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. 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.

  34. karmanot says:

    Nothing like a turd troll to elevate the discussion.

  35. Naja pallida says:

    Reagan with a blue pantsuit on…

  36. 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.

  37. 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!

  38. 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.

  39. Rosa Luxemberg says:

    The only personal garbage here is you.

  40. 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.”

  41. Bill_Perdue says:

    More personal garbage from Queer Supremacist using yet another name.

  42. Bill_Perdue says:

    My moon suit is at the cleaners.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. Jafafa Hots says:

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

    So there is a bright side?

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. Jafafa Hots says:

    Elizabeth Warren, please.

  50. Moderator3 says:

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

  51. 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.

  52. Moderator3 says:

    I can’t find her posts.

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

  54. FLL says:

    Moderators: I think emma852 is wearing out her welcome.

  55. 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

  56. 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.

  57. 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

  58. 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.

  59. Bill_Perdue says:

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

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. karmanot says:

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

  64. karmanot says:

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

  65. karmanot says:

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

  66. 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.

  67. karmanot says:

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

  68. Bill_Perdue says:

    Hi Queer Supremacist, still stalking I see.

  69. 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.

  70. karmanot says:

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

  71. Bill_Perdue says:

    FDR didn’t need to be bought.

  72. GarySFBCN says:

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

  73. 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.

  74. karmanot says:

    She’d be no better than her crimes think.

  75. 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?

  76. Bill_Perdue says:

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

  77. karmanot says:

    Repeat: McCain and Palin were not elected.

  78. karmanot says:

    Let’s start with you.

  79. karmanot says:

    I’d vote for Nader in a nano second.

  80. karmanot says:

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

  81. samizdat says:

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

  82. 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.

  83. 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.

  84. karmanot says:

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

  85. karmanot says:

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

  86. karmanot says:

    Or another Obama.

  87. 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.

  88. karmanot says:

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

  89. karmanot says:

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

  90. karmanot says:

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

  91. Zulu Princess says:

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

  92. Zulu Princess says:

    Where’s your campaign to prevent elder abuse?

  93. 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.

  94. 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.

  95. 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.

  96. 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.

  97. 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.

  98. 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.

  99. Ford Prefect says:

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

    United States of Amnesia!

  100. 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.

  101. 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.

  102. Ford Prefect says:

    Well, I don’t see Democrats demanding much of anything these days. Marriage equality is almost done, except at the state level, so that demand will fade. Other than that, Democrats don’t care very much about anything, except posting “W’s” in the win column.

    You and others may in fact be “thinking people,” but I have no idea what it is you’re thinking about. Saying you’ll vote for Hillary or any other corporate Dem isn’t saying anything beyond stating party loyalty, no matter who is at the top of the ticket. This is why I don’t see any “there” there.

    Voting for Hillary means pretty much the same thing as voting for Obama: 1) More wars; 2) mass surveillance; 3) a completely corrupt government that acts as a corporate protection racket at the expense of all of us; 4) remarkably bad foreign policy and a complete dismissal of the need for diplomacy–Hillary was a terribly SecState if you hadn’t noticed; 5) more poverty, homelessness, hunger, unemployment and so on.

    This is what you seem to be supporting, since Hillary stands for all that, just as the current self-dealing idiot does. It’s all fine and good to say Republicans are so much worse, but that’s barely even true anymore. They’re worse on social issues, but in terms of war, the economy and everything else, both parties are pretty much the same.

    So perhaps Hillary’s supporters, who are already out in force pushing her coronation, should explain exactly what it is they stand for. Thus far, I see nothing.

  103. Naja pallida says:

    Credible to them, maybe. But they also thought Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin were credible. I didn’t think Rice was credible as national security advisor, proof in point that she failed miserably at it… and then got a huge promotion for her epic failure. She was a mediocre Secretary of State, at best, and I only say that because she didn’t screw things up much worse than they already were.

  104. I wouldn’t vote for her, but she’s certainly a credible female candidate for the other side.

  105. And it wasn’t a valid point to even consider then, or somehow isn’t now? Why is it so criminal to ask the question when it’s not like everyone here doesn’t think it strange that a third Bush could run for president.

  106. Naja pallida says:

    Well, it is the job of the cabinet secretaries to carry out the policy of the administration. You don’t suppose she was running a rogue department? But she has made it pretty clear that her positions vary little from Obama’s.

  107. nicho says:

    Doesn’t make much difference. Vote for whomever makes you feel better, but the end result will be the same.

  108. nicho says:

    And Hillary is corrupt.

  109. nicho says:

    Hey, we’re going for dynastic succession here. What too young? All you have to do is follow the orders you get from Wall Street.

  110. nicho says:

    Best president doesn’t mean much when the bar is set so low — war criminals, banksters, corporatist goons. She’d just be another. In that cesspool, “better” is meaningless.

  111. Naja pallida says:

    May the fleece baa with ewe.

  112. Ron Robertson says:

    And that’s certainly your right. I would love for there to be a worthwhile, viable 3rd party to vote for once the general election happens. Actually, what I would like is for there to be no political parties at all. They’ve been a detriment to good governance. Everyone should have to stand on their own, with their own views, not conform to some idiotic party standard. But, right now that’s a wish, and the elections that have happened to date I have not seen a 3rd party candidate for president that I could vote for. Another thing I’ve often thought is it would be good to have a “none of the above” as a choice, and if that won, then there’d have to be another election and none of the ones listed would be able to run in that next election. That, I think, would help end this disgusting “lesser of two evils” thing we’ve had to face for all the elections I’ve been old enough to vote in.

  113. karmanot says:

    Unfortunately Obozo has ruined the Democrat brand for decades. DINOS are the new Republicans and I won’t vote for any of them.

  114. Luigi DaMan says:

    You’re right. We probably should be good guy Democrats and not vote in what might be the best president in many years because of her last name. I am seeing clearly now.

  115. BillFromDover says:

    Is that last one a goat or a sheep?

    Honey conservatives wonder.

  116. karmanot says:

    LOL by all accounts the Republican clown car is going to make a comeback, but as a float this time.

  117. karmanot says:

    I felt exactly as you did, and exercised my right to vote for a third party.

  118. karmanot says:

    “if the choice is between having cancer or AIDS (which is essentially the only choice we have these days)” I think we need to add Alzheimers to the equation and give full credit to the Republicans and Reagen.

  119. nicho says:

    Really? You think that little of democracy?

  120. nicho says:

    Don’t forget her prayer group — The Family. Very scary.

  121. Ron Robertson says:


  122. karmanot says:

    I know, but Chris is not an idiot, he’s stirring up the stew and doing a pretty good job of it.

  123. gaylib says:

    When was this written, 2004? Same tired old republican talking points. Who hijacked this blog?

  124. karmanot says:

    Very interesting!! But, in addition it must be said, they did know about trusts and presidents from Washington to Jefferson warned about banks. Heck, even Eisenhower joined them in that tradition.

  125. gaylib says:

    Condoleeza Rice. Are who fucking kidding? Who is this idiot John?

  126. samiinh says:

    I’ll take Hilary any day over, Chris, Jeb, Rand, Rick, Mitt, Marco or any other teabagger whose considering a run.

  127. karmanot says:

    Repeat: McCain/Palin lost. Dragging these regressive has beens into a comparison has absolutely no meaning. It is Obozo’s actions that have have standing in these matters.

  128. karmanot says:

    POINT: McCain/PPalin lost. Get it—lost! Comparison’s to McSenile and Moosebutt are pointless.

  129. jomicur says:

    Well, they control things anyway. Another of Vidal’s observations was that the US has TWO government–the public, “show” government designed to convince the simple that they have a voice, and the real, secret government, that functions in the shadows to carry out the will of the 1%. We learned as much during Iran/Contra. It became perfectly clear then that despite the will of the people, and even despite the will of congress, the shadow government will do what it wants to do, democracy be damned. And the shadow government is crawling out of the shadows more and more all the time. Yes, they are criminals, and yes, selling a bill of goods to the public is a key part of the game they play. But it is their game, and you can’t win against the house.

  130. karmanot says:

    I know what you mean, but last century may be an improvement to the feudal ages that await us.

  131. Whitewitch says:

    Too young, no experience…too young, political leanings unknown – did I mention too young?

  132. Bill_Perdue says:

    Or simply devolved

  133. Naja pallida says:

    I couldn’t agree more. Her positions don’t really vary off what we’ve been getting out of the Democratic party for over 25 years. She represents the same old broken and corrupt party that has got us to where we are today… and I’m just not at all interested in voting for Dick Cheney’s fifth term, whether she runs or not.

  134. Whitewitch says:

    Oh he put is actions where someone’s mouth was – that is for sure.

  135. Whitewitch says:

    She is pro gay rights now…and voting for the Patriot Act does not, to me anyway, demonstrate a pro human rights view.

  136. Bill_Perdue says:

    She’s Obama’s Ribbentrop.

  137. Whitewitch says:

    Well said Bill.

  138. Bill_Perdue says:

    Where is his campaign to repeal of section tow of DOMA?

    Where is his campaign to pass ENDA?

    Where is his signature on an ENDA EO for federally contracted workers?

    Making it easier to get cannon fodder and inviting us to Easter Egg rolls is not progress, it’s theater meant to fool those easily fooled.

  139. So, so tired of Bill Perdue says:

    Speaking of sagging, falling apart things, have ya really bothered to take a good look in the mirror lately? It ain’t a pretty sight!

  140. Bill_Perdue says:

    Those who vote for bigots, warmongers and union busters are not just losers, they impose those rancid policies on all of us.

  141. emjayay says:

    Um, the way things have worked out in the real world based on the rules in the Consitution for a couple of centuries.

  142. emjayay says:

    But we don’t Blanche, we don’t. Although the Republicans certainly had exactly that in their primaries. Hard to rate on the evilness scale however, all being kind of off the charts.

  143. Bill_Perdue says:

    The Bill of Rights is falling, unions are falling, wages and benefits are falling, GIs are falling, getting maimed and committing suicide in unprecedented numbers, civilians are falling from Libya to Pakistan – what more do you need?

    The ‘we’ you speak of is limited to partisan supporters of one gang of anti-working class thugs over another. Who cares whcih one wins, grabs the graft and betrays us?

  144. emjayay says:

    Yes, yes, and yes. If only any one of several Supremes would do us a favor of having a stoke or fatal heart attack or something while there’s time.

  145. emjayay says:

    Right, Romney would do exactly all the same things as Obama………

  146. dula says:

    If someone as liberal as Warren doesn’t win, there will be no solutions to the dismantling of what remains of our representative democracy. It will be game over, and I will blame cowardly neoliberals for deciding for us what was possible.

  147. Bill_Perdue says:

    Her problem is neither her age or her dynasty. It’s her politics.

    She’s a union buster who sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart to six years and didn’t say word one about their union busting practices. She’s a supporter of NAFTA, a union busting bill initiated by Republicans and championed and signed by Bill Clinton.

    She’s a bigot who supported Dixiecrat Bill Clinton’s DOMA for over a decade and a half and who’s rebranding is not likely to be taken seriously.

    She’s a racist who claimed that “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/clinton-obama-not-winning_n_100763.html

    She support Bill of Rights busting and voted for the Paytriot Act.

    She and Obama were enraged when gay/antiwar hero Brad Manning made information available that exposed both Hillary Clinton and Obama as empire builders and warmongers and had him imprisoned and tortured.

    She lied about WMDs and other questions, condoned Bill Clintons murder of half a million Iraqi children and supported the Bush2 invasion of Iraq. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

    Her problem is that she’s a typical Democrat politician, and they are virtually indistinguishable from their Republican cousins.

  148. kingstonbears says:

    Age is one thing, the second rate face lift is another.

  149. emjayay says:

    It isn’t the nature of reality, its the nature of the system set up by those Founding Fathers guys. That particular reality anyway. The way things worked out isn’t exactly what the Founding Father guys were imagining. They were no doubt hoping for a more informed public. Although they insulated the Presidency from the great uninformed with the Electoral College, who they expected to be independent, not rubber stamps. And they were kind of hoping for no political parties. Madison was all against “factions”. Anyway, it doesn’t work quite the way they meant. They also didn’t know a whole lot about megamoney international corporations and TV etc. Heck, they thought campaigning for President was a bit improper. By Lincoln’s time at least it was a premodern version of today.
    People SHOULD want the best, not the lesser of two evils. By the time you get to the general election in our system, it’s too late. Remember how the whole very pricipled Ralph Nader thing worked out? (Actually, while a great American he was a bit of a left wing Ron Paul, but that’s another subject).
    The time to get the superior candidates in office (besides stuctural reforms) is during the primaries. Go for it.

  150. dula says:

    If we’re going to do the lesser of two evils thing again, just know that it won’t be enough pull the nation back from the brink. Yes, the Supreme Court is important, and it was lovely to get Gay marriage, but a neoliberal Court in an oligarchy doesn’t mean shit.

  151. nicho says:

    Hell, why not just name her president for life. It will save all that voting nonsense.

  152. nicho says:

    Well the up side of this whole discussion is that it shows that the Hillbots, PUMAs, and assorted DLCers are tanned, rested, and ready to rock and roll. I was afraid they might have gotten flabby after 2008.

  153. vt1926 says:

    Enough is enough AFTER Hillary’s second term!!!

  154. Ron Robertson says:

    That’s actually not a bad idea. Never thought of him.

  155. Ron Robertson says:

    I hope they do. So far I’m not aware of anyone I’m particularly fond of.

  156. Ron Robertson says:

    At least he COULD be dragged. Nothing would have gotten McCain/Palin to get there.

  157. Ron Robertson says:

    Actually, I never said any such thing.

  158. Ron Robertson says:

    If you’ll note elsewhere I already said I’m against Obama on this. You might also note that at the beginning I had mixed feelings about Obama (when he first ran for election). That has not changed, and I am very much against a lot of what he’s done, including drones, massive security state, killing people without trials, killing single-payer healthcare, and much more. I actually think he should be impeached for some of these things, so I’m no Obamabot. Even with that, I held my nose and voted for him because the Republicans are so much worse, and at this election it was ONLY a choice between those two. With pressure, he got better on gay rights and I am glad gay rights have made so many strides during his administration, that would not have happened had the republicans won.

  159. karmanot says:

    Underway as we write

  160. nicho says:

    She is however pro gay rights and human rights which is something I can stand behind.

    Obama said he was for a lot of things to — until it came time for him to put his actions where his mouth is.

  161. karmanot says:

    Maybe she will get the ‘Drone the starving villages in west Pakistan Humanitarian award.’

  162. nicho says:

    there is no chance the party would ever give them the nomination.

    Like a descended testicle.

  163. nicho says:

    there is no chance the party would ever give them the nomination.

    To be more precise, there is no way the corporatocracy would give them the nomination.

  164. karmanot says:

    I certainly agree that Barbara Bush is descended—– couldn’t get much lower until lil Dub came along.

  165. nicho says:

    So, on her watch. She couldn’t stop it? In which case she’s ineffective. Or wouldn’t stop it? In which case, she’s guilty.

  166. nicho says:

    Hey, if Obama could win it and GW Bush could get an award for “Improving the Human Condition,” why the hell not?

  167. nicho says:

    Oh, he’s “doing” alright.

  168. karmanot says:

    pppffffttt You can drink rot gut—-that’s your choice.

  169. nicho says:

    Franklin Pierce, the country’s most alcoholic president. And you wonder where Dubya got it from.

  170. karmanot says:

    Wash, Rinse, Repeat: “What sophist rubbish.” What about innovation, hope and change didn’t you understand, or did you even read that far?

  171. Monoceros Forth says:

    Oh for the love of–you know what, take your accusation of “purity” and stick it. What the hell are you doing other than preening yourself for your special brand of purity, the perfection and practicality of your realpolitik? So anyone wondering how the hell we can stop the current crop of Democrats from dragging us even further rightward just wants “purity”? Get stuffed.

  172. karmanot says:

    That’s the problem

  173. Blogvader says:

    That’s a fun little slogan, but honestly Jom, I think the fact that these criminals only have to sell their crap to a third of the country has effectively made it much easier to control things.

  174. nicho says:

    Not enough room on the door for all the players.

  175. karmanot says:

    But dc, She can sing in bad Russian, while playing an accordion and skating backwards!

  176. Blogvader says:

    I agree completely.

    After watching how Bush II was effectively a continuation of his father politically, I do not want to see another Bill Clinton in the White House.

  177. karmanot says:

    “The President of Italy is also in his 80s.” Oh yes, that paragon of stable and righteous government. haaaaaa, haaaaaa. President Peres, is old enough to remember the Nazi Shoah and apply it to the West Bank and Gaza,

  178. condew says:

    Divided we fall.

  179. jomicur says:

    LOL! You could have stopped after the first three words.

  180. Monoceros Forth says:

    Look up “begging the question”, please.

  181. jomicur says:

    You’re telling us she signs off on policies she doesn’t approve of? That she’s not actually in charge of her own department? Gee, that’s a swell recommendation for the presidency.

  182. karmanot says:

    How’s the new police/security state working out for ya?

  183. condew says:

    I wasn’t aware there was a question.

  184. jomicur says:

    If you can’t tell whether the glass is half empty or half full, you’re using the wrong glass.

  185. condew says:

    Ah, so sometimes you choose not to vote, but to assassinate or overthrow instead of voting.

  186. karmanot says:

    “—at least people like you would be opposing the things he did,” I seriously wonder about that. As long as the trains run on time and the sale of uniforms helps the economy.

  187. jomicur says:

    I agree. Barry’s supporters mistake his rhetoric (which is admittedly good) with action. Ask them what he has actually done, and they’ll hem and haw and mutter about “he says…” or “he made a speech that …” To quote Carole Lombard, “Fooey!”

  188. karmanot says:

    “it is the nature of reality.” What sophist rubbish. Reality is not always the same as truth and your two-dimensional political world lacks the imagination of revolution, innovation, or ( dare I say it without guffaws) hope and change.

  189. condew says:

    I believe it is State Department policy that just about every communication goes out over the Secretary of State’s signature, whether she is the actual author or not.

  190. condew says:

    The lesser of two evils might also be referred to as the better of two goods in a glass half full/glass half empty sort of way.

  191. karmanot says:

    BS, that he’s been a good choice for gay rights. He was dragged like an albatross into every advance we made by his ‘evolving.’

  192. lynchie says:

    But see we didn’t vote for McCain/Palin and their views. We voted for the guy who was going to stop Iraq and Afghanistan, have a transparent WH, etc., etc. So you are saying we voted for Obama and he was the same as the GOP old guy and the bumpkin.

  193. jomicur says:

    Take a good look at the Wikileaks cables. Hillary has her fingerprints on every bit of international villainy Obama has perpetrated.

  194. Monoceros Forth says:

    This is probably the most flagrant question-begging I’ll encounter all month.

  195. karmanot says:

    “Republicans dismantle what is left of our Democracy,” and what Democrats dismantle of our democracy —-starting in earnest with Bill Clinton.

  196. lynchie says:

    We are 3 years away. Alternatives have time to develop.

  197. condew says:

    There’s also the aspect of “To make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs”. A perfect candidate could not remain so and be effective. Every action has the potential to tarnish that pure, unblemished image. So a perfect candidate would do next to nothing, kind of like Obama.

    Of course failure to act is also an action that will tarnish; Obama is also demonstrating that.

  198. karmanot says:

    Bite this—-the lesser of any evil.

  199. ronbo says:

    Although she is “pro gay rights” her husband signed several pieces of legislation including DOMA and DADT. Would it be incorrect to say that she COULD have had an impact or that she likely agreed with her husband – that there is a second-class of Americans that are not equal.

    She, like her husband, would put GLBT Americans in internment camps if the political winds shifted. They are politicians, not really human.

  200. jomicur says:

    Yeah, but look on the bright side. She might win the Nobel Peace Prize.

  201. jomicur says:

    What rules do you think there are that mandate only two choices?

  202. lynchie says:

    Well you know she is being groomed for it. As far as Hillary, what has she done? We have had 16 years of pseudoliberal bullshit with Billo and Ohighness. We don’t need her. Retire and keep speaking at $200K a pop god knows you and Bill need the cash.

  203. voltronforce says:

    You forgot President Franklin Pierce, whom Barbara Bush is descended. These families have been in power a long time.

  204. jomicur says:

    I’ve always liked Gore Vidal’s comment: “If you vote, you only encourage them.”

  205. karmanot says:

    “but I don’t see another Obama” I certainly hope not…….what a total waste of time has been that weakling—all mouth, no do.

  206. karmanot says:

    Reminds me of Roosevelt—–couldn’t be bought.

  207. karmanot says:

    You are stirring it up Chris: Condaleezza Rice ? Are you out of your mind—that war criminal? As for Hills, I will devote the rest of my life to defeating any attempt another Clinton has to f’up this declining nation, including baby Chelsea.

  208. jomicur says:

    Another Obama?! My blood runs cold.

  209. jomicur says:

    You’ve contradicted yourself. “Somebody better” would by definition not be a Democrat. Given that there are a few scattered Democrats who actually ARE better than Clinton–Alan Grayson comes immediately to mind–there is no chance the party would ever give them the nomination.

  210. S1AMER says:


  211. cole3244 says:

    forget dynasties, more of the same, war mongering and all with hillary.

  212. Julie Autuore says:

    The Clintons are so last century.

  213. condew says:

    To do that, first you need to get elected so you can change the rules.

  214. condew says:

    Anybody who does not like Hillary has ample time to convince somebody better to run and get into enough primaries. But if a candidate thinks they can run in any way but as a Democrat, it’s proof they are an amateur and not really up to the task of running for president.

  215. GarySFBCN says:

    Like others, I am more concerned about Clintonian policies than the dynasty aspect to this.

  216. GarySFBCN says:

    Since I’ve been old-enough to vote, it has ALWAYS come down to that. Nader and his dismissive ‘genital politics’ comment about LGBT rights made him a lesser evil.

  217. condew says:

    I’d like to see Warren Buffet run as a Democrat for president. If the major issue is the economy, no politician could match his credentials, yet he has stated on many occasions that it is wrong that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. He’s rich enough that he won’t be bought with the promise of $400K speaking engagements, and he could build his own presidential library.

  218. citizen_spot says:

    Don’t you mean Hill & The Carlyle Group?

  219. voltronforce says:

    My concerns about Hillary is that she was a corporate lawyer and a Member of the Board of Wal-Mart. She is however pro gay rights and human rights which is something I can stand behind. I voted for Obama over her last time but I don’t see another Obama waiting in the wings. Anyone have any guesses for that?

  220. BeccaM says:

    My biggest complaint? I don’t want another Blue Dog neo-liberal Dem running for president.

    Yes, I believe we’re long overdue for a woman to be in the Oval Office. But I concur, we do not need dynasties and we could do one hell of a lot better in terms of picking progressives to run.

  221. nicho says:

    Why not just run Chelsea? She could keep the dynasty going. Chelsea vs. Jeb in 2016.

  222. Ron Robertson says:

    So who is your viable alternative? It’s easy to criticize. It’s easy to call everything a meme when you don’t need to face reality. I think criticizing those in office that are closer to our side makes more difference (look what it did to Obama and gay rights), than going for someone like Ralph Nader did.

  223. nicho says:

    Ah, the old, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the lesser evil” meme. You guys are dragging out all the old chestnuts. If you want to stump for Hillary, you might want to come up with some new ones this time around. Dronebama kind of took the luster off them.

  224. Ron Robertson says:

    For gay rights he’s been a good choice. His drone and terrorist stance is terrible, but not worse than McCain/Palin, which you seem to ignore.

  225. nicho says:

    Or whatever else Israel told her to do.

  226. Ron Robertson says:

    I doubt they’re any more corrupt than other politicians overall. And I’d say they’re less corrupt than just about any republican (who you seem to ignore in your perfectionism). That’s your prerogative, but I can’t ignore the republicans, and won’t, they are absolute disasters as leaders or politicians.

  227. nicho says:

    It was only “sudden” to those who weren’t paying attention. He’d been carefully groomed for it and was pushed to the front of the line.

  228. Ron Robertson says:

    There’s not a person alive who wouldn’t prefer to have the “greater of two goods” or at least be wholeheartedly “for” whoever is running. It’s just very unlikely to happen. The main reason I vote on presidents these days is who is going to choose justices for the Supreme Court. Look how well the choices GWB made there worked out. Imagine how gay rights would be right now if McCain had gotten to choose 2 justices instead of Obama. You accuse others who don’t totally agree with you of being non-thinking. At least for me, I did think about it, and voted for Obama. If it ends up being Hillary against any of the Republicans who seem possible to be their candidate, I’m voting for Hillary. She wouldn’t be perfect, no one would, but she’d be better than her critics think.

  229. nicho says:

    Yeah, but it’s not so clear that Dronebama was really the lesser of two evils. If Romney had been elected, at least people like you would be opposing the things he did, which would be the same as Obama is doing.

  230. nicho says:

    Yeah, because Dronebama, spying on your every move, and lying to you at every opportunity, has been such a splendid choice.

  231. nicho says:

    Not irrelevant at all. Do we want another 8 years of Hill&Bill, Inc?

  232. Indigo says:

    Hillary can do the job. I have no doubt about that. The question of “dynastic” succession is just another red herring, irrelevant. The real question is much more slippery: do we want her to be president? And I’m pretty sure the answer is no. But that could change.

  233. Ford Prefect says:

    I disagree, for the simple reason that if the choice is between having cancer or AIDS (which is essentially the only choice we have these days), then the motivation to reject all of it grows over time. Add in all the social strife we’re creating in service to the more effective evil and it only gets worse.

    That choice only works in situations that aren’t dire. You’re probably too comfortable to think outside that box and good for you. But millions upon millions of Americans have been thrown under the bus and those numbers grow every day. For them, that bullshit won’t work.

    Reality has many natures. Look at the strife occurring all over the planet and tell me the “lesser of two evils” works for them. If it did, they wouldn’t be dying in the streets for something better than that.

  234. sane37 says:

    too bad we can’t have the lesser of 5 evils on the ballot like a real democracy huh?

  235. Ron Robertson says:

    Like I said, I have mixed feelings. I had mixed feelings about Obama, too, but still voted for him. He was a lesser of two evils for me, yet I’m glad about where we stand now on gay rights, but very unhappy with other aspects of his presidency. I imagine it’d be the same if Hillary were to become president. That beats the hell out of the abject disaster the republicans are and would be for president any day.

  236. Ford Prefect says:

    There are almost no real surprises in politics at that level, outside of vetting mistakes of staff and surrogates, etc. Obama’s groomed rise was practically announced in 2004, as anyone who recalls the media blather after his vapid, faux-aspirational speech at the DNC will attest. The GOP knew it would be Hill or Barry and their politics are identical (corrupt, corporate, right-wing, militaristic, anti-democratic and so forth.. IOW, just like them)… so that just leaves attacks based on race or gender in addition to the usual red-baiting.

  237. condew says:

    You will always be voting for the lesser of two evils, it is the nature of reality.

  238. condew says:

    Its so much better to be a loser. Then you can whine for decades about how pure your third party loser was while Republicans dismantle what is left of our Democracy.

  239. Ford Prefect says:

    That meme will never die. Non-thinking people will never tire of it and it practically rolls off the tongue like a lullaby, doesn’t it?

  240. condew says:

    My biggest concern with Hillary has always been that Republicans expect her to run and have been preparing for a couple decades. I think Obama’s sudden rise took them by surprise.

  241. Ford Prefect says:

    She would invade Syria in a heartbeat, for starters.

  242. Ford Prefect says:

    Elitists are perfectly happy with nepotistic dynasties and Democrats are increasingly right-wing and elitist. If the ultra-corrupt Clintonoids can pull it off, anyone can.

  243. nicho says:

    Well, the family connection is one thing. The fact that she’s a warmongering corporatist like her husband and co-conspirator is important too.

  244. nicho says:

    she’d be far better than anyone who might be running on the Republican side.

    Oh crap. Not the “lesser of two evils” mantra again. Haven’t we been burned enough by that?

  245. Ford Prefect says:

    The mere fact that Hillary can raise more than a billion dollars ought to disqualify her…. and anyone else, for that matter. Warren’s only real problem is she’ll be taken down by a billion-dollar candidate who is completely bought and paid for.

    Politically, she could win. But the money will make sure she goes nowhere. Party leadership will undermine her at every turn. She makes good window dressing for the Party, but they don’t want her in a position of real power.

  246. nicho says:

    Why asinine? Makes perfect sense to me. We don’t want or need hereditary dynasties.

  247. Ford Prefect says:

    And totally corrupt. Hillary is totally corrupt as well, as will her GOP opponent be in 2016.

  248. David says:

    Disqualified because someone she was married too was already president. How asinine. I LOVE Elizabeth Warren, but there is no way someone so liberal would even get the nomination, let alone win the presidency.

  249. Ron Robertson says:

    I have mixed feelings about Hillary for president. It depends a lot on who else is running. But she’d be far better than anyone who might be running on the Republican side. Whatever my concerns are about Hillary, none of them are that she has the name Clinton (which she got through marriage). I think she has good positions on some things, and not on others. But I just don’t believe I’d see anyone running that I’d agree with on everything. A lot of the hatred for her is misplaced, and left over from the media insanity and republican talking points of the past, that could very well be brought back if she runs again. A lot of the media would bend over backwards to appear extra nasty to a democrat with the mistaken notion that it would assuage right-wing criticism of the media’s supposed left-wing bias.

  250. dcinsider says:

    I agree, Condi is a moron.

  251. dcinsider says:

    Israeli leadership might be just a bit stressful, don’t you think?

  252. BrianWPB says:

    Not worried about dynasties. A person should not be disqualified from office because another family member happened to run and win.

    I supported Hillary for President once, and will do so again when/if she decides to run.

    As for age, the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, is 89 years old. The President of Italy is also in his 80s. Granted, the positions of “President” in those countries is not as stressful as a United States President, but I think it is up to Hillary Clinton, and not anyone else, to be able to judge whether she can handle the rigors of the job.

  253. Ford Prefect says:

    Condi Rice would make a credible president? In what universe?

    No mention of Hillary’s extreme right-wing ideology. Or her blatant militarism. Or that couple’s deeply corrupt ways. She’ll be as unifying as Maggie Thatcher was. I’m even fairly certain the Iron Baroness is her role model.

  254. nicho says:

    two families would have held the presidency for 28 of the last 36 years

    Slight correction. Three branches of the same family would have held the presidency for 28 of the last 36 years.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS