RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Leslie Bennetts writes: "As Democratic disgust with Obama's debt fumbling spreads, Clinton supporters recall her '3 a.m. phone call' warnings - and angry, frustrated liberals are muttering that she should mount a 2012 challenge."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)

go to original article

 

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

 
+42 # Terri KingHudson 2011-08-08 16:16
It wouldn't have taken 2 years to convince Hillary that negotiating with rethuglicants is a waste of time or that their only agenda was to destroy her. She would have hit the ground running. Can we have a do-over?
 
 
+31 # Jim in Chicago 2011-08-08 21:23
More like 2.5 years and counting: Obama STILL hasn't figured it out. When have you ever heard him call out the Republicans by name for their obstruction. It's all about how amorphous "Washington" doesn't work and "both sides bear responsibility" when he talks.
 
 
+25 # rf 2011-08-09 03:15
Hillory is half of Billory...the original demopublican. Her and Bill's corp. friendly attitude is no small reason we are where we are right now. Hillory might have been more effective which means we would have even more corp. friendly legislation and problems to deal with. She and Bill, while effective, were the king and queen of Washington thinking-as-usu al
 
 
+2 # Holly Horne 2011-08-09 11:02
spot on.
 
 
+6 # KittatinyHawk 2011-08-09 11:22
Her husband started the ass kissing
 
 
+47 # Uranus 2011-08-08 18:40
Hillary didn't tell you so, but I did, in March, 2008, that McCain, Clinton and Obama would do nothing to bring about real economic improvement, that war would expand, oil would get more expensive and the dollar would tank:

http://sayit-sayit-sayit.blogspot.com/2008/03/118-people-part-two.html

I stand behind what I said. The effort to destroy the dollar and our country is winning. Hillary wasn't going to stop it, and still isn't. That she could be elected doesn't mean we should.
 
 
+79 # Mayoraltutorial 2011-08-08 20:30
There is nothing worse than badly done media spin and this is what Ms. Bennetts is engaged in. There is not clamor for Hillary to run for anything from the left. From the media, like Ms. Bennetts sure. It would be nice IF Obama had a primary though as he is now a politician without a base desperately in need of a primary.

Hillary Clinton doesn't have a populist bone in her Family membership body. The Family is a slightly right-wingy religious group, that actually just worships power, of which she is a member.

Summers, Daley, Emanuel, Geithner she'd have the same people around her and she'd be acting more forcefully than Obama... in that she'd be telling us to grow up and quit crying about the austerity she'd be hammering us with. She'd be more forthright about kicking in the faces of the poor and middle class than Obama,

Obama is actually getting exactly what New Democrats, DLC Democrats and Wall Street Democrats want... a Simpson-Bowles Commission style austerity, which is what he promised he'd do at the G-20 meeting. READ the damn statement the G-20 put out... it will give you nightmares.

Hillary as a candidate for the people? Really? Jesus, lady either start paying attention to who she is or STOP trying to fool the rest of us into believing a badly spun piece of spin.

Leslie, don't be a hack.
 
 
+18 # George D 2011-08-08 21:38
There's a lot of truth mixed into that spin. Hillary would have known that she could not negotiate with terrorists; I mean, Republicans. She would have also received better advice and taken it. But it's also true that the sellout of American workers and the middle class started before GWB (and I almost puke as I say that) but Bush/Cheney accelerated our demise ten fold. Now a Republican Congress and a weak President are sealing our fate.

America will come out of this; Just as Russia has. But it will be after the monetary system "resets" and massive wealth shifts to the already wealthy among us. It will be decades before the next generation ever enjoys the opportunities we had in our lives. "We" being my parents and my generation; People in their 50's and up.

Nobody in Washington has a care in the world; Unless, of course, the "rabble" get a little TOO crazy and start shooting politicians like the few right wingers have done already. Their fear of life may just take a toll on their enjoyment of their wealth.

I think there's a movie in this story.
 
 
+22 # rf 2011-08-09 03:19
Shoot a politician and your shooting the robot...got to go after the rich f#*kers behind the pols. They don't even care if you shoot their man in Washington...th ey'll just elect another...a minor inconvenience!
 
 
+20 # Patch 2011-08-09 08:48
Rather than shooting them it would be better to have a combination of a super hacker like the fictional Lisbeth Salander and a Robin Hood. Siphon money out of their bank accounts, etc. and give it to the poor. It would cripple the greedy monsters.
 
 
+9 # sallyinthevalley 2011-08-08 22:31
Amen, anaysis half -right: prognosis dead wrong. Hillary would do nothing but bring us another war and still blame us for it and make us pay!
 
 
+8 # Ralph Averill 2011-08-09 00:40
This wasn't "spin"; It was the Clinton machine at work on the "Draft Hillary in 2012" movement. She will demure, she will wait until the Dems beg her to run. Then she'll "OK. I will."
 
 
+6 # Pickwicky 2011-08-09 13:18
Ralph--if she does what you say, then we'll lose in 2012. Her entry into the race will cause a rift in the party. Just read these posts and you'll see the Dems/liberals/p rogressives are already divided. And divided we fall.
 
 
+5 # Bob Griffin 2011-08-09 15:14
What is more, the Republicans have been prepared for a Hillary candidacy since her husband was president. They WANTED Hillary to win the Democratic ticket so they could defeat her.
 
 
+41 # CTPatriot 2011-08-09 01:18
Nailed it! Your comment reveals the total intellectual bankruptcy displayed by the author of the above article. I have no doubt that, regardless of any difference in tone or manner, things would have been no different with Hillary at the helm.

Why? Because she wouldn't have made it to Final Jeopardy, nor would Obama or McCain, were they not fully vetted and selected by the corporations (who are people just like you and me, right?). The entire system is corrupt.

Our democracy has been bought out from under us by the rich and powerful. Mussolini would be proud.
 
 
-3 # CL38 2011-08-09 09:47
Patriot?? No, not patriot: misogynist, part of the "cult of masculinity" that trashed her bid for the Presidency.

Things would have been very different with Hillary as President. She knew the depths to which the right would sink from personal experience. She would never have tolerated the outright lies and abuse the right consistently use as weapons. She would have called them out, named what they were up to and stood up to them.

We would not be dealing with Obama's inept failure to lead, if the media, the DNC and misogynists had not destroyed Hillary's candidacy.

There are many in our country who would rather see a male as President--even if he is failing--than risk a successful female President
 
 
+2 # sonrisa 2011-08-09 13:54
and we would of made history by electing a woman to the Presidency. Obummer making history? Last time I looked he was still a man, even if he don't have aqny balls.
 
 
+12 # Rita Walpole Ague 2011-08-09 02:21
"Hillary Clinton doesn't have a populist bone in her Family membership body. The Family is a slightly right-wing religious goup, that acrually just worships power, of which she is a member." You nailed it, Mayoraltutorial.

Sorry that's the case, but so it is. Recall Hillary's pro war in Iraq stance, and today, her bowing to zionist Israel.

Real CHANGE calls for real not just a fightin' spirit - not fight for might - but rather fight for no more war, torture, overpowering greed, etc.

The real question: Whomever the Dem. candidate is, can we get avoid another stolen election via mass election fraud, disenfranchisem ent, Supremes who are political Kochsuckers (recall 2000 - the non-election of 'W').

Should OhBombAh be the Dem. nominee, in my opinion it's a sure thing that we'll end up with another puppet whore for the villainaire rulers, this time wearing a Tea Party logo.

I truly believe the only hope for real CHANGE we have is to get a real McCoy, fightin' progressive (not Hillary) nominated on the Dem. ticket, with a promise made by that candidate, when elected, to appoint Sen. Sanders to a high level position. Then keep that pres. from being martyred, like JFK, RFK, MLK.

Time to get rid of noballs OhBombAh, and all the leftover Bushwhackers that OhBombAh has kept hanging around.
 
 
+5 # Pickwicky 2011-08-09 13:14
And to add to Mayoraltutorial --Hillary would have been up against the same obstructionists as President Obama. Would Hillary have been able to outshout the Tea Party? Maybe. Would she have been able to stop them from influencing the rest of the Republican Party. No.
 
 
+25 # noitall 2011-08-08 20:41
Is this country so bankrupt that we look only to recycled poster people for leadership? Arguing about who would have been better as President, Hillary or Barack is like arguing which of the Twin Towers fell down better. She would have performed as assigned just as Barack has.
 
 
+11 # Glen 2011-08-09 04:42
Correct, noitall. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

American royalty is alive and well, collecting a few new members along the way. U.S. citizens have been fooled into thinking they play a part in that royal crowning process.
 
 
+15 # Lisa D. 2011-08-08 20:51
i am SOOOOOO sick of hearing how Hilary would have been a better choice ... i honestly don't see how she would have done anything differently
 
 
+14 # teineitalia 2011-08-08 21:05
Leslie, are you saying that Hillary would have done anything differently? I think not. I think Hillary would have been carrying water for AIPAC, extended the wars, and talked tough about the economy... without facing down the wicked Rs... \but essentially, we would have had the same as we have now.

She would have kept the same advisors, made the same mistakes, and listened to her Wall Street donors.

She has the power to stop the Keystone Pipeline, but I don't see her stepping up to the plate. She is NOT environmentally sound!

no... Hillary is not the answer. A person who really believes in democratic ideals and cares for the least among us is who we need now. I'm voting for Alan Grayson... he has guts and is NOT afraid of Wall Street, AIPAC or the military industrial complex.

I do respect Hillary for the role she has played over the years, but this is not her time, and I don't think it ever will be. I may have "buyer's remorse" with Obama, but Hillary will be more of the same...
 
 
+6 # Rico 2011-08-08 21:21
How many of those angry Hillary supporters -- remember, "Party Unity, My Ass"? -- sat on their hands in 2010 or supported Tea Party candidates?
 
 
+6 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 04:31
Probably none. And there are just as many angry Obama supporters. And guess what? They are all posting here! As for me, I think the substantive articles on economics are more interesting and useful. This is just frustration talking. Hillary is not going to run. We've got a bunch of conservatives in this country right now. So what else is new? Keep on.
 
 
+18 # JCM 2011-08-08 21:53
The reality of the next election is that Obama will be the Democratic candidate. We all have plenty to criticize him for but as the election draws nearer you will only help the Republican candidate win if you criticize Obama without explaining how much worse things will get if the Republicans win. Who here wants to work for the Republicans?
 
 
+7 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 04:34
You said it. That's life, and we have to deal with it. He could have acted differently, but that's who he is, and he's always been that way. He did not have the votes in the House. And he probably had people look at the 14th, and decide it wasn't going to fly, not with the Supreme Court the way it is.
 
 
+3 # Pickwicky 2011-08-09 13:21
JCM--utterly true--and no one here wants to work for the Republicans, but everytime someone suggests not voting, or writing in whomever, they are working for the Republicans. You can count on that one!
 
 
0 # JCM 2011-08-12 17:08
Exactly!
 
 
+9 # wrodwell 2011-08-08 22:03
Hillary Clinton for President.....a gain? A better choice would be Michelle Obama who seems like she'd have more backbone than her husband or the Clintons. Were he alive, perhaps the best choice would be Howard Zinn, who'd finally have the opportunity to put his philosophy to good, practical use. Alas, our best leaders seem to be all dead and we're forced to endure a gaggle of impostors.
 
 
+6 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 06:23
This has nothing to do with backbone. It's a political reality. We need the House. Let's concentrate on that.
 
 
+7 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 08:08
Howard Zinn would make a great president and he'd get fewer votes than Kucinich.
 
 
+3 # Pickwicky 2011-08-11 13:38
Ah, kyzipster--You just delieverd the greatest voting lesson of all time.
 
 
+10 # billy bob 2011-08-08 22:18
Hillary also told us she'd bomb Iran. She also told us, "gee, it'd be a real shame if 'something' were to happen to him". Hillary ran the sleeziest campaign I've ever seen from a Democrat. She wouldn't have lied about liberalism. She was openly conservative all along.

I think we can do a little better than the compromiser and chief versus corporate shillary.
 
 
+7 # Virginia 2011-08-08 22:56
I adore Hillary - but women are not going to make the grade in the next election because those that won't vote for Obama are certainly not going to try anything else new. People want a stable movie star - isn't that an oxymoron?! But really, Reagan got in there because people were looking for a tough cowboy after Carter.

Hillary ain't no Annie Oakley... Elizabeth Warren has that role. We'd have a better shot with Harrison Ford and Bernie Sanders.
 
 
-1 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 04:36
True.
 
 
+8 # Robert Pflanz 2011-08-09 07:45
You're right there, Bernie Sanders would be a much better President to represent the people.
 
 
+3 # Activista 2011-08-08 23:01
Obama's grey eminence is Clinton - with Bloody Hillary Clinton we would be not only in Libya, but in Iran and Syria by now.
 
 
+4 # Deidre Simien 2011-08-08 23:07
I Chelsey STILL a hedge fund manager? I know she was at one time, which indicates to me that the Clinton's are Democrats in bed with the "vast right-wing" conspirators Hillary spoke of -- at least when it comes to economics. I don't see where being cut up with a sharper knife would do those of us being butchered any good.
 
 
+6 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 06:26
Who cares what Chelsea is doing? This is reality: Obama is our President, Hillary is our Secy of State, and Voldemort holds the House for now.
 
 
+7 # candida 2011-08-08 23:17
i agree with mayoraltutorial and uranus. obama is a HUGE disappointment and hillary would not be any different in substance, only in style. and she won't run. that would threaten the DLC-corporate cabal that is behind BOTH obama and the clintons. i voted for kucinich in the primary. those of us who did have much more grounds to say "i told you so!"
 
 
+9 # heraldmage 2011-08-08 23:39
Right if we want a GOP for president than Hillary or any other Democrat should challenge Obama.. What did a right wing evangelical write this article?
It is the Democrats who are responsible for this mess. They couldn't put together a plan in the first 2 yrs and defend their record instead they ran away & hid in the corner while the teabaggers took pot shots at their President. Where was the support.
Obama didn't lose the midterms the Dems did for being spineless cowards afraid of loud mouth right winger spewing lies.
Now after the Congress has spent over $2 trillion in bail outs & over $2 trillion in Iraq & Afghanistan accounting for almost the entire debt without increasing revenues the debt becomes unpayable unless Congress sells tall public lands, property & resources to the privileged making the people serf sold with the land enslaved forever.
There is another way to increase government revenue. it is for the President to forgive the mortgage & credit card debt of all people with an income less than $250000 that was accrued before 15April 2011 while continuing Social Security, pensions & unemployment payment,With the swipe of a pen sign an executive order giving 80% of the population economic freedom, a 2nd chance while helping the nations economic recovery by reeing consumer income from debt service to spending & savings increasing tax revenue.
 
 
-1 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 04:38
Thanks for giving rational thought here at least a try! The article was dumb, but the anti-Hillary vilifications we heard during the last primary are very irritating.
 
 
+11 # Rainphase 2011-08-08 23:54
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize George W. Bush to invade Iraq. As far as I'm concerned she's no more trustworthy than Obama. The challenge must come from a true progressive Democrat or independent.
 
 
+11 # Hors-D-whores 2011-08-09 00:46
Pretty flimsy case and examples that libs or Dems are clamoring for Hilary, and so totally disappointed with our last choice. Sorry Ms. Bennetts, but I'm rooting for President Obama's second term. (I'm glad we didn't have to revisit the 8 years of the Clinton's experience with the RW conspiracy, which there surely is and they had to endure.)
That some are blaming President Obama for the contrariness of the GOP is ludicrous. What they've unleashed on Pres. Obama was set for any Democratic president that had won. The furious effort made by the GOP to make it hard for him is legendary. Rugh Limbaugh, their boss said, "I don't want Obama to succeed." Was that sentiment expressed because he was a Democrat or was there the additional factor of his color? The latter makes me even more determined to support him, as I think we should be well past that. He is smarter and better than many previous presidents, especially the one before him.
 
 
+4 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 04:38
Good point. We have a President.
 
 
+7 # Catzmaw 2011-08-09 06:17
This constant kvetching by the perpetually disappointed progressive left is driving me crazy. The vast majority have absolutely NO idea how Washington REALLY works. This problem is NOT of Obama's making. Does anyone seriously think if he'd just railed against the GOP and made more nasty comments he would have pulled out a win? Seriously?

Take a look at what he was doing the weeks surrounding the debt ceiling debate. He gave A LOT of speeches, held press conferences, called Congressional leaders to the White House and held hours of negotiations to try to break through the intransigence of an opposition which had openly stated its intention to let this country's economy go down in flames if that's what it took to get what they wanted. They BRAGGED about their hostage taking strategy. WHAT could Obama say that would have circumvented THAT? What would Hillary have said which would have made it any different?

Once again Dems and progressives are organizing the circular firing squad, eating their young, and shooting themselves in the foot and doing every other self-destructiv e thing one can think of.
 
 
+6 # billy bob 2011-08-09 07:07
Maybe if he hadn't taken all of his OWN campaign promises "off the table" before even TRYING to fight for them, you might have a point. This isn't about him losing fights. This is about him not bothering to engage in any.
 
 
+6 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 08:11
The few fights he did engage in put the House solidly in Tea Party hands because Republicans are masters at lying and deflecting blame. That doesn't mean he should give up but it does mean that we should acknowledge the political realities he is up against in this uninformed country. Our political system is broken.
 
 
+7 # Riley1 2011-08-09 01:12
Take a good look at the track record of Hilary Clinton as US secretary of State. Not impressive is it. She has achieved nothing. It is even worse than that of Obama's in office. Bernie Sanders is the only politician that has the maturity and status to represent the people of the United States in the office of the President. If we could by some miracle vote out the tea party and most of the GOP with few mad Demorcrats to boot that would be the ideal new start the American people would want for a better future.
 
 
+8 # Bruce Gruber 2011-08-09 02:06
We filtered the candidate's message, "Yes, we can!" to mean that progressive Democratic principles and achievements had an articulate young, aggressive advocate who would lead a victorious charge against entrenched money changers, indifferent and insensitive corporatists and lawyerly lobbyists taking either side for a fee.

Social Security, Medicare(for ALL finally - we hoped), publicly financed elections, concern about environmental rape being perpetrated by 'profit' that dumps costs into the public's tax bin, civil and consumer 'rights' ... and so many other issues would finally be aggressively pursued rather than wimpishly defended against Nixonian, Reaganistic, Rovarian misrepresentati on and division.

We heard with our hearts rather than our ears. We did not listen to the intellectual student of Constitutional law and history. We interpolated the image of the audacity of Julian Bond and Malcolm X with the theology of Ghandi and MLK, Jr in expectation of being carried to the mountaintop of enlightenment.

The difficulty we now face is our disappointment at realizing that President Obama truly believes that he serves the ENTIRE nation best by reaching progress via honorable compromises of reasonable elected representatives who care about the American experiment as he does.
 
 
-12 # nice2blucky 2011-08-09 02:37
I will vote for any Democratic Primary challenger.

But really, ... Hillary. Is this as far as Democrats imagination goes? Is this the unofficial Hillary 2012 political arm, or is that it?

I mean, I'll do it, ... then vote Republican in the General Election.

I couldn't vote for her last time, and will not this time -- but if it will unseat Obama, whom I did not vote for last time either, ... I'll do it.

I've never voted Republican, ... ever, never wanted to, ... still don't ... and don't have to, ... But to help Obama lose, definitely.

There is nothing left to say, ... anyone but Obama, ...

As a lesson to Democratic hopefuls.

I am hoping for Wes Clark, ... anyone new, or definitely bold, and intelligent ... preferably with executive experience, doesn't mince words, didn't have to explain. to the last detail, needing polls and letters written to do the right thing: To make great appointments, not engaging in phony bi-partisanship , no corporate, no DLC, no Blue Dogs, No Lieberman, or any non-refuting-Li ebermans,

Recognizing that through Republican politicians, corporate and industrialist oligarchs are forging an onslaught -- to their own greedy ends -- which includes domination of most media organizations, framing the argument and shaping debate, fighting everything to the bitter end.
 
 
+1 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 04:39
So what?
 
 
+3 # Pickwicky 2011-08-09 13:29
Nice2--the only lesson you're teaching Democrats is how to lose the White House, or put another way: how to further ruin this country. Of all possible plans, your plan shows the least intelligence.
 
 
0 # nice2blucky 2011-08-09 14:48
Not true -- to what you way that is vaguely referential as to disagree.

To a possible point, regarding strategy, "teaching Democrats... how to lose the White House," I agree that it is not necessary to publicly single out Lieberman and refuting him. That part is more or less where I'd like to draw the line, between someone who stands for progressive principles and how far it is necessary -- for a true progressive politician to acutely distance themselves from Charletans.
 
 
0 # nice2blucky 2011-08-09 14:48
And I say you are wrong about even what I want.

You've no idea, but you have some vague sense of which devil is better, and therefore, all your instincts right and all mine lack intelligence.

I want a progressive leader. One who has his/her own ideas on what has to be done, and doesn't need me to further write letters before he/she has the political courage to lead, ... to push, ... ... ... before all that is being pushed are the scraps and the shame ... all through comparisons, and excuses... the hollow rhetoric and insistence that all that could be done was done.

When it was not.

It is not "political reality," except for the fact that, they create the reality.

And then trot out the "speech" and move on.

I want a true progressive 2012 Democratic Primary challenger to Obama.

I also want a complete turn-around in Congress ... out with incumbents, almost all... and don't vote Republican.

Not ruin.
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2011-08-10 07:20
nice2: If I follow your loose thoughts between and among your elipses (for clarity, you might try writing in Standard English), what you want whether you know it or not is a tyrant, not a duly-elected president.
 
 
-1 # nice2blucky 2011-08-10 10:06
And you know what I want, whether I know it or not.

You certainly have nerve.

It seems that nothing I say is what I say.

Given the specifics, within my loose thoughts,

still, it's no surprise that you should know what I want.

What is curious is how, what I want, is different that what I've written.

The problem is that I keep getting what you want.
 
 
+1 # nice2blucky 2011-08-10 10:13
Say I corrected the typos, misspells, loosened up some of the ellipses and completed thoughts -- quite difficult when it doesn't even post comments all the while telling me I have 70 symbols left -- splaining things to someone who will not understand for all their attempts to not (understand), possibly cannot -- attaching meaning, far from my directly stated, written and still before your very eyes -- would you still not accept, as intelligent strategy, voting out Obama in the Democratic Primaries for a true progressive, who could then vie for the Presidency in the 2012 General Election.

And what about Wes Clark, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, ... you know, ... the ones who have been right, ... about war and the economy, ... yes the ones who were right.

Is that too much to ask?

Obama/ Geithner and Summers
Obama/Hillary Clinton
Obama/ Rham Emanuel
Obama/ Robert Gibbs
Obama/ Goldman Sacs
Obama / GE
Obama/ BP, Oil
Obama/ Xe Services
Obama/ Petraeus
Obama/ vs. Bradley Manning
Obama/ vs. Tim DeChristopher
Obama/ vs. Whistleblowers
Obama/ vs. Global Warming
Obama/ vs. the Environment
Obama/ vs. Elizabeth Warren
Obama/ vs. Joseph Stiglitz
Obama/ vs. Liberals
Obama/ vs. Progressives
Obama/ vs. Change You Can Believe In
 
 
+1 # nice2blucky 2011-08-10 11:33
Say I corrected the typos, misspells, loosened up some of the ellipses and completed thoughts -- quite difficult when it doesn't even post comments all the while telling me I have 70 symbols left -- splaining things to someone who will not understand for all their attempts to not (understand), possibly cannot -- attaching meaning, far from my directly stated, written and still before your very eyes -- would you still not accept, as intelligent strategy, voting out Obama in the Democratic Primaries for a true progressive, who could then vie for the Presidency in the 2012 General Election?

And what about Wes Clark, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, ... you know, ... the ones who have been right, ... about war and the economy, ... yes the ones who were right.

Is that too much to ask?

Obama/ Geithner and Summers
Obama/ Hillary Clinton
Obama/ Rham Emanuel
Obama/ Robert Gibbs
Obama/ Goldman Sacs
Obama / GE
Obama/ BP, Oil
Obama/ Xe Services
Obama/ Petraeus
Obama/ vs. Bradley Manning
Obama/ vs. Tim DeChristopher
Obama/ vs. Whistleblowers
Obama/ vs. Global Warming
Obama/ vs. the Environment
Obama/ vs. Elizabeth Warren
Obama/ vs. Joseph Stiglitz
Obama/ vs. Liberals
Obama/ vs. Progressives
Obama/ vs. Change You Can Believe In.
 
 
+7 # Talib 2011-08-09 03:18
It appears as though Leslie has become another one of those bought and paid for politicians, democrat and rethuglican, journalist, lobbyist, wall streeter or delusional tea bagger. Even Ronald Reagan can be seen taking orders from one of the boys as depicted in the Michael Moore's documentary movie, 'SICKO'. Fact is; Obama is in the "Belly of the Beast". And as an African-America n president, there's really no telling what kind of real life inside threat he's been given. Take a look at the crowd of advisors that surrounds him. The Geithners, Summers and the lot are only there to keep a watch on his every move. Their allegiance is to the boys and their diabolical agenda which is being played out around the world today. It is an agenda which appears to be in full swing. Obama alone cannot stop this colossal onslaught on the political and economic life of the American people.
Hillary should run for president.....P LEASE!!!! The Clintons were bought and paid for long ago. Leslie, you need to go to bed. As my 80 year old mother would say, “They got the top back” for all to see. Problem is even with the top back the American people still can’t see them coming. It matters not; the truth to all this madness will soon be exposed.
 
 
+6 # karenvista 2011-08-09 12:27
Quoting Talib:
Even Ronald Reagan can be seen taking orders from one of the boys as depicted in the Michael Moore's documentary movie, 'SICKO'. Fact is; Obama is in the "Belly of the Beast". And as an African-American president, there's really no telling what kind of real life inside threat he's been given.


Truth is, since JFK was assasinated for not following orders in 1963, being a President of the people, independent of our Corporate Overlords is a suicide mission. Why do you think that all presidents end up giving in to the corporations?

Anyone who runs for President should be single and willing to risk his life for his principles and he should tell the people if he is threatened, and name names.
 
 
-9 # Pickwicky 2011-08-09 13:45
Karen--what planet do you live on?
 
 
0 # Indivoter 2011-08-09 03:21
I honestly don't think Hillary was ready during the last election -- far too ambitious and overly driven by an erroneous sense of entitlement. Simply put, she wasn't where she needed to be. Given her present position and the experience it has afforded her, I get the sense she now possesses what was a sorely needed dosage of tempering and maturity. Today she is an effective, seasoned, first-line politician in her own right. If she decides to run again, which I hope she does, there's no doubt she will get my vote this time around...someth ing I never thought I would say. At this point Obama reminds me of Neville Chamberlain waving the Munich Agreement as he stepped off the plane after “negotiating” with Hitler. Sadly, we know how that panned out.
 
 
+4 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 06:33
She's fine where she is, and she's not going to challenge the sitting President. In the final analysis, we'll all be extolling his virtues and forgetting how childish we were, ten years from now.
 
 
0 # sonrisa 2011-08-09 14:27
uh, what virtues?
 
 
0 # billy bob 2011-08-10 16:13
It'll give us something to talk about in the bread lines.
 
 
+7 # Exotikat 2011-08-09 03:53
I gave kudos to Mayoraltutorial for his comments. He alluded to one of the things which I believe contributes greatly to the demise of this country, and that is the clear desire of the Media to create conflict to sell its product. If the Media reacted with contempt and scorn towards the crazies who have tried (and in some instances succeeded) in taking over the reins of government, we wouldn't have the mess we are in today. Really, imagine the chaos if there is a challenger to Obama. I too am frustrated that Obama doesn't shred some of the idiots with whom he has to contend, but I also believe that like London, there is the sense that this country is a fire waiting to happen. We think things are bad now, but imagine if some organization or nut actually got to the president and did him in. Did anyone hear one of the founders of the Tea Party ranting in Wisconsin yesterday? He DESPISES everything Democrats/Liber als/Progressive s stand for. But this kind of crazy talk is what the Media latches onto as a viable part of the national conversation. How can a country be run with any intelligence when we are forced to regard this kind of insanity as a normal part of the conversation? Aside from the fact that a president Hillary would also have to handle the same kind of reality, thanks to the Media, she too would have to choose - chaos or reason?
 
 
+3 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 07:55
Excellent points. The entire Tea Party movement was nothing more than a few dozen uninformed, elderly ignoramuses until corporations and the media stepped in and gave them significance, tapping into the nation's anger and creating a 'movement' out of nothing. In contrast, progressives launched massive protests during the Bush years and it was practically a bleep in the news, all dismissed as 'far left lunatics'. I believe the media is the key to getting the country back.
 
 
-4 # blah blah blah 2011-08-09 04:09
I was not in the Hillary fan club, and I worked very hard to get Obama votes. I wanted change. I don't think any of us realized how much change would unfold... in the wrong direction. At this point in time, if one was to vote for a Democratic challenger in the primary, I think Hillary would mount the most serious challenge to Obama, so I would probably vote for her. All I know is I will not be voting for Obama again.
 
 
+4 # Catzmaw 2011-08-09 06:22
Wow, this is great news for the right wing. Nothing like a little bit of self-implosion on the left to keep the right in power. A failure to vote for Obama WILL BE a vote for the Republicans and a continuation of their policies. It's foolish and self-destructiv e, and EXACTLY what they have been trying to make happen with their obstinacy. Don't you get it? They've made it impossible for Obama to succeed in the HOPE that people like you will bail on him and make it easier for them to seize more power. You've fallen for their treachery just as the people the author quoted have. The idea is to kill Democratic/prog ressive morale and make them fight amongst themselves and vow never to vote for Obama again. Just whom does such a vow benefit, huh?
 
 
+1 # Texan 4 Peace 2011-08-09 11:04
A vote FOR Obama is just as much a vote for the Republicans, since he basically IS a Republican. Vote for POLICIES, not personalities.
 
 
0 # Suavane 2011-08-09 21:50
Quoting Catzmaw:
Wow, this is great news for the right wing. Nothing like a little bit of self-implosion on the left to keep the right in power. A failure to vote for Obama WILL BE a vote for the Republicans and a continuation of their policies. It's foolish and self-destructive, and EXACTLY what they have been trying to make happen with their obstinacy. Don't you get it? They've made it impossible for Obama to succeed in the HOPE that people like you will bail on him and make it easier for them to seize more power. You've fallen for their treachery just as the people the author quoted have. The idea is to kill Democratic/progressive morale and make them fight amongst themselves and vow never to vote for Obama again. Just whom does such a vow benefit, huh?
They have a right to vote for the government they want and deserve. One thing I'm certain of, they haven't paid attention to the accomplishments the President has been able to bring to the American people, that made our lives much better than what was in-store for us. And, as such, don't deserve President Obama.
 
 
+12 # fredboy 2011-08-09 04:11
Hillary snipped several million of us from her campaign by uttering two words: Alan Greenspan. The day she said she would bring that wretched financial vampire back was the day we turned our backs on her.

I agree with so many of you--Wall Street owns all these people. And likely refers to them as The Obedient.
 
 
+8 # BishopAndrew 2011-08-09 04:19
Not Hilary she is way too establishment centrist which has almost killed the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Bobbie Kennedy and Johnson! No we need someone like Finegold and or Warren, anyone but another "pragmatic" politician! In my 64 years I have never seen such a gutless democratic "leader" as Barry O and no one can surpass his willingness to appease his opponents who are dead set on defeating him! Yet he is incapable of understanding this. It used to be that when the President spoke to the nation everything pretty much came to a halt and we collectively listened now when the President speaks if we listen at all it is more of a sigh and a "yea yea whatever!"
 
 
+2 # Cynthia 2011-08-09 06:35
He pushed through the healthcare bill. That ought to be good fo 30 million votes next time.
 
 
+3 # charsjcca 2011-08-09 06:52
Andrew: I have to remember the modern Democratic Party and 1980. It became more important for Ronald Wilson Reagan to be president than for Ted Kennedy and his parade of clowns to work more diligently with James Earl Carter. We do need another person as an option, but politicians will not do. They have marinated in the swill of Washington or their state house. We need someone who will think the best about we 300,000,000
strong. We can find a way out but it must begin with us.
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 08:00
Keep in mind that Reagan would be labeled a 'socialist' and kicked aside by the Republican Party today, he raised taxes repeatedly. Obama is not responsible for the last 30 years of the conservative movement that has pushed the entire Democratic Party far to the right. He needs a Congress that will back him up and an opposition party that is not insane. We need to stop blaming one man for this mess.
 
 
0 # Pickwicky 2011-08-09 13:38
Bishop--and you're blaming Obama because the national IQ has plummeted? Sorry, you must have been praying or comatose, but that happened long before Obama was elected President.

You might try to distinguish between appeasment and intelligent compromise.
 
 
+2 # charsjcca 2011-08-09 04:29
True. Hillary also wants to kill more people in Libya and Syria. That is what the world needs more of. As Billy Graham said, "Kill the Vietnamese!"
 
 
+4 # Marasri 2011-08-09 05:37
OH God Hillary! Another Warmonger. She has been for EVERY war that has come down the pike....We need to decrease the deficit guys.... and we need to decrease our dependancy on corporations. It is getting to the point that I have to hold my nose to vote democratic. I have to hold my nose to vote, PERIOD!

Obamas performance did not surprise me at all. Hope has always been a concept used as manipulation. He was always a baby of the corprations and the Trilateral Commission. Just look at his advisors and who he running the show. I am just surprised that y'all are so surprised.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2011-08-09 06:18
Hilary has the ability to have done a lot better than Obama has, but the reason that doesn't matter at all is that she is even more to the right than Obama is. She would have used her ability to be even more corporate, and especially MIC corporate, friendly. She would have made the Middle East problem even worse by openly siding with Israel even more than Bush did. She never has shown any concern about the underdog, and there is no reason to expect her to use her considerable abilities to help people who were crushed by the Wall St. meltdown.

No, Hilary would have used her abilities to make things even worse for the average American than they are now. She was part of C St., remember?
 
 
+1 # brenda 2011-08-09 06:40
OK, so people think Obama's ineffective. Then tell me how would Hilary deal with a Republican majorty congress? And before that a Democrat congress filled with lots of "Republican thinking" Democratic Blue Dogs? Obama is intelligent, probably the most intellegent person that holds a political office in the United States. I also think he's a great stratigist as well. OK, he may have got what appears to be the bad end of a deal on the budget, but I believe that he can only hope to get the right balance in the long run. I would just like to know, if all the people who voted for him, made their calls to their congressman, as he asked to, about the issues at hand?

Then I would like to know how the religious right carries such a clout when there's only 10% of them in the American population? The answer is that they do come out and vote as a solid block in an election where 30% at best of the entire registered votor status of the American population. And then how were the Teabaggers able to make such proposterous demamds without criticism from the Press? Answer? The news media is owned by General Bull Moose and his billionaire cohorts.
 
 
+5 # drush 2011-08-09 07:14
We are in really bad shape that is for sure. Especially if Hillary is the answer.
Money is running the show. Why don't we just elect money and get it over with.
We can then just concentrate on sports events instead of having that valuable time being shared with election stuff.
No mus no fuss.
It is easier to be told what to do than to to rule ourselves. Democracy is such work.
 
 
+4 # Stephen Malagodi 2011-08-09 07:14
Last week we had the stupid "What Happened to Obama" story and this week we have the equally futile "Hillary has the balls" story making the rounds.

Here we are, looking for mythic leadership when in places where we can see at least something happening, Tunisia, Egypt, Greece, Spain, etc.. the point has been to NOT have leaders, to do the job yourself.

If we had the collective intelligence of the Egyptians, we would understand that it's a systemic problem, not a personnel problem. Put Hillary in the White House. You'll find you've replaced one member of the regime for another member of the regime. It's just that she'll be YOUR member of the regime.
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 07:48
I agree, even progressives are now blaming the failure of our political system and voter support of Republican obstruction on one man. I expect better from the left. I think people are longing for the 1990s, we can't go back and it's only going to get worse if we give into the latest Republican propaganda, 'it's all Obama's fault'.
 
 
0 # foxtrottango 2011-08-09 07:20
Hillary Clinton does have her faults, but submitting to Republicans like President Obama did, is not one of them. Now, I realize that she could have done a better job with all the backing the Democratic Party did to elect Obama. First of all, I say in all sincerity, President Obama was our hope but he was no Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Bill Clinton and I feel he was no Hillary Clinton either!

There is a saying that no matter how much more educated a black is in America, or how popular he is or how much faith and confidence the American people in craving justice, fairness, democratic principles, he still has the tiny ingrediant in him that says whites are superior to blacks!

President Obama could have been the greatest president in US history. He certainly had the majority of American people supporting him, but he surrounded himself with advisors who were "friends" and acquaitances but not qualified, and he became obsessed with partisan support which even my l0 year grandson could have told him that republicans was the party of NO and the last thing they would do is to "partisan" with him.

As far as I'm concern, Obama forfeited his place of honor in politics when he embraced to side with Republicans. Didn't he have enough trouble with the blue dogs in the Democratic Party to being with?
 
 
-2 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 07:45
As far as I'm concerned, you lack all credibility by posting your nonsense about Obama believing that whites are superior to blacks.
 
 
+2 # Foxtrottango 2011-08-09 10:16
Who lacks the "credibility" is you because you either don't want to admit or try to excuse the fact that racism towards blacks in the USA exists even it it stares at you in the face!

I can assure you that each and every black or Hispanics is aware of the institutionaliz ed racism in the United States and much more so with the TEA Party and the Republican Party in particular.

And I can also assure you that even when most blacks and Hispanics feel whites are not superior, but they will still remain silent from speaking out at the racism that comes to identify the Republican party now. The GOP racism and bigotry toward our first black president warrants some kind of explanation as to why most blacks and Hispanics remain silent. I feel President Obama is such a person.

The ironic point of all this, is he is the one who is superior in knowledge, know how, and accomplishments than all those republicans in the House and Senate put together. The question why does he feel intimidated?

That's is the whole issue here!
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 10:46
What you posted and what I responded to was a claim that Obama believes that whites are superior. Now you're just back peddling. I lack credibility because I won't admit that racism exists in the USA? Give me a break, I said no such thing.

Obama's silence on the matter is a political calculation because he's smart enough to know that any accusations of racism coming from him will be used effectively by the opposition to campaign against him. The media addresses the racism in the Tea Party, not as much as they should but it's out there, he's well aware of this fact.
 
 
+4 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 07:25
This is totally unpredictable. With Clinton in the White House we would still have seen Boehner walking out of negotiations because of pressure from the Tea Party extremists. This is not the 1990s. I'm not a cheerleader for Obama and he's very frustrating but this is a unique time in history and I'm not sure if Clinton could have handled it better.

It doesn't matter which Democrat holds the White House, Republican obstruction supported by the ignorant masses would remain the same. It's impossible to know if a government shut down would have played as well for Obama as it did for Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Tea Party would have embraced it and that would have been the only choice if Obama was as tough as people think Hillary would be.
 
 
+6 # Heartbeatt 2011-08-09 07:39
What a load of bull, Leslie Bennetts. What a load of wimps she's quoting. Ok, Obama has disappointed many, but was ever anyone up against such despicable politics as presented by these Republicans? Did anyone ever inherit such a horrible debt and war mess? Look at the way America has changed since Reagan and then look where to place the blame for present day impasses.
As for Hillary "I count President Mubarak as a personal family friend" Clinton - she has made serious mistakes herself. I find her speeches torturous and deceptive, and even though I would like to see a woman in the White House, I do not want it to be Ms. Clinton!
 
 
-5 # cycleman60 2011-08-09 07:45
Hillary: Now more than ever, we need you to run for the presidency. I voted for you the first time out but things didn't work out that wsy. We need you now. Please help America get back on foot.
Bob Burgess
cycleman60@aol.com
 
 
-2 # bobby t. 2011-08-09 08:08
everyone relax. you guys and gals don't listen, so i will say it again. during the 2008 campaign, both bill and hillary made a quick move to obama's side. why? because obama and his people made a deal with bill and hillary. support me, and joe steps down in 2012, and it is an obama/clinton ticket. that was the deal. i can't believe i am the only one out here who saw that? that had to be the deal. secretary of state is not what hillary wants. she now has the gravitas to be president. and that is what she will have when 2016 comes around. obama loses without her on his ticket. he knows that.
 
 
-2 # kyzipster 2011-08-09 08:41
Excellent prediction, I think you may be right. Not a bad plan either, gives the Democrats a real chance in 2016 if the Republicans continue to embrace the Tea Party lunatics.
 
 
-1 # Janet Canterbury 2011-08-09 08:33
I thought Hillary was the better choice--more experience and more strength. Obama's presidency has only convinced me that I was correct. He should step down and let a woman clean up this mess!
 
 
+1 # Cabbagehead 2011-08-09 09:21
Swayed from Hilary to Obama by my Beltway son, and now we both regret it, but the era of Clintonesque centrists is ending and only polarity in strength will win out. Third party progressives must forget this easy internet babbling and take direct action.
 
 
+5 # David Velasquez 2011-08-09 09:39
Oh cut me a m%f% break!
Hillary's supporters are being just as obnoxious now as they were back in 2008. On top of all the nasty name calling and in the end bad sportsmanship they're doing the 'I told you so!'???!!
I'm not going to deny that perhaps Hillary would have been tougher with the GOP in the recent negotiations. I'm pretty certain Medicare and Social Security wouldn't have wound up on the table at all. Of that I'm pretty certain. But, she IS beholding to the policies of AIPAC and her administration would've been less confrontational with Israel's ruling Likud Party and their more extremist policies. And, I truly believe she would have been no less militaristic, this war would not be winding down any sooner were she president. Their styles would be different, but she's just centrist in a number of ways as Obama is.
But hell, if they want to run her for 2012... be my guest. Obama won't be getting my support leastways
 
 
+5 # CL38 2011-08-09 09:39
If most people had read the books on George W. Bush and the Bush family they would have realized that Bush would do to the country, exactly what he did with the 'businesses' that he 'ran'. His fathers business associates invested money in businesses that George headed and always ran into the ground, the same way he did with the US economy. Everything was always handed to him. He never learned important lessons or lost his own money, and he was always bailed out by dad.
 
 
+2 # dboy 2011-08-09 13:08
BO DEFINITELY has no testicles! Hillary is NOT the answer!!!
 
 
0 # grannym 2011-08-10 06:05
If only our boy president would grow up - and grow a pair. He is only interested in getting re-elected, and he'll bend and sway in any way be thinks will help him do so. What a disgusting, disappointing excuse for the President he promised he would be. He is beginning to look as dishonest and useless as any of the worst of the Rethuglicans.
 
 
-1 # Pickwicky 2011-08-10 07:24
grannym--workin g for Rush Limbaugh, are you?
 
 
-2 # Benjamin 2011-08-10 18:42
But this is exactly how Hilary's wife handled republicans back in the '90s, and now he's the most beloved of living presidents. Meanwhile, Hillary totally caved on health care reform as first lady, far more than Obama did. I'm not saying I am satisfied with Obama's performance, but Democrats in general are reasonable people, and reasonable people always fall victim to the irrational, who absolutely have to have their way, or else. The only way out of this is through elections and people actually showing up to vote. I'm more angry at those who didn't vote in 2010 than I am at Obama.
 
 
+1 # billy bob 2011-08-11 21:20
I didn't vote in 2010. I was given a choice between a Repugnican who agreed with the Repugnican party 99% of the time and a Democrat who agreed with the repugnant party 99% of the time. Who should I have voted for? If I had a Democrat to vote for I would have done so.
 
 
+4 # davidhp 2011-08-11 06:51
I didn't like either Clinton or Obama in 2008, I supported Kucinich. Both Clinton and Obama are centrist DLCers with Clinton being more to the right (remember as a young person she supported Goldwater). Clinton is more of a war monger than Obama and Obama is bad enough.

There are real progressives left in the democrats and one of them needs the support of the people to run as a progressive and live up to real progressive standards like ending the wars of agression, pushing for real health care reform (single payer), ending government interference with the labor movement (Taft-Hartley, Right to Work laws), pushing for real immigration reform, replacing free trade agreements with fair trade, rebuilding our industrial base, putting Americans to work updating and repairing our infrastructure.

Neither Obama nor Clinton are pushing for a progressive agenda.
 
 
-3 # Pickwicky 2011-08-11 13:35
davidhp--so you supported Kucinich in 2008. Now some want to write in Sanders, have Hillary challenge, or Gore, and blah, blah, blan. The great lesson to be learned about making your vote valuable is the following: YOU MUST CAST YOUR ONE AND ONLY VOTE FOR A KINDRED CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN.
 
 
+1 # mjc 2011-08-12 07:37
I am one of the many who worked to get Hillary the nomination and thought we did come close, but close means nothing except in tiddlywinks. She is much more a war hawk, an acknowledged war hawk, than Obama and not sure how she'd handle our various and sundry involvements in wars and near wars. But the previous campaign brought out all sorts of crazy, vicious, nasty attacks, people in both parties. Not sure that can be overcome in 2012. And there are still many "Obama-bots" who savagely defend Obama.
 
 
-1 # Adrienne 2011-08-12 07:57
Quoting mjc:
I am one of the many who worked to get Hillary the nomination and thought we did come close, but close means nothing except in tiddlywinks. She is much more a war hawk, an acknowledged war hawk, than Obama and not sure how she'd handle our various and sundry involvements in wars and near wars. But the previous campaign brought out all sorts of crazy, vicious, nasty attacks, people in both parties. Not sure that can be overcome in 2012. And there are still many "Obama-bots" who savagely defend Obama.


When OB got the nom., instead of Hillary, I went out to my car and scraped off the Hillary bumper sticker. I'm ready to buy a new one and put it back on now. Enough with the dilitantism. Hillary will make a great President.
 

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.

RSNRSN