The Clintons - Isn't it time they go the fuck away already?

Um, OP. Isn't it time you went the fuck away, and stopped posting all your anti-Clinton garbage?

Really OP.

We get it you don't like Clinton.

But please stop pretending to be a Democrat supporter.

So full of bullshit. There are over two years before the next Presidential election. No one should be required to decide this early.

I don't for a minute believe you gave a shit when Clinton lost the nomination in 2008. I think you are a bullshitting Republican asshole.

I agree with OP 100%. It is time to end the family-dynasty approach to presidential politics. No more Bushes or Clintons.

Or at the very least, it's time for the Powers That Be to come out and TELL us that they alone are selecting our leaders. We need to stop pretending that our Presidents are being chosen via a democratic process. It's been a charade for decades and it's time for the American public to face reality.

Clinton vs. Bush is two CIA candidates running a mock contest to insure that the CIA, CFR, Trilaterals, Federal Reserve, Wall Street and Pentagon continue to rape us and rob us apace.

R4 Or Kennedys?

OP, whether or not you're a sneaky troll I see your point if it wasn't Hillary who was next. It's time that we have a woman president and Hillary is immensely qualified and has an excellent chance of winning. While I don't like the idea of a family dynasty, I'm willing to make an exception for a Hillary presidency.

Yes, R5. No more Kennedys either.

I'm not a fan of the Clintons, although I made my peace with her after June 2008 (him, NO). However, if she stands a chance for sweeping in a Democratic U. S. House ... I say, Bring It On!

OP, you're an idiot.

[quote]It's time that we have a woman president

Of all the stupid reasons to chose a leader! You might just as well say it's time we had an Asian president or a Hispanic president. This isn't a Jr. High student council election. Everyone doesn't deserve a turn just to promote diversity.

We need the right person for the job, not the person whose genetic makeup helps fulfill a quota.

Hillary would be a disastrous president.

Much preferred as far as I'm concerned is a real liberal like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Maybe even Kirsten Gillibrand.

Another false equivalency from the right wing. Bush Jr., the disaster, is supposed to somehow be equivalent to Bill Clinton, and eight years of relative peace and prosperity.

The Clintons have had enough control and power. Let's move on.

Common sense tells us that career politicians who have built a personal fortune of over $100 million are not on the up-and-up.

R1,2&3 - I swear to you, this has been the only Clinton thread I have EVER posted. And yes, I swear on my mother (for whatever that may be worth) that I did indeed support her in '08.

The American electorate, like the world, is no longer black and white. Saying I'm tired of a career politician does not make me a "freeper" or a "hater" etc. etc. I just want to see new people. Not necessarily young, but new. When you look at Washington, it's all the same old tired people running things, and Hillary is now one of them.

I love her, I really do. But I've decided that, in my opinion, she needs to move on. Elizabeth Warren or some of the new up and coming Senators would be excellent choices to consider. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts has been a wonderful governor. Why not him?

None of whom is remotely electable as POTUS, R11

I will never understand why some people as a "fresh face," an outsider, someone with new ideas. I want someone who's been there and knows how to play the game.

R10

Most truthful post ever. Does the transsexual Asian get a go after Hils?

Trollin

Trollin

Trollin

Keep those threads a-trollin

Elizabeth Warren is only slightly younger than Hillary Clinton, and Warren has spent very little time in the Senate.

R11

Is this post a joke? Elizabeth Warren is not in any sense of the word, a "true liberal." The woman's brilliant, but she has and always been a Republican supporter.

Not a big fan of Hillary, and think she's too damned old to run, but to suggest that she's "famewhoring" because she has not yet announced whether she'll run is idiotic with the election still two-and-a-half years away.

[quote]Elizabeth Warren is not in any sense of the word, a "true liberal." The woman's brilliant, but she has and always been a Republican supporter.

Evidence, please.

Obama was a fresh face. Look at how that turned out.

Not really. Hillary needs to make history as the first female President, squash the hopes of any future Bush and then join Bill on the cash merry-go-round of speaking engagements. Possibly a Nobel Peace Prize to boot.

So, no cunty, it isn't time.

Fox News has created this syndrome where if one person says something, then it must be true, accurate, factual, etc etc. It is sad that so many on datalounge have appropriated the use of said syndrome, also.

R24

Google, you fuck nut. Elizabeth Warren is open about her support for the Republicans. Whilst she claims to "no longer only vote Repulican." She still votes for both political parties. Nothing wrong with that. It's quite good that she's honest.

Someone should inform R19 that Hilary lost the primary in 2008 because she and her supporters were so complacent and entitled they never saw the tidal wave of Obama supporters rise up behind them and sweep away their hopes.

Once again, they assume the whole nation is rallying behind the fat lady in the pantsuit and that only a mere minority are opposed. This "smug to the point of blindness" attitude is going to give us a Jeb Bush presidency in 2016. Democrats need to be prepared to understand that tens of millions of Americans of all types really dislike Hilary.

She's not too old and if and when Republicans try and start that shit, their St. Reagan needs to be brought up.

OP - isn't it time you died in a grease fire already?

[quote]Whilst she claims to "no longer only vote Repulican."

Whilst? Repulican?

Get going, poser.

Warren has been a Democrat throughout her political career, fucknut at r28. She started voting Democrat 20 years ago, and has not voted with the Republicans even once during her Senate career. Yes, in theory, she's an advocate of bipartisanship, but in practice, I cannot imagine her ever supporting the Republican party as it stands today. Take a look at the bills she's co-sponsored and work she's done since her election to the Senate and it's quite clear she is indeed—regardless of her pre-90s past—one of our most liberal senators.

Hilary has done/seen it all. It would be foolish not to vote for such an experienced candidate.

Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat who can win single-handily in 2016. She beats every Republican contender, as well as every Democrat in the country. If you have such a problem with Hillary, go follow your boyfriend Barack Obama, and start your own damn Party! It's true, Obamabots are Obamacrats, not Democrats. I know tons of them personally who have said that after he leaves office, they're no longer campaigning. They got into politics because of him. Their biggest goal in life is to take a bullet for him.

I'm not looking to lose in 2016, and you fucking idiots better not go and fuck things up. If you do, you will be blamed like Nader in 2000, and the stench attached to you won't disappear for decades. It's your choice to be assholes and throw temper tantrums. Clinton has balls, and a new face will be destroyed by the Right successfully in two seconds flat. Clinton has been vetted, the majority of the country supports her, and they have nothing new to sling at her. Bill is lauded by everyone today. Dems and Repugs ran on him in 2012. Obama can thank his reelection to him. People long for the Clinton years. We had a booming economy. Hillary wins the female vote instantly, and people want another glass ceiling like back in 2008. I'm talking politics here. You need name recognition and celebrity. People who have achieved the presidency usually have a gimmick attached to their policies. People trust Hillary more than they trust Obama. I think Obama has done a very good job. It's his sycophants I'm tired of. We need a Dem in the WH, especially if Repugs take control of Congress next year. Without a vetted name running, the Right will be able to create a fictional back story and win the election, even with the biggest nutcase. I'm talking Rand Paul!

Every time the Right tries to slam Hillary it backfires. They overplay their hand. Give them Congress, let them start impeachment proceedings, and the Dem nominee wins by a landslide.

R16, neither was ... what's his name again? ... oh, yeah, Barack Hussein Obama.

OP=Republican cunt

Jesus R32. Violent much? Over a thread about a politician?!?

You sound unhinged. You're also posting all over the place. Get some therapy honey, it's not that serious.

I think Hillary's too damn old to run. If she had gotten the nomination in 2008, fine, but she's as old as Reagan and Reagan was senile. She also looked like stomped over crap as SoS, exhausted and bedraggled. That job isn't as exhausting as POTUS. It's like the people on the thread about wanting to have a baby at 60, telling the OP he won't have the energy to keep up.

I can't see Hillary having the energy to be President for 8 years, and if she runs for one term, the next probably goes to a Republican, because as POTUS she will suck all the air out of the room of the Democratic party.

Worse still is what a crappy campaign she ran against Obama. She had tons of money and was the favorite, and yet who is the President? The other guy. The young, vibrant, new-ideas guy. People were sick of Bill's baggage and Hillary's awkwardness, and her campaign was inept. That eroded confidence in her abilities. Meanwhile Obama had a well oiled machine, but much fewer influential contacts and less money. And he made her look old and not-quite ready for prime time. If the same awkward campaigning happens again, she won't make it out of the primaries, again. And who else do we have? We need to talk them up so they'll have name recognition by the election. Jeb Bush is well known all over the country already. He's a brand.

There's too much at stake here. If a Republican gets in, there goes the Supreme Court for the rest of our lives.

Hillary is not a progressive. There has never been a time in her life when she had progressive values. Her worldview is that of a conservative suburban republican who felt dissed as a woman, but who has no love for gays, minorities, or liberals; and she has never understood the economy on any level. She lost to Barack Obama because she wasn't willing to see the economy as failing in 2008. And she has done nothing since to persuade me she understands it any better now.

OP seems to think the primary job of President is to entertain him. "I'm bored with last week's contestant on American Idol, let's get someone who's fresh". OP is too stupid to be allowed to vote. Stick to watching your soaps and talent contests, OP.

R42, you fucking idiot, you're confusing Hillary with John McCain.

I agree OP.

I was a Hillary supporter in 2008 and I couldn't believe how many of my friends bought into Obama's rhetoric and his one-page resume. I guess it made them feel warm and oh so post-racial. Whatever.

The same friends think I am for "your gal, Hillary" as some put it.

No.

I am not.

Much as I Iike her, my support for her then was that I thought her centrist politics was the next step. I wanted her as President (timw for a woman, from the largest most ignored minority!) and O as VP to gain the experience he has so sorely shown he lacks.

Now?

No. No to Hillary. No more centrist politics. No more half way houses, No more Bill. No more Hil.

Why? Because things have changed. Nothing has improved under right-wing-in-centrist-clothing Obama.

Things have only gotten worse... A disappearing middle class... Rising stock markets... More to the 1%... Astonishing inequality... Same same, if not worse, unemployment. Not counting the people who are underemployed or cannot get any more unemployment insurance or have stopped looking.

Sorry, but it took 8 years of Obama to show me Hillary is no longer "my gal".

What next? Who next? I don't know.

I despair for the US. And for us all.

After 8 years of one party in the White House, at the next election the opposition party usually wins. Polls show Hillary is the only Democrat beating the GOP top tier, if she does not run, say hello President Christie, Rubio, Ryan or Paul, maybe even Cruz (I doubt Jeb will run, his son George P is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year and seems to have taken over the baton from his father)

R45, I feel your pain but realistically I don't see anyone but a centrist Democrat getting elected at this point. They've painted Obama as a socialist. Can you imagine a truly progressive candidate?

OP, you don't make a very believable Democrat.

Somebody who has new ideas liked Obama? LOL!!

Hillary'll make a great president and she is electable. And she will give absolute shit to the Republicans unlike Obama who spent 4 years sucking up to them and lost his mandate.

45 Obama did eventually put up the top tax rate. But the rumour is that Bernie Sanders will become a Democrat to challenge Hillary in the primaries from the left, but I think he has as much chance of becoming president as I have

R47 a true socialist candidate would blow the field away in either party. Don't believe that the media can destroy anyone with impunity. The time has passed for that.

The Bush Family needs to go first. And then the Cheney Family. We can talk later about the Clintons, OP.

I am sorry to say, but it is because of attitudes like yours R47 that people, including you, think there is no choice. And the fear-mongering. Oh if you don't vote for XYZ omg you will get ABC.

And they do want us all to think that. Don't they?

It sure gets them elected. And for what?

And then what indeed?

Don't we basically get what ABC would have fucked us over with, with some window dressing, some lube?

What have we gained from this line of thinking?

Look at the state the country is in. Look at the unemployment rates since 2008. Look at the disappearing middle class. The first generation in the US that will have a lower standard of living that the preceding.

Have the people you voted for fought for you?

It's Hillary's to win. Suck it up.

The Negative Nancy's who want to trash the Clinton's are just bitter because they don't want a woman in power who could actually get things done. Thus this bullshit about NOW wanting a real progressive in the office. I guess they didn't care in 2008 and 2012. Lazy asses.

Negative Nancy's will not destroy this place with their bullshit. Get em out NOW. This is going to be Hillary central, and you can go to Free Republic if you don't like it. Cause that's where you belong!

There was a writer in another thread who commented about being "terrorized" by Obama for 8 years. What would his ilk think of a return to the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years!? It would blow their tin hats off!

And the winner for Best Actor is.......

R54! Get your trophy, girl!

And Free Republic is that way! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

It was not "prosperity" under the Clintons. The economy was hollowing out and the middle class under siege. It just wasn't obvious what had happened until the Bush years.

What has Clinton ever "gotten done"? She's a terrible manager and the GOP has all kinds of dirt on her. I could forgive her for that, but I can't forgive her for sticking with our current economy. We need usury laws, we need corporate governance reform, we need capital controls, put an end to the lie of free trade, we need higher taxes on the rich...she would not do one single thing on this agenda. Not one single thing. She would not have even raised taxes on the top strata as Obama did. She could not have gotten health care reform passed. She certainly would never have done the equal pay act as Obama did, still less supported gay marriage (as her Arkansas behavior proves). Plus, she's a hard-ass militarist in foreign policy.

People like the OP had been fooled by the Right Wing prosecution of the Clinton's last time; that's you, Ken Starr, that they decided not to vote for Gore, thinking they wanted something fresh & new. After all, [itallic] how bad could it be?

When you go to vote, ask yourself, how bad could it be? And then think about how Bush failed on domestic policy, on foreign policy, in so many ways as to be inexplicable.

R58, Hillary has evolved her stance on several of those fronts (particularly foreign policy and gay marriage).

Are you posting from the year 2002?

R50 - what was the top tax rate in 1980 when Reagan stepped into office? What is it now?

Gore was a cowardly centrist as he proved during the election. Kerry was even worse. Stop blaming the left because you stick with a manifestly failed strategy.

Whatever you may feel about the Clintons, unlike Obama's "kumbayah" (let's "respect" our opposition) approach, they hate the current Congressional Republicans with the heat of a thousand suns.

R58 is still holding a grudge because Hillary challenged his "boyfriend". This is what happens when you become enamored of a candidate based on their looks instead of actually studying their platform.

Let the Republican candidate get into office. Will that finally stop your childish tantrum? The rest of us have to suffer because of your petulance?

R62 -- I have seen many (paranoid) posts about the Republicans having "stolen" the 2004 election in Ohio. I maintain that Kerry was such a horrible candidate they didn't need to do that. If you weren't a rabid Bush-hating Dem, Kerry really sucked.

Gore was seen as an effete pointy-headed-liberal; moreover, there was too much Clinton fatigue for (what was seen as) a third term.

R58, you're writing that it only seemed like we had prosperity under the Clintons, until after 7 years of Bush policies, including the most regressive tax policy changes in US history, regulation deconstruction, and so forth. Only then, when the economy collapsed in the last year of Bush's term, only then did we find out that the Clintons were to blame. Ridiculous. You'd still be blaming Carter if he were still politically relevant. And you'd still be wrong.

R61 When Reagan left office it was 28%, it is now 39.6%.

When the Clintons were last in power I seem to remember the economy growing, balanced budgets and the middle class doing nicely thankyou

No, but you're posting as though she is still the senator from New York covering her liberal flank, and not the first lady of Arkansas which didn't even have a gay pride parade while she was there.

Let's say we get a President Hillary Clinton.

Wouldn't it be quite a hoot if Hillary, perceived as being more to the right of Barack Obama, turned out to provide more leadership going in the direction of the left?

r62/65 Some Liberals voted for Nader and the Green Party in 2000, he won 2,882,955 votes and 2.74% of all votes cast. Fair enough if he was closer to your views than Gore, but Nader got more votes than Bush's majority in Florida and NH, either state would have given Gore the election. Of course the GOP is also beginning to have the same problem with the Tea Party, if the US had PR or even AV or a second ballot like most EU nations, Australia, New Zealand, even Brazil, Japan and South Africa, you could safely vote for the Green candidate at least in the first round without fear of a GOP win

That would be a miracle, but the reason I don't expect that is

1. who are her liberal brain trust? Surely if she had one we would know some of their names by now.

2. why doesn't she speak out on the economy? That is ALL the public cares about right now. If she expects to win she can't remain vague and "we'll get around to it"

3. She would have to repudiate the Third Way she talked about in her autobiography. Granted she didn't write her autobiography...neither has she disowned it.

4. She has to put the concerns of the domestic worker ahead of bribing foreign governments with trade deals intended to impoverish our working class. One thing Obama did not do was prioritize African over American issues. Hillary C. sees herself in a more messianic, less nationalistic mode.

[quote]No, but you're posting as though she is still the senator from New York covering her liberal flank, and not the first lady of Arkansas which didn't even have a gay pride parade while she was there.

And you're posting as though she were still the first lady of Arkansas, which has not been the case since 1992, ffs. The fact that Arkansas had no gay pride parades in the the 1980s and early 90s (does it even have one today?) does not mean that HRC opposes gay rights in 2014. I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of Hillary as president, but I see no evidence that she is anti-gay.

That's not what r61 asked, r67.

Despite support from Hill and Bill with money and TV commercials, Chelsea's mother-in-law, Marjorie, lost to a Repub in a job she previously held.

Hillary was never promoted as being the great liberal hope for the country. Her supporters never pretended she was a rock star, never treated her like a celebrity pin up of the month or flat out lied about her achievements to try and get into her office. Unlike others....

R71 Vote for the Republican. No one is going to entertain your nonsense when you didn't exercise your esteemed judgment over the last two elections. So let the Republican get into office, because that will surely teach everyone never to piss you off again!! Because it is all about you.

I can't imagine liking any politician, but the GOP sure as hell makes it easy to loathe every last one of them.

You are such a silly twit R57. I hope you are a cute and sexy twink; its probably all thats going for you.

Now, shoo, go away... let the grownups talk.

R55: You may be right. Hillary may just well win, though I doubt it.

I am very much for a woman being the President. As long as she is also a progressive. After all, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are also women.

Do we even want to talk about them seriously? What has their being women added anything constructive to our national discourse besides being annoying rabble rousing cunts?

[quote]Chelsea's mother-in-law, Marjorie, lost to a Repub in a job she previously held.

No, she lost a Democratic primary to a candidate who isn't as corrupt as she and her ex-husband proved themselves to be in their previous terms as office-holders.

Hillary and Obama are exactly the same politician. You voted for one, you can easily vote for the other. There is no difference between either of them.

Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. There is no other choice. It's too late in the game for a major game changer. Face it, there's no one who is strong enough to go against her. Obama had from 2004-2008 to be touted as a future political threat. We have two years and no one strong enough has emerged.

We saw how the Hillary contingent banded together to elect Obama. It's time for the Obama fanatics to do the same. Suck it up, put the nonsense aside, and get behind her. Or you can work with the enemy. It's that simple. No one wants to read your complaints, your hurt feelings in desperate need of soothing. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Just know, you fuck everyone else through your own selfish, petty reasons. Not that you care, but it needs to be put out there.

These cries of "She's not progressive!" are also ridiculous. Obama was a centrist also. The country is doing good.

There hasn't been a logical reason as to why Hillary wouldn't be a good President other than "facts" that are Republican skewed and misogynistic.

why are you people pro clinton. they gave us dadt and doma and did not support gay marriage until it became a requirement

Cliton gave us nafta, effectively ending the American factory and sending work to china. fuck em, fuck em in the ass!

R79 writes,

[bold]... Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. There is no other choice. It's too late in the game for a major game changer....[/bold]

Does this mean, if we make a different choice and nominate a different Democratic presidential candidate, the following states will flip into the 2016 Republican column: California; Connecticut; Delaware; Hawaii; Illinois; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; New Jersey; New York; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; Vermont; Washington; Wisconsin; and non-state District of Columbia?

R79 is like that nurse from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

Bill is clearly trying to sabotage Hillary's potential campaign. He is a person that carefully selects every single word he says. That six months to recover comment was carefully constructed.

R79 writes, [bold]... Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. There is no other choice. It's too late in the game for a major game changer....[/bold]

[italic]One more question for R79:[/italic]

What is the [italic]current[/italic] year?

I think our country is stagnating because of entrenched power and nepotism in all walks of life. I think we need to seriously consider how we're becoming a society of classes and castes not unlike aristocratic Britain.

Hillary was also the front runner at this point 8 years ago.

Christ, we have some dumb posters here.

Hillary is too old.

Elizabeth Warren is also too old and too centrist.

This is the problem. Obama should have been grooming someone and he never did.

R80, you have no idea how government works, do you?

[bold]Hillary is too old.

Elizabeth Warren is also too old and too centrist.

This is the problem. Obama should have been grooming someone and he never did.[/bold]

Some good points, R88!

Nancy — my pills, please!?

"they gave us dadt and doma and did not support gay marriage until it became a requirement"

shut up, idiot wingnut. it was your beloved Republican party that wrote DOMA in the first place and brought it to the table with a veto-proof majority. yeah, Clinton made the asshole move to sign it - but he certainly didn't endorse it proudly.

yes, the Clintons did a couple of repugnant things - primarily out of political expediency - but dear lord, nothing holds a candle to the evil that is the GOP. Nothing. For that alone, Hillary has my vote.

I didn't think it was calculus to understand this. Let me simplify it for those having trouble:

Obama was already being touted as a future President back in 2004, even though it was originally predicted that he would be Hillary's Vice President. He still had four years of building a base as a future President of the United States.

That means that by 2006, he was already seriously being considered as a future President of the United States along with Hillary. The scenario being that he would follow Hillary after she finish her term(s).

Got it?

That means that two years prior to the 2008 election, there were two viable democratic candidates.

Count with me now 1, 2. Now hold two fingers up. That's how many viable democratic candidates there were back in 2006.

Got it? Good.

Now in 2014, two year prior to the 2016 election, we only have one viable candidate. Count with me now, 1. Now one hold one finger up. That's how many viable democratic candidates we have now.

Got it? Good

In summary:

In 2006, we had 2

In 2014, we have 1

Got it?

Elect a different democratic candidate? Cute except neither one has a support base that is large enough to rival Hillary's. None of them have any momentum, either.

It's amusing that people are pushing Elizabeth "We need a balanced government where everyone has an equal say" over centrist Hillary. Because we really need a government where the Tea Party lunatics have an equal say in everything. That would work out so well for the country.

Use your brains, people.

R88 Elizabeth Warren is too centrist? Please remember this is the USA we are talking about, not Cuba!

R73 The very high top tax rates introduced by FDR were continued after WW2 to pay off the war deficit, they were still they under Carter, despite a cut by JFK, and the economy was sluggish and in poor shape. If you put the top tax rate back to that level the US would have a higher tax rate than virtually everywhere except Cuba, that really is going to help the USA keep up with China!

Untrue stupid. Growth was higher in the 1950s under Eisenhower and 90% tax rates than it has ever been since.

You know why the US was so prosperous in the fifties and sixties? It's because we had wartime socialism. Prices were fixed and consumption rationed, wages were paid and inflated, causing FORCED SAVINGS ACCUMULATION. Thus when the war ended we didn't have a crash such as happened in 1919 because the middle class had money to spend and they spent it. Without a wartime socialist command economy, the US would not have had the rapid development of a consumer society after World War II. All you idiot libertarians and conservative and centrist morons just don't understand the facts.

Hillary must really scare the shit outta the Repugs if they feel the need to come spam the DL again. Yeah, and stop pretending to be "progressive Democrats" like Obama allegedly is... was.

No way would anyone well to the left of Hillary get elected in this country. Which would mean handing the presidency to the fucking Teabag Party.

Go back, freepers, nobody gives a shit about you and you're about as believable as "progressive Democrats" as Obama is as a "socialist".

My greatest fear is that an exciting Lesbian will emerge late next year and once again Hillary gets swept aside. When she is finally nominated, and wins, in 2024, she isn't the powerhouse we all want.

She has never a powerful woman. When did she run to Arkansas to marry Bill? Because she flunked the DC bar exam. Instead of staying to fight it out she ran to her college bf (who cheated on her then and would again) is the asshole of the country, Arkansas, where he was politically connected. She is not a powerful strong independent sort of woman.

OP: Be careful what you wish for.

Do you really want Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee for president?

I'm a liberal democrat and have been one all my life, but I truly believe the Clintons are spies from Aldebaran

I don't think Hillary is gonna run in 2016.

They will go away after her book comes out in a few.

R95/96 After the US had just been through a massive war with most of its men fighting abroad rather than working in the domestic economy it would have been hard for the economy not to grow in the fifties. If you consider rationing consumption the sign of prosperity I would hate to know when the economy is not prosperous. By the seventies the economy was grinding to a halt.

For comparison, China, the UK, Australia and Germany have top tax rates of 45%, in Canada 29%, Italy 43%, Spain 52%, New Zealand 33%, Luxembourg and South Africa 40%, India 33%, Brazil 28%. Returning to the top tax rate under Carter would put the US at a huge disadvantage in the global economy, would turn off investment, and would be higher than the Scandinavian nations, even Cuba has a 50% rate. It would be as bad as Hollande's proposed 75% tax rate, eventually reduced to 66% on corporations with millionaire employees, a disaster for France

You're just an ignoramus R103. Money didn't flee the country in the 1950s, did it? And we can stop it from doing so now too, although we don't need to if we can get middle class incomes up, that would draw money in from all over the world.

And you're wrong because after World War I the economy crashed. It didn't after World War II because it was managed as a forced savings plan for the middle classes, whereas the brainless southern prick Woodrow Wilson who ran things in World War I let the rich people take all the money from running the war. FDR did not. The FACT is that wartime command socialism rescued America from the Depression and set us on the path to prosperity. If you can't see that, then you are not an intellectually honest person.

I'm a fan of any Democrat who can keep a Republican out of the White House. Hillary seems to be only one now. Any other viable candidate is probably not indicating any interest in running until Hillary announces her plans.

I'm not a religious person and don't pray to God, but let me tell you - when I learned Romney lost, I fell to my knees and gave thanks.

Glass-Steagall Act was revoked under Clinton, who put corrupt criminals like Rubin, Summers, and Geithner in positions of power.

Don't tell me he had nothing to do with the end of the American dream. He was right in there pitching with all the rethugs.

They were WRONG and they have not admitted it to this day.

I agree with OP 100%!

Granted, some of the pea-brained fucktards on DL insist that anyone who doesn't sing the Clintons' praises 24/7 is a freezer, but I'm at the point where I don't even care anymore. Hillary Clinton would've likely made a better POTUS than Obama, but her team ran a lousy campaign in 2008 (and I say that as someone who voted for her in his state's primary). And as some Democrats rush to plan her coronation, I breathe a sigh of relief whenever someone on the left expresses interest in running in 2016 (this week it was Jim Webb of Virginia).

They're pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars for their glorified hedge fund by collecting outrageous speaking fees and showing up at the opening of envelopes. It's well-deserved and they shouldn't give a second thought to doing anything that doesn't line their pockets since that means so much to them. But I'm so fucking tired of the Clintons (and the misguided effort to treat Chelsea and her newborn baby like they're fucking Princess Diana and the heir to the throne).

Furthermore, the way some gays and lesbians contort their logic in order to justify Bill signing DADT and DOMA into LAW is shameful.

I have my issues with the Clintons and always will. I do think if Hillary is in good health she would win. Let's not forget that Bill essentially started the financial crisis with NAFTA in the mid-nineties. It didn't show up for years. The late nineties were good. And then……….Bush, yadayadayada.

Well, the Clintons are interesting because they do stuff.

The only thing George W. Bush has done since leaving office is avoid extradition for war crimes.

I prefer the Clintons.

I liked Obama but he lost his balls when Rahm left his administration.

R108 and then was there deal with China.........

You really should do some fact checking before you post R109. One of his key charities is a partnership with the Clintons.

So tell me, OP, who should the Democrats run that would be capable of winning? And why if you were such a supporter, why have you soured against the clear front runner?

Because she is only the clear front runner because the president has had the limelight and nobody knows of anyone else. She is not "front runner" because she's good, but because nobody else has name recognition. And why is that? Because conservatives control the media and they are down with her. Richard Mellon Scaife, Jr. is a fan of hers. But what Obama proved in 2008 is that you don't have to have name recognition at the start to win. So I certainly hope there is a decent candidate who is left (not a multiplicity of course, that would guarantee her victory).

R97 writes,

[bold]Hillary must really scare the shit outta the Repugs if they feel the need to come spam the DL again. Yeah, and stop pretending to be "progressive Democrats" like Obama allegedly is... was.[/bold]

Understandable.

[bold]No way would anyone well to the left of Hillary get elected in this country.[/bold]

Because it's never happened before?

[bold]Which would mean handing the presidency to the fucking Teabag Party.[/bold]

Won't happen.

[bold]Go back, freepers, nobody gives a shit about you and you're about as believable as "progressive Democrats" as Obama is as a "socialist".[/bold]

Understandable. But there are legitimate postings from Democratic voters who don't want policy to the right - and they do want the country heading left. So, the concern over a President Hillary Clinton is that she would be a Democratic president with leadership still directing toward the right. But it's also important to question that with [italic]any[/italic] Democratic-party president. That's a topic that goes beyond the scope of discussing the 2016 presidential election with sports-like analyses.

R105 writes,

[bold]I'm a fan of any Democrat who can keep a Republican out of the White House. Hillary seems to be only one now. Any other viable candidate is probably not indicating any interest in running until Hillary announces her plans.

I'm not a religious person and don't pray to God, but let me tell you - when I learned Romney lost, I fell to my knees and gave thanks.[/bold]

That's actually most likely for all of us who will still be alive over the next, say, 30-plus years. The two major political parties having realigned and re-branded has put the current Republican Party - with its base in Confederate states (minus bellwethers Florida, Virginia, and an emerging North Carolina) - in the position the Democrats experienced after Abraham Lincoln won the presidency, the first from his party, back in 1860.

There are not many US presidential candidates who have earned their stripes the hard way, the way Hillary recently did. I mean it can't have been "fun" to accept defeat in '08 and then work in cabinet under your new boss who defeated you. Secretary of State, moreover, is the highest responsible position apart from President - it's considerably more responsible than VP.

I get it about "dynasty" but this is not that. Hillary has earned, fully, her right to compete for the Presidency. She's earned it on the merits this time, not just "former first lady turned carpet-bagging Senator from NY". She is still too hawkish on foreign policy for my taste, but I'd vote for her proudly against any Republican out there. And if you want a more progressive candidate, you'll have to do better than Elizabeth "would only win MA and VT" Warren.

Richard Mellon Scaife is in no way, shape, or form a "fan" of Hillary's.

Scaife is a huge part of the architecture of the anti-Clinton campaign that launched with his presidency.

Scaife and his shitty, awful newspaper did eventually make concessionary overtures to Hillary, but only because the alternative - the scary black guy and alleged socialist - was far worse in their eyes.

You've summed it up well, R117. It's funny how, except for Jeb Bush's mother, who has her own agenda, no one ever mentions dynasty when discussing whether he will run.

Obama only got balls...limited ones...when he got rid of Rahm. Right now Rahm has barely concealed his support for the Republican candidate for governor against Pat Quinn, a 1% crook and fraudster named Bruce Rauner. Quinn is probably the best governor Illinois has ever had but Rahm is all about the money and being part of the 1%.

[italic]Enjoy, R120…![/italic]

Is it too late to inform the OP that the political life of the USA is not, as she seems to demand, something that follows that same course as a television sitcom? I count nine obvious inanities in the opening post, and the entire pile of words comes down to, "I want something FRESH."

Idiot. And R107 is worse. Potty-mouth silliness and posturing does not make an argument. It displays a lack of seriousness and an offensive pose typical of what is plaguing us.

And I'm not a Clinton apologist.

BUT it is imperative - again - that a Democrat be elected president. Apart from the horrors awaiting us without at least a veto, the Supreme Court, with a replacement vote for Scalia or Kennedy on the right and - worst case - for Ginsburg or another moderate - could doom us all for at least a generation. Roberts is determined to drive the right into a semi-permanent rule, and obviously is willing to kill abortion rights, freedom from religious bigotry, individual rights, the idea of privacy, and on and on. One more vote is what he needs, one way or another. Sure, we're likely to get same-sex marriage rights of some kind, but these people are ready to undermine plain sanity without true constitutional support.

And with all that, what other Democrat is going to win? Clinton is one fairly good chance.

And of course the Clintons are playing it the way they are. The right is afraid of them, and will do ANYTHING to stop her being elected. The Republicans turned a disgusting indiscretion into an actual impeachment, distracting the country from important matters. Clinton knows she has to take her time, address things up front, prepare her game.

But the OP and the other dullards here think they're watching a plot unrelated to reality, something intended to entertain them, and cannot think past their shallowness to reach what is going on now.

Some of you do not understand elections and what makes someone a front runner -- it's MONEY. Chris Christie, for instance, will not run if he can't attract the big donors after bridgegate. The Clintons can raise money.

Anyone that has the GULL, to think this woman, Hillary, qualifies to be a president, has got to be out of their MIND. Whatever happened to the lives, she was responsible for, in Benghasi? Or does anyone care about this woman, turning her back on them? I know she wasn't the only one responsible, but she was the biggest one, and what does she say about, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"? That just outraged me, how a politician, reacts to American lives. Then we have a bunch DUMMIES, that don't give a DAMN!!!

Gays: you [italic][bold]will[/italic][/bold] vote for me. That is all.

[quote]Anyone that has the GULL, to think this woman, Hillary, qualifies to be a president, has got to be out of their MIND.

I don't have the GULL but I've got a mean chickenhawk in the apartment next door.

Fake democrat troll is a fake democrat.

[quote]Anyone that has the GULL, to think this woman, Hillary, qualifies to be a president, has got to be out of their MIND. Whatever happened to the lives, she was responsible for, in Benghasi? Or does anyone care about this woman, turning her back on them? I know she wasn't the only one responsible, but she was the biggest one, and what does she say about, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"? That just outraged me, how a politician, reacts to American lives. Then we have a bunch DUMMIES, that don't give a DAMN!!!

Really? You're still trotting this Benghazi talking point, even after a GOP-led panel concluded last year that the Obama administration (Hillary included) was not at fault?

Furthermore, that "What difference does it make?" is taken out of context, and she didn't mean that the lives of the people didn't matter. Here's the full quote:

[quote]With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

What the HELL does it matter what their last names are? They will be candidates who have never been President of the US before. You are full of dismissive contempt because you KNOW them a bit already? Wow. How sophisticated!

Soon you will weigh in shrieking that "It doesn't matter because there;s NO DIFFERENCE between them!".

The 100,000 dead Iraqis would tell a different story....but they're DEAD!

Happily, half wits like you rarely bother to show up to vote after convincing themselves it doesn't matter, or because of general fecklessness.

Funny, this thread started a years ago, and today everyone hates her just as much as they did a year ago. Why are we supporting this losing candidate? It's an embarrassment.

"but we need some fresh faces."

Yes! How about a forty-something half a term junior senator?

She'll be back yet again, wait and see

She and Chellsy should wear their burquas and move to Afghanistan. See how long they'd let her shoot her mouth off.

She's dumb, corrupt, and a terrible manager who always hires bad people.

We need more exciting candidates, not competent ones!

R129, What exactly is the corruption? She was investigated for 5 years by pros, and they found nothing on her.

I hope they stay front and center. We need leadership like theirs. The 90s was a great decade.

I just love it when Trump trolls on here pretend to be disenchanted Hillary fans.

[quote] She'll be back yet again, wait and see

Universal Pictures invented that formula. Just when you think the evil is dead, it arises yet again.

I agree

The good ol times.

I want Bernie to go the fuck away and Trump to be locked up with his whole fucking family in Leavenworth.