however (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, skohayes

      Bill Clinton said something rather eye-opening shortly after leaving office when asked why conservatives hated him so much. His answer: "Simple. I won." And then he further said that he believed many conservatives thought there would never been another Democratic president, that they had this foolproof method of beating them every time.

      It's idiocy, yes (no party stays in power forever; I expect the Republicans will reclaim the WH eventually, though not until they go through a major overhall), but many Republicans really think only they can win the Presidency and that every time a Democrat wins, it's illegal. It's how Bush can get a "mandate" despite getting installed by the SC after losing the popular vote, while Obama, after winning two solid victories with over 50% of the vote, is considered illegitimate.

      •  History indicates that the best we could hope for (0+ / 0-)

        would be another Era of Good Feelings. The original ran from 1815 to 1833, between the implosion of the Federalists, the original Party of No, and the rise of the Whigs, their successor as the party of big business. During those 18 years the Democratic-Republican Party had Congress and the Presidency to itself. There was, of course, factional infighting within the party, which made the name rather ironic.

        If the Republicans were to follow the same course, they would become totally irrelevant in 2023, and the 1% would not be able to come up with another lie to get people to vote for until 2041. It won't happen the same way, but the prospect is pleasing to contemplate, as long as we are prepared to do the work to make it happen, and not expect it to fall into our laps.

        Of course, it could even happen sooner, particularly if the Tea Parties or the Religious Right were to go through with their recurring threats to form a third party, or just if we nuked the filibuster on legislation, got rid of blue slipping for judges in the Senate, and took the House long enough to outlaw partisan gerrymandering.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:34:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is good for the candidate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    River Rover

    Takes focus and attention away from her lackluster performance as Senator and SOS.  

    •  She was one of the chief architects (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ga6thDem, sukeyna

      of the SCHIP program. She helped 9/11 first responders get health coverage after getting sick from all the pollutants they inhaled.
      She voted against the Bush tax cuts, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
      She wasn't loud or out in front of the cameras a lot, but her votes were important as were her initiatives, and  to call her two terms in the Senate "lackluster" simply ignores the facts, easily available in a google search.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:39:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP Strategy Demands…. (11+ / 0-)

    That any Democratic candidate for the White House must be portrayed as some kind of monster, someone who will destroy the American way of life. If Hillary Clinton took herself out of the running tomorrow, they'd immediately attack whomever emerged to take up the challenge. It's how they roll.

    At the moment I'm listening to the GOP response to the President's weekly address. The fear-mongering and outright lies and distortions are at McCarthy levels. Tom Cotton, R Arkansas gave the response. It was a total Gish Gallop.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:20:09 AM PST

    •  Agree. Prbly has more to do with down-ticket races (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      than winning the White House. The 'Pubs have to keep their lo-info base agitated to protect their state house and congressional seats. Nothing riles 'em up better than personal attacks on the morals and character of Dem leaders.

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:43:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it immunizes them against their own records (0+ / 0-)

        If you want to talk about policies that have made America weaker and less safe, government spending out of control, low moral standards, etc., these are things the GOP has a terrible record on. It is why they are so quick to tar others with that brush - so it can't be used on them.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:04:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's not the candidates (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, skohayes

      That's just abortion, contraception, all social programs, immigration, taxes, regulation, and Marriage Equality, each and every one of which is a sign of the end of civilization at the hands of the Secular Humanist Muslim Communist , and the start of the rule of the Antichrist leading to the Tribulations, Armageddon, the Rapture, the Second Coming, and the Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth.

      For which not one of them has the decency to thank us.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:06:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Clinton coronation syndrome is also back (10+ / 0-)

    The cult of Clinton personality wars rage on.  It's only 2014.  Oh, wow, are voters going to be fed up with this by 2016.  Seriously folks, I'm going to be ready to elect Kim Kardashian if this is all I'm going to hear for the next 2 1/2 years.  

    •  But President Clinton was likeable (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, tb mare, dallasdunlap, askew

      Both President Obama and President Clinton are very likeable people.  

      They are inspirational.

      HRC is not.

      HRC falls into the Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry camp.

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

      by PatriciaVa on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:32:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She's likable enough. Heh. nt (5+ / 0-)

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:44:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Inspiration (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe from Lowell, sukeyna

        is something personal I guess. People saw Bush as inspriational I did not. People see Obama as inspriational I do not.

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:08:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was surprised by the reaction to Hillary... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          in 2008 by a lot of very liberal women around my age (40). There are strong, liberal, feminist women who just cannot get enough Hillary Clinton. She really is an icon.

          I don't claim to understand it, just telling you what I've seen.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:04:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  She has an enormous base of good will (7+ / 0-)

            among women in this country who understand just how inhumanly hard she has worked to get this, and appreciate what it will mean when she breaks that thickest of all glass ceilings. And quite a large number of men like her too.

            Republican men hate her, Dominionist women, and Naderites.

            •  So I am a Dominist woman? (0+ / 0-)

              I find the dissonance interesting amongst the HRC cheerleaders so far. The critics of HRC are sexist, yet you see comment after comment about how women are all going to rally behind Clinton simply because she is a woman. Well, I am a woman. And as I have said before, I care more about the fact that HRC has taken horrible positions on warfare, on economic issues, than I care about a woman finally becoming president. I didn't vote for McCain and Palin, even though Palin is a woman, just to have a woman Vice President and I'm not going to vote for Clinton just to have a woman president. I feel confident that many other women voters care more about HRC's stance on issue important to them than they do about her gender.

              Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

              by CenPhx on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:22:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oops. Dominionist. (0+ / 0-)

                Dominist sounds like something else entirely.

                Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

                by CenPhx on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:30:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Do you even know what Dominionist means? (0+ / 0-)

                It is the notion that only Christians of their particular sort should be able to be government officials. In particular, women should only do what men tell them to.

                Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:39:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Did you read the comment above mine? (0+ / 0-)

                  The one which noted the following list of people who do not like HRC: "Republican men hate her, Dominionist women, and Naderites."

                  Given that the only people who hate HRC, according to atana, fall into these groups, I was just questioning which one I must be.

                  But thank you for your condescending focus on whether I understand the word "Dominionist". Do you understand what condescension means?

                  Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

                  by CenPhx on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:39:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            it surprised me too and also the other way surprised me too. I think she gained a lot of people liking her because she wouldn't quit.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:02:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Do you get the difference between (7+ / 0-)

        facts and opinion.

        Obviously, HRC does not inspire you, nor do you find her likeable.  Have you actually spent any time with her?

        Many around the world find HRC very inspiring.  And many find her likeable.  Friends of mine who own a restaurant were lucky enough to spend time with her during the campaign; she walk with my friend from the hall where she spoke to their restaurant a block or so away.  Hillary walked arm in arm with my friend and ate a sandwich in their restaurant.  They found her easy to talk to, hang out with....funny and warm.

        So their opinion is quite different from yours.  

        “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

        by Jjc2006 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:49:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If I had an extra $200K lying around the house (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PatriciaVa, tarheelblue, CenPhx

          maybe I could sign up for one of those fat cat dinners and spend some time with her.  

          She isn't spending any time with any regular people now.  

          But if you want me to vote based on restaurant visits, Biden visited a restaurant in Minneapolis this week so why isn't his picture splashed all over Dkos every day?

          •  Give me a break... (0+ / 0-)

            you Hillary haters will continue no matter what Hillary does o does not.  Her history is not perfect.  No one's is.  
            I dare you to show me anyone who has lived six decades who did not make some errors...but many learn from them.

            As for Joe Biden. I like Joe, DESPITE his failure during the Anita Hill testimony during the Clarence Thomas confirmations.   As many women my age, including Hillary remember, Joe failed to let character witnesses for Anita testify.  Joe failed to be tough at those hearings and we all saw it.

            But hey, I get it.  The Hillary haters cannot let go.  So be it.

            “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

            by Jjc2006 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:13:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I wasn't aware it was ever there. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I remember some asshattery over trying to impeach Bill Clinton for a blow job, and some sexist bullshit directed at Hillary Clinton, but no mental health problem associated with criticizing a politician.

    I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:20:42 AM PST

  •  What did Mitt say don't harp on? The 90's or Bill? (0+ / 0-)

    Those are two very different things.

    Sure, his monkeying with Monica has nothing to do with Hillary. A GOP campaign on that would confirm that Republicans are hateful when it comes to most women. So Mitt's correct about Bill.

    But Whitewater is fair game, as are HC's legal involvements earlier in her career and as First Lady. Much of the stuff surrounding the Clintons generally will be tagged indiscriminately to her. And of course the media will cover it because it was said, not because it is established truth. It's all distraction.

    The GOP will be sure Hillary, herself and personally, is the target. Current issues won't matter. It'll be unfair as hell, but that's the state of politics and the media. Unfortunately, that's what her candidacy brings.

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:22:35 AM PST

    •  the cattle futures. (0+ / 0-)

      It was a clear bribe.

    •  Whitewater? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JamieG from Md, cris0000, cpresley, IM

      Are you going to dig up that chestnut? We (the taxpayers) spent literally billions on NOTHING.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:10:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is past is prologue. It's the GOP who will... (0+ / 0-)

        ... exhume those bones. Old and fusty as it is, Whitewater remains a part of the Clinton's' life story. Hillary's candidacy would give it currency just like all the Bain business was attributed to Mr. Mitt.

        And Yes, the six-figure proceeds from a really lucky day of trading in cattle futures (as I recall the stories) was - ahem - hard to explain.

        Let's face it, the person with a past was George Bush, the shrub. He had his close personal counsel - remember Harriet Meirs? - do her own oppo research early in his candidacy to determine who would talk and what an inquisitor would find ... and in the event, there was almost nothing to disclose!

        Hillary should have been so lucky.

        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:35:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure (0+ / 0-)

          the GOP will try but this is ancient history to almost everybody in the country. As you see with the brither movement the far right will believe anything.

          It's old history that no one wants to talk about anymore. The tax payers spent millions on that and the only people who believe there is anything to Whitewater are the same people who believe Obama was born in Kenya.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:00:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, the old false moral equivalency gambit (0+ / 0-)

          There was no more to Whitewater than to Benghazi.

          Now the Arkansas State Troopers turned out to be for real. It wasn't only Monica. But that was still Bill.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:42:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Come on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          it takes two seconds to pull up the story of the cattle futures- she made that money over the course of a YEAR.
          Hard to explain? No.

          Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

          by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:47:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I stand corrected. It was $6300 in one day... (0+ / 0-)

            ... and the $100,000 came over the course of about ten months. Still, the trading history had a smell to it. Many of the trades came about from money that was not hers and from trades that were likely shifted to her account after the fact. The WaPo report is here.

            Appearances are not favorable to her. And there were discrepancies in the records attributed to "human error". A review of the transactions - at the request of the White House - led to this narrow conclusion: "Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions ..." (my emphasis) True as far as it goes, I'm sure, but the records do show that she did not make many of the trades and ones she authorized were on the advice of others.

            I do not lay fault on her doorstep, but she was admittedly a novice at commodities futures and was the beneficiary of a few others' money and insights. The GOP will put these on her and along with other things that will reappear out of the mists of time, they will be a distraction.

            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 06:45:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Everytime (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              somebody tells you an old story does it distract you? Most people start tuning out something they have heard 100 times already. Most people have moved on w/r/t this kind of stuff.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:14:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I hope you're right. But it will distract the ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... media, who will cover the old stories, then the denials. Hopefully, that will be over with early and the focus will be on issues even though the GOP will try to keep it personal.

                2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:36:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                  the media does not like old stories. Old stories are boring. New stories like Chris Christie clogging up the GWB are interesting. Nobody is going to buy a newspaper to read something that they already know. They are going to buy it for new information.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:43:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Besides (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              none of this is any worse that Palin screaming Obama pals around with terrorits is it? Or calling John Kerry a traitor. This is the kind of stuff that people roll their eyes about.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:15:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Swift boat hurt Kerry, who didn't respond for... (0+ / 0-)

                ... much too long a time.

                Hillary is a much better, more natural campaigner than John Kerry. And she will not be doing water sports on Nantucket Sound in August before the election. I hope.

                2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:40:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  A comeback (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Wendell, Sue B

    Since the RW is so Christianity conscious - she can say she kept her vows and stayed with him through whatever.  That wouldn't be enough for the RW or the TTP.  But for all those bible bangers - one would think they would respect that. Ain't gonna happen though.  

  •  Beating a dead horse (6+ / 0-)

    No one cares, except desperate republicans.

    •  It's worse than "No one cares." (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, virginislandsguy, Mokurai, cpresley

      This scandal-mongering about the Clintons actually drives up their approval ratings, as people backlash against the Republicans' mudslinging.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:43:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's why this is a good thing (8+ / 0-)

      It will be a blessing for Hillary Clinton, if this is all the modern GOP has to throw against her.  Not only will 20 and 30 years old "scandals" and false accusations be hardly relevant to voters, who weren't even alive then, it will feed the obvious contrast that Ms. Clinton, if she decides to run, will be able to make between her priority issues, whatever they are, and the remarkable lack of them on the part of the modern GOP.

      If the GOP goes against Clinton by pushing "scandals" that in many cases she had nothing to do with, it will be one of the biggest political gifts of all time.  Democrats will need to be ready to take advantage of it, by emphasizing jobs, jobs, jobs, a better future, a cleaner environment, actually solving some of America's and the world's problems instead of spending vast fortunes trying to ignore them and pretend they will either go away or solve themselves.  A GOP in usual attack mode could well drive a sizable segment of GOP women voters into the hands of democrats, much like Blue collar workers did for Reagan.  All she needs to do is stay focused on jobs, jobs, jobs.

      Democratic operatives need to just be sure to paint the GOP operatives who try this with their own words, so that GOP credibility will be further eroded.  Don't just complain about the smears, smear the smearers, so that all will see them deep in their own slime.

      •  Her first issue will be HillaryCare (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the moment she proposes to fix the slightest thing that remains wrong with ObamaCare. Republicans will accuse her of a secret plan to impose Single Payer on the country, and Democrats will accuse her of not having one. ^_^

        Then there will be Israel, Iran, North Korea, and a few other countries.

        Marriage Equality should be done by then, either at the Supreme Court, or at every Circuit Court of Appeals.

        Pot will be big, and with it letting pot offenders out of prison and restoring their voting rights.

        Immigration might or might not be done by then.

        The big unknown at present is where Democrats will be on income inequality and appropriate financial regulation. I do not intend to take the Rohrschach test about this. Until HRC says what she wants to do about these things, and then we see what she actually does about them, we don't have anything real to talk about.

        You can complain, if you like, but the best alternative the other side is offering up is Paul Ryan and the austerity budget that would cut taxes on the rich, regulation, and social programs galore. All of the others are much worse.

        The rest will depend on the evolution of the public in the next two years. Clinton is a good enough politician to support what the public and Democrats in Congress both want, if we can get control of the House.

        I will also take her judicial nominees over those of any Republican any day of the week.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:13:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  An Open Lesbian Who Murdered Vince Foster (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, skohayes

    Do we really want her as our candidate?

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:23:52 AM PST

    •  When you make a comment like that (5+ / 0-)

      you should be sure to say "Snark" at the end of your statement. Otherwise you just sound like a pig.

    •  An open lesbian who murdered Vince Foster (0+ / 0-)

      who in 2008 sat next to the guy who funded the spreading of those rumors to smugly attack Barack Obama for not immediately leaving a church based on some his pastor said a decade earlier when he had not been present that was taken out of context.

      THAT is the unforgivable Hillary sin to me. We can laugh about those absurd rumors, but it was Richard Mellon Scaife who provided the money and paid the operatives to pump them into the public discourse.

      I look at Hillary and all I can see is "betrayer."

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:50:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also don't forget an open lesbian who (0+ / 0-)

        was having an affair with Vince Foster she was trying to cover up because she was a deranged man eating slut who slept with every man in D.C. Or something. You'll have to call Rush Limbaugh for clarification.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

        by anastasia p on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:52:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I haven't seen the lesbian accusation yet (0+ / 0-)

      Though I remember it flying around during Bill's two terms.
      I predict EricksonofErick will be the first to bring it up.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:50:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They probably are studying (0+ / 0-)

    how to use questions like that as "springboards" back to their own talking points.  Similar to Palin's defensive "pivoting" in the VP debate, but with a little more of plan behind it.    

  •  What happened to her glasses? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And why hasn't she had time to get them fixed?
    This reminds me of the picture of Adlai Stevenson with a hole in his shoe, taken during the 1952 presidential campaign.

    I couldn't find it on Google, but I remember later in his career, when he was our ambassador to the United Nations, someone got a picture of him wearing a pair of glasses that was missing one of the "temples" -- the piece that goes over the ear.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:25:54 AM PST

  •  Why stop there? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why not dredge up each and every disagreement she had with her classmates and Wellesley? Or at the two High Schools she attended in Park Ridge?

    Or  her track record when she was a Brownie? Maybe she set up her cookie sales booth across from (gasp!) a known pot dealer...or something.

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:27:25 AM PST

  •  Derangement Syndrome = Tabula Rasa (5+ / 0-)

    Whomever the Democrat is, the inchoate and irrational response begins.

    The Rev. Jim Jones didn't have this kind of fervor, cult-speaking.


    by Johnny Wendell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:28:09 AM PST

  •  Her Cattle Trading thing will be a problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    River Rover

    at the end of the day, it was out and out entirely
    a bribe to her.

    You take $35K and turn it into $2 Million on underwater

    That's an illegal gratuity.  

    The problem is the GOP is in even deeper there.

    •  Everything is a bribe to you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      By the way, you might want to look up the real story of the "cattle trading", because your comment is full of fail.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:56:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  wikipedia says (0+ / 0-)

        In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery,[1] allegations that Clinton strongly denied. There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing.
        Why how suddenly, A sitting First Lady, suddenly becomes the worlds greatest trader, makes 100X and never trades ever again.

        But don't worry, you love her greed.

        •  So where is the bribery? (0+ / 0-)

          Pointing at making a profit doesn't prove bribery.

          Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

          by skohayes on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:30:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  an analysis conducted showed (0+ / 0-)
            n a 1998 article, Marshall Magazine, a publication of the Marshall School of Business, sought to frame the trading, the nature of the results, and possible explanations for them:
            These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day.
            Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account.[17]

            Merc and Melamed investigations[edit]

            Chicago Mercantile Exchange records indicated that $40,000 of her profits came from larger trades initiated by James Blair. According to exchange records, "Red" Bone, the commodities broker that facilitated the trades on behalf of Refco, reportedly because Blair was a good client, allowed Rodham to maintain her positions even though she did not have enough money in her account to cover her activity. For example, she was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time.[13] Bone denied any wrongdoing in conjunction with Rodham's trading and said he did not recall ever dealing with Rodham personally.[7][12]
            As it happened, during the period of Rodham's trading, Refco was under investigation by the Mercantile Exchange for systematic violations of its margin trading rules and reporting requirements regarding cattle trading.[12][7] In December 1979, the exchange issued a three-year suspension to Bone and a $250,000 fine of Refco (at the time, the largest such penalty imposed by the exchange).[12][7]

            She hung out with a sleazeball who pumped $100K into her pocket against firm rules, and exchange rules, I've never
            met a trader who didn't call that a bribe.
  •  Alright, break out the hammer pants! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, GAS

    We're going back to the 1990s!

  •  Yeah, NAFTA, financial deregulation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    and their consequences are just the sort of economic policies we should recall with fondness from the 90s. I can hardly wait for more.

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:38:42 AM PST

  •  My local right-wing columnist is saying this, too. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, virginislandsguy

    Bring. It. On!

    "America, elect Hillary Clinton, and it will be the 1990s all over again! Hey, why are you cheering?"

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:41:39 AM PST

  •  Please, Brer Priebus, don't throw Hillary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GAS, Urban Owl, joe from Lowell

    in that thar briar patch!

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:43:42 AM PST

  •  I'm trying my best to get excited about a (5+ / 0-)

    Clinton run.  Again, I'm trying my best.

  •  I like that she wears such uncool glasses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GAS, JamieG from Md

    that it makes her cool.

    "So listen, oh, Don't wait." Vampire Weekend.

    by Publius2008 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:44:05 AM PST

  •  It never left. The GzeroP had to keep it in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, GAS, skohayes

    storage after Obama won the primary. They're dusting it off and checking for water damage.

  •  If you have to dig in to what I call (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, sukeyna

    the "Blowjob Impeachment", you're running pretty scared.

    Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

    by commonmass on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:45:33 AM PST

  •  I think we should say "please continue..." (5+ / 0-)

    Everytime they bring up Monica, another woman, maybe who has experienced or knows someone who has experienced something similar, thinks "That's not fair - I'm voting for her" -

    Seriously, she's the HERO of the piece, unless you're an out of touch white republican middle-aged conservative.

  •  "seems" and "easy to visualize" (0+ / 0-)

    I wish they encouraged masturbation where I work. Those guys at the WSJ are a lucky circle.

    To My Colonoscopist

    I think that I shall never see
    so far up you as you up me.

    by shieldvulf on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:48:22 AM PST

  •  Of the 1% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    River Rover

    And for the 1%.

    That is all I need to know about Hillary.

  •  Hillary isn't great (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GAS, Urban Owl, joe from Lowell

    Hard to get excited about, certainly.

    Once again, it devolves back to appointees, especially on the USSC--at this point, one cannot allow the Krazy Klown Kult to make those decisions, lest we get more Scalia's.

    Yes, I would prefer Al Grayson, Liz Warren or even Kamala Harris--but as far as I can tell, they ain't running.


    by Johnny Wendell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:51:00 AM PST

  •  Why doesn't Murdoch (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GAS, virginislandsguy, sukeyna, skohayes

    just be done with it and rename the WSJ The DailyWall Street Mail Post?  It must be truly embarrassing for the few remaining journalists at that rag.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 09:52:03 AM PST

  •  Saving the "good stuff"? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GAS, Urban Owl, atana, sukeyna, skohayes, cpresley

    The thing about the Clintons is we already know pretty much all there is to know, both the positive and the negative, at least from the 1990s.  Her Senate and Secretary records are fair game, as are policy aspects of being First Lady, but I think the scandals will just be seen as picking on her and backfire.

  •  I feel bad for Vince foster's family (3+ / 0-)

    It's bad enough losing a loved one to suicide.  Having his death exploited for partisan gain with bizarro murder conspiracy theories is just cruel.

    And the Ron Brown thing - I never did understand that loopy claim that there was a "bullet hole" in his head.  The theory they were peddling was that an assassin got on the plane, shot Brown, and then crashed the plane to get rid of the witnesses.  If they crashed the plane to get rid of the witnesses, what's the point of shooting him?  He can only die once.

    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 Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:01:12 AM PST

  •  It wouldn't surprise me... (3+ / 0-)

    if the Republican Convention in 2016 takes place in Mena, Arkansas at this rate!

    To be great is to be misunderstood

    by LordFairfax on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:02:03 AM PST

  •  Which Senate Seat Can We Pick Up? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urban Owl, joe from Lowell, skohayes

    Which Senate seat do you think we could most easily pick up next years? Which of the House seats do you think we could potentially flip?

  •  Sometimes it's more fun just to watch. (0+ / 0-)

    This, for me, is one of those times. Make it worth my time, people.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:10:31 AM PST

  •  Unfortunately. Whichever Candidate Gets (0+ / 0-)

    the primary win and goes on to run for POTUS 2016 will have to run against eight years of pathetic non-economic recovery under Obama.

    that's not going to be easy... so I won't be surprised if Ms Clinton does not run, nor Ms Warren.. and the dem candidate ends up being some throw-away type; like Kerry in 2004.

    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

    by Superpole on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:13:05 AM PST

    •  Congress writes the federal budget, ... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Superpole, doroma, howie14, emelyn, skohayes

      and the president signs it. Unfortunately, Congress is impotent, and wants to blame the president for it's own lack of performance.

      If life weren't so damn hard, we’d have no need for fabric softeners.

      by glb3 on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:24:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed... but the POTUS takes the heat (0+ / 0-)

        because he is constantly under the media lens... NOT congress.

        so my point still stands; at the end of the day, Obama and the democratic party in general gets the blame for eight years of lame nothingingness with our economy.

        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

        by Superpole on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:57:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lame nothingness? (0+ / 0-)

          The recovery may be slow, but there is a recovery going on. Millions of people have health care. We're getting out of Afghanistan.
          Meanwhile, the Republicans pass 42 bills in the House to repeal Obamacare, and decided that working 143 days a year was just too stressful, and reduced the House calender to 113 days this year.
          Yeah, they can try that line of "lame Obama", but there's a reason Republicans in Congress have the lowest approval rating in the history of their party.

          Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

          by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:12:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK... Obviously if you're one of the twenty (0+ / 0-)

            MILLION Unemployed, Underemployed people... there's NOT much of a recovery happening.

            I know someone with 25 years of experience and a solid resume who has been on six interviews... ZERO offers.

            so the notion things are "kinda getting better" is a farce.

            Obama blew it totally... we'll see the result this fall.

            "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

            by Superpole on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:54:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              correct that Obama blew it. That being said the GOP has ZERO solutions other than to double down on what George W. Bush did and nobody wants another collapse.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:25:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL.. and the Democratic party has ZERO (0+ / 0-)

                solutions for our wrecked economy.

                you're overlooking the farcical nature of our so called two party system: people swing between the "two" parties at the POTUS level-- getting nowhere.

                why was Obama elected in 2008? partly because we were burned out on the hapless, useless Dumbya.

                Now the voters are swing back to the GOP- who will throw out a few bones, a few idea-- it doesn't matter how realistic they are at this point, because people are burned out on the lack of progress under Obama.. another eight years more or less wasted.

                "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

                by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:57:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where are you seeing (0+ / 0-)

                  voters "swinging back to the GOP"?

                  Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                  by skohayes on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:16:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  HISTORY IS YOUR FRIEND (0+ / 0-)

                    the 1992 POTUS election-- WHY was Bill Clinton, a young, nobody governor from Arkansas, able to beat Poppy Bush?

                    Partly because of the rather small 1981-1983 recession; that's why. the recession we are in now is massively larger and long lasting.

                    if you don't believe people vote their pocketbooks and they DON'T really care about the SCOTUS, etc., you're about to find out how wrong you are.


                    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

                    by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:19:46 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                  the voters are not swinging back to the GOP according to the polls. A better argument might be that they sit home.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:20:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  STaying At Home This Midterm (0+ / 0-)

                    is a factor for democrats, to be sure. why should they show up?

                    the notion GOP voters are not going to show up on election day this fall is a farce.

                    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

                    by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:21:34 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm (0+ / 0-)

                      first of all talkng about 2016. I am certainly not saying that the GOP is not going to show up in 2014. Actually I have no idea who is going to show up in 2014. Depends on the candidates etc.

                      It's the policy stupid

                      by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:36:29 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, WHY should dem voters (0+ / 0-)

                        show up to vote in 2016?

                        as far as the GOP not showing up this year-- not sure how you or anyone could believe that, given what happened in 2010.

                        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

                        by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:54:37 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  2016 (0+ / 0-)

                          if the GOP nominates a nut like Cruz you can imagine that he gets about 20% of the voters. Then you probably can double that. But Presidential elections seem to bring out different voters than off year elections.

                          And again, I didn't say the GOP would not show up in 2014. I really don't know. The past decade or so they have been more reliable on showing up during off year elections.

                          It's the policy stupid

                          by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:11:49 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think the GOP is THAT Dumb (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, they are in fact stupid, but I think they learned their lesson with Willard.

                            I guess everyone has forgotten about Colin Powell?

                            "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

                            by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:14:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you ever (0+ / 0-)

                            talk to any Republicans? They think that Romney lost because he was a moderate. They think the same thing about McCain. They think that Sarah Palin actually helped McCain because IIRC McCain did better numbers than Romney.

                            It's the same residing the bubble thinking that made them think that Romney was going to win in a landslide.

                            Now the Republicans in Washington know that the real reason Romney lost was because he had to pander to crackpots during the primary. But they seem to have lost influence over the people who actually vote in the GOP primaries.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:19:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've Known Mouth Breathing GOP'ers (0+ / 0-)

                            so yes unfortunately I've talked to them often.

                            They think that Romney lost because he was a moderate. They think the same thing about McCain. They think that Sarah Palin actually helped McCain because IIRC McCain did better numbers than Romney.
                            what you seem to be implying with this is GOP'ers think logically or they are critical thinkers, or they know or care anything about history.

                            NONE of that is the case.

                            stop the hand-wringing about what they think and pay attention to what they DO: they vote. and they put together plans to win elections.

                            "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

                            by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:00:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am (0+ / 0-)

                            not handwringing about what they think. You were implying that they would nominate a "moderate" this time or at least that is what I got from your post.

                            My point is that they think that Ted Cruz would do better in a general election than Romney did.

                            Frankly right now they may have a plan for mid terms but they certainly don't seem to have one past that. They plan to run against Obamacare and maybe the economy. They are pretty transparent for the most part on that kind of stuff.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:13:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not one of those that blames the POTUS ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          for what Congress does/doesn't do, though I understand that there is an entire media industry, and style of governance that has been built on doing just that.

          If life weren't so damn hard, we’d have no need for fabric softeners.

          by glb3 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:06:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  We're five years in. It's baked into the # already (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, howie14, doroma, sukeyna, skohayes

      Those polls showing Hillary trouncing every Republican in the country were taken with everyone already quite familiar with the slow recovery since 2009.

      Why would you expect people who don't already hold the pace of the recovery against the Democrats to start doing so between now and November 2016? Especially since the next 3-1/2 years are likely to show better economic performance than the last 5?

      Also, calling John Kerry a "throwaway type" after his record of public service is pretty ignorant.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:11:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Congress (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      has insanely low approval ratings. The GOP will of course blame Obama, but the do-nothing Tea-Party run House is very unpopular, and the Democratic nominee should be able to run against that.

    •  Running against the Do-Less-Than-Nothing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Congress on its sabotage of the economy is not that hard, if you make up your mind to it.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 04:35:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is why I think Hillary has the best shot. She had NOTHING to do with any of Obama's economic decisions.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:23:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  if you really want an attack, I bet WalMart is (0+ / 0-)

    a better angle.

    Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

    by Murphoney on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:17:43 AM PST

  •  You say "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" as if (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans weren't deranged on a very large number of issues these days.  Back in the Clinton Presidency their derangement was mostly limited to the Clintons, but now it includes almost any factual issue.

    That said, her biggest problem getting elected will be the sizable part of our population who have strong opinions on how women should act and look, and for many of them, they'll never vote for her principally because of her gender.

    I hope the situation will change, but at the moment I think the number of people who will never vote for a woman to be President is higher than the number of people who will be more likely to vote for her because of her gender.

    And not all of them are men.  You can't be a woman who accepts a religious view that women should be subservient to their husband, specifically, and men in general, and not be less likely to vote for a woman.  

    (In my experience, if their women members stopped providing most of the workers at these churches most would be in a huge crisis.)

  •  Too much derangement in this thread (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, cpresley

    The sexist, personal attacks on the most prominent female Democrat in the US are a discredit to this community.

    You disagree on policy? Great.

    You want to run a primary? Awesome.

    But the put-downs here and other Hillary threads are - I'm assuming - the work of GOP dirty tricks operatives and not actual progressives.

    •  No, they're not GOP operatives. (7+ / 0-)

      DKos is pretty much ground zero for Hillary hating in the Democratic Party. Nearly all feminists were purged out of DK back during the pie-fight era ("the sanctimonious women's studies set"), and then Hillary campaigners were purged out in 2008. The web site is not demographically representative of the direction of the party.

      Now Marcos is no fool, and he isn't willing to die on the hill of Hillary hating. But there are more than a few DKosers who are willing to die on that hill, and their heads are going to be exploding for the next three years.

    •  Jeez, we just want a primary. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timmethy, tb mare, Portlaw, Occulus, CenPhx, askew

      Guess I'm a GOP operative just because I want Hillary to have actually campaign to get the Democratic nomination.

      I want a more liberal candidate to step up and if that candidate loses then I'll support Hillary.

      But apparently you and other Hillary supporters don't want my support, since you think everyone who isn't already on board is a "GOP operative", or something.

      Actually maybe this is good. It's a reminder to judge Hillary by her policy and what kind of campaign she runs, and not by how much her fans hate the liberal wing of the party. And if her fans don't want my support that's fine, then I'll help a Senate campaign instead and vote for her in November.

      I hope you guys can get enough boots on the ground with that attitude.

      •  Her fans *are* the liberal wing (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, emelyn, skohayes, cpresley

        ...of the party!

        Great real. A small subset of liberals doesn't want HRC to run - but most do. All polls show this.

        For some it's personal with her. For others it's gender, still, even in 2014. And for some it really is policy purity over defeating the GOP - that's the reason I can certainly respect and a progressive.

        •  "A small subset of liberals" (5+ / 0-)

          In other words, those who are liberals.

          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:46:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No. (5+ / 0-)

            Check every poll. You're simply wrong. Many, many liberals - including this one - support Clinton's candidacy.

            •  Define "liberal" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              red ear slider, CenPhx

              Who would prefer to be our next president? [x] Hillary [ ] Evil Republican
              I identify as a [x] liberal [ ] moderate [ ] conservative

              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:47:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I just don't think those polls reflect reality (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead, CenPhx

              like Deadhead said above.

              People can say they're liberal. Are they?

              I tend to define liberal as those who focus on income inequality, who think wealth should not be concentrated in the hands of a lucky few. Liberal means more transparent government and a loosening of the surveillance state. It means supporting better environmental protections.

              Do people who support those things support Hillary? Or are those issues "simply wrong" and just a "small subset" of Democratic voters? If you cling to these polls you may be surprised at the answer.

              When I think of liberal in an economic sense, I think Occupy Wall St. I don't see a lot of occupiers flocking to Hillary. I don't think the Democratic Party wants people like us. We're just a "small" group of liberals that can be dismissed. But I think we're bigger than your poll suggests.

              •  Exactly my point. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                red ear slider, CenPhx

                Only you expanded it.

                Given a choice between her and someone like Santorum, who wouldn't choose her?

                That's my problem with some of these goofballs running around in these threads. They're trying to push the meme that just by virtue of her having the support of liberals, she's a liberal herself.

                There are plenty of reasons to believe otherwise.

                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                by DeadHead on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 03:20:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well, if "liberal" = "Occupy Wall Street"... (0+ / 0-)

                ...that means that a country of near 300 million citizens has a few hundred thousand liberals.  
                Personally, I'm going to hold out for a slightly more inclusive definition.

              •  No true scotsman fallacy? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tomwatson, cpresley

                Do "true liberals" REALLY support Hillary?  If they are, can they really be "true" Liberals?
                I was an Occupy skeptic, but I certainly supported the movement and the incredible way it changed the conversation in our country. I support Hillary.
                I support better environmental regulation, moving towards renewable energy, and I support Hillary.
                I'd like to see a huge reduction in the NSA, the Dept of Defense and our military posture abroad. I don't think that's going to happen over one or two terms, but over decades.
                I support an economy that lifts all boats, and I support Hillary.
                Am I a true enough Liberal for you?

                Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:22:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think it's the other way around (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I never said supporting Hillary makes you "not liberal enough"

                  But people here seem to be saying that not supporting Hillary's inevitability makes you "not Democrat enough"

                  But the put-downs here and other Hillary threads are - I'm assuming - the work of GOP dirty tricks operatives and not actual progressives.
                  "Not actual progressives". I liked Hillary in 2008, even though I supported Obama. But after what I've heard the past few months I would be pretty reluctant to walk into a Hillary for President campaign office and volunteer in May 2016, if attitudes don't change. I'm one of the left wing fringe, right. I'm as bad as "GOP operatives". I'm not a 'real' Democrat.

                  I hope you guys go for a bigger tent if you hope to win.

                  Even if I want Hillary to be president, and I would if she won the nomination, her fans are making it increasingly clear people like me aren't welcome.

                  I would help a Senate campaign instead though. I'd do something, since I wouldn't be welcome among Hillary supporters.

                  Am I a true Democrat enough for you?

                  •  You are making conclusions about something (0+ / 0-)

                    that wasn't said.

                    But people here seem to be saying that not supporting Hillary's inevitability makes you "not Democrat enough"
                    But the put-downs here and other Hillary threads are - I'm assuming - the work of GOP dirty tricks operatives and not actual progressives.
                    See what you did there? The OP was talking about the put downs, not about whether you support Hillary or not.

                    Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                    by skohayes on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:13:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  careful, you're treading (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            close to the No True Scotsman fallacy there.

        •  Hey, I want a woman to be president (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I would just rather have Kirsten Gillibrand or Elizabeth Warren. And gender still shouldn't preclude Sherrod Brown from throwing his name in the hat.

          You say it's the liberal wing or the party that wants Hillary to be the nominee, but as a supporter of Occupy and part of that group, I just don't feel like I'm welcome among Hillary supporters.

          "Policy purity" and beating the GOP are not mutually exclusive IMO. I dismiss the meme that this is a right-of-center nation.

          I like and respect Hillary and she wouldn't make a bad president. But when people say she's inevitable and we should shut up and accept it, that really, really puts me off.

          And I question how much polls this early in the game actually reflect reality. When she goes to Iowa then I'll pay more attention to polls.

          •  Gillibrand? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes, sukeyna, cpresley

            You mean Hillary's protege? That's crazy thinking she'd run against Clinton.

            Now, if Hillary doesn't go, I think Gillibrand leaps into the top tier immediately. Very talented and tenacious politician.

            Sherrod Brown won't oppose Clinton. And I don't think Warren will either, much as I admire her.

            Hillary Clinton is not right of center.

          •  Do you remember (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            when Kirsten Gillibrand first was appointed to the Senate? People called her all kinds of names here, because she had been a member of the Blue Dog Caucus in the House and had voted rather conservatively on some bills.
            Now she is a duly elected Senator and one of the most progressive, IMO.
            And may I say, as a Hillary supporter, I hate the calls to just accept her as the nominee. I would welcome a great raft of qualified candidates up there, and would love to see some real primary debates on the direction of our security state and other issues.

            Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

            by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:35:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is funny considering (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, DeadHead, boriskamite, Portlaw

    Hillary Clinton did not misspeak -- she spoke deliberately

    I don't know how anyone could look at that and say Clinton's excuse adequately addresses the reality of what happened. On multiple occasions during a three-month span, she made similar false claims about the same event -- and it's possible she made others of which we are unaware.
    Hypocrite: Hillary's elitist stereotype of stay-at-home moms
    The issue is Hillary Clinton's utter hypocrisy -- and her complete embrace of the right-wing's way of doing politics.

    Is there anything she will not say or do?

    The internet is forever.

    Victim of the system~Bob Marley

    by LaEscapee on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 10:59:28 AM PST

    •  No doubt we all "misremember" stuff at times, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaEscapee, DeadHead, tb mare, Portlaw

      but no one other than a soldier or a war correspondent gets confused about something like dodging sniper fire. I should think that would stick in your mind.

      Even after the endless, obsessive rightwing "investigation" of her and her husband, it apparently never occurred to Ms. Clinton that someone might check this story. It's hard to spin this stuff away as a trivial misunderstanding, though I'm confident many here will try.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:14:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton Derangement Bipartisan (11+ / 0-)

    Sadly, the right wing does not have a corner on this market.  There are people on the left who so hate what they believe the Clintons stand for that they are unmoved by facts.

    HRC is not perfect.  But she will make a great President.

    And before the Hillary haters on the left climb on their high horse, they have some answering to do of their own.

    Back in 2000, all we heard from the left of the party and the Naderites was how Al Gore was the same as George W. Bush.  Let that sink in.  Al Gore and George W. Bush are the same.

    Now we are supposed to listen to these same people tell us about  Hillary?

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:00:55 AM PST

    •  Bunk. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PatriciaVa, DeadHead, Portlaw, CenPhx, askew

      It's the people telling us that Hillary is our great, inevitable white hope who will fix everything who are the problem. IF she runs and IF she is elected — and those things are not guaranteed, contrary to what too many of her supporters think — she will crash her worshippers as quickly as those who thought Obama would fix everything crashed the people who put him on a pedestal.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:00:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Hillary has plenty of history to go by as far as how she might govern, but I'll tell you this, I wouldn't expect the same type of comity with the Republicans we've seen with Obama. It's the same reason I supported her in the 2008 primaries, because I knew she knew how to fight the right wing, and Obama didn't.
        I'm sure Hillary will disappoint me, as Obama has, and Bill Clinton did and Jimmy Carter did.
        I don't expect I'll agree 100% with any candidate, or be 100% satisfied with how they run things.
        It's called reality. I can live with it.

        Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

        by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:40:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oooo the DFH spin (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Portlaw, CenPhx

      I liked Gore.  I voted for Gore.  I thought his campaign was horrible.  I thought the advice he got from the Clinton machine defeated him.  And I thank the Naderites for keeping Lieberman from being a heartbeat away.  

      I figure Hillary is going to run an Al Gore campaign.  Entitled.  Risk averse.  Targeted to right of center voters.  Abandoning issues that inspire progressives.  

      And lose.  

      •  What Clinton machine? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sukeyna, cpresley

        Gore distanced himself from Clinton, even moving his campaign headquarters to Tennessee to get away from him.
        He chose Joe Lieberman as a running mate, after Lieberman had publicly blasted Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky affair.

        Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

        by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:45:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  did it ever leave? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:02:09 AM PST

  •  It's All So 90's...... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, Chitown Kev, cpresley, skohayes

    Ancient history.  Hillary will be running, not Bill.  Just the very thought of her running & clocking their candidates has their
    panties all in a wad.  If they have to go that far back & relitigate Bill & Monica & poor Vince Foster again, their desperation & fear is showing.

    Poor thangs!  This past week they had a former Bill fling on FOX News who tried to blame Hillary & Bill for the death of her pets.

    Really, people?

  •  It'll be great fun, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    watching this level of gutter mudslinging from a party that's given us Iraq, an economic collapse (the calendar read December, 2008!) and, on the 'character' board, Larry Craig's 'wide stance', David Vitter in diapers, Mark Sanford on the Appalachian Trail, John Ensign's extramarital diddling, Mark Foley soliciting sex from male pages, Neal Horsley who admitted to sex with a mule... aw, what the Hell, enjoy 'em all:

    ... and, of course, the serpentine Reince Priebus' fixation on Bill's penis which was, it turns out, 'befriended' by a privileged tart who bragged to friends that she was off to Washington to earn her "presidential kneepads", all under the thoughtful supervision of Linda Tripp.

    Mmmyeah, Republicans... bring on that derangement, but remember to wear your crash helmets!

  •  Andrew Sullivan is getting warmed up as well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But I think he might cool it before it bubbles over too much. He'll lose ALOT of subscribers.

  •  It's a combination of anger and fear driving this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, skohayes

    Obviously, the hatered and anger at the Clintons from conservatives has never gone away, but fear bordering on panic I think is the main driving force now. They see the polls and see how Hillary destroys anyone that can put up against them. They're desperate to drag her down somehow so the 2016 doesn't become a complete blowout that could lose them everything, even their gerrymanded Hous majority.

    I can't help but notice this spike in the Hillary bashing began around the same time Bridgegate blew up in the Jersey Whale's face. Losing their preferred candidate has apperently caused the GOP to freak out ahead of schedule.

    •  Well, Hillary WON'T "destroy anyone" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boriskamite, greenbell, askew

      once the campaign is happening  IF she is the nominee. her numbers will plunge if she is an active candidate. And she's excellent at blowing a campaign. Her best hope, as someone stated above, is that virtually anyone acceptable to the GOP base is not likely to have a shot. But I think we can do lots better.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:02:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But we won't if she runs (0+ / 0-)

        No one else will get in. Her lead is insurmountable. This isn't 2008. There is no Obama out there.

        People need to quit their fantasies of Warren and work with what they have. And that includes giving up these fantasies that Hillary's sure to blow it. Do you people ever think that perhaps she's learned from 2008 and will act accordingly? She's not going back to Mark Penn.

      •  She's excellent at what? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley, Ga6thDem

        Blowing a campaign? How exactly did she blow it when she got only a few hundred thousand less votes than Obama, out of a total of over 35 million votes cast during the primaries?

        Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

        by skohayes on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:52:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sorry but anyone who uses the word "timely" (0+ / 0-)

    now to talk about something that didn't matter in 2000 has no clue what they are talking about.

    Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

    by anastasia p on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 11:39:58 AM PST

  •  It's true the Hillary Fever is starting early (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cpresley, skohayes

    this season.

    I wonder if the issues of governing -- Democrat in the White House, Senate at least moving appointments now -- are just not thrilling enough to keep our attention?  Is it that the Right Wing keeps yammering about their obsession with the Clintons (they sure hated gettin' whupped, repeatedly, years ago), and we just can't ignore them?   It sure isn't that Hillary Clinton is doing anything that has the glittery, star-dazzle of a Justin Bieber drunk driving arrest or a Miley Cyrus dance routine... .

    I must say that I appreciate her seemingly herculean effort to stay out of the public eye these days.  That does, at least, leave some oxygen in the room for Chris Christie to self-immolate in full public view.  ...And, provides some space for President Obama and others to move a few agenda items these next couple of years with a modicum of popular participation.

    I wish Hillary several more months of well deserved rest.  There's plenty of time for hysteria, later.  Much later.

  •  CDS is a chronic illness. (0+ / 0-)

    It's about time  for another flare up for the Republicans.

    Or as I like to put it the Republican agenda is: slime the Clintons, Reince, repeat.

    I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

    by AZphilosopher on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:33:09 PM PST

  •  The Hatred Of Hillary Resonates With GOP Base (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Doesn't go beyond that. They drum up the old hits of the 90s and right wing media get eyeballs and ears and fundraisers get checks and credit card numbers.

  •  Winning with a less-than-pure candidate beats (5+ / 0-)

    losing with a pure one. I'll vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination.

    I like Hillary a lot, and I also support others stepping into the ring so we can have a contested primary. Several people have brought up the fact that a credible challenger to her left will force her to move that way, and earlier this week someone posted a great, very candidate-neutral diary about why a contested primary will help whoever gets the nomination.

    In sum: Hillary -- Yes! Primary -- Yes!

  •  Let's stop kidding ourselves (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enhydra lutris, DeadHead

    Hillary Clinton (DS)

    She is the perfect candidate for the Deep State. As was Obama.

    Moyer's latest

  •  How cool. Let put a derogatory label (7+ / 0-)

    on Sec. Clinton's critics instead of addressing the issues like adults. Another ingenious idea to win the hearts and minds of voters.

    "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013

    by TheMomCat on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:14:53 PM PST

  •  Reading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    through this thread make me think that too many people subscribe to the Sally Quinn elistist thinking about the Clintons. They just are not good enough because they don't come from the "right place" or the "right town" or whatever.

    Just sad.

    It's the policy stupid

    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 07:40:30 PM PST

  •  Simply Deranged (0+ / 0-)

    The target of GOP derangement is beside the point; The GOP is built on a platform of intellectually weak ideas, self-serving policies, and hate-baiting their base. It's kinda hard to behave with sanity when everything you say and do comes from a cesspool of idiocy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site