RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Green writes: "To understand why Hillary is particularly dangerous to the Republican Party, recall where the Democratic Party stood on the eve of Bill's 1992 run for the White House, poised for what would have been their sixth loss in seven presidential elections."

Will Hillary run in 2016? (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Will Hillary run in 2016? (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP)


Hillary Clinton in 2016: Be Afraid, Republicans

By Lloyd Green, The Daily Beast

05 February 13

 

Hillary Clinton's polling ahead of GOP challengers in Texas and Kentucky. And then there's the youth vote, minorities, women, and the white working class. She's the one to beat in 2016, writes Lloyd Green, former opposition research counsel to the George H.W. Bush campaign.

essage to the Republican Party: be afraid, be very afraid.

Hillary Clinton stands atop of the Democratic 2016 scrum, set to resume where Bill left off. A second Clinton candidacy would likely put the white vote in play and jeopardize the GOP's dominance in the Old Confederacy. Recent polls put Hillary ahead of possible Republican challengers in vote-rich Texas and in Kentucky, home of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul.

Unlike her husband, Hillary is personally disciplined. Unlike Barack Obama, she has demonstrated an ability to connect with beer-track voters across the country.

To understand why Hillary is particularly dangerous to the Republican Party, recall where the Democratic Party stood on the eve of Bill's 1992 run for the White House, poised for what would have been their sixth loss in seven presidential elections.

The 1960s marked the exodus of blue-collar ethnics and Southerners from the Democratic Party. What was once the base of the FDR's New Deal coalition headed for the exits in the aftermath of inner-city rioting, violent protests, and rancorous demonstrations. White flight marked Richard Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over George McGovern. Nixon won 61 percent of the popular vote and two thirds of ballots casts by white voters. Not even Ronald Reagan equaled that margin. And in the South, the Democratic vote crumbled, as McGovern gleaned less than three in 10 voters there.

Roe v. Wade came next. The Supreme Court's 1973 decision recognized abortion as a constitutionally protected right and was a milestone for the women's movement. But in politics as in physics, actions generate reactions, and it also helped to forge an alliance between devout Catholics and evangelical Protestants. By the end of 1988, white Catholics had voted Republican in three consecutive presidential elections. The Democratic Party was no longer their natural home. For its part, the GOP was no longer the exclusive enclave of Thurston Howell III, the descendants of Union soldiers, or Northern rural Protestants. Instead, the Republican Party had morphed into a winning, albeit monochromatic, coalition.

Enter Bill Clinton. His candidacy and presidency reversed the Democrats' fortunes by playing to voters who had become dissatisfied with the Republican Party's overt piety and Southern-fried politics, but who were wary of the Democrats' sympathy for identity and grievance politics, foreign policy by McGovern-Carter, and disdain for market-based economics. Both Ice Storm suburbanites and Reagan Democrats were receptive to Bill's message.

Bill's attack on Sister Souljah and embrace of free trade signaled that he was breaking from Democratic orthodoxies. The numbers told the story.

In 1992 Bill Clinton came within 1 point of winning a plurality of white voters. He came within 3 points in 1996. No Democratic candidate has since come that close. Indeed, Barack Obama garnered less than two in five white votes against a hapless Mitt Romney. To top it off, Clinton also tied the Republicans in the South in 1996. There was stirring in Dixie.

At the electoral high end, the Ivy Leaguers of the 1960s had grown up and traded their beards, tattered jeans, and placards for Wall Street, Ralph Lauren suits, business cards, and a home in Larchmont. And so Clinton won an outright majority of voters with graduate degrees and kept the GOP to less than 60 percent among affluent voters. In fact, since 1992 grad-degree voters have gone Democratic in each subsequent presidential election.

Bill's successes served as the electoral predicate for Obama's victories and position Hillary to pick up where Obama ultimately leaves off. Obama won reelection by forging a New Deal 2.0 coalition in the industrial Midwest, while cementing a high-end low-end coalition in the South of college-educated whites and minorities.

Although Obama lost among non-college-graduate whites by 19 points nationwide, his deficit among that same demographic in the Great Lakes was only in the single digits. Significantly, Ohio and Pennsylvania held for Obama in 2012, two of the states which Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

 

 

And that is where the GOP's problem begins. In addition to benefiting from Obama's ascendant coalition of younger voters, minorities, and women, Hillary connects with the white working class and would likely improve upon Obama's showing among this bloc. Instead of the forced optics of Obama sitting down to a beer with the prof and the cop, voters would likely be treated to moments of a relaxed Hillary knocking back a boilermaker in Youngstown or Dearborn.

Clinton could make a serious play in the South and build upon existing margins in the Midwest. North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas would be in play. Indeed, Hillary could reclaim the newest bloc of swing voters: America's wealthy.

In 2008 voters with incomes north of $200,000 went Democratic, as did college graduates. Historically, that was huge. It marked the fact that the wealthy were no longer reflexively Republican. In 2012 wealthier Americans went Republican, but by a smaller margin than in 2004. In other words, high-end America is up for grabs, and Hillary appears better suited to take advantage of that fact than Obama was.

Four years is a long time. The economy is a slog, and the world remains a dangerous place. But at this early juncture, with the Republican Party in disarray and disfavor, Hillary looks like the one to beat.

 

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

 
-53 # nice2blucky 2013-02-05 15:02
If progressives, liberals, and Democrats ever wonder why they keep losing on issues, yet win elections, this is why.

Propoganda -- early and often. If it weren't so sad, pitiful and pathetic, it would be comical.

To all those who choked down pride and bile and voted for Obama's re-election, this is the time to start -- early and often.

These brain-staining pushers of beltway babble and corporitist, Democratic-Part y hacks as solutions for anything, must be cahllanged.

Any real progressive must stand up, sooner than later, against these strategically retarded followers of everything Democratic-Part y, and publically disgrace and ridicule them verbally and in writing -- or whatever it takes to keep them from arrogantly and pompously regurgitating and/or selling the con of best or only choices.

To all the this-is-the-las t-time voters for Obama's re-election:

Stand up now and often, against the sophistic excuses and rationales for pursuing and accepting the lesser, even before lesser is the "only" option -- even when it's not really; stand early, often, and finally-truly against the certain onslaught of false choices. Or accept full and total responsibility for whatever failures lie ahead; for the inexorable slide toward more bad policies, unaccountable elites, and unrepresentativ e government -- with so-called Democrats/progr essives as the cause ... not the bad ol' Republicans.

Remember: Fool me once ... Fool me twice ... How does it go when it's every time?
 
 
-46 # Rain17 2013-02-05 21:06
Unfortunately the US election system is winner-take-all . Unlike Israel, where even fringe parties can win seats in the Knesset if they get 2-3% of the vote, one of the major party candidates is going to win. I'm not rich and can't afford to live in a fantasy world of liberals unicorns that will never happen. I don't have the luxury of throwing my vote away on candidates who have no chance of winning.
 
 
+5 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 06:51
Please explain "fantasy world of liberals unicorns".
 
 
+4 # Rain17 2013-02-06 22:12
I'll gladly explain it. I'm referring to the people who are angry that Obama failed their impossible litmus tests. I'm referring to the people who would vote "third party" to send a message.
 
 
+14 # gadfky 2013-02-06 09:28
Quoting Rain17:
Unfortunately the US election system is winner-take-all. Unlike Israel, where even fringe parties can win seats in the Knesset if they get 2-3% of the vote, one of the major party candidates is going to win. I'm not rich and can't afford to live in a fantasy world of liberals unicorns that will never happen. I don't have the luxury of throwing my vote away on candidates who have no chance of winning.


Like Romney?
 
 
+3 # kalpal 2013-02-06 14:08
I assume that is why you voted for McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.
 
 
-3 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 15:44
You completely miss the point.

Is it intentional? Or do you lack the capacity to understand?
 
 
0 # Rain17 2013-02-06 22:03
I voted for Obama.
 
 
-30 # David Heizer 2013-02-05 21:18
Are we starting already with the fantasy that the candidate of a 1% party could in some magical fashion succeed in attaining the presidency, if only the bulk of registered Democrats (enough to outweigh the Republicans) could be harangued into voting for the candidate of another party than their own?
 
 
+25 # Phlippinout 2013-02-06 06:18
give me another party worth voting for. Republican? Tea Party? IN YOUR DREAMS
 
 
0 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 12:13
Find it yourself.

Try googling.
 
 
+39 # Ralph Averill 2013-02-06 02:16
The kind of change you're talking about will never happen at the national level. It has to start at the local level, as the Greens have done in Europe. How many of your neighbors and co-workers agree with your political point of view? You might start by talking to them.
As to a Hillary Clinton candidacy, I backed her against Obama in 2008 and would certainly do so in 2016 against Andrew Cuomo.
 
 
+16 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 06:54
Thank you Ralph Averill. I am so tired of reading these "wished for a 3rd party" post from people who sit on their rears instead of getting out there doing something about it......YES.... GRASS ROOTS and hard work.
 
 
+3 # Rain17 2013-02-06 22:02
The Green Party will never be a factor unless the US Electoral System becomes proportional.
 
 
-26 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 03:50
Just an observation:

By about 11pm to midnight, my -- anti-Hillary (for President) --comment had slowly worked up to 12 thumbs up. While the "I would vote for Hilary" comment was at much lower.

Yet, low and behold, in the wee hours of the morning, mine was down to +7 and the other up to +9. Go figure.

I guess it's true what is said: no rest for the wicked.
 
 
-8 # RHytonen 2013-02-06 05:11
So true.

Here is why Hillary can't (and shouldn't) win - and why I'm no longer a Democrat, voting Green (Mpuntain Party in WV) until I die:

Trans Canada.

The Corporatism -Fascism- has to end, radically and soon.
 
 
+10 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 06:55
(I guess it's true what is said: no rest for the wicked.)

Yeah, so maybe you should take a break.
 
 
+4 # A_Har 2013-02-06 14:44
Be afraid? SURE I am--no fan of Hitlary here. Whoever "wins" will be a representative of the corporatocracy. ..they will not stand up for ordinary people. That is the way the game is played in Washington, D.C.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2013-02-06 22:13
The Republicans thank you for your support.
 
 
-6 # RLF 2013-02-06 05:29
It is soo pathetic when these Democrat cheerleaders do their brainfree dance...but tragic when we end up with someone in office who talks one way and then appeases his/her corporate constituents consistently with their actions. I agree this Wash. babble is just that. It has very little to do with the real situation of the country and often characterizes the problems with completely flawed perception. The Dems are getting just what they want...which is just what the Repubs. want...more for their rich bosses in industry.
 
 
0 # kalpal 2013-02-06 14:10
As we have all seen repeatedly the GOP is stridently pro middle class America and never votes with the wishes of the top 2%.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2013-02-13 06:39
I'm saying the Clintonian new Democrats are no different. Time for people to vote third party.
 
 
+2 # Allen 23 2013-02-06 06:49
Good post.

The last few decades have proven that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issues of war and peace. On the primary issues of wars for empire, on "American Interests", on global interventionism , on the network of American bases worldwide, on the use of private contractors and mercenaries, on the maintenance of the largest military budgets in history, and even in the characterizatio n of military policy, the Democrats and Republicans have been nearly indistinguishab le from each other. If we put aside purely cosmetic issues such as who is the more "competent" in the prosecution of war or who treats veterans more fairly, the only real differences between the two parties appears as a preference for more war in Iraq versus more war in Afghanistan.

It's very simple: if you support Obama, Hilary and the Democrats -- even if reluctantly, even if you're just being all sophisticatedly super-savvy and blogosphericall y strategic about it, playing the "long game" or eleven-dimensio nal chess or what have you -- you are supporting the outright murder of innocent people who have never done anything against you or yours- just as it is for those who support Republicans.

You have walked into a house, battered down the bedroom door, put the barrel of a gun against the temple of a sleeping child, and pulled the trigger. That is what you are supporting, that is what you are complicit in, that is what you yourself are doing.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 06:49
So how much were you paid to post this nonsense? Oh, and by the way, next time let's back up some of this neo-con-tea-bag republican feces with some facts.
 
 
+7 # Activista 2013-02-06 09:46
Quoting bmiluski:
So how much were you paid to post this nonsense? Oh, and by the way, next time let's back up some of this neo-con-tea-bag republican feces with some facts.

bmilusky - they call it reflection - how much were you paid to post this attack?
 
 
+18 # Linda 2013-02-06 07:00
nice2blucky,
Haven't you learned that you will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar !
Insulting people is not the way to encourage them to see your point of view .
If a third party wants to be taken seriously they have to do the leg work that will make them viable candidates. They have to start at the local level and get a lot of face time so people will know all about them when they do run for president. The Greens haven't done that ,they always throw out a candidate late in the election year who most people have never heard about outside their state .
If you really think its wise for us to risk our votes on these unknown candidates then your simply not being realistic . Get your candidates elected locally ,then to the Senate and Congress then get them out there early on the campaign trail,"like right after an election," then you will see more people shifting to a third party. Your not going to do it with a candidate who has not paid their dues locally and in Congress or the Senate because they are not viable candidates ,they need to be in office so they have a record to stand on that the public can see ! Do that and you will see a shift !
 
 
-4 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 12:35
Voting your conscience and/or for the candidate who best reflects your views is not risking, nor is it EVER wasting a vote.

It's you who needs to FIND AND VOTE for candidates that best reflects your views. Not just vote for the whom the Party insists is ELECTABLE. You know that third-Party candidates are there, and more or less what they represent. Google them and find their candidate. It's not rocket science.

Also, think about this, as you refer to (the myth of) wasting votes: Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, GHW Bush '92, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter '80, Ford, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Nixon '60, Adlai Stevenson '56, Adlai Stevenson '52, Thomas Dewey '48 and Strom Thurmond, T. Dewey '44, Wendell Wilkie, Alf Landon, Hoover '32, Al Smith, John Davis and Robert La Follette, James Cox, Charles Hughes, Teddy Roosevelt '12, W.J. Bryan '08, Alton Parker, W.J. Bryan '00, etc.

Furthering your logic: THESE ARE ALL WASTED VOTES -- just as much as a Green or any other losing-Party vote is.

Add to that, that GW Bush is a twice sitting, never elected President, and still Gore and Kerry votes were wasted.

The end effect of actualizing the twisted, illogical, and failed scheme of voting for the lesser-of-two-e vils is a dual-corporatis t (fascist), faux-Democratic system. Yet, you who doesn't get it, are expressing and furthering ridiculous views, which in some cases "have logic to them," yet lack the completeness that true logic requires.
 
 
+2 # Pickwicky 2013-02-06 17:29
nice2blucky: Straighten our your reasoning--cast ing a vote for a third-party candidate who has no chance of winning a presidential election; i.e., the impossible event, is NOT the same as casting a vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate, one of whom WILL win the election. The former vote is wasted; the latter decides the election--one way or another.

The phrase "'have logic to them' yet lack the completeness that true logic requires" is a superb example of highly advanced gibberish.
 
 
-4 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 21:12
Pickwicky, first off:

When you say, "casting a vote for a third-party candidate... is NOT the same as casting a vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate, one of whom WILL win the election. The former vote is wasted; the latter decides the election--one way or another."

You may not understand that you make no logical sense. But that makes no sense.

Let me explain it to you. But remember, while I can explain it TO you, I cannot understand it FOR you.


Elections are not decided one way or the other. They are decided one way. It is not the same as lottery balls falling randomly, with too many variables to calculate with any degree of certainty.

People make specific, decided choices; and while there are variables, such as turnout, and marketing -- electronic balloting without paper ballot as the official determiner -- etc., they are still decided choices by people who have complete control over their actions.

NOT RANDOM. Understand. People have the power to decide for themselves.

Also, while you may not understand something, it doesn't make it gibberish.

On the fabricated scheme and fraud against Democracy of voting for the lesser-of-two-e vils and not wasting votes. The verdict it in: Guilty of destroying representative government, undermining equal justice under the law, recreating a class system.

You need to lose the pompous arrogance and recognize the consequences of not voting for the candidate that best represents your views, regardless.
 
 
0 # Pickwicky 2013-02-09 14:48
nice2blucky--th ere is no meaning for the term 'completeness' in the principles and conventions of the predicate calculi.
 
 
-2 # Rain17 2013-02-06 22:17
Just realize that there are many people our there who don't have the luxury of "voting their conscience".
 
 
+1 # nice2blucky 2013-02-07 12:02
Yes, Saddam Hussein was vicious.

But you no longer have to worry about that, he's gone.

You are free at last.

Vote your conscience.

... I hope this helped.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2013-02-13 06:50
And Obama "got us out". Problem is he left tens of thousands of 'contractors' or as I like to think about them...mercenar ies. No worries now!
 
 
+1 # RLF 2013-02-13 06:47
It is not a waste to vote third party because then the Dems lose and slowly we force them to represent us, the people, and not corps. and the rich. This is a very long and painful process but seems to me that this is what the American public wants and deserves for their lack of paying attention. # or 4 elections and we will have progressives again, not fakes like we have now.
 
 
+20 # rockieball 2013-02-06 07:24
You state the reason Republicans win. Propaganda and reaping falsehood and lie. Just fact check their election statements. also remember at the convention when a they said "We will not allow fact checkers to run our campaign." Since 1968 the party has followed the policy of lying and if caught in a lie, well then make an even bigger one.
 
 
+9 # Mrcead 2013-02-06 08:13
Oh stop it. Republicans use dog whistle rhetoric, double binds to befuddle poor Ceefus and scare tactics (see White Flight, Welfare Queens and turr'ists) to gain visceral reactions to further their cause which is 90% idealistic in nature and is therefore immune to factual scrutiny. Have you not been reading RSN lately?
 
 
+3 # DarthEVaderCheney 2013-02-06 12:42
You do realize no one is listening to you, right? We'll vote for whoever will possibly do the best job. Outside of that... shhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhh!!!
 
 
-2 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 14:11
Given the political representation in the country, I see y'all are failing.

And instead of voting "for whoever will possibly do the best job."

Try voting for someone who "will" do the job.


Also, you act like I was writing to you, rather that about you.

You are the strategically retarded follower of everything Democratic-Part y that needs to be publicly disgraced and ridiculed, verbally and in writing -- or whatever it takes to keep you from arrogantly and pompously regurgitating and/or selling the con of best or only choices.

And you seem to have missed the demonstrably responsive comments to what I wrote, which reveals the folly of one of your inane statements.

And when people make comments that I disagree with, I am not shushing them. I simply want the ridiculousness of that logic acknowledged and wiser courses pursued.

You have a lot of nerve, but little else.
 
 
+3 # kalpal 2013-02-06 14:06
Of course the GOP proclivity for rendering nothing more than lip service is what makes them them darlings of the Fox news audience.

Can anyone come up with any legislation originated by a right winger that stood with the bottom 90% against the top 10%?
 
 
+54 # drg927 2013-02-05 15:52
I would vote for Hilary. Imagine our first black president followed by our first woman president. Of course if I still live in Kansas my vote may not mean much.
 
 
-5 # nice2blucky 2013-02-05 21:48
For progressive and just causes, that vote won't mean anything, anywhere. Although, it's nice that you have a mind for installing a token women into the Presidency.

As of today -- should you insist upon staying firmly within the Democratic Party -- Elizabeth Warren would make a much better choice.

I voted for Jill Stein (Green Party) in 2012. You may not have heard of her -- or it (the Green Party). But they both have been around for some time. You should look into her political views. You might find that she, and the Green Party, represent your political ideals. However, you'll really have to do that yourself; neither traditional media, nor progressive sites like this one will do it for you.

It makes one wonder about what the terms progressive, liberal, and Democrat really mean.

I mean, Democratic politicians who have spent years running from the term liberal, now embrace it -- at least now that Republican politicians are more blatently clownish.

But now they support wars, expanding military spending, secrecy, and the Patriot Act; the NDAA, diminished civil liberties, and persecution of whistle blowers; immunity for telecom-company crimes, immunity for banks and bankers; more oil drilling, fracking, and coal mining, which either devestate the environment or put it further at risk.

But I do digress, or did I.

Well... vote you go ahead and vote your conscience, or don't. It is certainly your right. And, it doesn't really matter, does it? Wow, a woman.
 
 
0 # Pickwicky 2013-02-06 17:37
nice2blucky--So President Jill Stein sits in the Oval Office, taps her fingers on that big beautiful desk and wonders why no one on either 'side of the aisle' genuflects in her presence. Do you ever complain because the wheels of government turn so slowly at present? Just wait until a third party candidate wins the presidency!
 
 
+2 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 21:28
All speculation and inane, or insincere, rhetorical questioning.

The part about Jill Stein "wonder[ing] why no one on either 'side of the aisle' genuflects in her presence," ridiculous.

And I do not have a problem with the (sometimes) slow and deliberative wheels of government. Sometimes -- as with the Patriot Act, bank bailouts, etc., it's best to get it right, than to just be quick about it.

I am against false deadlines and last minute secret legislation, as well.

Also, I wish that there was more honest deliberation and representation in Congress and the Presidency, which Jill Stein, and many others, would contribute, but who you'd dismiss right off.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2013-02-13 06:54
And Obama is getting all of his liberal programs through. (yuck! Yuck!)
 
 
-2 # Rain17 2013-02-06 22:18
Mitt Romney thanks you for your support!
 
 
+9 # WestWinds 2013-02-05 22:39
Why would you vote for Hillary? Because she is a woman? That's a pretty poor reason. Elizabeth Warren would be a far better choice in that event. Hillary Clinton is a Bushite, a war hawk (look at her voting record in the Senate), the status quo, an elitist, a 1%-er, a DLC-er (PNAC/New World Order), a corporatist. You complain about how awful things are and then you turn around and want to put the exact same type of politician back into office. Why can't you see the forest for the trees? For God's sake, stop voting for the trickle-down nightmare!
 
 
0 # RLF 2013-02-13 06:52
Who cares if she is a woman or a martian...she certainly is a warmongering corporatist.
 
 
+57 # davidr 2013-02-05 16:45
Lloyd Green is in a time warp. This is old news. The Republicans' problem USED TO BE protecting their margin among white voters (especially from Bill Clinton). Maybe that's why Green is writing on this subject — the allure of nostalgia. But the Republicans' problem today is not how to keep white voters. It's how to escape their death grip! And they can't do it.

If I were Green, I wouldn't sweat Hillary's appeal to white voters. I'd be far more worried that she doesn't need 'em! Nor does any other Democrat. I'd be worried that Obama won reelection in the face of poor economic conditions and vehement political opposition without drawing white votes away from the Republicans. I'd be worried that he won 264 electoral votes by margins of 5% and more, leaving the Republicans with zero breathing room in '16.

Hillary isn't nearly the problem to Republicans that they are to themselves. At least they can campaign against her.
 
 
+7 # CAMUS1111 2013-02-05 17:16
I would change the title (or add to it): "Hillary Clinton in 2016: Be(Very) Afraid, Liberals"
 
 
-12 # FDRva 2013-02-06 02:27
Bill and Hillary Clinton have records as progressives who compromised--wa y too much--to get a measure of power.

Barry Obama is noted more for his ambition--and well-heeled financial community & media backing--than for any pretense of political principle.

And his sponsors have rendered him a powerless figurehead--a drone president.

Say it aint so Barry. Say it aint so.
 
 
+3 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 06:58
Who is this Barry that you keep referring to? Your ignorance perplexes me.
 
 
-3 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 12:10
And yours (ignorance) is revealed.

While it's true that statements need be supported by facts -- when they exist, and are many times obvious, and are easily found yourself -- why is others' responsibility to clue in the willfully blind?

You are not seeking honest perspective, nor enlightenment. You are ignorant (of the obvious) and a perverse sophist who addresses no substance, yet engage in silly sarcasm while inanely asking for what is clear, as if it is not.
 
 
-2 # kalpal 2013-02-06 14:12
Being disrespectful to America's president is a sign of right wing nincompoopery and dunderheadednes s. It marks a low information, low intellect writer so clearly its a waste to read their words. Bye bye silly fool.
 
 
+1 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 15:39
Quoting kalpal:
Being disrespectful to America's president is a sign of right wing nincompoopery and dunderheadedness. It marks a low information, low intellect writer so clearly its a waste to read their words. Bye bye silly fool.


"Why do people keep picking on GW bush? His native language is Gibberish not English. Someday he will learn English but this is not the time.
Comment by Kal Palnicki - October 11, 2006 at 4:11 pm"

FO hypocrite.
 
 
+1 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 16:33
Quoting kalpal:
Being disrespectful to America's president is a sign of right wing nincompoopery and dunderheadedness. It marks a low information, low intellect writer so clearly its a waste to read their words. Bye bye silly fool.


"Why do people keep picking on GW bush? His native language is Gibberish not English. Someday he will learn English but this is not the time.
Comment by Kal Palnicki - October 11, 2006 at 4:11 pm"

Hypocrite.
 
 
0 # Pickwicky 2013-02-09 14:57
bmiluski--I understand your impatience with FDRva, but it isn't really ignorance that causes Conservatives and racists to call President Obama 'Barry,' it's rudeness. It is rude to call a person by a name they have chosen not to use--whether or not it was a childhood nickname.
 
 
0 # FDRva 2013-05-03 11:27
Before he had obvious presidential ambition--and the relevant money made available to him--"Barack H. Obama" lost a local election or two--and was known to Chicago Democratic activists of that bygone era--like myself--as Barry.

Forgive my familiarity. I do business in DC, nowadays.

And I will forgive your naivete.

The President has much to fear from his friends in the intelligence community--espe cially those hyping the recent Boston amateur incident of 'terrorism.'

Gov. Patrick has done a solid job as Governor. He would be well-advised to stay put.
 
 
0 # FDRva 2013-07-15 11:36
bmiluski--of course--has never been employed by the Wall Street front group "Organizing For America."

Wink, Wink.
 
 
0 # FDRva 2013-08-04 09:39
President Barack Hussein Obama has been known to close associates throughout his adult life--as "Barry," much as President William Jefferson Clinton has usually been called "Bill."

Your feigned ignorance--as a distraction-- in support of a very un-progressive pro-Wall Street presidential record is notable.

But not laudable.
 
 
+6 # MidwestTom 2013-02-06 05:57
Bill signed NAFTA, and ordered that all military bases by gun free (remember Kort Hood). Hillary is no Progressive, but a devout Internationalis t she is. She and Bill are card carrying members og the 1%. Surely we can find someone from beyond the beltway.
 
 
+34 # ganymede 2013-02-05 20:45
I don't know what it's going to take to drive a stake through the heart of the heartless, vampire Republican Party, but if anyone has a chance to do this it's Hillary Clinton. Not that she and the core of liberal, progressive Democrats are going to change America for the better, but at least it will keep us on the slow, but righteous path to salvation.
 
 
-20 # WestWinds 2013-02-05 22:42
If you consider economic slavery "salvation" then I might agree with you. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton will drive us deeper and deeper into the horror we are already living.
 
 
+6 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 06:59
(Hillary Clinton will drive us deeper and deeper into the horror we are already living.)


And you know this because????
 
 
+1 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 12:24
Quoting bmiluski:
(Hillary Clinton will drive us deeper and deeper into the horror we are already living.)


And you know this because????


Because of her actions, words, and affiliations.

You should really pay attention more. Why do you keep asking inane questions and expect others to fill in your obvious gaps?

It's not like the information isn't out there. Google it.

Clueing in the willfully blind and the ridiculously rigid or naive, while in the end may be important to ending the slide toward fascism, it's really not others' responsibility.

Do it your damn self.

...

Sometimes it's just words to the wise. And some are just not.
 
 
+6 # kalpal 2013-02-06 14:14
Unlike the blossoming wealth Bush created during his 2 worthless wars paid for on credit? Why did the GOP leave such a vomitous mess? Its all it knows how to do?
 
 
-4 # NOMINAE 2013-02-05 23:56
Quoting ganymede:
I don't know what it's going to take to drive a stake through the heart of the heartless, vampire Republican Party, but if anyone has a chance to do this it's Hillary Clinton. Not that she and the core of liberal, progressive Democrats are going to change America for the better, but at least it will keep us on the slow, but righteous path to salvation.


Yeah, except that when the Clintons were in the White House they were IN BED with the Republicans. Who Passed NAFTA? Who passed CAFTA ? Both of which sucked jobs out of this country like a hole in a fuselage at 33,000 ft ?

Who set up the financial collapse by REPEALING the Glass-Steagal act ?

And, what First Lady was seen attending fund raisers in the '90s on the arm of Republican notables such as then Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich ? You know.... the AUTHOR of the VERY REAL "vast right wing conspiracy" ?

Hillary is just as willing as was Bill to "suck up" to whomever has the power, ready to go wherever a favorable political wind would take them. It's just that Hillary was NEVER the political genius that her husband is, and therefore has more trouble "reading the winds".

The only real appeal to Hillary as a candidate, is that most people think they would have "two-for-one" Clinton leadership with Bill as "First Fellah". In which case Hillary would NOT be the first female president, she would be merely a member of the first "couples" Presidency.
 
 
+10 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 07:04
(Both of which sucked jobs out of this country like a hole in a fuselage at 33,000 ft.)

And yet....and yet.......durin g Clinton's administration, the Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969....AND.... 20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration.
 
 
0 # NOMINAE 2013-02-06 16:04
Quoting bmiluski:
(Both of which sucked jobs out of this country like a hole in a fuselage at 33,000 ft.)

And yet....and yet.......during Clinton's administration, the Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969....AND....20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration.


You are so correct, AND the Clinton Administration left the country with a BUDGET SURPLUS when they handed over the "Keys" ! YES.

Everything that you mention above is true, and was accomplished with not just a LITTLE help from the Dot Com Bubble that drove the economy at the time.

To point out the faults of a situation is NOT to pretend that the situation had no benefits. But we devolve into a simple cult of personality if we are unwilling to look at BOTH the good and the bad.

So many people today fall into that trap in re: Barack Obama.

Ignoring the facts on the ground just because "he's OUR Man" is nothing more than a vote on American Idol. Adolescent.

And voting for ANYONE based upon what they have between their legs rather than what they have between their ears is just as immature.

But for both of the Clintons we have a LONG "track record" to which we can refer, and it is not always flattering !

Like almost everyone else on the planet, I LOVE Bill Clinton. But I don't pretend that the man walks on water. They don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing ! :)
 
 
0 # RLF 2013-02-13 07:02
And the pay for those jobs continued the Raygun begun plummet...keepi ng the Clinton Wall St. pals in the money.
 
 
+3 # kalpal 2013-02-06 14:17
And during the Clinton years we had one of the worst fiscal depressions ever experienced in the history of this natiion, right?

Who would want more of that?
 
 
0 # RLF 2013-02-13 07:03
He also created a nassty recession that Bush inherited....wh o had a terrible time until 9/11, at which point war economics took over.
 
 
+21 # wrodwell 2013-02-05 21:46
Word of caution to Democrats: don't get too cocky thinking that Hillary Clinton is the next installment in a line of of Dynasty Democrats. If the Republicans have any brains at all (that's debatable) they'll run Chris Christie and his 72% approval rating in the Democrat majority state of New Jersey, instead of Kid Rubio or Lyin' Ryan. Christie's recent appearance on the David Letterman show eating a donut in response to Letterman's constant "fat jokes" was a stroke of political genius. Christie seems to be the only Republican who's able to see that there's more than one way to skin a cat. As always with Republicans, the eventual presidential candidate will be the one who raises the most money. That's how they ended up with Romney and Bush 2. Christie is the only Republican who'd appeal to Progressive/Lib eral/Democrat constituencies and his tough-talking demeanor would get the full support and enthusiasm of most Republicans. That's if Christie manages to avoid becoming a diabetic or having a heart attack during the next 4 years. Stay tuned.
 
 
+3 # Rain17 2013-02-05 21:54
Christie can't win a Republicam primary. He's too moderate for the GOP.
 
 
+1 # Mrcead 2013-02-08 10:44
I was thinking the same thing.
 
 
0 # Pickwicky 2013-02-09 14:58
Rain--Christie is too much of a thug!
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2013-02-05 22:46
Better that the American public votes to dump both the Rethuglicons and the Demorats and goes with the Green Party. Yah, I know, you're laughing today, but just you wait. The fact that the Greens have NO corporate ties is going to become more and more appealing with time.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 07:05
Until the "Greens" do their work on the ground and create a grass-roots movement (which means money)k, they'll always be just a fringe statement.
 
 
0 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 12:31
Quoting bmiluski:
Until the "Greens" do their work on the ground and create a grass-roots movement (which means money)k, they'll always be just a fringe statement.


Since you've been asking so many questions of others, I'll ask you a couple in relation to your comment here. And take your time because it's for posterity.

On which issues do you disagree with the Green Party?

Where, ideologically, is Hillary better?

And please keep your answers in context to the questions. Don't get into "electability" or how she will work better with congress, etc.

Go ahead and feel free to show off a bit.
 
 
-3 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 14:12
As I knew.

Crickets, crickets.
 
 
+16 # davidr 2013-02-06 00:28
I think Christie has less appeal than meets the eye, but it doesn't matter. The Republicans won't nominate anyone who could appeal to Democrats. They do not want to win on those terms. Period. And anyhow, Christie just isn't their man. He isn't born again, he isn't an Ayn Rand freak (as far as I know), he's neither a good ol' boy nor clubbable, and he isn't a chameleon. He's an east coast, big city, in your face prosecutor. And as he'll freely tell you, people who don't agree with him are idiots. Which Republican primaries is that guy going to win?

How will he answer to the Bible Belt for his (quite proper) defense of a Muslim appointee to the NJ bench? What will he say about climate change when the Jersey shore is barely cleaned up from Sandy, but the Koch brothers are listening to his every word? Will he stand mute in the days before the SC primary when Rand Paul pees on Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? No … and he won't do himself much good with primary voters.

I can't see Christie running a Romneyesque campaign of unalloyed lying and shameless etch-a-sketchin g, in which he disavows his own prior statements and beliefs 10 times a day in 5 different locations. But that's what it'll take, and all of Christie's likely opponents can do it with aplomb: Bush, Rubio, Ryan, Jindal and a bunch of Republican governors. Christie knew he couldn't beat Romney this year. He'll figure out that his chances are no better in '16.
 
 
-1 # FDRva 2013-02-06 03:09
Sorry to burst your bubble. Hillary isn't running and Christie is not exactly the heterosexual macho the NY media portrays.
 
 
0 # RLF 2013-02-06 05:22
Problem is that the Democrats wil try to be Christie in order to fight Christie...and if they win, will end up being Christie...like Obama turned out to actually be Bush.
 
 
+3 # Regina 2013-02-06 09:35
If the Republicans do run calorie-chompin ' Christie, they had better run a truly competent VP candidate -- the stresses of the presidency are not good for a clinically obese male.
 
 
+6 # chuckvw 2013-02-05 21:53
Please, gods, no. Not another corporate hack...
 
 
-2 # Old Uncle Dave 2013-02-05 21:59
Change "Republicans" to "Americans" in that headline.
 
 
-2 # NOMINAE 2013-02-06 16:13
Quoting Old Uncle Dave:
Change "Republicans" to "Americans" in that headline.


So true !
 
 
+4 # PaineRad 2013-02-06 00:19
Be afraid, Democrats. Hillary has demonstrated time and again that she is an establishment chameleon, very much like most of the Dems in the Senate. It is a sad reality that our foreign policy that Hillary, and now John Kerry, must implement is determined by "our" multinational corporations and not by We the People. And that foreign policy has created more enemies and danger for us than anything else.

With regard to throwing your vote away, how is it not throwing your vote away to vote for someone who will govern in a way frequently at odds to your values and vision and will not challenge the powers that threaten to impoverish this country and its citizens and that systematically destroys our civil liberties and mocks the Constitution?

We as voters have only one responsibility -- to vote for the candidate who most closely represents our values and vision.

Handicapping is best left to those who race horses. They don't know which will win, either. It is just this willingness to fall in line with the established authorities that perpetuates the dysfunctional duopoly that today represents BIG MONEY instead of We the people.
 
 
+8 # PaineRad 2013-02-06 00:31
We need to be getting ready for the future by educating each other about issues like the TPP, corporate constitutional personhood, financial parasitism of the big banks, worker-owned and -run co-ops, breaking up the corporate giants, etc. and building movements to change things for our kids.

We need to prepare the candidates of the future by encouraging good people to run for local office. We need to quit being gulled into believing that elections are all about personalities. We need to make them about issues and hold the candidates we elect accountable for supporting those issues once they get into office.

We need to change "the system". We need to put in place policies that will realize the predictions of 40+ years ago; the increased productivity that we have seen should have produced a 20 hr work week and a median income of about $95K. But our employers stole that from us. We need to reinstate the "Great Compression" that gave us 25 years of increasing income equality. We need to revitalize the middle class and make it much larger while living much smarter and shrinking our environmental footprint.

We have very serious issues confronting us. It's about time we confronted them. Elections are important, all of them from city or town to county and state house. If we just get interested in the federal elections, we lose. If we just think about this election, local or otherwise, we lose.
 
 
-1 # Scotty44 2013-02-06 00:51
What a bunch of garbage. Did he even bother to see what other candidates would pole ahead of Republican candidates in enough states to win? Does it matter before the billions are spent on propagandizing the voters? He's just focusing on Hillary. Bill sold us out with NAFTA, GATT, WTO, destruction of welfare, repeal of Glass–Steagall , an unnecessary war in Bosnia - in other words - just another corporate enabler, just like Obama, except he didn't decimate our human and civil rights. He left that for Bush and Obama. Hillary was Sam Walton's little lady - just another corporate lawyer. Neither Bill or Hillary have condemned Obama's abuses. We can't stand another one of those fascist enablers controlling the power of our government. I would rather see a Republican win. At least the Democrats would resist a little before they were spanked and sent to their rooms.

If you don't get behind Jill Stein (or her equivalent), you're a fascist party operative - not a progressive or a liberal. Either that, or you are a coward, and you doom humanity. Stand up for what you love for the world's sake! As Roosevelt said "All we have to fear is fear itself." Sticking with the Democrats expresses your fear - if you're not a fascist.
 
 
-3 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 07:08
Wow, you almost had me until you reverted to 2nd grade name calling......"y ou're a fascist party operative"....R EALLY?????
 
 
0 # Scotty44 2013-02-06 10:44
Name calling is 2nd grade? People of all ages and maturity do that all the time. They call themselves and others Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, progressives, liberals, Marxists, Communists, freedom fighters, pragmatists, fear mongers, lovers, fighters, Mom, Dad, etc. I bet your objection is more that you see fascist as a negative, rather than the labeling.

That being said, I should have limited the statement to those that are promoting fascist enabler candidates. I goofed - probably because I was really ticked off by the article.
 
 
-7 # FDRva 2013-02-06 01:51
This analysis of the Clinton electoral appeal was also true in 2008--when Wall Street chose Obama to be their bailer-outer-in-chief.

Unless Barry Obama drastically changes his pro-Wall Street profile the Democratic nomination will be the kiss of death in 2016.

The Democratic Party has a Wall Street problem.

I can see why Secy Clinton might want to decline the honor of the President's endorsement--th e President's insincerity aside.
 
 
-2 # bmiluski 2013-02-06 07:10
Again.........w ho is this Barry? I almost want to ask if he's the same as Georgie Porgie.....but I was raised with manners.
 
 
0 # FDRva 2013-07-15 11:19
If you think 'Barack' Obama ever really liked to be called 'Barack' after he left grade school--but before he ran for President--you are no friend of his.
 
 
0 # FDRva 2013-07-15 11:49
The Democratic Party has a Wall Street problem. Duh.

bimuluski has a moral problem in defending the White House.

I knew Barry--before you ever heard of "Barack"

Bye, now.
 
 
-10 # RMDC 2013-02-06 02:30
I doubt if hillary could win. She has all the charisma of a troll. But it may be that the republicans continue to self-destruct but still I think there are many democats who would beat her in the primaries. She and her master, Bill, have a declining base of strong supporters. The younger generation don't admire the Clintons at all. Hillary is a has been.

Hillary's politics are really bad. She's even worse than Obama.

We don't know where the republicans will be. If they put up a team like Romney and Ryan, maybe anyone could beat them. But Hillary will fade into nothing over the next 4 years.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2013-02-06 05:19
Be afraid, be very afraid Liberals because Hillary is no Liberal. She, like her husband is pro-business which you can read as bought and paid for by the banking establishment, just like her husband. The banking mess we are now in was created as much by Billary as Bush...so beware of hoping for this fake, or you might just get what you're hoping for...and will find out it is a fake just like Obummer!
 
 
+7 # mgwmgw 2013-02-06 05:53
If Progressives want someone to the left of Hillary, then it might be worth thinking about who. If is easier to criticize the alternative you have than to come up with a better one.

So, what if Bernie Sanders ran? Even if he did not win, would it change the discussion?

Who else?
 
 
+3 # Robert B 2013-02-06 07:10
Howard Dean.
 
 
+4 # Onterryo 2013-02-06 08:20
I gave you a plus but the Democratic Party cannot do what the Republicans have been doing since 2008, i.e. we cannot force the Party's nominee to move so far to the left that the middle is lost by either indifference or voting for the Republicans. It is extremely important the the Dems win the presidency in 2016 and 2020 if we are to see reasonable and wise people appointed to the Supreme Court. Then and only then can we expect to see real change! Change will occur, sometimes glacially, but we have to be patient because at some point gerrymandering, long line-ups at voting booths and excessive election spending will become so offensive in this democracy that SCOTUS will ensure they are eliminated or severely limited. Once that happens it will be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" and not just for the wealthy and the corporations.
 
 
+5 # Scotty44 2013-02-06 15:25
As long as the oligarch enablers appoint the judges, the judges will protect the oligarchs. If you haven't guessed it by now, both parties are controlled by the oligarch enablers. The SCOTUS will not be our salvation. Only adequate and good information will be.
 
 
+4 # Scotty44 2013-02-06 10:32
Jeff Merkley, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Elizabeth Warren - maybe.
 
 
+4 # Onterryo 2013-02-06 06:23
You can take any position you want on Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren today, but remember that when the voting starts the MOST important thing is to win the presidency again in order to appoint the judges we need in the SCOTUS. Once that is done a lot of things can be and will be done provided the Democrats can keep their majority in the Senate AND win back the House in 2016 or 2020. What the potential candidates say and do over the next 2-3 years, especially on hot issues and in response to crises, will be critical. There is no point in fielding anothe candidate like McGovern or Dukasis "on principle" and lose the White House for another 8 years when SCOTUS judges will be retiring. Just look at what the appointees from the Reagan and Bush years have done to justice, fairness and equity in the US!
 
 
+5 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-06 06:58
Hello everyone. It is 2013. There is a congressional election in 2014.

NOW is the time to make sure that only true Progressives with an agenda of economic equality, a morality based military and foreign policy, a strong endorsement of the 4th amendment, and an end to corporate personhood; are on every ballot. If that happens Hillary (and Bill) will be even more anachronistic than they are already.
 
 
-1 # Allen 23 2013-02-06 07:13
The Democrats are not the vehicle for changing this country around. All those who ignored this reality and told us that these hacks are the only realistic way to go about looking for defeating the rich reactionaries that currently control both corporate parties are the ones who have been thoroughly unrealistic, and they should be ashamed at themselves because they are always going to be BIG LOSERS with the strategy they have. Instead, one can easily see them already scurrying for beginning the 2016 campaign where once again they will tell us that is a life and death matter to vote Democratic Party once again. They never seem to learn anything.

In the 4 years between then and now they will do no organizing for anything radical or 'progressive', but just organizing for 'getting the vote out' for basically all the wrong people once again. They will do their damned best to try to sell us that they are really all the greatest and utterly different than their Republican cohorts in the Big Business organized crowd. And once again they will be wrong.

Until we get tired enough of this false 'choice' and begin to oppose it, this country is spiraling downward good and fast. Your puerile votes for conforming centrists ARE the problem, as much even as the Republicans you think that you are opposing.
 
 
+7 # mrbadexample 2013-02-06 07:14
Beyond anything else, any other demographic issue or connection with voters, Hillary has a Karl Rove problem. It's a tractor-trailer full of opposition research he gathered in 2008 when Clinton was thought to be the presumptive nominee. I don't know how well or how badly that stuff will age, but I don't expect that Rove ever counted Hillary out of the running. If anything, it's clear that it was a goal of the GOP to besmirch Clinton's handling of the Benghazi raid, a hatchet job handled by McCain, who passes for whatever eminence grise the GOP has left.

Will Clinton be up to running? and why are we talking this way less than a month after the current guy (who has a torturous four years ahead) was sworn in again?
 
 
+2 # REDPILLED 2013-02-06 09:06
Ah, yes. Yet another imperialist Democrat ready to impose the Empire on people around the planet and Clintonomics on us here at home. Look at how well that worked out last time: ending welfare, ending Glass-Steagall, 78 days of terror-bombing Yugoslavia. Why not combine both corporatist parties into one and call them what they really are: the Corporate/Imper ialist Party. That way, Hillary can run with Marco Rubio as her running mate and get the white votes, the women's votes, and the Hispanic votes.
 
 
+2 # David Starr 2013-02-06 11:02
I'm sure Hillary Clinton can get in the face of the GOP, sometimes anyway.

I remember her performance regarding Libya, and it makes me feel more discouraged with the "new" Democrats, who are neoliberals more than anything else. That's no better than the neocons, although the latter are more "hungry" to try and provoke imperial wars
 
 
+3 # Onterryo 2013-02-06 12:32
Neoliberalism arose because it occurred to some that Democrats could never govern without conveying to the average American voter that they had a fundamental understanding and appreciation of the economy, jobs and growth. The Democratic Party has a big tent and is inclusive of all sorts of "tags". There is nothing wrong with having a neoliberal in Washington, but electing DINOs is, and has been, an anchor on progress (and, yet, still better than a Republican). In a very small number of states it is possible to even imagine a socialist environmentalis t being elected but running a full slate of them in 2016 would leave Republicans with huge majorities in Congress and the Presidency. Yes, we can all aspire to certain ideals but the route we take to get there may have to be circuitous in order to avoid the minefields and traps laid by the Republicans. No matter what opinions you may have about President Obama, he and his team and the Party managed to overcome obstacles that would have defeated anyone else. If you really think we would have been better off with Romney than with Obama..well then, I have news for you! Yes, there may have been better Democratic choices in 2012 than Obama, but none were electable (unless, like many Republicans you believe the polls are fixed). The question is there anyone better than Hillary in 2016 AND electable.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2013-02-06 13:59
@Onterryo: Conveying to the average American voter to show neolibs have an understanding of the economy, jobs and growth doesn't have to mean leaning toward the right, which has a 19th century-like mentality related those three factors, i.e., a Gilded Age wet dream.

Neoliberals have gone along more and more with policies neocons support: Willing to cut social programs, fast-tracking NAFTA into existence, signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, a willing, borderline resemblance to the neocon's arm-chair warrior mentality.

Obama publicably supported progressive-lik e policies during his two electoral campaigns at first, but, after elected, took a reverse course on pehaps the most important issues where progressivism was needed. He almost continually buckled under to the party of no.

I get the feeling that with Repubs in power, things could get worse quickly; with the Dems in power, things could get worse more gradually. But, either way...

Dems willing to cut the very programs from New Deal policies-create d by Dems- is quite an irony. I wonder how far this is going to go. Will the Dems continue to give in to further cuts, e.g., in Social Security? The GOP would go along with that since their goal is to weaken/eliminat e social programs.

I did vote for Obama in 2012 to keep Romney out. But I'm seeing a continuing pattern where only a few Dems are worth supporting.
 
 
-1 # noglobalgulag 2013-02-06 11:47
Thank you REDPILLED. To your list I might add the passing of Nafta and subsequent loss of jobs, outsourced to lower environmental and labor standards, dumping of rice on Haiti, then later GMO corn on Mexico, abandonment of Rwanda, etc. So much for so called humanitarian wars. Only when it suits some greater imperial interests.
Also, many of my thumbs up or thumbs down have been registering the opposite. For example, on the very first post, nicetoblucky, my thumbs up changed it from a -9 to a -11. Several others did likewise although most were accurate. I was very careful to pay attention that I was hitting the right symbol.
 
 
+2 # Scotty44 2013-02-06 16:01
The monitor explained that when I would rate a comment, the update on my machine would include the rating by anyone else that had rated that comment since I had uploaded the page.
 
 
0 # nice2blucky 2013-02-06 11:54
Voting your conscience and/or for the candidate who best reflects your views is not risking, nor is it EVER wasting a vote.

It's you who needs to FIND AND VOTE for candidates that best reflects your views. Not just vote for the whom the Party insists is ELECTABLE. You know that third-Party candidates are there, and more or less what they represent. Google them and find their candidate. It's not rocket science.

Also, think about this, as you refer to (the myth of) wasting votes: Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, GHW Bush '92, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter '80, Ford, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Nixon '60, Adlai Stevenson '56, Adlai Stevenson '52, Thomas Dewey '48 and Strom Thurmond, T. Dewey '44, Wendell Wilkie, Alf Landon, Hoover '32, Al Smith, John Davis and Robert La Follette, James Cox, Charles Hughes, Teddy Roosevelt '12, W.J. Bryan '08, Alton Parker, W.J. Bryan '00, etc.

Furthering your logic: THESE ARE ALL WASTED VOTES -- just as much as a Green or any other losing-Party vote is.

Add to that, that GW Bush is a twice sitting, never elected President, and still Gore and Kerry votes were wasted.

The end effect of actualizing the twisted, illogical, and failed scheme of voting for the lesser-of-two-e vils is a dual-corporatis t (fascist), faux-Democratic system. Yet, you who doesn't get it, are expressing and furthering ridiculous views, which in some cases "have logic to them," yet lack the completeness that true logic requires.
 
 
+1 # Onterryo 2013-02-06 13:25
I did not use the word "electable" above to indicate that I support the party determining who is and who is not electable. By electable, I mean someone who is not going to either (a) run as a third party and lose and take away votes from the Democratic candidate, or (b) win the nomination because they manage to "game" the process and then lose the election because thye lack the broader appeal or have skeletons in their closet. I am in favour of grass roots movements. I want universal health care. I want tighter gun control, better schools, minimal tuition fees for universities, and more, but I recognize these things do not happen overnight. I cannot support any thought process that could see the Republicans regain power and set back the progress I see coming in the next 5-10 years. This is all about the Supreme Court. We cannot continue to watch SCOTUS be stacked with conservatives. To see that happpen in this decade with set us back one or two generations and, very possible, forever.
 
 
+1 # DarthEVaderCheney 2013-02-06 12:37
Heh heh heh (evil Snidely Whiplash sneer) One of the few pleasures I enjoy more is to watch the Fundies, Conservies, TPods, and republicans sweat ahead of time as to how they're going to beat seasoned diplomatic, experienced political wizards at the ballot box in ANY future elections! Pullup a chair, people, and watch a truly exciting, comical circus!
 
 
+1 # crinvegas 2013-02-06 12:58
Am I the only staunch Democrat who thinks that Hillary is NOT the answer? She's a smart woman, but she's been nothing but a good soldier to spread Obama's foreign policies. They are not her policies. On the truly down side, she has no personality. Brains without charisma, at least some, cannot win elections.Joe Biden has smarts and personality. Unfortunately, he might be a bit old for the office. But I'd vote for him in a minute.
 
 
0 # charsjcca 2013-02-06 20:42
I was born 11 years earlier than Hillary but I think that she will be too old for me to vote for in 2016. I would not recommend my grandchildren vote for her. I will vote for Chelsea Clinton and would recommend that my grandchildren get involved in her campaign. That is my view.
 
 
+1 # drg927 2013-02-07 21:49
Question: Has Hilary said anything about wanting to run?
 

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