Amira writes: "Will Hillary Clinton run for president again? It's the single most salient question surrounding the 2016 race."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/AP)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I do agree, Barbara, but I am a bit concerned...hav e thought for some time that she does not look good -- either exhausted or in ill health. I hope it is the former (and, of course, there's that fall and subsequent concussion, clot) and that after resting a while and giving herself time to completely recover, she'll come back strong!
But I agree with balconsfalk about not wanting to see focus on a presidential race so far ahead! (I DON'T agree with you, though, balconsfalk, about her hair length; I think it ages her and is not at all flattering. Not that that has anything to do with anything...)
And Artemis (below): I LOVE Elizabeth Warren and would love to see her become president someday. But I think she'd stand a better chance and be a better president with a few more years experience under her belt.
on the Blue side is Andrew Cuomo in 2016.
Is it because she appears to be more middle of the road sensible than most of the men out there, a lesser evil? - she may be, but take a close look at her record and her statements on foreign policy.
She lost it somewhere along the way to the top. Come on, get real! Give me an Elizabeth Warren any day!
Why don't you just say 'Nigga's" and "Bitches" and be done with it! You really want another blinkered, corrupt or corruptible white guy to bedevil the country farther?
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/15857-obamas-secret-assassins
Read that article, then jump to the Comment by Allen_23
Look at all the things Obama's done that people would lynch if it was an "evil" white, especially Republican, but noone will stand up to the Black Democrat Obama!
One of the skills of sarcasm is making it believable and clear without obscuring your point.
And there are enough reactionaries, some of who post on this forum, that it's hard to tell the difference, so if you aren't clear, you'll lose the whole point of any irony. Sarcasm is one of the last refuges of the humorless if clumsily applied.
Woof!.
No. The single most salient question surrounding the 2016 election or any other years election is "when will people will stop buying the two party con game?"
She's served her time and the country needs new blood. Given that you'll never get a true progressive "allowed" to even get close to the White House, I quite like Julian Castro -that Latino-a vote is becoming more valuable every cycle.
What about pipeline discussion? Climate Change? Too many guns killing too many people? suicides of vets? Farm animal cruelty and abuse? Monsanto GMOs altering our food supply with poison? Hmmmm, any number of salient topics...
Then you ask, "What about pipeline discussion? Climate Change? Too many guns killing too many people? suicides of vets? Farm animal cruelty and abuse? Monsanto GMOs altering our food supply with poison?"
What will Hillary do on any of those issues?
You're mistakenly talking about Jan Brewer, right? In which case you are dead on except for the military bit.
But this policy can be cloaked under 2 different costumes. If a Blue Person is elected the foregoing will take place with more smiles, and more pseudo-liberal rationales. Hillary will claim to be introducing "health care for the people," or "protecting the environment," or some such BS. The militarism will be presented in milder tones, emphasizing themes like "stabilization" rather than "killing our enemies."
On the other hand, if the president is a Red Guy there will be no smiley face. There will be more in-your-face militarism, with overtly blood-thirsty rhetoric. There will be more blatant pandering to the Religious Right.
That's the only "choice" the system will permit.
This is simply due to the fact that we have four more YEARS of living to do between now and then, and there is NO "scientific model" upon which to prognosticate political winds and personal foibles.
"Salience" is defined as "standing out". Four years into the future is better described as a FOG. We have nothing but dreams and guesswork about four years into the future, unless we are *serious* psychics, so the entire question carries all the weight of the imaginary projections in fantasy football.
But, take heart, there are plenty of REAL questions upon which to productively focus our attention in the present.
RSS feed for comments to this post