I've wanted her to be President since 2002 (wanted her to run in 2004). I gave a substantial amount of money to her in 2007. 2016 is finally her turn.
Hillary Clinton, our 45th President!
I've wanted her to be President since 2002 (wanted her to run in 2004). I gave a substantial amount of money to her in 2007. 2016 is finally her turn.
Hillary Clinton, our 45th President!
|by Anonymous||reply 177||06/04/2015|
Does my butt look big?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/07/2012|
Well, in all honesty, she would be the best Republican choice in 2016.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/07/2012|
Just remember: she is not for marriage equality. I like her, too, but she has not evolved as much as she should.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/07/2012|
NO, ladies, I'll be quite busy on my own then, with '
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/07/2012|
She will come out in favor gay marriage. She's made some very powerful speeches in favor of gay rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/07/2012|
I have wanted Hillary to be president since she was First Lady. I wanted her in 2008. I even wanted her in 2012. And I want her more than ever in 2016. Make history, Hillary, and become the first woman president before you leave the political stage.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/07/2012|
I'll support her, but only if she gets Biden to be her VP. I want Joe to be like a permanent fixture, the goofy old Uncle rattling around the White House until he's in his 90's.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/07/2012|
Obama has won supporting gay marriage. All democratic candidates can now come out of the closet in their support now.
I'm in for Hillary. We need to find a great Hispanic VP to round out the ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/07/2012|
If she wants to do it, I think she could win, and I think the DNC would support her.
But, the DNC is going to want to know by the 2014 midterms (or earlier?), because if she's not going to run, then they need time to decide on competitive candidate(s).
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/07/2012|
If she doesn't run, I think it's possible that dems will lose in 2016.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/07/2012|
Serfs need dynasties.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/07/2012|
Hillary/Richardson? I would vote for that HARD!
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/07/2012|
Problem is Clinton is more polarizing than Obama. Yes, she's gotten a pretty good makeover from her Sec of State tenure but the minute she's steps back into elective politics--the gloves will be off once more. Remember how bruising and ultimately, unsuccessful, her 2008 campaign was. I can see her base being very loyal and supportive but her support will reach a hard ceiling and once again, the math will be against her.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/07/2012|
Would it be better if she were on the Supreme Court?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/07/2012|
she dropped the ball on Libya, don't think it's in the cards now.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/07/2012|
Me too. It would make a wonderful end to a biopic...award worthy even....
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/07/2012|
I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/07/2012|
I'm all for Hillary '16... would Obama support/campaign for her? If so, she absolutely could win.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/07/2012|
she's too fat
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/07/2012|
R10, why do you think dems would lose in 2016? I thought we've all been agreeing there will never be another repub president! What's the concern in 4 years????
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/07/2012|
The Whigs are going to be making a comeback.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/07/2012|
[quote]Problem is Clinton is more polarizing than Obama. Yes, she's gotten a pretty good makeover from her Sec of State tenure but the minute she's steps back into elective politics--the gloves will be off once more. Remember how bruising and ultimately, unsuccessful, her 2008 campaign was.
I think she would have been a great candidate against a Republican. Unfortunately, she was a terrible candidate in 2008 against another Democrat.
But I remember when she was the ultimate enemy of the GOP. A generation later, she was the centrist Democrat that centrist Republicans respected.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/07/2012|
I'm a diehard Hillary supporter. And I believe she can win. But just consider that that the Repugs want the Latinos in their corner.
Sixty-nine percent of Latinos voted for Obama tonight. What if the Repugs nomninated Rubio? How would Hillary fare against that douchebag?
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/07/2012|
If Hillary wants it in 2016, I'll support her 100%. I doubt Richardson will be her running mate. He stabbed her in the back in '08, after the Clintons gave him his career.
She may have forgiven him but I doubt President Clinton has and I wouldn't trust Richardson as far as I could throw him. Other than that, I've always liked Bill Richardson.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/07/2012|
Richardson is a diva and has grabby hands when it comes to the ladies. He wouldn't last a campaign that highlights his personal flaws relentlessly.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/07/2012|
You go, gurl! But maybe you should take a little 'vacation' after your visit to a good 'dermatologist'. Just a little lift around the eyelids and neck region. It'll help you have a more 'ageless' appearance.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/07/2012|
R27, lots of Latinos love Hillary. Even with Rubio on the ticket, I think we would break for Clinton.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/07/2012|
Martin O'Malley/Martin Heinrich
Vote for the hot Martins!
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/07/2012|
I could see the 2016 Democratic ticket being Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro. He was one of the stars of the 2012 convention, he's young and would bring in the Latino vote that the party needs to preserve in order to decisively win elections.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/07/2012|
I'd prefer Claire Danes.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/07/2012|
She would be 69 in 2016. Is that not a little old to run for president? I don't think so but what would the general public think?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/07/2012|
I know she wants it and I'd vote for her but if she ran, it'd be painful because I think she'd almost certainly lose. People would probably want a change of government and she's not as popularly appealing as Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/07/2012|
So many good possibilities.
Clinton / O'Malley
Clinton / Warren
Clinton / Biden
Clinton / Clinton (lol)
Clinton / Castro (Julian, the Convention speaker)
The list is literally endless.
Funny how many rising stars there are in the Democratic party, and absolutely nothing from Republicans. I love it!
The problem for Obama will be who he will throw his support behind.
He is MAJORLY beholden to the Clintons. Bill Clinton worked his ass off for Obama this election, and Obama owes him for that.
However, Biden has been a LOYAL, and in Obama's words "happy warrior" for Obama, and he also owes Biden.
This election was nothing, compared to the Democratic fight in 2016. The fight was wide open in 2008, and it'll be another dogfight in 2016.
We have to make the right choice, or a Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio or *gasp* Jeb Bush could swoop in and win the Presidency.
Interestingly, when MSNBC opened their election coverage, they said that there hasn't been a Bush or Nixon winning ticket for the Republicans, since 1928. Can you imagine if Jeb Bush runs in 2016? He could keep that fucking streak going, and America would vote for it.
Ahhh... politics is so much fun. But so stressful.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/07/2012|
Hillary Clinton + Juan Castro = Oedipus Rex
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/07/2012|
Clinton/Clinton = Hillary + Bill
Clinton/Clinton = Hillary + Chelsea
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/07/2012|
[quote] Hillary Clinton + Juan Castro = Oedipus Rex
It's JULIAN Castro, the DNC speaker. And he would be perfect, because I think that he could mentor under Hillary for 8 years, and end up a very strong leader.
Plus it would GUARANTEE the Latino vote in 2016, which would be huge!
Clinton / Castro in 2016 would be a very smart move.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/07/2012|
Her time has passed.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/07/2012|
Chelsea would sink that ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/07/2012|
Clinton/Castro 2016 sounds mighty nice to me. :)
YAY FOR Obama/Biden 2012!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/07/2012|
Hillary has already said a few weeks ago, she is not running.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/07/2012|
It's okay; she said that in 2006 too.
She definitely will be running, I think. And she definitely will be winning!
I would love to think about the longterm advantages for America with 20 years of Democratic prezzes. REAL, FDR-like change to the structure of the United States. :)
Just happily fantasizing and still thrilled from last night.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/07/2012|
I think she's playing it smart. She is going to let the party draft her, instead of the way it happened last time. I think it will be great to follow up Obama's 8 years with 8 years of our first female CIC.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/07/2012|
I don't think Castro will be ready by 2016. He can't pass the "ready to be Commander in Chief" test. I know, a lot of VP's don't (I'm looking at you, Palin and Ryan). I just don't think Hillary would take on a running mate who doesn't pass that test. She takes it seriously and rightly so.
The one thing Mr. Castro doesn't have to worry about is his name. After electing Barack Hussein Obama TWICE we can elect anyone named anything. HA.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/07/2012|
I would love NOTHING more than for Hillary to run and win in 2016.
But I fear she won't and we might be stuck with President Jeb Bush and Vice President Susana Martinez.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/07/2012|
R49, I hope so. The party screwed her in 07-08, literally threw her under the bus. Not bitter but fascinated about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/07/2012|
Up until I was last night, I was too cynical to believe that the US would vote in a woman for president. Now that I'm still giddy from the last night's results, I can see it happening, although I'm not sure it would be Hillary.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/07/2012|
I think either Hillary or Elizabeth Warren for prez...and NM senator Martin Heinrich for vice prez
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/07/2012|
Sorry about the errors in my posting above.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/07/2012|
[quote]I'm a diehard Hillary supporter. And I believe she can win. But just consider that that the Repugs want the Latinos in their corner. Sixty-nine percent of Latinos voted for Obama tonight. What if the Repugs nomninated Rubio? How would Hillary fare against that douchebag?
Actually, wasn't the percentage in the low 70s? You're right, that Latinos* are not a given for Democrats the way African-Americans are. Dems have to be careful to continue to nurture that demographic or the Repubs could easily chip away at it if they start moving on immigration reform. That said, Latinos* LOVE the Clintons. In the primaries Hillary won CA and TX thanks to overwhelming Latino support.
*Cubans excluded of course
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/07/2012|
Fat ass biotch isn't getting my job.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/07/2012|
I love Biden but he better not run.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/07/2012|
I would absolutely support her, provided that, if opposed, she campaigns a lot better than she did four years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/07/2012|
I would love for it to be Hills. Would gladly take Cuomo or O'Malley for either VP or P if Hills didn't run.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/07/2012|
I like Hillary C. too, but she has no more business beings es.mthan she has being sec of state or even senator. She lack the depth of experience needed. Obama doesn't belong in the White House ever, nor Romney or bush the second.we have to,stop,electing people we LIKE and elect people with hard skills who can do the job,
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/07/2012|
As much as you Hillary trolls love her, Joe isn't going down without a fight.
“You can vote for me in 2016″ he is quoted as saying last week.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/07/2012|
Yeah, but it's unclear for what office. Could be his old senate seat or when is Delaware electing a new governor?
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/07/2012|
[quote]Interestingly, when MSNBC opened their election coverage, they said that there hasn't been a Bush or Nixon winning ticket for the Republicans, since 1928.
I think they (or you) mean 1948. Still, that's 64 years of Nixon or Bush. Amazing.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/07/2012|
I might support her if she ended up the nominee, but I'd hope we'd get someone better, more liberal. The country is being destroyed by conservatism, on both sides of the isle. It can't go on much longer, even the planet itself is in jeopardy now with global warming.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/07/2012|
All I have is big question marks in my mind when I read r62. Dear Lord...!
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/07/2012|
I agree with earlier poster - Supreme Court Justice might be a better fit with her legal background (Plus... she looks tired as hell lately from all the traveling she'd done for the last 20 years. Me thinks the ol' gal could use a slower pace & regular routine)
|by Anonymous||reply 68||11/07/2012|
[quote]I agree with earlier poster - Supreme Court Justice might be a better fit with her legal background
I'd rather Obama nominate someone younger who will be on the court younger. Most of the justices on the court now were nominated when they were in their 50s.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||11/07/2012|
R65 The Republicans won in 1948? Dewey Defeats Truman?
I think they did mean 1928, but the original poster was incorrect. There hasn't been a winning Republican ticket since 1928 [bold]that didn't have[/bold] either a Nixon (1952, 1956, 1968, 1972) or a Bush (1980, 1984, 2000, 2004) on it. A key word was missing.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 71||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 72||11/07/2012|
If Hillary decides to run in 2016, I will do the same for her as I did in 2008: volunteer, canvas, knock on doors, phone bank, travel, anything my state Hillary campaign needs help with.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||11/07/2012|
I'm the "Hillary for the Supremes" troll (for a couple years now), and I support all the folks who are suggesting it as well.
Though my dream ticket would be Clinton/Gillibrand: Blonde & Blonder!
|by Anonymous||reply 74||11/07/2012|
I think Kirsten Gillibrand or Andrew Cuomo would be good candidates
|by Anonymous||reply 75||11/07/2012|
" I want Joe to be like a permanent fixture, the goofy old Uncle rattling around the White House until he's in his 90's."
Isn't he already 87 or 88?
|by Anonymous||reply 76||11/07/2012|
Cuomo wants it pretty bad but he can't run as Hillary's number two and neither can Gillibrand, nor could Cuomo and Gillibrand run together.
You cannot have two New York politicians on one national ticket. Well you can put them on it but they will lose.
If Hillary decides to run she will have to choose a male and he will have to be from either the West or the South.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||11/07/2012|
"If Hillary decides to run she will have to choose a male and he will have to be from either the West or the South"
Kaine from VA?!
|by Anonymous||reply 78||11/07/2012|
Gillibrand and Castro will not play as well as Clinton + Castro ticket would. However, Gillibrand + Richardson as VP would play remarkably well across the country.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||11/07/2012|
Hillary & Cheryl
|by Anonymous||reply 80||11/07/2012|
I would love a Hillary/Bill Richardson '16 ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||11/07/2012|
Isn't Bill Richardson too scandal-tainted?
|by Anonymous||reply 82||11/07/2012|
I think Hillary - with gravitas - with a younger Latino male would be the perfect combination.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||11/07/2012|
Jon Tester, the senator from Montana, would make an interesting pair with Hilary! City slicker and country bumpkin!
|by Anonymous||reply 84||11/07/2012|
"She lack the depth of experience needed.'
She do, gurl. She do.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||11/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 86||11/07/2012|
Why do people want Hillary so bad though? It can't be because she's so liberal, she and Bill are quintessential centrists. But people don't seem to care anything about policies, they just think she's a fabulous political star. Here we go again with a vapid American Idol approach to choosing the nominee. "It'd be so cool to have a woman next time!" No, it'd be so cool to have a strong progressive president next time. We can at least root for that before settling for a centrist if necessary.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||11/07/2012|
Already talking about 2016 and President hasn't even started second terms. Ungrateful bitches in this thread. But I do like Clintion/Richardson ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/07/2012|
There is word in the Beltway that the very reticent, limelight averse Kirsten Gillibrand has some seriously big aspirations. She's already courting national women's and gay rights groups.
Hillary might face some (much younger) female opposition should she try another run at it.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/07/2012|
"Why do people want Hillary so bad though?"
Because the right wing hates her so much. The idea of having her and Bill back in the White House on the heels of Obama is almost too delicious to contemplate.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/07/2012|
Of course just like they're saying Republicans can't win without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket, they'll say Democrats can't win without a Clinton or an Obama on the ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/07/2012|
[quote] She would be 69 in 2016. Is that not a little old to run for president? I don't think so but what would the general public think?
It would make her, I think, the 2nd oldest President on inauguration behind Ronald Reagan. And national leaders seem to be tending to be younger these days.
Apart from that, I don't see Hillary as having what it takes to be president and she seems to belong to a past generation of women.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/07/2012|
Are you kidding, r 92? America LOVES smart old broads.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/07/2012|
[quote]City slicker and country bumpkin!
I'm a little bit country...I'm a little bit rock and roll...
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/07/2012|
[quote]I'm a little bit country...I'm a little bit rock and roll...
Please! No more Mormons!
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/07/2012|
W&W for R95.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/07/2012|
Yeah, I agree with Betty White. Hillary is also quintessentially hip, imo.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/07/2012|
So, clearly, OP, this thread is all about you.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/07/2012|
R14, that was before her SoS work. She just has to surround herself with the right campaign people if she decides to run.
I was a strong supporter of her in the 2008 primary, but I hope she doesn't run for 2016. I think that ship has sailed and she should get involved in something else. I know she has little interest in the Supreme Court.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||11/07/2012|
I'd love to see her on the Supreme Court.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||11/07/2012|
And whether she has little interest or not she'd be a gift to the court. She should be in it to serve, not in it for what she prefers.
Then again, I believe this, she wants to be freed of the shackles of politics like Bill... she may want to lend her star power when it's needed but focus on good works and truly changing the world. I believe she has a great interest in strengthening the standing of women in the developing world and a job like that may be where she can do the most good.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||11/07/2012|
I like Hillary for Supreme Court, too. Would congress ever vote her in??? I think she'll be too old to run for President in 2016.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||11/07/2012|
She'll be too old for the SC too. We need YOUNG people who'll stay there for a LONG time.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||11/07/2012|
Hillary does not want to be on the Supreme Court.
She's a much more public person than that. I'd love to see her as president. But if she decides not to run, she either wants to relax and enjoy life or do something that affects puplic policy in a much more visible way than the Supreme Court--even as prestigious as it is.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||11/07/2012|
Agree with R104.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||11/07/2012|
Supreme court??? LOL.
Hillary want to be where the ACTION is.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||11/08/2012|
R90, the Republicans will hate ANY Democratic front runner in 2016. It doesn't have to be a Clinton.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||11/08/2012|
As much as I'd love to see it, I think the age issue is going to be highly problematic. The last time we elected a president that old, he went senile while in office. Ever since Boomers and Gen Xers took over the electorate, the winning presidential nominees have been getting younger. And let's face it, society is harder on older women than they are on older men. Reagan was Big Daddy, but Hillary will be cast as Mean Old Mommy by the press.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||11/08/2012|
Okay, if its not Hillary then I'm recommending Mark Warner and Gillebrand.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||11/08/2012|
I can't see the Dems selecting an old white guy for the top of the ticket in 2016, can you? It actually wouldn't be a winning formula for the Democrats. But a competent woman and a Latino? That would definitely work. Especially if the Republicans nominate some arch conservative, like Paul Ryan or Mike Huckabee.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||11/08/2012|
I like Hilary. I think she'd be good at working with Congress/Senate and actually getting things done, which Obama isn't so much.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||11/08/2012|
Can't we spend a couple of weeks relishing Obama's victory and the prospect of him spending four more years in the White House before we begin talking about 2016? I love Hillary, but does EVERY political event have to be viewed through the lens of how it relates to Hillary?
|by Anonymous||reply 112||11/08/2012|
To that end, in many respects Obama's initial election was a break with the past and the do si do of Bush Clinton Bush... maybe Clinton... theoretically Bush.
It's time to keep breathing new life into the political process. There's a place for both Clintons but it doesn't have to be center stage.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||11/08/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 114||11/08/2012|
There was an interesting article in the New Yorker outlining Obama's possible second term. He will spend the next few months shaping out his main policies, then start working on them. By 2014, however, the focus of the whole country will be on the following primaries and the media will start defining Obama's legacy. So, Obama has roughly two years to do whatever he sets up to do in the next several months. Starting in 2014, the focus of both parties will be on what will happen in 2016. And we know how little gets done in the world of politics once campaigning gets going.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||11/08/2012|
Imagine Bill Clinton as the very first First Man! Imagine Bill and Barak campaigning on Hillary's behalf. Imagine how popular the Dems will be once Obamacare becomes established and the unemployment numbers come down more than they already have. Imagine the Latino turnout if there happens to be a wise Latino as the VP.
Oh, while we are at it, imagine Scalia retired from the SC. Yeah, I know it won't happen, but he could die in the next 4 years and I won't shed a tear.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||11/08/2012|
Be warned. Elizabeth Warren in 2016. Hillary's time has come and gone.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||11/16/2013|
Hillary will be our next president. Count on it.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||01/19/2015|
I will reluctantly vote for Hillary. She is a hawk and a big friend of Wall Street. She will do very little to help the American worker and will embroil the country in more Middle Eastern conflicts. But she'll do less harm than the Republicans would.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||01/19/2015|
Pretty much, R119. My main attraction to her is that she looks as though she'll have downballot coat tails. If the opposition goes loony enough, she may help get the House back.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||01/19/2015|
To those under 50, Hillary is a liberal who fought for universal healthcare and will make Obamacare better.
To those that remember, she became a NY senator because teabaggers hounded her and her child, through no fault of her own.
As a NY senator, it is/was her duty to protect NY....the world's economic capitol.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||01/19/2015|
I think if she has any real chance of getting to be President.Than it will be and indeed has to be this coming election.A major reason being because she is 67 years young this year.At least she does understand the workings and machinations of an administration.And how thr White House actually works.She has that in her favour.And that's no small thing. I recognise this a gay website.I am straight.So I read this question on a forum board. And the first thing I wonder is whom is best for the USA right now?Whom is best for communities and whom is connected enough to deal with very real issues for everyday Americans?Whom can have a smooth transition into the White House? Who can deal with world issues? I think that's what an incoming Presidents precedents should be at the outset. Also it'd be good to see Obamacare healthcare pass and Americans have peace of mind medically without further concern.Equal medical coverage.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||01/19/2015|
Hillary said, "What, what, just a minute, the batteries in my hearing aid died."
Then she continued on.
"My plan to contain the Rubissian Empwire..Sowwy my dentwers are swipping."
Once she put some poly grip on she continued:
"Will I attack Russia? Well it depends, and speaking of depends, I have to thank God for that product."
|by Anonymous||reply 123||01/19/2015|
I'm excited for her to run and her *fingers crossed* presidency. But I am not excited about all the shit that Fox News and all the tabloids will start bringing up again. If Hillary doesn't care that Bill fucks around, then why should anyone else. Oh and Fox News is coming to rebrand itself the Benghazi Network.
I do hope that she has learned from her last race and brought in youthful advisors who know how to run modern campaigns and not just a bunch of 90s holdovers from Bill's two runs.
Also, I hope she doesn't make the Al Gore mistake. She must not turn her back on Obama. She will need his coalition. If they think she's being disrespectful, they won't vote.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||01/19/2015|
Lol r123. Good one. Get use to it. The next president of the USA will be Hillary. What makes me laugh is how scared the GOP (gran ole party) is about the fact that she is ours.....in every which way possible.....deal with it.
BTW...we will have a robust primary. It will make her more formidable.....
Now get use to it.... Madam president
|by Anonymous||reply 125||01/19/2015|
R7...check the Constitution. You can only be elected to the office twice.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||01/19/2015|
What are the Hillarybots going to do when this campaign fails. She's not going to win.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||01/19/2015|
R127....oh yes she will. And we already know what is coming towards her....blah blah blah....she killed Vince foster....Chelsea is Webster's dictionary's child. And republicans don't have a chance to win.
Now repeat after me....Madam President
|by Anonymous||reply 128||01/19/2015|
[quote]I do hope that she has learned from her last race and brought in youthful advisors who know how to run modern campaigns and not just a bunch of 90s holdovers from Bill's two runs.
She already has. Her rumored campaign manager was one of the heads of the Obama campaign. He's also quite handsome, which doesn't hurt. She's also hired the high-tech wiz behind Obama's campaign computer databases which identified potential Obama voters with a laser-like precision. She's also hired Obama's pollster.
Here's Robby Mook, who will be her campaign manager. I think he's cute.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||01/19/2015|
The Official Over-the-Hill Hill Flog a Very Dead Horse thread. So sad.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||01/19/2015|
r127, it's been apparent for some time now that TPTB have annointed her, so yes she will run and win. They've invested too much $$ in her at this point to let that go to waste.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||01/19/2015|
Do you think she'll know how the delegates in caucus states are awarded this time?
|by Anonymous||reply 132||01/19/2015|
R130.....then don't sweat it. Remember when "they said" no one named Barack Hussien Obama could be elected?
Slowly....repeat after me.....President Hillary Rodham Clinton.....I know it hurts....for the cray cray....but it shall be so....breathe in, breathe out
|by Anonymous||reply 133||01/19/2015|
R126, you need to check your facts dear.
R128, it will never happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||01/19/2015|
When Hillary becomes president, I wonder what cause Bill will take up?
|by Anonymous||reply 135||01/19/2015|
the real question for the umpapaloopa Boehner booooo hoooooo party is....why do you guys fear Hillary?
|by Anonymous||reply 136||01/19/2015|
Is America ready for a female President? From the outside looking in, the US "appears" too conservative to even contemplate the notion. I hope I'm wrong because I'd love to see what a woman would do as "leader of the free world". Would Hillary be another Iron Lady? What would her style be?
It's going to be rough ride. She (and her husband Bill) have so much baggage which the Republicans will milk for all its worth
We've had a black man, now I hope the country is "evolved" enough to elect a woman as President. Next up is Hispanic or Asian.
I just hope I live to see it!
|by Anonymous||reply 137||01/19/2015|
Does she know she has a child molester as a husband?
|by Anonymous||reply 138||01/19/2015|
Not joking, Hillary after a good tough primary, will win. Who thought a man named Barack Obama would? Elizabeth Warren resonates with me, but she doesn't have foreign policy experience and no name recognition. let's be real, Hillary has/is a liberal, except for those who don't remember how she put everything on the line for universal healthcare?
A woman will and can win in the US.......and her name is Hillary.
The only ones who sweat it are teabaggers......and it's sad.....kidding...not so much
|by Anonymous||reply 139||01/19/2015|
[quote] She must not turn her back on Obama
Do you really think Obama wants to have his legacy usurped by the first female president? Obama and Bill will do whatever it takes to make sure she doesn't win.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||01/19/2015|
R140 - I like Obama but what legacy would that be? Many Americans seem to hate his only real accomplishment so it's viciously called Obamacare. I've never seem such contempt spewed at a President as this one has had to endure.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||01/19/2015|
R129 - how exactly is she "hiring" these people without being a candidate?
|by Anonymous||reply 142||01/19/2015|
Does anyone believe she will be a viable candidate when we find out that Bill Clinton pressured the Florida DA to go easy on the pervert/child molester Epstein? What about Bill's possible involvement?
|by Anonymous||reply 143||01/19/2015|
It's such a delight watching the freepers shit their pants. Hi, R143!
Oooooooo. Will Hillary be viable?
Would a rethug please tell me which 2012 Obama state Hillary loses against ANY Republican?
If she runs, she wins.
And she will.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||01/19/2015|
Who would you like to see as her running mate?
I think Sherrod Brown from Ohio is probably the likeliest pick. I would've said Mark Warner from VA a year ago, but Democratic activists may nix that idea.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||01/19/2015|
R145.... How the fuck is it racist? R146....good question, but we have time.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||01/19/2015|
Obama, best president in my lifetime.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||01/19/2015|
We all know Obama is the best president R148. He is black after all. The problem is we need more blacks. That's the point I was making R147. If you can't understand that you are clearly racist. You can take your stupid ass white woman candidate and shove her up your cunt. Black is what's needed and you shouldn't have to be told that.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||01/19/2015|
We heard you the first time, R149. Still stupid on the second try.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||01/19/2015|
President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I can't wait!
|by Anonymous||reply 151||01/19/2015|
Honey, r151, you will die waiting. It is never going to happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||01/19/2015|
Reince Preibus said her record isn't very impressive. I hate him but he's actually right. What has she done that's so significant and worthwhile? What was her biggest accomplishment as a Senator or SOS?
|by Anonymous||reply 153||01/19/2015|
Turning you out as the TROLL that you are, R152, I see that you keep saying that. And only that, with no reason or thought.
But let's engage your 'lil brain for a moment, OK?
Do you think Hillary won't run? Do you think Hillary won't be the Democratic nominee?
Suppose for a moment that she does and is—because here in reality she will and she will be—WHICH 2012 OBAMA STATE DOES HILLARY NOT CARRY?
Oops! Did you poop your pants too?
|by Anonymous||reply 154||01/19/2015|
She won't win, r154. I will be stunned if she gets the nomination. She's poison and you are too blind to see it.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||01/19/2015|
Anybody who would vote for Hilary Clinton is not only dumb they're racist. There are too many smart black men out there who deserve support. But I'm not surprised to see this kind of shit. Racism is everywhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 156||01/19/2015|
Yeah, r156, being black is such a perfect criteria for office.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||01/19/2015|
R156, Its very possible there could be swelling support of Hill from women who feel they were denied when BO won.
Will she win, too early to know the landscape, she's brainstorming now on how to get the Millenial vote.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||01/19/2015|
I hope and expect Hillary to become President. I really find it hard to believe, though, that Hillary will win women's support by virtue of her being a woman. It just seems ridiculous, but I read that often. Isn't it silly?
|by Anonymous||reply 159||01/19/2015|
The belief of some is that she will champion issues they support.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||01/19/2015|
No it's not silly R159, You have to know how dumb women can be. They make it very obvious for all to see. Voting for Hilary Clinton would be ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||01/19/2015|
Has Hillary slimmed down yet?
Seriously (and honestly).
Her frumpy look with the short haircut won't cut it in the primary season.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||01/19/2015|
Certainly not with superficial homos, R162.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||01/19/2015|
Castro is the Sarah Palin of the Democrats. Mark my words there is no depth of experience there. I am not saying he is not smart, but he needs more time in the public service arena before he is on a Presidential ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||01/19/2015|
Didn't Fox News call her fat? Or was that just Barack Obama, prompting her to get facial rejuvenation surgery?
|by Anonymous||reply 165||01/19/2015|
Am excited and ready for Hillary!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 166||03/04/2015|
Article encouraging Biden to run:
"Biden should run. Now. It’s the only way to know what Hillary is willing to risk"
It’s doubtful that many voters care as much about Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails as reporters do. They’re probably not too wound up over the foreign contributions flowing into her family foundation, either.
Cumulatively, though, these latest headlines about Clinton, along with other stories sure to come, reinforce her vulnerabilities as a candidate. Democratic primary voters are about to be reminded on a semiweekly basis of what left a lot of them so ambivalent about Hillary in 2008 — namely, the perception that the Clintons are like an unregulated industry within the party, impervious to scrutiny and contemptuous of anyone who would get in their way.
And this is why, if I were Joe Biden, and if I still harbored designs on the Oval Office down the hall, I’d be inclined to ignore what the insiders were saying. I’d run, and I’d run now.
I wrote a few weeks ago about the concerted effort to make Clinton her party’s nominee by acclamation and why I found it disturbing. As I said then, she might well be a good president, and possibly even an inspiring one, but there’s just something unseemly about the liberal reformers of the ’60s generation, men and women who fought to create a more democratic nominating process back in the day, now trying to back down anyone who would challenge the establishment’s candidate.
The question you hear most often from skeptics, though, is who that would be. There’s Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, who apparently went after Clinton with a jab at “triangulation” last week, but who hasn’t yet introduced himself to most voters or offered any real argument of his own. There’s Jim Webb, who would probably have a better shot running as an independent. There’s Bernie Sanders, who’s an avowed socialist, and Elizabeth Warren, who sounds more like a Jacobin.
And then there’s the 72-year-old Biden, who is mostly left out of this conversation — not because he hasn’t repeatedly signaled an interest in running, but because the handicapping crowd has never taken him all that seriously as a foil to Hillary. Biden has a well-known tendency to get caught up in the moment and say things that are impolitic or even partly untrue, which in Washington tends to make you a figure of ridicule, though in most other places it’s known as having a pulse.
The accepted wisdom where Biden is concerned is that you can’t have two establishment candidates representing continuity from the same administration, so the best he can do is to wait on the sidelines, keep his options open and hope that maybe Hillary decides to do something else in the twilight of her life, like bring a football team to Los Angeles, or anchor the “Nightly News” on NBC.
Biden’s instincts have to tell him something different, though. After 40-plus years in Washington, he has to know that no one ever really gets plucked off the sidelines when the opening arrives; you have to create the opening yourself. He has to know, too, that the insiders are almost always wrong, and the further out from an actual election you are, the more wrong they tend to be.
Biden is a better candidate than most pundits have ever given him credit for. Yeah, he’s sloppy and meandering and says some nutty stuff. But that’s all part of being genuine and three-dimensional, which may be the most valuable trait in modern politics and not a bad contrast to Clinton’s robotic discipline.
Not incidentally, Biden is especially popular in Iowa, where he first campaigned for president in 1988, and where he retains unusually strong ties. (The Clintons, you may recall, have never met with great affection there.) I remember being struck, in 2008, by the regularity with which Iowa Democrats told me that Biden was their second choice and would have been first if they thought he could actually win.
|by Anonymous||reply 167||03/05/2015|
Biden’s a middle-class champion who makes the case for economic fairness with more conviction than Clinton and less vitriol than Warren. He’s a serious thinker on foreign policy who opposes rampant interventionism without sounding like a pacifist. He more than holds his own as a debater.
And Biden has nothing to lose by making one last run before riding the Amtrak back to Delaware for good. He’s already been through the unthinkable death of his first wife and infant daughter in a car crash in 1972; a trumped-up plagiarism scandal that very nearly ruined his political career in 1988; brain surgery that threatened his life later that same year. There’s nothing the Clinton machine can do to the guy that hasn’t already been done.
But the main reason I’d tell Biden to run now is that you can’t actually know the shape of the Democratic field unless and until you jump into it. And that’s because very few people on the planet — possibly only people named Clinton — know what’s really in Hillary’s mind, and in her stomach.
We know this about Clinton: She wants to be president and is building a formidable organization to make it happen. She doesn’t see any adversary who would be a serious obstacle to the nomination, and the insiders pushing her to run insist she won’t have to worry about one.
Of course she seems 100 percent determined to run. If you’d offered that same deal to Al Gore in 2004, or John Kerry in 2008, or Mitt Romney last month, any of them would have grabbed it in a heartbeat.
But if a Biden gets in the race, suddenly that calculus is slightly different. Now, if you’re Clinton, you have to ask yourself: Are you really up for slugging it out in all those primaries all over again, with the nonstop debating and parrying and standing in the bitter cold at 5 a.m., all with the very real chance that you could lose? Do you really want to risk your hard-won standing as a stateswoman on a bruising campaign against the only politician who has a stronger claim to Obama’s legacy among liberal voters?
The answer is probably yes, that Clinton’s a candidate, serious opponent or not. But there’s no way for Biden to be sure of that unless he forces her to make the choice. Just as important, there’s probably no way for Clinton herself to know until the gut check is real.
“I’m in it to win it” was Hillary’s garish bumper sticker when she entered the 2008 race. Her party deserves to know that she isn’t running again just because her path is clear. And Joe Biden has more than earned the right to stand in it.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||03/05/2015|
|by Anonymous||reply 169||03/05/2015|
Señora Presidente Hillary
|by Anonymous||reply 170||06/03/2015|
|by Anonymous||reply 171||06/03/2015|
That cow can't win. She's one of the least likable people on earth. She'll poll well as people want to seem to be behind her but in the voting booth they'll vote for anything else with a pulse.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||06/03/2015|
172. Yes she will and she is extremely likable....people like you remind me why I like, respect and Trust her.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||06/03/2015|
Her Monsanto connection is chilling.
|by Anonymous||reply 174||06/03/2015|
"She wants to be president and is building a formidable organization to make it happen."
I know this was written 3 months ago - but this "formidable organization" so far consists of the same usual suspects and tired names who have "mooched" off the Clinton bandwagon for decades.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||06/03/2015|
have never gotten a dime from the Clintons, though I should.
My first vote was for Mondale/Ferraro. In PS 19. Corona, NY.......not one of the bitches with me voted, nor could I make them. I owned my car and since it was a Tuesday, I told them free drinks if we get to the club before 9 pm. Was a lie...but I needed to vote, went in the gym, with my fuck me pumps of the 80 s, because I was excited to vote...sad, that to this day...getting people to vote is so fucking hard. Fuck warren, sanders and anyone who doesn't know, that this country doesn't vote and would bitch against Hillary
Do not assume I am a lackey for the Clintons
|by Anonymous||reply 176||06/04/2015|
As to thinking we are only 1-3 fools...as you can see by previous posts, am an old liberal breeder...my youngest votes for the first time in 2016. My 29 yr old son is excited for Hillary, and knocked on over 2000 doors in bumblefuck, Thomasville NC for Obama, my 26 yr old daughter knocked on 1000 in NC and WV.
No babe we aren't only 2 "stoooopid" people, but conscious people who know that the right to vote is precious and we are all voting for Hillary.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||06/04/2015|