Skip to main content

By now you all know that I am solidly in the "anti-Hillary camp". I do not consider her to be at all trustworthy, principled, or progressive, or even especially effective. I've just been reminded again of why. And no, it's not the gay marriage thing. Let's not forget that Obama also "evolved" on the issue, just to be fair. Hell, I made the exact same transition, from soft support for "civil unions" to full-on gay marriage, so I can't gripe about that.

This article in The Nation is just a quick reminder of yet another reason why Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate and not at all the President that we need right now. Sending our troops to die in a needless war that we started because of lies is not "supporting" them.

And this is on foreign policy, her supposed strong suit. Even looking back on her tenure as Secretary of State, what did she really accomplish? "She didn't burn the store down" isn't saying much. Let's not forget that she was known as THE hawk of the whole administration, much more than the guy who ordered all the drone strikes and killed Bin Laden.

You know what? In 2000, "Don't burn down the store" might have been enough. Maybe she could have handled the White House back then, even with the hysteria of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. But in 2016, it's not enough to just hold the steering wheel still. We need a drastic course correction, and I don't think Hillary Clinton can do that. I think she's too conservative for that.

Let's face it, there is only one reason why anyone is talking about this triangulating, calculating, conniving politician, this plastic Wall Street toadie as the next POTUS, and that is because we're overdue for a woman President. That's it. Period. We're overdue for a woman, and she's a woman, the most visible and ambitious. If she were a he, he would have been forgotten (or consigned to a C-list job on CNN, same difference) years ago, and all the MSM buzz would be about Sarah Palin. I'm serious. (And yes, I just used the words "Sarah Palin" and "serious" back to back- ugh...)

Why am I so dead set against Hillary Clinton? Couldn't my invective just as accurately describe any of a hundred male politicians? Yes, of course, but first of all, by asking that, aren't you protecting her and giving her a pass on her bullshit just because she's a woman? Can you at least ask yourself if you are? For what it's worth, if any of those hundred male sellouts run for President I won't spare them either.

Why am I so dead set against her? It's all the puffery and fakery. It's because far too many on the left are so enamored with the idea of a woman President that they're not stopping to ask anything about who that woman really is. Well, I'm sorry but we are in no position to elect someone just because she's a woman. Who that woman is as a person matters a great deal. We didn't elect Obama just because he was black. That was just a nice bonus, though that too was overdue. We elected him because he wasn't Hillary Clinton. He ran as an insurgent outsider against the ultimate insider. He ran as a level-headed progressive alternative to two establishment pro-corporate war hawks and the idiotic nutjob the biggest war hawk of all picked as a running mate.

Why am I so dead set against her? Because she's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and we're not talking about the issues, or finding a better candidate who is stronger on those issues. I wish the focus were on Elizabeth Warren. God I wish she would run. I would drop everything to go work for her campaign. If she won't, then maybe Bernie Sanders, uphill battle and all. Howard Dean could mount a comeback. Or why don't we think outside the box and draft Robert Reich? He'd make a great President, especially now.

Why am I so enamored with all of these "longshots" and not the "inevitable" (yeah right) HRC? Because the last thing we need right now is Wall Street running the show. What we really need right now is nothing less than the second coming of FDR. Or at least Kennedy. Consider the magnitude of our problems, from our broken political system to climate change. We need someone who can see not only problems, but opportunities, and not just opportunities for her own ambition, but for all of us. For example, our crumbling infrastructure can be rebuilt, only better. To do all this we need principled leadership with VISION, not someone who can't go to the bathroom without consulting a pollster.

We have the resources to solve our problems. There are enough smart people to fill all the big chairs. (Smart people, not cronies like Larry Summers.) No, a President alone can't solve all of our problems. We also need a MUCH more progressive Congress that can actually get something done. Still, we do need leadership, someone who can carry forward Obama's work, and yes, improve upon it. We need someone we can trust at the helm, someone who will truly fight for us, and that is not Hillary Clinton.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Your first sentence (7+ / 0-)
    By now you all know that I am solidly in the "anti-Hillary camp"
     No offense, but why would you assume that?

    the woman who is easily irritated

    by chicago minx on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 01:54:41 AM PDT

    •  That was my first thought. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chicago minx, Gooserock, AlexDrew

      I don't think I've ever seen the name "Edward L Cote" before.  I see from the user id that he's new here.

      Welcome, Edward. You'll find a good number of like-minded people here, moreso than in the Democratic Party as a whole.

      •  And thanks for saying it so well! (6+ / 0-)

        This I thought was important:

        We didn't elect Obama just because he was black. That was just a nice bonus, though that too was overdue. We elected him because he wasn't Hillary Clinton.
        It's assumed by just about everyone that Hillary Clinton would win in the general.  I deeply hope this complacency isn't tested.  Not only because I fear Clinton would do nothing substantial now - when we need deep, fundamental change as never before - but because her ambition might give us another disastrous term of Republican rule.
        •  I'll admit (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hooper, elwior, blackhand, 57andFemale

          that's part of my concern. I worry that Rand Paul might beat her and we'll wind up with something even worse. Like I've said, Hillary is not inevitable. Just ask Barack Obama. Put her up against any decent candidate who actually stands a chance (and against her, even Mitt "The Joke" Romney does) and she falls like the house of cards that she is.

          edwardlcote.blogspot.com

          by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:33:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe a Repost From Diarist's/Other Blog? (0+ / 0-)

        We get a lot of that here. The state and local reposts drive me crazy because diarists so rarely tweak them to identify locales and personalities not known to national readership.

        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 Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:10:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Edward L. Cote *IS* the Democratic Party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chicago minx

      You call yourself a Democrat and you don't know Edward L. Cote?

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 05:12:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If either FDR or John Kennedy are on (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper, skohayes, anshmishra, elwior, unfangus

    my ballot, I'd surely vote for them.  But I don't think they will be.  

    Would love to see a wide primary field.  Would prefer some of that field more than others but will accept the ticket as chosen by Democratic primary voters.  

    Extensive reforms to the primary system can and should be undertaken, to increase the number of potential candidates, to reduce the influence of money, and to ensure that late-calendar primary voters have the same choices that early-calendar primary voters have.  

    Would favor reforms aimed at those areas but it's not a weekend project.  

    Whether she runs in 2016 or not, I'd like to see Hillary Clinton wield her celebrity to campaign and fund-raise for Democrats up and down the ballot this fall.  The mid-terms are an urgent focus.

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 02:06:51 AM PDT

    •  I think Msr.Clinton has said she's going to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator, Pinto Pony, TomP

      Go around the country and campaign for other candidates for the midterms

      •  Good news, then. The Senate and the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Portlaw, elwior, unfangus, amyzex

        House are volatile, especially the Senate because our majority there is so narrow.  

        And it would be great to grab the House right back.  Short of that, at least reduce Boehner's percentages.  Put a little heat on the lad to stop obstructing every damn thing that comes down the pike.  

        State legislatures and gubernatorial candidates need a boost as well.  

        Would love to see HClinton, Biden, et al all out on the campaign trail, putting some bucks into blue candidates' coffers.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 03:13:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bill Clinton is a better (4+ / 0-)

          at galvanization.

          •  I expect him out there as (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, elwior, unfangus

            well.  

            And not just at high-profile venues in major media markets, but in small town fire stations, school gyms, and city parks.  

            Maybe have Bill and Hillary hold a Q and A at a high school in a rural area in a huge Republican district on behalf of Democratic candidates.  

            "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

            by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 03:27:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think Bill and Hill together always (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Remediator, weezilgirl, Pinto Pony, elwior

              make the idea of a co presidency more vivid. But that's just my feeling.

              •  Agree. Their detractors will dislike (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP, elwior

                either or both, but a lot of those small town populations might be pleased to have a couple headline Democrats roll into town.  Those towns would be abuzz with political talk for weeks afterwards.

                A certain handful of those kinds of events could possible impact local elections.  The Clintons could bring some Hollywood celebrities along as well and really shake up the joint.  

                Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) often rail about immoral Hollywood liberals making decadent movies, blah blah blah, but people all over the country are the folks buying tickets and popcorn.  

                "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 03:38:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Remediator, elwior, unfangus

                  '(and Joe Lieberman) often rail about immoral Hollywood liberals making decadent movies, blah blah blah,  '

                  and we all know that Joe Lieberman is up to his skinny ass in morals and loyalty. Our little leperchain.

                  “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

                  by weezilgirl on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:02:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He defeated Lowell Weicker for that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior, unfangus

                    Senate seat.  It might have saved us all serious woe if Weicker had retained it.

                    But as he stayed on and on in the Senate, Lieberman became more Bush-like.  Bush himself couldn't have asked for a better communications director than Joe Lieberman.

                    I don't know if his mind wandered off and never returned or if he was bought out, or what.  

                    But it sure stank up the place.  I'm glad he's no longer in the Senate.  I don't think any progressive anywhere misses him one little bit.  

                    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                    by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:21:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't get me wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      I don't want us to start nominating candidates who can't win general elections, but Elizabeth Warren would curb stomp anybody the Republicans could conceivably nominate. The debates alone would be game over. Contrast that to HRC, whom debates can almost only hurt. AND mudslinging GOP-style is more effective against shifty candidates like Clinton because it's more believable.

      Even if I'm overstating things, her odds are still much better than Hillary's.

      FDR is long gone, but Warren comes pretty damn close, and THAT is what we need right now.

      edwardlcote.blogspot.com

      by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:45:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ELC, I don't know how things will (0+ / 0-)

        stand in a few years.  But we have a hell of a long way to go before the first candidate even announces.  

        I'm not sure HClinton will run, or if she can hold her lead better than last cycle, or if she signs on more intuitive people to run her campaign.  All of those things matter a lot.  

        If she can do most of them, I think she's the nominee if she wishes to be, and I think she would have the far better shot against the GOP ticket.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:22:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My political wetdream is Warren with (0+ / 0-)

        ...Sanders. Alas, Warren has pretty much put the scotch on it.

        Thank you for stating what I've been thinking for a long while now about Hillary.

        Peace.

    •  It's times like these that JFK Jr's death (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Remediator

      makes me wonder "what if?".

    •  Your last reform goal would appear to be impossibl (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator

      unless some measures are taken to prevent candidates from dropping out during the primary season.  Otherwise, it is inevitable that voters in late primaries will have fewer choices than voters in early primaries.

      The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

      by amyzex on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 08:07:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right now, yes. But there are proposed (0+ / 0-)

        calendars that would at least greatly improve the problem.  

        For example, three primary elections, each a "super" Tuesday, 17 random states in the first round, 17 more three weeks later, and in just two weeks following, the remains random states.  Candidates would have to pay more attention to Alabama and South Dakota and not just camp out in California or New York.  In a little over a month, you'd have a candidate.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:27:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Firstly - I am against dynasties in WH. (9+ / 0-)

    But seriously - a husband-wife succession?  Father-son is bad enough, but at least GHWB wasn't living in the White House when W was President.

    The question will always arise - who is calling the shots? If you believe that Hillary can be President while Bill kicks back and watches Ball on the wide screen, then who was running the country in 92-2000?

    I expect many folks, especially independents share this view. Hard line democrats can pinch their noses, but the Indies and the might voters might just stay home.

    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

    by peterfallow on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 02:17:32 AM PDT

    •  Agree totally on the husband wife (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Says, peterfallow, elwior, Lepanto

      succession.

      •  totally disagree on husband wife.... (7+ / 0-)

        two smart people get married in law school.  Which one should never have a real political career?  Pick one.  How is that fair?

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 03:50:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it has nothing to do with fair (6+ / 0-)

          The fact is that Bill Clinton was president, and people who run for president tend to be egomaniacs who like to be in charge--and Bill Clinton is a prime example of this tendency.

          There is no way that he's going to take a hands-off approach to a Hillary Clinton presidency. You know he'll butt in and try to influence policy. He can't help himself. And this could cause serious problems in governance. If Hillary's Cabinet were to take one side of an issue, and Bill another, whom would President Hillary listen to? He's not a Senate-confirmed Cabinet member or an elected official, what authority does he have? None, on paper. But as a former president, he would have stature and influence that no mere Cabinet member would have.

          The constitutional lines of authority should be clear, and with ex-president Bill Clinton as the first First Husband, they would never be.

          The Clinton Administration leaked like a sieve. If there are Bill-Hillary conflicts over policy, it'll be all over the Internet before you can say "Whitewater." And it would divide the Democratic party.

          A significant part of HRC's support comes precisely from those Bill die-hards who think that 8 years of Bill wasn't enough and want a Bill Clinton regency. They're going to be siding with Bill every time.

          Then you'll have the Hillary die-hards who still want payback for Bill's dicking around on her, who think he has been more liability than asset to her in her political career, who think that whatever successes he had were due greatly to her--and they'll side with Hillary every time.

          This will happen on every single issue. If this country suffered another crisis--an economic collapse, a pandemic, civil unrest, a natural disaster--can we afford that kind of conflict?

          And Hillary has benefited immensely from marrying Bill. There is a plausible argument to be made that Hillary Clinton would never have had a national political career without having married Bill, so she's benefited plenty. It's not like it's a one-way street.

          When she ran for Senate, she had Bill's network of donors and contacts to draw upon. She had a high profile as a First Lady who had participated in policy. Same when she ran for president. How many votes was that worth?

          What has she got that Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand or any of a half-dozen smart, hard-working women who made it to the Senate don't have? Why is it that they aren't heavyweight presidential contenders and Hillary is? The question answers itself.

          Hillary's greatest political asset is Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, her greatest political liability is--you guessed it--Bill Clinton.

          To suggest it's "unfair" that Hillary will never get to be president is ridiculous. Only 44 people out of the many hundreds of millions of Americans that have ever lived have gotten to be president. If Hillary Clinton fails to become the 45th, it's hardly an injustice to lose sleep over.

          She's done pretty damn well. Rich, well-respected, service as senator and SOS. If she never gets the shiny brass ring, she should be able to live with it.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 05:03:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I hope Bill would be involved. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not paranoid or anything. Everyone just thinks I am.

      by Jim Riggs on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:28:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kick back watching ball? (0+ / 0-)

      I think he will use his "First Gentleman" (no idea what the equivalent of First Lady is) status to help amp up his Clinton Global Initiative projects.  The man has been extremely busy since he left office, not even counting on all the campaign he does every cycle (and will continue to do if he is back in the WH).

      The work CGI has done on education, healthcare, climate, finance, agriculture, child welfare, and women's rights is impressive.  And this is aside from the work he personally has done on his own for disaster relief.

      I don't see Bill walking away from all that anytime soon regardless of what job his wife has.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:31:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If I'd Liked Bill I'd Love Having Hillary Follow (0+ / 0-)

      and I'd seriously not care which of them was calling the shots.

      As if we knew for sure the first time around.

      Who was calling the shots in 1983? There's only one person we can all agree was NOT calling shots.

      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 Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:15:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is incredibly sexist (0+ / 0-)

      Women are not carbon copies of their husbands, dude. They have a mind of their own. And if you think that most presidents don't discuss things with their wives, you're sorely mistaken.

      •  It's not sexist inasmuch (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Lepanto

        that it doesn't matter who was President first, the arguments are the same.

        I mean, just sit back and think about it. How is this going to work? You have to be some kind of control freak to want to run for the job in the first place.

        I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

        by peterfallow on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:18:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Since nobody in either major party has (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Overseas, skohayes, elwior

    announced a 2016 White House run, it's difficult to pretend the 2016 general election is the only game in town.

    We have a Congress to elect in a few months, and several governors, state legislatures, and a long list of local officials.  

    That's first.  

    George Soros has donated a juicy little check to Ready for Hillary.  Money in politics is an issue that cuts both ways sometimes.  Wikipedia claims that a handsome percentage of donations to that PAC are a hundred bucks or less.  

    Hillary Clinton may not run.  We don't know her exact plans.  But I do want to see her in as many places as possible in the coming months, fundraising on behalf of blue candidates.  

    Right now, knowing as little as we know about 2016, that would be the highest contribution she could make for other Democrats.  We need as blue a  Congress as possible.

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 02:38:20 AM PDT

    •  I wonder if these people have to have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator

      something to rail about and can't see past their noses to shut up and come together with us and elect Democrats in November?

      How many anti-Hillary diaries are here at DK? Not that I don't believe a person shouldn't have their opinion, it's just this tunnel vision that is making me nuts.

      MID-TERM ELECTIONS, PEOPLE..2014! JOIN IN OR REGRET IT IN 2016.

      I've read my last diary that has Hilary Clinton's name in the title. No food from me here on out.

      I have bigger fish to fry in 2014. If people here don't know my preference now, so be it. What difference is it going to make between now and November? Not one damned bit!

      And yes, I'm pissed this morning. I haven't seen my oldest cat since Sunday. I have more important things to be doing with my time and as soon as it is daylight, I'm off again to find her.

      “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

      by weezilgirl on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:09:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  weezilgirl, I hope you can find (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        your cat.  Pets matter.  They are here and now.  You need each other's good company.

        I grew up with animals and I understand this sort of thing as an urgent priority.  I'd help you go out and find that cat if I could.  

        Agree also on November.  There are some races that are difficult for us, but that doesn't mean we can't win them.  

        I'm all for trying, in any case.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:17:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you so much, Remediator. (5+ / 0-)

          I need emotional support.

          In the past week my family has lost three much loved animals. I don't know how much we can take. We're on our knees now and Pearl is a very savvy cat. Not one to take chances. 15, very smart.

          I took a tracking dog yesterday and will take another one today. Pray hard, please.

          “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

          by weezilgirl on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:32:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I've about given up hope (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Remediator

          She's too smart to stay away from the house. I think a coyote got her. She has never been away from the front porch for more than 8 hours during the daytime. She hunts a lot and brings mice and rats in but this is too long for that. I've also seen a bobcat at the big barn. :(

          I'm going to have lunch and take the third tracking dog out afterwards. It's 85 and very humid so I can't let the dog work very long. I thought the first one picked up a scent yesterday but it was in the horseshoe area and I think it was older.

          “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

          by weezilgirl on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 09:38:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Believe it or not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Lepanto

        I agree with you. Much of my problem is that she is, like I said "sucking all the oxygen out of the room". I realize I'm contributing to that problem, but I'm sick of all the sucking up to her and when I see her pop up with all the other neocons talking about Iraq War 3, it really pisses me off.

        You know what? I'm well aware of the midterms. I'd love to be working on Congress. Nothing would please me more this year than 60 Senate seats and Nancy Pelosi getting HER gavel back from that sniveling drunken weasel.

        Looking no further than right here in my own back yard, we have two perfectly good candidates who are going to lose otherwise winnable races just because the DNC says they will and won't support them. (The same DNC that thinks Hillary will win the general btw) The Kansas Democratic Party is in shambles and we can't get any help at the national level, having been written off years ago. Pat Roberts has an approval rating of 29% and he doesn't even live here, yet he's untouchable? Way to go DNC. Way to hold onto the Senate. I'm sure your strategy of begging me for $10 twice a week so you can run TV spots that no one will watch will be way more effective.

        Can you blame me for being less enthused about races in other states when no one seems to give a damn about mine? Yes, eventually I'll have to suck it up, be the better man, and find somewhere I can do at least some good for somebody, but for now I'm pissed off and broke.

        Who knows, if the DNC won't help, maybe DFA will.

        And I also hope you find your cat.

        edwardlcote.blogspot.com

        by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:25:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm going door to door, (0+ / 0-)

          and to fish fries, auctions, the Choctaw nation, for our local Democrats. It's the least I can do. So far I've sent over $700 to our candidates locally.

          Broke? I live on $934 a month from my SS. Gas is expensive. I've printed out my own flyer for the candidates who don't have enough for anymore fancy brochures. I put those up at all the local stores, etc. The flyer was cheap because I went to the library and did it. I try to work all my campaigning around serious errands.

          If nothing else, we have to start at the bottom again.

          I understand what you are saying and I hope you will take the place of the tv  spots in your area. People do like to see feet on the ground.

          I know I can't affect the "big guns" in Oklahoma but I can try and change people's minds on a local level and build on that.

          I hope you join in for November. Thanks for your reply.

          “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

          by weezilgirl on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 09:35:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If she can do something useful (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      wonderful. Really. I think it's really more about maintaining her own visibility, but if we can get some use out of her, then let's do that. By all means.

      edwardlcote.blogspot.com

      by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:55:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Which candidate are you volunteering for in 2014 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, TomP, Diogenes2008, elwior

    for the House or Senate, and why please?

    "We have cast our lot with something bigger than ourselves" - President Obama, July 30, 2010

    by Overseas on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 02:45:40 AM PDT

    •  I am still keenly interested in the local races (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      even though, like I said CW is that neither is winnable. Then again, look what happened to Cantor.

      By all accounts Chad Taylor is a stand-up guy. He did risk his own career to restore funding for prosecuting domestic abuse cases when Brownback cut it. He's running against the Third Senator From Virginia.

      Margie Wakefield is well-liked and respected. She's running to be my Rep in the House.

      So once I work up the gumption to tell the "You can't win"ers where they can stick their conventional wisdom, I'm sure I'll do at least some work for both.

      And yes, I will continue to donate when I can afford a little here and there and where I think it will do any good.

      edwardlcote.blogspot.com

      by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:42:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary support isn't just because she is a woman. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, Lepanto, elwior, Wolf10

    Her backers flock to her for many other reasons:

    (1). DLC neo-liberal centrism. Appeals to donors, moderate Dems.
    (2). She's a 1%-er's 1%er. No worries of Occupy-style politics with Hill.
    (3). Baby-boomers' last stand. They're still smarting over 2008.
    (4). Clinton brand. Not too slick and lefty for poor whites.
    (5). Celebrity. America loves a tabloid icon.
    (6). Hawkishness. A Dem who does war? Tell me more!
    (7). Insider's insider. Safe pick, easy fund-raising guaranteed.

    Put it all together and it's irresistible to some.

    •  5 and 6 are the big ones for many (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, elwior, Wolf10
    •  regarding point (3), (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      Obama is a Baby Boomer. Younger than the Clintons, but still a Boomer. He's definitely not Gen X (it's usually agreed that that generation began around 1965).

      We've had three Boomer presidents in a row. You'd think that would be enough for some people, but evidently not.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 08:22:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A cautionary list of women leaders: (0+ / 0-)

      Angela Merkel
      Dilma Rousseff
      Sonia Gandhi
      Cristina Fernandez
      Julia Gillard
      Yingluck Shinawatra
      Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
      Laura Chinchilla
      Sirimavo Bandaranaike
      Indira Gandhi
      Golda Meir
      Elisabeth Domitien
      Margaret Thatcher
      Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo
      Dame Eugenia Charles
      Gro Harlem Brundtland
      Milka Planinc
      Benazir Bhutto
      Kazimira Prunskienė
      Khaleda Zia
      Édith Cresson
      Hanna Suchocka
      Tansu Çiller
      Kim Campbell
      Sylvie Kinigi
      Agathe Uwilingiyimana
      Reneta Indzhova
      Chandrika Kumaratunga
      Sirimavo Bandaranaike
      Claudette Werleigh
      Sheikh Hasina
      Janet Jagan
      Jenny Shipley
      Anne Enger Lahnstein
      Irena Degutienė
      Nyam-Osoryn Tuyaa
      Helen Clark
      Mame Madior Boye
      Khaleda Zia
      Chang Sang
      Maria das Neves
      Anneli Jäätteenmäki
      Beatriz Merino
      Luisa Diogo
      Radmila Šekerinska
      Yulia Tymoshenko
      Cynthia Pratt
      Maria do Carmo Silveira
      Portia Simpson-Miller
      Han Myeong-sook
      Zinaida Greceanîi
      Michèle Pierre-Louis
      Sheikh Hasina
      Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir
      Jadranka Kosor
      Cécile Manorohanta
      Kamla Persad-Bissessar
      Mari Kiviniemi
      Julia Gillard
      Iveta Radičová
      Rosario Fernández
      Cissé Mariam Kaïdama Sidibé
      Yingluck Shinawatra
      Helle Thorning-Schmidt
      Adiato Djaló Nandigna
      Alenka Bratušek
      Sibel Siber
      Tatiana Turanskaya
      Aminata Touré
      Erna Solberg
      Laimdota Straujuma

      Compliments of barleystraw

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

      by Wolf10 on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 10:23:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know whether to laugh or to cry (9+ / 0-)

    In 2008 we were all so enthused at the promise of hope and change.

    Yet now it looks like in 2016 so many Dems will be comfortable with the prospect of triangulating centrism again.

    Actually, I think I'll cry.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 03:26:07 AM PDT

    •  We Weren't ALL Enthused. A Number of Us Saw (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Wolf10, Lepanto

      the choice as between Clinton IIa and Clinton IIb.

      I used that terminology myself at the time.

      I've had many emotions since 2008 but surprise was not one of them.

      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 Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:17:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  one could argue that if HRC is elected in 2016 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Wolf10

        that that would make of the Obama presidency no more than a disappointing interlude (a bleep) in the move to the right of the Democratic Party

        We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

        by Lepanto on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:45:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like to see a younger candidate. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    murrayewv, Portlaw, schumann, askew

    Hillary Clinton would be 69. Bernie Sanders would be 75.  Elizabeth Warren would be 67. Robert Reich would be 70.  Joe Biden would be nearly 74.  

    I'd vote for any of these people unhesitatingly before I voted for any Republican, but can't we come up with someone who will be below retirement age on election day in 2016?

  •  Ah, yes! Another new member (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim Riggs, Wisper

    Telling me how horrible Clinton is. Know what? This is getting both old and very suspicious. Why is it that almost all of the Clinton bashing diaries are written by people who have been around Daily Kos just since the time the media began speculating about her making a bid for the White House? Coincidence? I don't know but I've seen this very thing before. There's nothing wrong with being a new member but don't expect me to assign any credibility to people who seem to have made quite a career out of bashing someone to the point at which "(we) all know that (you are) solidly in the "anti-Hillary camp" It's one thing to tell us we need a second coming of FDR but to keep chanting the name of Elizabeth Warren like doing so will invoke her to run is starting to piss me the fuck off. I thought we were a "reality based community"? We can either choose to live in that reality or whine for the next to years about how awful Clinton is and how wonderful Warren would be is only she'd run. The entire content is about bashing Clinton, with the obligatory inclusion of Warren's name. You say we elected Obama because he was "not Hillary" but he was. In every measurable sense, the are ideological clones. The difference for you all seems to come down to one vote during which Obama was not a Senator. I'd like to see a Progressive run too but I don't see these reflexively anti Hillary diaries as helpful. At all.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 03:57:23 AM PDT

    •  Clinton supported the Iraq War (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, karma13612, elwior, Fabienne, schumann

      Obama didn't. That was a BIG deal. And we still deserve to know when exactly she turned against the war and when she came to regret to her blank check to George Bush.

      Also, I see nothing wrong w/ Democrats joining this venue to criticize Clinton.

      This isn't (or shouldn't be) a coronation.

    •  I'm not (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Wolf10, Lepanto

      that new or that obsessed. Just look at the rest of my diaries. Like I said, I may have phrased one thing badly. That doesn't make every other point invalid.

      So the pro-Hillary camp can keep chanting her name to get her to run (she says she's not, though she's lying, big surprise) but the pro-Warren camp can't drum up support or try to convince her to change her mind? Interesting.

      edwardlcote.blogspot.com

      by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:52:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You win some, you lose some. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper

    You're going to lose.  Take it from me, you'll get over it.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:02:47 AM PDT

  •  Yawn (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper, TomP, Ohkwai, Diogenes2008

    We've probably had close to a dozen of these diaries the last couple of weeks about how much some of you don't want Hillary for president.
    Meanwhile, we have some very important races going on for the 2014 midterms.
    Focus, people, because if we lose the Senate, it won't matter who wins the presidency.

    If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

    by skohayes on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:20:43 AM PDT

    •  Yawn at your own risk (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, karma13612, elwior, Wolf10

      The fact that you see these diaries indicates that a chunk of the Democratic Party's base is unhappy w/ the prospect of a Clinton nomination.

      Instead of calling these people silly and yawning at them, we'd be wise to listen.

      •  a chunk? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Diogenes2008, skohayes, Jeremimi

        Maybe a chunk of one part of the people on one blog...

        Unless you want to start subscribing to the "poll skewing" school of thought, the evidence is strongly against your position.

        Only 6% of self-described liberals said they found HRC "too conservative".  13% said she's "too liberal"  poll

        92% of liberal Democrats have a favorable opinion of HRC, 74% had a strongly favorable. poll

        When asked whether of not the candidate would stand up to Wall Street banks, 49% said HRC would; 44% said Elizabeth Warren would.

        Not surprisingly, among potential Democratic primary voters, the perception that Clinton might be too accommodating to Wall Street is highest among college graduates (27 percent) and those who described themselves as very liberal (24 percent). Yet even among these groups, far more -- 44 percent of college graduates and 45 percent of strong liberals -- took the opposite position, saying Clinton would stand up to Wall Street. Poll
         

        Is there any poll or any other form of empirical evidence that remotely suggests HRC is not the actual preferred candidate of the ... y'know... whaddyacallem... VOTERS?

        Any?  Even one?  Somewhere?

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 05:58:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A very small chunk (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeremimi

        I think we'd better start focusing on what's important NOW rather than what's going to happen two years from now.
         photo Democrats_zpsb0f703e4.png

        If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

        by skohayes on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:16:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Did you criticize the owner of this site (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      for his "I heart Hillary" diary and follow-up push poll? If you did, you get full points for consistency and your focus on 2014 is proper and commendable.

      If not though, you might consider that discussion of the possible candidacy of Sec. Clinton is a two-way street. The current round of discussion of that candidacy on this website started from the top. It's specious to suggest that support is acceptable at this time but opposition is not.

      As in America, so on DKos. One lawbook for the privileged elite, another for the rest of us.

      by PhilJD on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:08:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I frankly don't give a shit (0+ / 0-)

        what kos thinks about Hillary. I can make up my own mind.
        I realize some people got all outraged about it, then turned it into a huge meta war for about a week, but I stay out of those diaries for a reason.
        And  I never said or implied that "support is acceptable but opposition is not":

        We've probably had close to a dozen of these diaries the last couple of weeks about how much some of you don't want Hillary for president.
        Meanwhile, we have some very important races going on for the 2014 midterms.
        Focus, people, because if we lose the Senate, it won't matter who wins the presidency
        .

        If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

        by skohayes on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:23:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The point is that the anti-Hillary diaries (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, Lepanto

          you object to don't exist in a vacuum. For the record, I completely support your focus on 2014, but the time to object to premature debate about 2016 was when Markos escalated that debate and gave thinking members here little choice but to take a side.

          Objecting to the "anti" diaries but keeping silent about the "pro" implies an agenda.

          As in America, so on DKos. One lawbook for the privileged elite, another for the rest of us.

          by PhilJD on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 07:33:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I support opposition to Hillary (0+ / 0-)

            when it's fact based and not full of shit like this diary.
            I support any and all primary challengers.  Bring it on and let the best woman win.
            But when you have diaries like this one that contribute nothing, use the same tired talking points as the last 10 diaries that were written, it gets BORING. Half the people who call her triangulating couldn't even define the word, but everyone else says that, so why not?
            The diarist even mentions dupporting Howard Dean running, but Dean just endorsed Hillary yesterday on Ari Rabin Havt's show on Sirius/XM.

            If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

            by skohayes on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 10:56:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Are these silly screeds, I mean "Diaries" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerry056, 88kathy

    going to be allowed after she is the official nominee?

    Don't we go into "Elect More and Better Democrats" mode at that point and "Anti-Hillary" becomes the same as "Pro-Republican" once the primary ends?

    I can only hope.....

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:34:21 AM PDT

    •  Silly Screeds? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, karma13612, elwior

      Why is this person's diary silly? Isn't this a discussion that should be had? Why are you opposed to even having the debate?

      My goodness. . . this is the Democratic Party, not the Monarchist Party.

      •  this is a debate now? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy

        Great.  What's the proposed motion?  "People who support Hillary only do it because of her gender"  Is that a premise the HRC really wants to get behind?

        Or is this oh-so-rational debate premised upon  "I wish more people focused on Elizabeth Warren"
        Okay.,. lets focus on Ms. Warren (who is unquestionably awesome).  But lets not focus on the dreamy-eyed blogger version of the woman.. lets hear from her directly:

        "All all of the women — Democratic women I should say  — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.
        Or how about from Paul Egerman, her national finance chair:
        Elizabeth Warren’s former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party’s left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016.

        Egerman, close to both Warren and to the heavy-hitting liberal base of funders who helped her raise $42 million last year, has been approached by donors in the last two weeks and told them that, no, Warren is not planning to run, according to two major players in Democratic financial circles who spoke with Egerman directly.

        One Democratic fundraiser said he spoke with Egerman roughly two weeks ago, after articles by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast and Noam Scheiber in the New Republic heightened fervor amongst the progressives over whether Warren would challenge Hillary Clinton, already the presumed frontrunner, from the left.

        Egerman, the fundraiser said, quickly threw cold water on the theory.

        “It’s not gonna happen,” the source said.

        But I dont think these are the actual premises submitted for debate.  I think its just angry id-based RAWRing because of Wall Street and Corporatist and AUMF and DNC and whatever else people can scrape up to fling at her.  If the word "Benghazi" could be mixed in a few more times this kind of shitfoxery would fit in at The Drudge Report.

        ...but here its "a meaningful debate on the issue" because otherwise we're just monarchist sellouts to the 1%.

        Here's a debate question:  When she finally announces later this year or early next year do I have to wear my "Corportist Neo-liberal Sellout" name tag WITH my "Obamabot" one or does one hurled intra-party epithet trump the other and I can just consolidate down to one label by which others have some right to judge me?

        I'm actively curious.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 05:25:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Believe it or not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          I actually love this.

          I never said I was debating anything. You know what? I am just venting, probably as are most of us whom you are ironically judging and labeling.

          That doesn't mean I don't have a point. I do, and it's "Let's not have a coronation." I'm calling BS when and where I see it, no less no more.

          We have two years to come up with a better candidate. That's totally doable. That's my point.

          edwardlcote.blogspot.com

          by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 08:07:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We actually have less than a year because by (0+ / 0-)

            this time in 2015 the campaign for the nomination will already be underway.
               I believe we will have a far better candidate in Elizabeth Warren, who will likely be in the race in approx. 8-9 months.

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

            by elwior on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 08:32:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I voted for Obama because he was Obama (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper, karma13612, Diogenes2008, Fabienne

    Not because he wasn't Hilary Clinton

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:44:57 AM PDT

  •  Now this is how to write a thoughtful (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    essay on why someone doesn't want Hillary to be president. It is so much more credible to keep the vitriol away from the debate and use a word like coward to describe her. Why does it seem that those who use metaphors that strive to go to an extreme position is fitting for those who claim true progressivism.

    You make a strong case. The other recent diary claiming she is a coward actually made me defend her and look at her strong points, something I rarely do when it comes to Hillary. Not sure I would have brought up FDR though. Different time, different dynamic in the country. I will say this, she is a lot better than any alternative on a republican ticket.

    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others....Groucho Marx

    by tazz on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 04:56:16 AM PDT

    •  Yes but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      only because the GOP has gone so far off the deep end. Pre-Gingrich, if it weren't for abortion, she'd basically be a Republican. These days? Anybody who doesn't have rabies would be better than a Republican, and yes, that does include HRC. Cold, calculating but smart is at least safer than Jihad.

      edwardlcote.blogspot.com

      by Edward L Cote on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 08:14:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  An ad hominem attack isn't vitriol? (0+ / 0-)
      ...this triangulating, calculating, conniving politician, this plastic Wall Street toadie...
      Promote your alternative candidate. Disparaging others disparages all.

      "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

      by GrumpyOldGeek on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 09:31:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Labeling her a coward was going off the (0+ / 0-)

        deep end and was extreme, it illustrates to this reader there is more than just disagreements over policy issues which if you want to make a credible argument against her being president, it is better to leave that crap out your argument. It shows there are Hillary foes who take it to a another level than just an ad-hominem.

        Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others....Groucho Marx

        by tazz on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 09:43:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They're all centrists (0+ / 0-)

    Elect the woman. It's change.

    and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

    by le sequoit on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 05:08:54 AM PDT

  •  She's Got a Power Base, That's Why She's a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    candidate.

    Last time the people played a dominant role creating a candidacy was Howard Dean. And while we did make a serious run of it, we didn't have the institutional power base to keep him in the running. Hillary does.

    But it's some 18 months earlier in this cycle than when the meetup-space latched onto Dean's campaign to raise it to serious contention.

    If there's to be a draft or other populist nomination candidacy, right now is the time to be putting such an effort together.

    The two obvious choices are Warren --which would be a full draft candidacy because she's said up till now she won't run-- or Bernie Sanders, which would a lighter-lift "encouragement" candidacy since he's already indicated some interest in running, at least as an issue-candidate, to keep progressive and populist economic issues and viewpoints in the campaign discussions.

    Time's wasting; best thing you can do right this moment is pick a candidate and work your tail off promoting them and organizing for them.

    Think where we might've been in 2004 if the activist sphere, online and realworld, had pounced on Dean in the summer of 2002 instead of early 2003 or so.

    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 Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:26:05 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for your condescension... (0+ / 0-)

    Your argument basically updates the "libs only voted for Obama 'cause he's black."

    Maybe, just maybe, people actually respect Senator/Secretary/First Lady Clinton for a long record of accomplishment and thinks she has the gravitas to not only win the presidency on merit, but also blow the GOP back further into the stone age.

    There is no perfect candidate and Hillary is no exception. She is, however, cravenly populist which bodes well for an activist progressive community pressuring her to do the right thing.

  •  just what "long record of accomplishment" ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt

    spell it out, if there be such

    she's just riding on Bill's coat tails

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 06:50:16 AM PDT

  •  Warren, Sanders and Reich (0+ / 0-)

    are all excellent choices, but only Reich is likely to run.  Send him a supportive e-mail (at least).

    The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

    by amyzex on Wed Jun 18, 2014 at 08:03:43 AM PDT

  •  I agree, Warren for president (0+ / 0-)

    This country desperately needed an FDR  level president to fix what Bush broke. Our terrible luck was to elect a second rogue president. Rather than cure America of the Bush infection, Obama simply picked up where Bush left off. If we elect or allow the Supreme Court to appoint a third rogue president in a row then like in baseball I think we might just strike out. Warren would fight that fight, on our side. HRC like Obama would fight for Wall Street while making stirring speeches that inspire the Progressives she would ignore. Until next election anyway.

  •  Agreed on all except that.. (0+ / 0-)

    the President is ALSO a fake Democrat who was also Wall Street backed..I'm paying massive premiums for my small business' healthcare and its now set to go up again over 16%...the insurance industry was in his back pocket.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site