Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t her age, it’s her dynasty

Hillary Clinton is old. Thank you, Republicans, for reminding us that one of America’s senior stateswomen — a former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady — is in fact a senior.

But there is a much better reason not to jump on the “Clinton 2016” bandwagon: Her dynasty.


Hillary Clinton has not even declared she is running for president, but speculation is fierce. She created a Twitter account, what does it mean? Is a new hairstyle evidence of her intent to run? And some prognosticators are already concluding that, even before entering the race, Hillary Clinton is unbeatable.

Suppose she does run and win. At 69-years-old, she would become the second-oldest first-term president in history.

As people get older, mental and physical abilities tend to decline. In the worst cases, people descend into senility or chronic disease. Ronald Reagan, the oldest first-term president, proved that. Only his most dedicated revisionists deny that he started slipping in his second term.

Women, at least, tend to age better than men, and Clinton would benefit from three decades of medical advances since the Reagan era.

Yet Clinton’s age is a red herring. The campaign trail would test her mettle. If she were not physically and mentally up to the job, it would soon become evident.

The campaign also would reveal whether her team has smart positions on a bevy of contemporary issues. She might not be a master of modern technology, a social media maven or a global warming expert, but I trust that she would surround herself with experts who are. She would have advisers, young ones, who grok such things. Meanwhile, few people can match Mrs. Clinton’s understanding of international relations.

Still, Republicans are panicking about a Clinton candidacy, so they attempt to make age an issue.

“She’s been around since the ’70s,” a strategist to Mitt Romney’s failed presidential campaign declared recently, as if that should scare off young people.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was even blunter. “Don’t tell me that Democrats are the party of the future when their presidential ticket for 2016 is shaping up to look like a rerun of the ‘Golden Girls,’ ” he said to a laughing gathering of conservatives. The 71-year-old McConnell no doubt remembers fondly 30-year-old television shows.

This comes from a party often caricatured as angry old white men. The GOP, after all, nominated old-timers Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and John McCain for president.  But now we’re to believe they’re the party of youth.

No, Clinton’s age does not trouble me. This does: Bush; Clinton; Bush; Obama: Clinton.

At the end of Hillary Clinton’s second term, two families would have held the presidency for 28 of the last 36 years — four years of George H. W. Bush, eight years of Bill Clinton, eight years of George Bush and eight years of Hillary. Only eight years of President Barrack Obama offered a respite.

The second Bush administration contained many of the same faces as the first. A second Clinton administration almost certainly would hand important positions to old family friends who were around the first time.

Our forefathers fought a revolution to escape hereditary ruling families. Two centuries later, we ratified the 22nd Amendment that limited the president to two terms and encouraged fresh blood periodically.

Nobility is so old world. Americans tossed out the monarchy. Political power is supposed to be earned, not inherited.

In fairness, the Bushes and Clintons are not the first presidential dynasties. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were father and son. William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison were grandfather and grandson.

Those families at least had the courtesy to spread it out a bit. None of the four served more than one term, and years passed between them. William Henry Harrison, of course, died after only 32 days in office. Coincidentally, he is the current second-oldest president elected to a first term.

After them, the next-closest presidential relations were second cousins James Madison and Zachary Taylor.  (The two Roosevelts were more distantly related, fifth cousins.)

This clustering of family presidential power is unprecedented, and it should trouble Americans. Yet it also shouldn’t become a litmus test that disqualifies Clinton. Rather, it is one more item to consider when looking at the candidates on the ballot.

I would like to see a woman shatter the highest glass ceiling, but it doesn’t have to be Clinton in 2016. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are among the credible alternatives who could make a run at becoming the first woman president.

Republicans also are considering the dynasty route in 2016. The matchup could be Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida and George W.’s brother. If that happens, hereditary rule would prevail — three close relatives all elected president in only 24 years? — unless the electorate revolted to a third party.

Then, when 2024 arrives, a new generation of Clintons and Bushes could run. Bill and Hillary’s daughter Chelsea, and George W.’s twin daughters Jenna and Barbara, will all be old enough to run for president.

Then we can dig up a crown, scepter and throne and quit pretending all together.

(Originally published on Joanne Bamberger’s (aka PunditMom) “The Broad Side,” cross-posted with permission.)

Christian Trejbal is a freelance editorial writer, editor and political consultant based in Portland, Ore. He wrote exclusively for The (Bend) Bulletin and The Roanoke Times before founding Opinion in a Pinch. He serves on the board of directors of the Association of Opinion Journalists Foundation and is open government chairman. Follow him on Twitter @ctrejbal and facebook.

Share This Post

263 Responses to “Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t her age, it’s her dynasty”

  1. Julie Autuore says:

    Regardless of the snark in your reply I am in agreement. The “center” has shifted so far to the right that “left-leaning” has little meaning any longer. Still, I’d take HRC over anything that the insane GOP tries to foist on us.

  2. lynchie says:

    To say Hillary can’t lose is to discount a lot of independent voters. I think that you might find there is resentment towards Bill because of NAFTA as well as DOMA and Don’t ask don’t tell. The clinton’s are hardly friends of middle class and poor, Bill gave us welfare reform as well. Third party is out because dem and repub simply won’t allow a choice.

  3. lynchie says:

    Her political leanings are pre determined. She is hooked to wall street, hooked to influence from her parents. No question of what you get.

  4. lynchie says:

    You forgot deregulation of Wall Street.

  5. lynchie says:

    Are you saying when G.H. Bush kisses Barbara with open eyes it would look like tea bagging. That is frightening but for him rather invigorating.

  6. Bill_Perdue says:

    Warren is a wretched zionist.

  7. Jafafa Hots says:

    You know what?
    You’re completely right.

    HRC would make a better GOP candidate than any of those other conservatives you just mentioned.

  8. Jafafa Hots says:

    If you think she’s “left-leaning,” you must have a political compass manufactured in 2006.

  9. Jafafa Hots says:

    I was a resident of NY when HRC USED the state she had NO connection with as a launching pad, all the while blatantly lying, saying she was not carpetbagging, saying she only wanted to serve the people of NY.

    Went on the radio in Erie PA and thought that was in New York State. Literally. DID NOT KNOW WHERE SHE WAS. Didn’t know the names of the major cities in the state.

    And of course, immediately upon election, starts positioning herself to run for higher office.

    New York State needed TWO SENATORS serving it, not one senator and one person making a campaign stop.

    NY has serious problems, two parts of the state pitted against each other, the western part with Buffalo getting the shaft – paying high prices for the hydro power in its back yard to subsidize lower prices for those its sent to downstate, etc.

    The people of NY needed representation, but they got a lying Presidential aspirant using them for her own benefit.

    Besides her policies, that is when I decided she’d never get a vote of mine… a liar who uses the electorate for her own enrichment, who steps on democracy and the people on her way to the throne she feels she’s inherited.

  10. JayRandal says:

    Hillary Clinton as President would be a disaster. Bill might expose himself again. Her cabinet filled with cronies and Wall Street lovers. Same applies for Jeb Bush as President alas disaster too.

  11. Julie Autuore says:

    Keep going with that, it helped her win her senate race.

  12. Julie Autuore says:

    She’s a left-leaning centrist, she just doesn’t lean very far.

  13. Julie Autuore says:

    haha true :) But even though I loved President Bill Clinton, I have to admit that he helped bring us to this point. Media consolidation and NAFTA and welfare reform and “don’t ask don’t tell”…the times need a real progressive, not a triangulator.

  14. Jafafa Hots says:

    I’m not sure where you get left-leaning from HRC.

  15. Jafafa Hots says:

    Trotting out your stupidity for show and tell today?

  16. Sweetie says:

    Don’t you make fun of her beautiful mind.

  17. Sweetie says:

    I’m always fond of the way she had the gall to speak in front of a group of lesbians during her first senate run and tell them marriage is something that should be reserved for heterosexuals.

  18. Sweetie says:

    RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that wewere told we needed to do something about.

    BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

    RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”

  19. Sweetie says:

    Is she still Cherokee?

  20. Jafafa Hots says:

    Protests did NOTHING for Obama and gay rights.

    Biden accidentally embarrassing Obama is the only thing that mattered.

  21. Jafafa Hots says:

    Unless you are in a swing state that has a chance of going Republican, the ONLY way your vote can make ANY difference, no matter how slight, is to make it a protest vote for a 3rd party candidate.

    If you plan to support the lesser of two evils when that lesser is already going to win your state without a contest (NY, CA, etc.) then voting for the (D) is not only a waste, it helps to solidify the lack of choice you admit exists.

    In a non-swing state, a vote for a rightwing Democrat is worse than not voting at all.

  22. zorbear says:

    ooooohhh — good point!


  23. zorbear says:

    I keep going back and forth on the ninth judge proposal. On the one hand, anything’s got to better than a political appointee, on the other, look at the crop in Congress that “the people” voted to rule us! Surely, there’s a third option?


  24. Max_1 says:

    Q U E S T I O N:

    Who will PROSECUTE torture better?
    Clinton or Ted Cruiz?

    Who will PROSECUTE spying better?
    Clinton or Rice?

    Who will PROSECUTE bankers better?
    Clinton or Rubio?

    Who will CLOSE GITMO sooner?
    Clinton or Bush?

    The correct answers are NONE OF THE ABOVE.

    The correct solution is someone who will.
    My bet is with Warren. But would she run?

  25. Max_1 says:

    She has no idea… none, nada, no clue as to imminent threats.

  26. Max_1 says:

    Warren stands with the little guy…
    … Clinton dines with Royalty.

  27. Ron Robertson says:

    I wish we could just eliminate the party system altogether. I think that is a big source of the evils in politics today, too much power concentrated in a self-perpetuating system that survives on big money.

  28. Ron Robertson says:

    I didn’t know some of that, and had forgotten about his role in the bankruptcy act (which is an abomination of a law). So, perhaps he would not have been any better than Obama after all.

  29. Bill_Perdue says:

    Biden is an anti-worker hypocrite of the worst kind. As the Senator from Bank of America he did what he was told to do by the banks who use Delaware as their home base. Biden’s Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 should have been renamed the Predatory Lenders Enabling act of 2005.

    It made it much more difficult for workers and consumers to file for bankruptcy and erase debts to predatory lenders and was part of the bipartisan package that included Clintons signatures on NAFTA and the law deregulating predatory lending practices, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB and Bushes tax cuts for the rich. Biden’s Bankers bill help fuel the current Depression. In partial appreciation for Biden’s yeoman work making the world safe for predatory lenders his son Hunter Biden was hired as a management trainee at MBNA (since gobbled up by B of A) straight out of law school, and was quickly promoted to executive vice president. Graft and corruption come in a variety of ways and Biden is familiar with most of them.

    Biden is a sick cold war liberal who vocally supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq. He voted for the Paytriot Act and it’s renewal. He voted for DOMA.

    Democrats (and Republicans) are the enemy of working people.

  30. Ron Robertson says:

    I’m talking about the choices available to us, which are very limited. I did NOT say that I think there are no better people than the choices available to us. Millions of people would be better than the politicians we have, but they’re not running for office. Then you really go wild on a tangent if you think I’m saying about no other woman is qualified. What’s really ridiculous is to claim we have a choice amongst 314 million Americans. How many of those meet the age requirement to be President? How many of those are known well enough to make it through the primaries? And I mean realistically? The system we have now drastically limits our choices. I don’t like that system, and would love to figure out a way to change it. I don’t even like our choices and Hillary would not be my first choice (neither was/is Obama). My statements are about IF Hillary is our choice next election, then I know of no republican who has a ice cube’s chance in hell to make it through the primaries I’d vote for over her in THAT circumstance.

  31. Bill_Perdue says:


  32. Ron Robertson says:

    Biden probably would have been a better choice, and that’s a good point.

  33. karmanot says:


  34. andyou says:

    You’re right. Age isn’t the issue. Elizabeth Warren is only two years younger than Hillary, but Warren’s ideas are infinitely more fresh. Hillary represents more of the same — a left-leaning champion of the status quo. Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians with the courage to take on Wall Street and fight for the common man.

  35. karmanot says:

    Nothing like a turd troll to elevate the discussion.

  36. Naja pallida says:

    Reagan with a blue pantsuit on…

  37. Jafafa Hots says:

    Bullshit. For gay rights, BIDEN was a good choice.
    Obama would still be “evolving” if Biden’s loose lips hadn’t forced Obama to actually take a stand on something for once.

  38. Jafafa Hots says:

    Don’t you understand? The only choices we have are to run full speed off the cliff, or walk up slowly and stare down and convince ourselves it will be a fun ride and then jump.

    There are no other options!

  39. Jafafa Hots says:

    The lesser of two evils can only be referred to as the better of two goods in a brain half empty kind of way.

  40. Rosa Luxemberg says:

    The only personal garbage here is you.

  41. Jafafa Hots says:

    There are approximately 314 million Americans. Approximately 157 million of them women.

    If you think we have no choices then you insult the American people.
    If you think there is no other woman among those 157 million qualified, then you insult women.

    Your argument essentially boils down to “there are too few people who have compromised ethics and bought their way and into position to be allowed by the oligarchs to be their puppet.”

  42. Bill_Perdue says:

    More personal garbage from Queer Supremacist using yet another name.

  43. Bill_Perdue says:

    My moon suit is at the cleaners.

  44. Rosa Luxemburg says:

    The only mass movement you’re capable of generating is over a toilet bowl. Which by the way you should crawl back into.

  45. Bill_Perdue says:

    The unions, the union left and unorganized workers are radicalizing, as are leftist and nationalist movements among African Americans and among Chicano and Lationos. Eacxh of them and the LGBT movements will grow e stronger as they become independent of Democrats and Republican and take the struggle to the streets, factories, schools and barracks.

  46. Jafafa Hots says:

    “I don’t see another Obama waiting in the wings.”

    So there is a bright side?

  47. Jafafa Hots says:

    “Her positions don’t really vary off what we’ve been getting out of the Republican party for over 25 years.”

    Fixed it for you.

  48. Jafafa Hots says:

    Exactly. These partisans cheer and defend Obama for doing what we marched in the streets against Bush for doing.

    Rooting for their favorite sports team.
    To them politics is a Apple versus Microsoft fanboy argument.

  49. FLL says:

    Most of the movements you mention are from the 60s and early 70s. There are some equivalents today. The first movement that might pick up steam is one to defend all whistleblowers and opponents of domestic and internet surveillance: Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and others. A second movement that might gain traction is opposition to corporations that endanger the environment with GMOs, such as Monsanto. Both of these possibilities cross national boundaries; they are transnational movements.

  50. Jafafa Hots says:

    Elizabeth Warren, please.

  51. Moderator3 says:

    I found her in the deleted folder instead of the spam folder, but the problem was solved.

  52. Bill_Perdue says:

    No, I mean actual, political mass movements like the suffragists, the unions, SNCC and Malcolm X’s groups, the antiwar movement, the feminist movement for abortion rights. the growing movement to defend Brad Manning and the LGBT movements.

    All became stronger as they became independent of Democrats and Republican and organized in the streets, factories, schools and barracks. There is no inexorable shift in social progress. The US and EU are moving in drastic rightward direction and cutting reforms and Bill of Rights.

  53. Moderator3 says:

    I can’t find her posts.

  54. I just noticed it in another post, checking the posts now.

  55. FLL says:

    Moderators: I think emma852 is wearing out her welcome.

  56. emma852 says:

    as Rhonda responded I am
    stunned that a stay at home mom able to profit $6819 in four weeks on
    the internet. did you look at this link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  57. FLL says:

    You’ve mentioned “mass movements” before, which sounded vague to me. I think I better understand what you mean, now that you’ve noted some Supreme Court cases, and your concept of “mass movements” makes more sense. I think you’re talking about the inexorable shift in social progress in the society at large (both here and abroad), which is often substantially ahead of elected officials. I agree that this was the impetus behind landmark Supreme Court cases, such as the ones you mention. The Supreme Court cannot stand in opposition to American society, Western countries in general or world opinion.

  58. Bill_Perdue says:

    “he got better on gay rights” He was an open bigot for over a decade so all he had to do was rebrand. His strides consisted of little, all the real victories were won by the intransigence and courage of the GLBT communities

  59. Ford Prefect says:

    Exactly. Who is demanding Obama, Inc. lay off SS? Who is demanding single payer healthcare? Not the Democrats. Who is demanding a jobs program? Not the Democrats. Who is demanding action on climate change and energy reform? Not the Democrats.

    Nothing good comes from NOT making demands. Nothing.

  60. Bill_Perdue says:

    I was in the SWP and YSA then, not a maoist.

  61. Bill_Perdue says:

    “Do …Teabagger(s) want a Supreme Court that disenfranchises non-whites?”

    They’ve already got one.

    The Supreme Court is reliably right wing, racist and anti-worker. There are rare exceptions and they’re caused by mass movements ratcheting up the pressure on them and when the US, and the Court, becomes the object of scorn internationally, as was the case in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) and United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. (2013 all fall into that category,

    Republican dominated courts decided in favor of marriage equality in Massachusetts and California.

  62. FLL says:

    Well put. I hope she’s not still hanging around with her buddies from The Family. Weren’t they that bunch of fundie Xtians who were involved in getting African governments to pass anti-gay laws? I think Hillary was best friends with them in the early 1990s. She would do well to fall in with a better crowd.

  63. Ford Prefect says:

    The obvious question here is, “If you don’t even know what she stands for, how can you blindly support her?”

    If you don’t believe any of that is a part of her agenda, then you don’t seem to know much of anything about her politics or the interests she’s long been loyal to. The interesting thing about your comments (and I’m not being sarcastic) is you rather well represent a huge number of people who don’t actually care about politics enough to understand what people stand for, but will blindly support anyway.

    This is the very origin of “less evil” calculations. It doesn’t matter what happens in the end. If you don’t stand for anything, then why should you care about what Hillary or anyone else stands for? Back in the early ’90s, I was much more tolerant of people who take that position. But now, with the lives of millions hanging in the balance, that particular brand of apathy is rather odd.

    The best we can hope for now is microscopically less evil, even though that’s still extremely evil. To say that anyone capable of raising a billion dollars isn’t totallly corrupt is to admit one knows nothing about how our pseudo-democracy works.

  64. karmanot says:

    Yes, rumbling and churning on a hot asphalt road in August.

  65. karmanot says:

    And who would ever imagine either of us vaulting an aristocrat? :-)

  66. karmanot says:


  67. karmanot says:

    If Zullina had said Marxist, I would have said, so?

  68. Ford Prefect says:

    You set the bar well below sea level. By your standard, Richard Nixon looks good. Seriously. In another sense though, at least you’re stating up front you don’t object to corruption, which is consistent with a great many Democrats who don’t have the guts to say it up front. Kudos for that, if nothing else.

  69. karmanot says:

    Take your bull s**t and go on over to Brietbart Zululu.

  70. Bill_Perdue says:

    Hi Queer Supremacist, still stalking I see.

  71. karmanot says:

    My kind of thinking too. A parliamentary system would be a good start. I would also like to see term limits for the Supreme Court and possible the ninth judge elected by the people.

  72. karmanot says:

    I agree with you about Obozo, but too many underestimated the quality of his lesser evil.

  73. Bill_Perdue says:

    FDR didn’t need to be bought.

  74. GarySFBCN says:

    Good for you. So you agree with Nader about ‘genital politics’?

  75. karmanot says:

    And, there is that little matter of austerity and looting the safety nets that will drive tens of millions into poverty and suffering.

  76. karmanot says:

    She’d be no better than her crimes think.

  77. FLL says:

    Well, this is fun. Chris Trejbal is rather proficient at stirring the pot. I will offer two other examples of stirring the pot. The first is Hillary’s 2008 primary campaign, which sort of devolved into a racist strategy of Hillary boasting about her broader, whiter political base. The second example of gratuitously stirring the pot is the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Shelby v. Holder, which struck down key portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    I see that other commenters consider Hillary untrustworthy when it comes to the simple justice of not using race as a political football, and I agree with those commenters on that point. Now let’s examine the circumstances under which you can trust the Supreme Court. The ruling in Shelby v. Holder breaks down as follows, according to the justice and which president appointed them.

    Scalia—appointed by Reagan (voted to overturn the Voting Rights Act)
    Thomas —appointed by Bush Sr. (voted to overturn the Voting Rights Act)
    Alito—appointed by Bush Jr. (voted to overturn the Voting Rights Act)
    Roberts—appointed by Bush Jr. (voted to overturn the Voting Rights Act)
    Kennedy—appointed by Reagan (voted to overturn the Voting Rights Act)

    Kagan—appointed by Obama (voted to uphold the Voting Rights Act)
    Sotomayor—appointed by Obama (voted to uphold the Voting Rights Act)
    Breyer—appointed by Clinton (voted to uphold the Voting Rights Act)
    Ginsburg—appointed by Clinton (voted to uphold the Voting Rights Act)

    Well, look at that, will you? A perfect matchup of Republican appointed justices voting to disenfranchise non-white people, and a perfect matchup of Democratic appointed justices voting to protect the voting rights of non-white people. Hillary really didn’t acquit herself very well in her race-tinged 2008 primary.

    Can the country do better than Hillary?

    Do our Teabagger relatives, Uncle Zeke and Aunt Hattie, want a Supreme Court that disenfranchises non-whites?

  78. Bill_Perdue says:

    Zulu Princess is a a new name for anti-gay, racist stalker Queer Supremacist with 2 comments,

  79. karmanot says:

    Repeat: McCain and Palin were not elected.

  80. karmanot says:

    Let’s start with you.

  81. karmanot says:


  82. karmanot says:

    I’d vote for Nader in a nano second.

  83. karmanot says:

    When the perfect is perfect mediocrity, lesser evil takes on the patina of Hannah Arendt’s ‘banality of evil.’

  84. samizdat says:

    The stench of corruption and moral decay surround Hillary Clinton like a rotting corpse in the sunlight.

  85. karmanot says:

    “She is however pro gay rights and human rights” Well, there is that little incident of her enthralled with the assassination of what’s his name that violated Pakistan sovereignty, not to mention the deaths of a few hundred families murdered by drones. Hills is a monster.

  86. karmanot says:

    Well, thinking of Babs face I can see the wrinkled similarities and will for ever forward think of her as a testicle. Gives tea-bag a whole new meaning.

  87. karmanot says:

    Very good one!!!!. I was thinking of Baa Ram Ewe from ‘Babe.’

  88. karmanot says:

    “Is that last one a goat or a sheep?” Neither—-it’s Jeb Bush.

  89. karmanot says:

    Or another Obama.

  90. nicho says:

    But if one of those “clowns” got in, at least you and the other DLCers would be opposing them, instead of enabling them.

  91. karmanot says:

    “At least Hillary isn’t a clown.” You’ve never seen her at dawn.

  92. karmanot says:

    Hillary would be just like Obozo and Willy, except in heels and jewelry.

  93. karmanot says:

    Not because of her last name Luigi, because of her beliefs.

  94. Zulu Princess says:

    Rumor has it you used to be a Maoist up in Seattle. Care to elaborate?

  95. Zulu Princess says:

    Where’s your campaign to prevent elder abuse?

  96. Baa Baa Black Sheep says:

    It’s Bill’s last trick. Unfortunately for Bill, the animal got a good look at him and high tailed it out the door.

  97. HolyMoly says:

    Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, don’t forget. She worked for his presidential campaign. I don’t believe her fundamental ideological beliefs have changed all that much since then.

  98. HolyMoly says:

    So we shouldn’t vote in what “might” be the best president in many years (not-Hillary) because we should vote in what “might” be the best president in many years (Hillary). That is something neither you nor I know to be the case. ANYONE “might” be the best president in history…just as they “might” be the worst.

    Remember that Candidate Obama had what it took to be rated highly — on paper and on the campaign trail at least. President Obama is almost 180 degrees away from what so many people voted for.

    Remember that Kennedy said discrimination in federal housing would be ended “by a stroke of the presidential pen.” Sounds good, right? Time went by, and more time went by, and still no stroke of the pen. Citizens started mailing pens to the White House. Any strong and effective civil rights legislation would have to wait for Johnson.

    Really, neither one of them were/are anything special. No more “special” than Reagan is in the eyes of conservatives. But they sure as hell put on quite an amazing performance on the campaign trail. I have my doubts that Hillary would be any different.

  99. samiinh says:

    I know I, and many others, would feel much better with Hillary in the WH than say Mitt Romney, or Marco Rubio, or, god forbid, Rick Santorium or Rick Perry. Obviously you don’t give a shit, so vote for one of those clowns. At least Hillary isn’t a clown.

  100. Ron Robertson says:

    I understand your views, though I don’t totally buy that all of that is her agenda. I’m not sure that I believe any of that is her “agenda.” But, it’s so difficult to really know what’s on people’s minds I have to see how things unfold. At any rate, who chooses Supreme Court justices is my primary concern. And in that, the parties have very stark differences.

  101. Ford Prefect says:

    There’s lots of egg cracking going on. Unions, workers, women, kids, people of color, foreigners, the poors… that’s a massive omelet being made. The Dems can claim some integrity when they stop throwing the vulnerable under the bus to suit their corporate clients.

  102. Ford Prefect says:

    Really! To vote for a Dem these days, one has to be brainwashed!

    United States of Amnesia!

  103. Ford Prefect says:

    Okay, but it still doesn’t say anything. Do you want the next president to continue to do nothing about global warming to please her corporate clients? Do you want a permanent underclass of unemployable people ranging in the 8-10% range? Do you want more wars? Do you want GMO foods? Do you want the median wage to be cut in half?

    Because Hillary’s totally cool with all of that. In any case, my point is that if you support Politician X, it’s because you support his/her agenda. It doesn’t matter if you have qualms. Neither Hillary or anyone else will care about your qualms. They only care that you support their agenda. All of it.

    I don’t want to flog this, but keep in mind that going forward, the agenda is more important than who is selling it. I’m opposed to her agenda and that is my sole and overwhelming objection to her being preznit.

  104. Ron Robertson says:

    I don’t know if I could be considered that much of a Hillary supporter. But, if it comes down to a choice between Hillary and the republicans most likely to run, then the choice isn’t even close, I’ll vote for Hillary. And, as I mentioned in another post on this same thread, the real importance for me on the president is that they choose Supreme Court justices, who we have to live with for decades. We’re living with George W Bush’s picks now, and they’re likely to be there for something like 20 or more years. To me, that’s far more damaging than a one or two-term presidency, damaging as that can be as well.

  105. Ford Prefect says: