Hillary Clinton to Launch 2016 Campaign

[Sagredo]

And? The only Democratic candidate is the woman who was second place for the nomination eight years ago, whose fame is contingent on the achievements of her husband.

Her 8 years as a US Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State shows that to be a lie.

8 years as Senator? Was she a recess appointment?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Must have been his race. After all, a largely inexperienced politician from Illinois who was only in Congress for a couple of years being elected President? Inconceivable!

Not 'inconceivable' but certainly 'unusual'.

Sure.

Then again, one could argue the same for a moderately successful Hollywood actor becoming a darling of the right and ascending to the Presidency, or a haberdasher, or an admittedly socially awkward fellow who financed his first campaign through the money he won playing poker in the military.

The fact is that Obama made an excellent, reaching-across-the-aisle keynote speech during the 2004 DNC, and caught the attention of the party leadership at that moment. That's when they started grooming him for leadership. I saw that speech, and remember thinking that if he ever ran for higher office, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. He wrote a couple of books that sold reasonably well, and then Harry Reid started thinking about him as a possible challenger to Clinton, since he was worried about her negatives in 2008. HIs being black probably played a role in the selection process, but if that's all that it took, we would have had two terms under President Jesse Jackson starting in 1984.

[Arumdaum]

Her 8 years as a US Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State shows that to be a lie.

8 years as Senator? Was she a recess appointment?

Senators aren't appointed...

Either way, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... York,_2000

[Patridam]

I just want to know why it's immediately sexist to suggest that Bill has lent a hand in Hillary's success, but totally fine to say that H.W. has lent a hand in Jeb's success.

A politically inexperienced one-term senator suddenly ascending to the highest office in the land when nobody knew his name two years before, yeah, that's a little unusual. I don't think Obama would've gotten the presidency had he been white, no.

Hillary can't be held quite to that, as she had other reasons for being famous, and thus wasn't exactly an unknown before she entered politics. She has succeeded from the senate to her position as secretary to her current candidacy by her own devices, yes.

With other politicians, race/gender may or may not be a boon, but it is rarely a stumbling block nowadays.

If all that was needed was to be black or a woman, one has to wonder why Carol Mosley Braun didn't sweep into office in 2004 by being both black and a woman.

Thanks for totally ignoring what I said and finding your own racist/sexist meaning in it.

[Ashmoria]

Also, I have a question. Would the Benghazi attacks be considered a foreign policy issue? That will certainly be an issue the Republicans will run on along with the "failure" of the Affordable Care Act.

sure it could be.

but only the lunatic republican base cares about a debunked conspiracy theory against mrs Clinton.

so it could help a candidate get the republican nomination but it will go nowhere in the general election.

[Ashmoria]

only if you are hardcore right.

she will make an excellent president. if we can get the congress back from the republicans at the same time we can start getting things done again. we'll probably get the senate but its doubtful we can do anything about the house until after the 2020 census.

Well, excluding disagreeing with her on issues (usually the brunt of why people don' vote for a candidate), there's the fact she's a part of a 'political dynasty' so to speak (I would avoid voting for either her or Jeb Bush for that reason) and her lingering association/comparison to Obama. A lot of people on both sides of the spectrum dislike Obama for various reasons, so she'll have to be careful exactly how she treats her views on him/his presidency and her time as Secretary of State. There's also the occasional news report concerning her 'holier than though' attitude she displays when not campaigning.

Also, I'm not hardcore right (AFAIK at least) and I would rather see Rand Paul in office than her.

those are oddly mild reasons for not supporting her. I cant see how anyone who thinks that rand paul is better wouldn't have stronger reasons for disliking her.

of course she has to be careful about how she runs and how she comes off to voters. they all do. I was watching jeb bush talk to a group of people on tv and yelling at him to lower his shoulders--it made him look like a neckless goober. he needs to work on that. I saw scott walker give some mealy mouthed answer to a question and (in my head) advised him to develop a more "presidential" speaking style.

its a long hard race with constant chances to screw up. that's why its dangerous for mrs Clinton to be the only democratic candidate running. if she has a disastrous mistake the democratic party is screwed.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, excluding disagreeing with her on issues (usually the brunt of why people don' vote for a candidate), there's the fact she's a part of a 'political dynasty' so to speak (I would avoid voting for either her or Jeb Bush for that reason) and her lingering association/comparison to Obama. A lot of people on both sides of the spectrum dislike Obama for various reasons, so she'll have to be careful exactly how she treats her views on him/his presidency and her time as Secretary of State. There's also the occasional news report concerning her 'holier than though' attitude she displays when not campaigning.

Also, I'm not hardcore right (AFAIK at least) and I would rather see Rand Paul in office than her.

those are oddly mild reasons for not supporting her. I cant see how anyone who thinks that rand paul is better wouldn't have stronger reasons for disliking her.

of course she has to be careful about how she runs and how she comes off to voters. they all do. I was watching jeb bush talk to a group of people on tv and yelling at him to lower his shoulders--it made him look like a neckless goober. he needs to work on that. I saw scott walker give some mealy mouthed answer to a question and (in my head) advised him to develop a more "presidential" speaking style.

its a long hard race with constant chances to screw up. that's why its dangerous for mrs Clinton to be the only democratic candidate running. if she has a disastrous mistake the democratic party is screwed.

She'll do poorly with Liberal Diaspora voters, especially if Rand Paul or another libertarian runs.
Even if you doubt their libertarian credentials, voting for one would send a signal to the republican party about the direction of the electorate.
Likewise, opposing clinton would send a message to the democrats.

The constant own-goals of the Left infighting since 2012ish may well sink it the election, or cause a new coallition of voters.
The democrats already bungled and sunk the white working class vote for generations.
They've done their damnedest to lose the middle class male vote, along with a lot of the female vote who balk at SJW sentiment or give a shit about due process.
If rand so much as mentions Due Process I expect he'll pick up a lot of disatisfied democrats.
They've been luke warm on civil rights, and fairly terrible at economics. Why vote for them again?

So the republicans don't win?
Sounds hollow.

I expect a clinton nomination will probably sink the election for the democrats.
Most of the people who can be expected to vote for her are core voters anyway. The votes her nomination would sink could cost the election.
Especially if the republicans drag out the accusations of domestic violence against her.
Because you just fucking know the SJW's wouldn't be able to help themselves and would defend her on it.

[Ashmoria]

Her 8 years as a US Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State shows that to be a lie.

8 years as Senator? Was she a recess appointment?

she was elected to the senate in '00, re-elected in '06 and became sec of state when Obama was elected in '08. she didn't serve her full 2nd term.

[Ashmoria]

those are oddly mild reasons for not supporting her. I cant see how anyone who thinks that rand paul is better wouldn't have stronger reasons for disliking her.

of course she has to be careful about how she runs and how she comes off to voters. they all do. I was watching jeb bush talk to a group of people on tv and yelling at him to lower his shoulders--it made him look like a neckless goober. he needs to work on that. I saw scott walker give some mealy mouthed answer to a question and (in my head) advised him to develop a more "presidential" speaking style.

its a long hard race with constant chances to screw up. that's why its dangerous for mrs Clinton to be the only democratic candidate running. if she has a disastrous mistake the democratic party is screwed.

She'll do poorly with Liberal Diaspora voters, especially if Rand Paul or another libertarian runs.
Even if you doubt their libertarian credentials, voting for one would send a signal to the republican party about the direction of the electorate.
Likewise, opposing clinton would send a message to the democrats.

The constant own-goals of the Left infighting since 2012ish may well sink it the election, or cause a new coallition of voters.
The democrats already bungled and sunk the white working class vote for generations.
They've done their damnedest to lose the middle class male vote, along with a lot of the female vote who balk at SJW sentiment or give a shit about due process.
If rand so much as mentions Due Process I expect he'll pick up a lot of disatisfied democrats.
They've been luke warm on civil rights, and fairly terrible at economics. Why vote for them again?

So the republicans don't win?
Sounds hollow.

I expect a clinton nomination will probably sink the election for the democrats.
Most of the people who can be expected to vote for her are core voters anyway. The votes her nomination would sink could cost the election.
Especially if the republicans drag out the accusations of domestic violence against her.
Because you just fucking know the SJW's wouldn't be able to help themselves and would defend her on it.

I don't know what liberal diaspora voters are or how many of them there are or why they would vote for a man with a terrible record on liberal issues other than drug reform and sentencing reform. those are issues that mrs Clinton could pick up if it seemed like a good idea and get away with it.

the white male vote is a big problem but I don't see what she can do about that. you don't abandon a winning coalition to try to peel off a few percentage points of a group that is solidly on the other team.

the republican candidates are so bad with so many undiscussed problems that its hard to see how even the crucible of the campaign can improve one enough to be good enough to overcome the demographics of the electoral college. it could happen, eh? as I said, its a long campaign with lots of chances to screw up.

[Ostroeuropa]

She'll do poorly with Liberal Diaspora voters, especially if Rand Paul or another libertarian runs.
Even if you doubt their libertarian credentials, voting for one would send a signal to the republican party about the direction of the electorate.
Likewise, opposing clinton would send a message to the democrats.

The constant own-goals of the Left infighting since 2012ish may well sink it the election, or cause a new coallition of voters.
The democrats already bungled and sunk the white working class vote for generations.
They've done their damnedest to lose the middle class male vote, along with a lot of the female vote who balk at SJW sentiment or give a shit about due process.
If rand so much as mentions Due Process I expect he'll pick up a lot of disatisfied democrats.
They've been luke warm on civil rights, and fairly terrible at economics. Why vote for them again?

So the republicans don't win?
Sounds hollow.

I expect a clinton nomination will probably sink the election for the democrats.
Most of the people who can be expected to vote for her are core voters anyway. The votes her nomination would sink could cost the election.
Especially if the republicans drag out the accusations of domestic violence against her.
Because you just fucking know the SJW's wouldn't be able to help themselves and would defend her on it.

I don't know what liberal diaspora voters are or how many of them there are or why they would vote for a man with a terrible record on liberal issues other than drug reform and sentencing reform. those are issues that mrs Clinton could pick up if it seemed like a good idea and get away with it.

the white male vote is a big problem but I don't see what she can do about that. you don't abandon a winning coalition to try to peel off a few percentage points of a group that is solidly on the other team.

the republican candidates are so bad with so many undiscussed problems that its hard to see how even the crucible of the campaign can improve one enough to be good enough to overcome the demographics of the electoral college. it could happen, eh? as I said, its a long campaign with lots of chances to screw up.

Well sure.
Other than those two.
You know. Two major civil rights issues.
But other than those, sure.
If Clinton picks up those issues she may prevent the problem, I agree.

As for the white male problem, she could stop being so gynocentric. Maybe engage in some criticism of gynocentric narratives. Perhaps apologize for engaging in domestic abuse, or fervently deny the accusations, instead of not acknowledging the accusations.
She might even cause a bit of a swing if she uses that apology as a platform to launch an end violence against men initiative.
Who wants to bet instead she talks about violence against women?
And who wants to bet the media runs with her saying that shit and acting like women are the only victims and then spins around to confront her with the accusations, making her look like a lying psycho?
I can almost see it coming. You'd think someone on her team must.
Even if none of the main media do it, Fox will. They'd fucking love the ability to actually be able to call "liberal media" shenanigans and have a point for once.

[Ashmoria]

I don't know what liberal diaspora voters are or how many of them there are or why they would vote for a man with a terrible record on liberal issues other than drug reform and sentencing reform. those are issues that mrs Clinton could pick up if it seemed like a good idea and get away with it.

the white male vote is a big problem but I don't see what she can do about that. you don't abandon a winning coalition to try to peel off a few percentage points of a group that is solidly on the other team.

the republican candidates are so bad with so many undiscussed problems that its hard to see how even the crucible of the campaign can improve one enough to be good enough to overcome the demographics of the electoral college. it could happen, eh? as I said, its a long campaign with lots of chances to screw up.

Well sure.
Other than those two.
You know. Two major civil rights issues.
But other than those, sure.
If Clinton picks up those issues she may prevent the problem, I agree.

As for the white male problem, she could stop being so gynocentric. Maybe engage in some criticism of gynocentric narratives. Perhaps apologize for engaging in domestic abuse, or fervently deny the accusations, instead of not acknowledging the accusations.
She might even cause a bit of a swing if she uses that apology as a platform to launch an end violence against men initiative.
Who wants to bet instead she talks about violence against women?
And who wants to bet the media runs with her saying that shit and acting like women are the only victims and then spins around to confront her with the accusations, making her look like a lying psycho?
I can almost see it coming. You'd think someone on her team must.

no one answers the question "have you stopped beating your wife husband?"

[Ostroeuropa]

Well sure.
Other than those two.
You know. Two major civil rights issues.
But other than those, sure.
If Clinton picks up those issues she may prevent the problem, I agree.

As for the white male problem, she could stop being so gynocentric. Maybe engage in some criticism of gynocentric narratives. Perhaps apologize for engaging in domestic abuse, or fervently deny the accusations, instead of not acknowledging the accusations.
She might even cause a bit of a swing if she uses that apology as a platform to launch an end violence against men initiative.
Who wants to bet instead she talks about violence against women?
And who wants to bet the media runs with her saying that shit and acting like women are the only victims and then spins around to confront her with the accusations, making her look like a lying psycho?
I can almost see it coming. You'd think someone on her team must.

no one answers the question "have you stopped beating your wife husband?"

When it's a relevant question, perhaps they should. Former staff say she does. Or did, at least.
On it's own it's only a personal criminal issue.
But in conjunction with a violence against women platform, it becomes too much to ignore, don't you agree?

[Ashmoria]

no one answers the question "have you stopped beating your wife husband?"

When it's a relevant question, perhaps they should. Former staff say she does. Or did, at least.
On it's own it's only a personal criminal issue.
But in conjunction with a violence against women platform, it becomes too much to ignore, don't you agree?

no I don't agree.

[Ostroeuropa]

When it's a relevant question, perhaps they should. Former staff say she does. Or did, at least.
On it's own it's only a personal criminal issue.
But in conjunction with a violence against women platform, it becomes too much to ignore, don't you agree?

no I don't agree.

I think it would demonstrate the person is an ethical vacuum and shouldn't be trusted with authority. I don't really see any way it would be defensible. Perhaps you'd care to try then.
If a woman who has engaged in domestic abuse runs for president, while also putting forward a narrative that erases male victims from discussion, how would you go about ignoring that in order to vote for her?
After all, apparently it's not too much to ignore.

I guess partisanship trumps character.
Suffice to say, I won't be supporting Clinton unless she puts up a decent civil rights platform. (Faustian bargain.) Addresses male victims of domestic violence. (I could ignore personal participation then.), or denies the allegations.
Though the latter would still probably leave me undecided on supporting her unless she does one of the former two.

[Socialist Tera]

Why are the democrats cheering about Hillary? Nothing will change. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... n-20140617
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodm ... 25235.html
We need someone more left wing than Hillary.

[Saiwania]

I hear that this book which is coming out called "Clinton Cash" is fixing to sabotage her campaign. She might have a chance however, if Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers failed to derail Obama as it should have in my view.

[Ashmoria]

Why are the democrats cheering about Hillary? Nothing will change. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... n-20140617
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodm ... 25235.html
We need someone more left wing than Hillary.

what person would that be?

[Socialist Tera]

I hear that this book which is coming out called "Clinton Cash" is fixing to sabotage her campaign. She might have a chance however, if Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers failed to derail Obama as it should have in my view.

Her past as Senator will likely damage her campaign.

[The Black Forrest]

no I don't agree.

I think it would demonstrate the person is an ethical vacuum and shouldn't be trusted with authority. I don't really see any way it would be defensible. Perhaps you'd care to try then.
If a woman who has engaged in domestic abuse runs for president, while also putting forward a narrative that erases male victims from discussion, how would you go about ignoring that in order to vote for her?
After all, apparently it's not too much to ignore.

I guess partisanship trumps character.
Suffice to say, I won't be supporting Clinton unless she puts up a decent civil rights platform. (Faustian bargain.) Addresses male victims of domestic violence. (I could ignore personal participation then.), or denies the allegations.
Though the latter would still probably leave me undecided on supporting her unless she does one of the former two.

[The Black Forrest]

I hear that this book which is coming out called "Clinton Cash" is fixing to sabotage her campaign. She might have a chance however, if Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers failed to derail Obama as it should have in my view.

Her past as Senator will likely damage her campaign.

And how would that be?

[Dyakovo]

Her 8 years as a US Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State shows that to be a lie.

8 years as Senator? Was she a recess appointment?

No.

[Myrensis]

The constant own-goals of the Left infighting since 2012ish may well sink it the election, or cause a new coallition of voters.

The GOP has been engaged in a civil war since 2010, shouldn't that mean you think they're completely lost?

The democrats already bungled and sunk the white working class vote for generations.

Romney won the highest percentage of the white vote since Reagan in 1980. Reagan carried 44 States, Romney lost the election. That has been the looming problem for the Republicans, not a strength. Democrats just have to maintain the status quo in the white vote and they can still win elections. The Republicans have to keep the white vote and at the same time bring significant numbers of minorities into the fold. They haven't exactly been making a lot of progress on that.

along with a lot of the female vote who balk at SJW sentiment or give a shit about due process.

Really? Last I checked the Democrats have maintained the same 10 point margin or so of the female vote they've had for the last 30 years, when is the mass exodus of 'legitimate rape' preferring female voters supposed to take place?

They've been luke warm on civil rights, and fairly terrible at economics. Why vote for them again?

So the republicans don't win?
Sounds hollow.

Because the other side wants to tank the economy in the name of 'fiscal responsibility' and turn back the Civil Rights clock 50 years in the name of 'small government' and 'religious freedom'?

Sorry, but if strategic voting offends you you've missed the boat by, roughly, the beginning of democracy.

I expect a clinton nomination will probably sink the election for the democrats.

I expect you're doing some hardcore projecting.

Especially if the republicans drag out the accusations of domestic violence against her.
Because you just fucking know the SJW's wouldn't be able to help themselves and would defend her on it.

Yes....dragging out domestic violence accusations with no evidence while the husband, and former President, she supposedly abused is standing right next to her giving glowing campaign speeches is totally going to destroy Clinton.

But hey, I fully support the GOP turning this election into some sort of bizarre anti-feminist crusade, I'm sure it will work out wonderfully for them.

[Patridam]

Well, excluding disagreeing with her on issues (usually the brunt of why people don' vote for a candidate), there's the fact she's a part of a 'political dynasty' so to speak (I would avoid voting for either her or Jeb Bush for that reason) and her lingering association/comparison to Obama. A lot of people on both sides of the spectrum dislike Obama for various reasons, so she'll have to be careful exactly how she treats her views on him/his presidency and her time as Secretary of State. There's also the occasional news report concerning her 'holier than though' attitude she displays when not campaigning.

Also, I'm not hardcore right (AFAIK at least) and I would rather see Rand Paul in office than her.

those are oddly mild reasons for not supporting her. I cant see how anyone who thinks that rand paul is better wouldn't have stronger reasons for disliking her.

Oh, no, those were just reasons aside from her positions on the issues that I/someone could have not to like her. I disagree with her on most things, from the environment to the economy etc., and I wouldn't vote for her by those disagreements if none of those three reasons mentioned before applied. Rand is questionable for me on gay marriage and drug legalization, and I kind of think seeking to make abortion illegal is a waste of resources/time, but otherwise fairly close to my views.

of course she has to be careful about how she runs and how she comes off to voters. they all do. I was watching jeb bush talk to a group of people on tv and yelling at him to lower his shoulders--it made him look like a neckless goober. he needs to work on that. I saw scott walker give some mealy mouthed answer to a question and (in my head) advised him to develop a more "presidential" speaking style.

Well everyone has to be careful about their appearance/what they say, but Hillary has a unique conundrum with how she treats the Obama presidency: does she laud it and curry favor among those who support Obama and alienate those who dislike him, or point out his mistakes and achieve the opposite? The republican candidates have a similar tightrope to walk with how they treat global warming.

its a long hard race with constant chances to screw up. that's why its dangerous for mrs Clinton to be the only democratic candidate running. if she has a disastrous mistake the democratic party is screwed.

Even if there are a multitude of candidates, a Republican screw up (a la "47%") after the primary could spell disaster for them as well. That's basically every election though.

[Ashmoria]

those are oddly mild reasons for not supporting her. I cant see how anyone who thinks that rand paul is better wouldn't have stronger reasons for disliking her.

Oh, no, those were just reasons aside from her positions on the issues that I/someone could have not to like her. I disagree with her on most things, from the environment to the economy etc., and I wouldn't vote for her by those disagreements if none of those three reasons mentioned before applied. Rand is questionable for me on gay marriage and drug legalization, and I kind of think seeking to make abortion illegal is a waste of resources/time, but otherwise fairly close to my views.

of course she has to be careful about how she runs and how she comes off to voters. they all do. I was watching jeb bush talk to a group of people on tv and yelling at him to lower his shoulders--it made him look like a neckless goober. he needs to work on that. I saw scott walker give some mealy mouthed answer to a question and (in my head) advised him to develop a more "presidential" speaking style.

Well everyone has to be careful about their appearance/what they say, but Hillary has a unique conundrum with how she treats the Obama presidency: does she laud it and curry favor among those who support Obama and alienate those who dislike him, or point out his mistakes and achieve the opposite? The republican candidates have a similar tightrope to walk with how they treat global warming.

its a long hard race with constant chances to screw up. that's why its dangerous for mrs Clinton to be the only democratic candidate running. if she has a disastrous mistake the democratic party is screwed.

Even if there are a multitude of candidates, a Republican screw up (a la "47%") after the primary could spell disaster for them as well. That's basically every election though.

I don't know why you bother to point out those things as if they are somehow important in deciding whether or not to vote for her. they are important considerations for any democratic candidate but aren't a reason to support or not support. just like republican candidates still have to consider what they have to say about the George w bush presidency. its not as immediate but it is something they have to figure out how to position themselves with.

[Patridam]

Sure.

Then again, one could argue the same for a moderately successful Hollywood actor becoming a darling of the right and ascending to the Presidency, or a haberdasher, or an admittedly socially awkward fellow who financed his first campaign through the money he won playing poker in the military.

Reagan, despite all the 'TV cowboy' cracks from the left, had a good bit of experience including two gubernatorial wins and twenty years of campaigning under his belt beforehand, so he can hardly be considered inexperienced.

Truman (and to a lesser extent, Nixon) were fairly unknown before being picked for their vice presidency, and becoming vice president doesn't exactly require a great deal of fame. Often they are chosen to balance out the ticket (the most obvious example from history being Andrew Johnson). Not like many people knew who Joe Biden was before 08'.