It's possibly too early to consider Clinton's nomination a done deal, but that's the way I would bet. And given that …
The article offers up every tired cliche for compromising on progressive principles in the face of electoral reality, but they're tired because they keep coming up and they remain true. I am not at all enthused about a Clinton presidency (she's far too chummy with big corporate interests, for one thing), but looking at anyone the GOP is likely to run, I am horrified by what a Republican victory would likely mean for the country in terms of social policy, foreign policy, climate policy, let alone the next wave of SCOTUS appointments.
Sitting out the election or rallying around a third party candidate (does anyone remember Ralph Nader or how that worked out?) is effectively a vote for the GOP candidate, whomever he turns out to be.
I'm not a Clinton fan, but she'll be fine as a Not-Cruz, Not-Jindal, Not-Walker, Not-Bush, Not-Carson. Which for 2016 may be all I can hope for.
(h/t +Steve S)
There’s A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face
Liberals have two options when it comes to Hillary Clinton in 2016. The option they choose will shape our future for decades to come.
I'm likely to vote third party, but I would much rather have Hillary over anyone else from the Republican side. We need a reformed voting system where you rank candidates, like Australia's system. Our current system encourages "lesser of two evils" voting.
We need better choices from BOTH sides!
+Ryan Beck I agree in principle, but unless Clinton has a solid lead in your voting area / state, your vote is simply one less for her, thus assisting the GOP.
+Dave Hill yeah I get that too, and it does worry me, but I think the Republican vote is going to be split too. I think a lot of young Republicans are going to go for the libertarian candidate, and I'm sure there will be other candidates who get some of the split too. I think frustration with the two party system is very high, and this year may be the best opportunity to show people there are other options.
There are skeletons in Billary's closet. She's not presidential material. It will all come out when the campaign starts for real.
+Ryan Beck Do you think Rand Paul will try to run on the LP ticket when the GOP rebuffs him?
+IJAbraham I officially call your bluff.
+IJAbraham The idea that there are any significant skeletons left in the Clinton closet that haven't been dug up, speculated over, projected, or WAGged about over the past quarter century is highly amusing. The idea that anyone has been storing up such skeletons for the precise moment when the campaign "starts for real" (as opposed to when Ms Clinton was First Lady, when she was running for the Dem nomination in 2008, when she was nominated for or served as Secty of State, or since she's been quasi-running the past few years) is similarly entertaining.
+Ryan Beck I hear that, but I also hear that every presidential season. I'm not thrilled by the two-party system (though some countries with multi-party systems don't find them particularly pleasant, either; coalition-building can be a messy process), but it's what we have, and third party activities haven't been more than a spoiler for one side or the other since — well, pretty much the nation's history.
If there's a lesson to be gathered from the GOP's successes over the past decade or so, it's that such things start at the grass roots, on a local level, and build up. Start getting third party city and county, then state elected officials. That builds local momentum and keeps matters from being as cult-of-personality as third parties tend to be.
A third party vote in the presidential elections strikes me as nothing more than a futile protest, and one that is usually counter-productive at that, unless one truly believes there is no difference between the major party candidates.
+Dave Hill But what about Benghazi?!
+Steve S we'll see I guess. I know of one libertarian acquaintance who isn't impressed with him, but I don't know how others feel. I could be wrong about some Republicans splitting their votes but I guess that's just the feeling I get. My decision for whether I vote third party will be based on the quality of the third party candidate(s) weighed with how Hillary is doing in the polls most likely.
+Steve S Yes, that's it — those many, many investigations into Benghazi (especially the ones run by Republicans) that haven't found Clinton guilty of everything from murder to treason to kicking puppies … were simply building up a secret file of evidence to use during a future presidential campaign! Fiendishly clever of them!
+Dave Hill I agree with you for the most part. I just completely dislike a system where I don't get to vote for who I think is the best candidate out of fear of the worst candidate. I think I would be fine with the complications caused by a different system to avoid that problem. This will be my first presidential election so I'll have to think about this issue and weigh it a lot more I guess, because sadly I am afraid of wasting my vote, as much as I want to vote third party.
To me she is closer to Bush than Warren but I WILL NEVER VOTE GOP/TP AGAIN!
I live in Illinois, a state that will certainly go Democratic in 2016. I will vote for whomever the Green Party candidate is. A vote for any Republican is a vote against my interests, but the same can be said about a vote for Hillary.
Anyway Martin O'Malley may swing her left more.
Jim Webb too.
She has a Progressive in there somewhere.
+SUE Willoughby It's speculative, of course, but I could see her pulling in a more overtly progressive running mate.
Voting by ideology in a two party system is a pandemic of asinine proportions.
+Lee Wm Kiester If you mean that in a two-party system it can be difficult to vote in adherence by one's own ideology, you are correct. That said, one can glean general ideologies of parties and candidates and vote on that basis (for or against).
Needless to say, inane and irrelevant ad hominem against Ms Clinton will be blocked. If you have something cogent to say in criticism of her policies or actions, feel free. If you want to discuss her looks, her age, or her gender, go someplace else.
Off topic, but I wish that site would let us comment using Google+, but it only has a Facebook login to comment.
+Dave Hill So your vote for Hllary is at least she is not as bad as the other guy? Don't you agree that is not a good position to be? As a Senator she only introduced a few legislations and none of them were enacted, even when given to a democratically controlled congress.
+Jeff Subleski and your alternative option for progressive and left of Hillary voters is, try the Right? Or perhaps the Right on steroids, the TeaParty??
Yeah, Hillary is DEFINITELY a move in the right direction–not Right!! Anything but the Right.
+SUE Willoughby I don't understand your question? Hillary is pro wall street and pro big government, she is the worst about what is wrong with the right. I am not a fan of the tea party but at least they are anti- Wall Street anti- big government. There are options on the right, the left has a coronation. I will take options over dynasty/inevitability any day.
+Jeff Subleski god no.
Options on the Right are getting few and more condensed as time rolls on.
Rand??
He went and hitched his horsey to a burning wagon……
+Jeff Subleski I like O'Malley and Webb-Sanders and Warren…..so far!
We're FINE THANKS!
Hillary is still getting her bearings….."we" shall see how she tacks left now won't "we"?
+SUE Willoughby We don't even know all of those that are running on the right at this moment. We do know the left has only one viable candidate that has been coronated without a single vote in her name. That is a very sad state of affairs on the left. Also, it is sad that she is telling people to vote for her because she is female, to make history. How shallow she thinks her supporters are. It should be an insult anytime someone tells you to vote for them on their physical status, whether it be gender, race or good looks. Content of character is what should matter.
+Ole Olson I decline to use FB comments on blog sites. Sadly enough.
+Jeff Subleski If another viable candidate comes out who's got a chance to win, I'll vote for him/her. Until then, I will regretfully settle for "not as bad the other guy."
+Jeff Subleski
"I am not a fan of the tea party but at least they are anti- Wall Street anti- big government."
At what authentic grass roots are left, you are correct. In terms of nearly anyone running on the GOP ticket who is appealing to the Tea Party Right (let alone the foundations of the astroturfed Tea Party organizations), the reality is anything but.
"There are options on the right, the left has a coronation."
As opposed to last time out when Mitt Romney was assumed to be the one true candidate, the primary opponents ran on the "Anyone but Romney" ticket, and in the end Mitt Romney was the one true candidate.
There is nobody who has declared in the GOP, or who is suggested as a likely candidate, who I'd rather see in than Clinton. I wish there were someone else running against her on the Democratic side, but if there isn't that still doesn't change that basic equation.
+Dave Hill The Benghazi thing shows that, if you've got no basis for a scandal, just repeating the bluff has most of the same effect. Ask any Fox News (sic) viewer and they'll tell you that Benghazi is totally a scandal, even if they can't explain how or why.
You can keep the change,I'm looking for a new country.
+Dave Hill I appreciate your honesty. Romney was the front runner last time but he was not coronated the GOP candidate or president as we are hearing with Hillary. Romney had to earn it by winning debates and campaigning hard. He also lost some states in the primaries. Do you see Hillary loosing any states to a democrat candidate? I just think the left, especially younger voters are brainwashed at the moment and that will change when Hillary actually starts to campaign and voters see how shallow and out of touch she is.
Clinton needs our support if only for the simple fact that she may be in the position to nominate up to 4 members of SCOTUS…Those appointments last for decades and effect the county more than anything.
Just remember 2004 when dithering by Dems got shit fer brains re-elected by the tiniest of margins…
+Jeff Subleski no brother romney—lived as a non mormon in utah for 20 years. They just CANNOT KEEP THAT G.D. CHURCH out of the State politics. They OWN the Newspapers in Utah!!!!
No mormon ever.
+SUE Willoughby Not even Huntsman? He was the most moderate Republican in the primary.
+SUE Willoughby Your comment is meaningless in any context. What does Romney's religion have to do with Hillary's inevitability status or lack of meaningful accomplishments? He is not even running for office now.
I think people underestimate Clinton. She grew up in a working class household in Chicago. She is very astute politically and Bill is the greatest politician in the last 60 years (at least). She see's Warren's and Sanders popularity and the passion they raise in voters. She knows which way the wind is blowing. She, like Obama, needs a Dem controlled Senate and at least a 50-50 House to get anything done, though. With out that, she, like Obama will be limited in making any progressive moves on the domestic front…
+Jeff Subleski yet.
You brought up Romney.
And his religion IS HIM. There is no separating it out……did you vote for that silly man?
Hillary would make a fine President.
As would Elizabeth Warren.
Or Sanders.
Anyone as far from what the Right is stuck on is fine with me.
"We shall see won't we"……?
+SUE Willoughby No I did not bring up Romney I was addressing a comment someone else raised about Romney. The comment had nothing to do with religion or you. It appears from your post that you are a religious bigot. You should work on that. It is clear that voting party line is more important to you then issues and character so conversing with you is a waste of time. Good day.
+Jeff Subleski "religious bigot" lol
I am against religious bigots yes!
I am bigoted against religious bigots, okizay……but religious I WILL NEVER BE.
It's funny how they try to shut you down(up) with an arrogant swipe of the hand…..as if!
I think she is a mistake. She has total disregard for other peoples life, Benghazi is an example of that. She has been caught on numerous occasions communicating with terrorist leaders. She takes this countries freedoms for granted. She is for gun control, but the police are killing more unarmed people than private citizens carrying firearms.
+Jeff Subleski Sure, Romney had to run, but the big money was on him at the beginning, and the big money was on him at the end, as each Anyone-But-Romney candidate bobbed to the surface, grabbed some big headlines, then self-destructed.
I've already said I'd welcome another strong candidate, though I'm not sure that either Saunders or Warren are the best choices (largely because I like what they're doing where they currently are). If that happens, I think that's for the better. If not, I don't think it disqualifies Clinton at all.
+SUE Willoughby Romney struck me as far less of a religious extremist than most of his GOP competitors. Of all the things I disliked about him, he didn't seem as likely to impose his religious beliefs on others.
+Joe Hartoebben I could swear I just brought up Benghazi as an example of a fake issue that Fox is trying to make real through repetition.
+Dave Hill Warren is not running. This time. Check with her again in 8 years. Only 4 if Clinton loses.
+Steve S Oh, I know that. She's just mentioned quixotically every time this subject comes up. I like Warren right where she is, in the Senate, causing trouble.
ROFLMAO…..and these folks accuse conservatives of 'fearmongering'…
She is old, antique ideas
+Andrew Lye Really? She's old?
She's a few months younger than Mitt Romney; I don't recall anyone calling him "old" last election.
She's younger than McCain or Ron Paul last time they ran for president.
She's only a few years older than George H W Bush was when he served; don't recall him being called old.
+Dave Hill look at her
+Andrew Lye No. Sick of it.
The radical leftist brand has a 2014 sell by date. The detritus left behind smells like Detroit or a occupy wall street drum circle after two weeks. The "media" aka the defacto propaganda arm of the DNC will make sure to set the parameters of acceptable questions and narrative. They'll bleat baa, baa and all the good little Trotskyites will yell "ready for Hillary!" What the hell has she ever done, other than being a woman, qualifies her to be a president? Obama has shown time after time what a demographic inevitably is worth. Can liberals really be so shallow? Again.
+Andrew Lye Hint: Pretty young women don't win political office. Too sexualized. Distinguished older women (who were actually kinda cute when they were younger) win.
+Jim Sisco What radical left? Occupy was as much populist as leftist, and it really wasn't that radical. I wonder if you're commenting about a different planet.
+Steve S Maybe not in the beginning…..
+Regan G. Not ever.
Vote for Hilary! The rest of them may be dead by 2020!
Warren will gain her experience from Clinton over the next 8 years as V.P.
Thanks to the republican party promoting her in an attempt to screw Clinton and America with inexperience.
I'm not saying Warren isn't intelligent in politics I'm saying she can learn a lot from Hillary and I'm saying it is Hillary's time and I see no reason why the next 16 years won't be controlled by one of these two woman!
And I also expect the outcome to be outstanding compared to every republican since Eisenhower!
+J. Meye Do you really think Warren will be VP?
+Steve S The authoritarians aka the nanny state. It's a theocracy. The state is the religion, ask not what you can do for your country, ask what the state can do to you in the name of the almighty Chicago Jesus.
+Dave Hill I know the blatantly religious nature of him comes out in full force when talking to Utah audiences.
In a mormon's life it is religion 1st, business 2nd, family 3rd or 4th. And Romney was Bishop of his Ward……
Of course it won't play well in a General Election!
Lived it!
😉
Anyhow he hopefully will not run again, but.
Democrats do not follow Democrats into the WH, not unless the first one dies in office. Hasn't happened since the early 1800s.
A Longtime Supporter of High Estate Taxes, Hillary and Bill Seek to Minimize Their Own
In June 2014, Bloomberg News revealed that Hillary and Bill Clinton's rhetoric in favor of high estate tax rates for the wealthy was entirely inconsistent with their own personal money-management activities. First, some background:
In her failed 2008 presidential run, Mrs. Clinton spoke out in favor of requiring wealthier people pay a higher estate tax by capping the per-person exemption at $3.5 million and setting the top rate at 45 percent. During one campaign stop, she fielded a question from a woman who opposed Clinton's plan to pay for universal retirement accounts by freezing the estate tax at a high level. The woman explained that inherited money had already been taxed when it was earned, and that it should not be taxed again simply to fund Mrs. Clinton's program. In response, Clinton said that high estate taxes were actually consistent with traditional American values:
"People disagree about this, but the estate tax, which came into being by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and others, and has been part of our tax system for a very long time is there for a real simple reason: In America, we’ve never liked the idea of massive inherited wealth. Part of the reason why America has always remained a meritocracy where you have to work for what you get, where you have to get out there, make your case to people, come up with a good idea, is that we never had a class of people sitting on generation after generation after generation of huge inherited wealth."
During a presidential debate in 2007, Mrs. Clinton expanded upon the theme that "tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans" were unjust. She explained, for example, that tax revenues from the wealthy were vital to the government, which "should be investing [those revenues] in new energy" and "should be investing in college affordability, universal pre-K …”
Against this backdrop came Bloomberg News' report on June 17, 2014:
"Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it. To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death. The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.
"Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston. 'The goal is [to] really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that’s really what this is,' Sloan said. 'You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.'"
Hillary Rationalizing Why Hamas Hides Missiles in Civilian Areas
"I'm not a military planner but Hamas puts its missiles, its rockets in civilian areas, part of it is that Gaza is pretty small and it's very densely populated, they put their command and control of Hamas military leaders in those civilian areas."
You want her as "Commander and Chief of your MILITARY?!?
#hillary #hillaryclinton
+Larry Olson And the mechanism for this would be…
+Jim Sisco In the real world, authoritarianism is incompatible with a "nanny state". The former wants to exploit you, the latter just wants to make you get three meals a day.
+SUE Willoughby When he's in SLC, he talks up the Mormon angle. When he's not, he doesn't. It's called pandering, and it only has indirect relevance to what a politician actually believes.
+Steve S The mechanism? It's just a fact that voters have not elected two consecutive Democratic Presidents since James Buchanan, way back before the Civil War.
As to "why?", there are a number of analyses, here is one. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/04/history-is-not-on-the-democrats-side-in-2016/
+Larry Olson Quote:
Other sources have described The Federalist as conservative and as a "right-wing outlet".
Well +Steve S, objective facts aren't Republican and Democrat. Democrats have not followed each other into the White House since the 1850s, apart from those that died in office.
+Andrew Lye Well, that's certainly consequential.
+Steve S bull. They are one and the same. And Obama the puppet exemplifies both.
+Larry Olson Speaking more broadly (and probably more germanely), at least in the modern (WWII and beyond) era, presidents of the same party (Dem or GOP) have not followed each other into office except in case of death or resignation with the sole exception of George H W Bush (for a single term).
That's an interesting observation on American politics. So that's definitely a trend that Clinton faces a challenge in bucking. But it's not clear that the usual trends are that has led to that are in play here.
+Jim Sisco Anyone who can look at Clinton (or Obama, for that matter) and accuse her of being a Trotskyite or radical leftist has no actual idea of what those terms represent. Both of them are about as radical leftist as Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower.
+J. Meye Ugh. The last thing I want is Warren as VP, if only because I think her talents would be wasted there.
+SUE Willoughby He's said he isn't running, and I see no basis to think he's being coy about it.
+Dave Hill Anne supposedly eggs him on.
Tells him he is the only hope for America, blah….
Scary but true.
+Larry Olson Don't confuse facts with analysis.
+Jim Sisco You are spouting right-wing nonsense.
+Dave Hill That's correct. The Federalist piece is pretty complete and informational on that subject.
Anything can happen. This historical point was made about Bush I when he ran to follow Reagan. But if you're putting your money on rolling three snake eyes in a row, you're very likely to lose it.
+Steve S you are nonsense. Go troll someone else.
+Dave Hill yeah, no.same peas in a pod. Especially Obama.both his parents were commies, his mentor Frank Marshall Davis a commie. In college, Obama sought out the radicals. If you don't think they are far left then your compass needs a recalibration. Nice try.
+Steve S There is little chance of me being confused. You are the one dismissing analysis unread. So you're given an objective fact to contend with. People don't elect Dem Presidents the way Hillary wants to be elected. Deal with it.
U.S. Taxpayers Spend $55,000 on Hillary's Book Tour Expenses in a Single Month
In August 2014 The Daily Mail reported that during the previous month, the U.S. federal government had spent more than $55,000 on travel expenses related to Mrs. Clinton's book tour (for her newly published Hard Choices). Among these expenses were a $3,668 charge for a single night's lodging in a luxurious suite at the Four Seasons George V Hotel in Paris; another $35,183 for lodging in Paris; $11,291 for Secret Service protection in Paris; and a $5,100 rental fee for three Mercedes-Benz executive limousine vans during one day in Berlin. Hotel costs for Clinton's stay in the German capital were not known to The Daily Mail. Tim Miller, executive director of the America Rising PAC, said: "Hillary's book tour through Europe was a fiscal double whammy — lining her pockets with outrageous speaking fees [typically over $200,000 per appearance] and billing the taxpayers for thousands in travel."
+Jim Sisco Dow Jones Industrial Average 1/1/2009: 9,034. Dow Jones Industrial Average today: 17,977.
Worst. Commie. Ever.
+Dave Hill he's a commie, there's no doubt. And a community organizer what specializes in chaos and confusion. The world is on fire, domestic strife has increased significantly, and the stock market is being fueled by six years of an easy to money policy, just like the housing market before the bubble busted. Obama has betrayed his oath of office repeatedly, America is an evil to Obama.
Food for thought indeed
Sorry, +Jim Sisco. I don't see any profit in continued conversation with vague Fox News (or Globe, for that matter) talking points.
GO GET THEM HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have many votes here in South and North Carolina!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+Dan L. Hilton you're voting twice? Why not play in traffic and not vote at all?
+Jim Sisco It's hilarious for you to accuse me of trolling. Remove the timber from thine own eye.
+Larry Olson The facts are who won each election. Everything else is analysis, and your source is not reliable for this. It doesn't help that the Democratic party is a very different thing ever since the Southern Strategy, so attempts to extrapolate from what came before are pointless.
Hillaryus … http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/24/chelsea-clinton-is-the-perfect-millennial-and-thats-why-hillary-could-lose
The long knives are still sheathed, but they'll get pulled …how about an invitation back to the Senate or House to bayonet or bury her?! She's all set for a Julius Caesar moment.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/look-for-scandal-a-day-with-hillary-run/#j305Ax2kdG81AvJv.99
A scandal a day keeps the reporters awake, maybe, since there is nada to get excited about from an old & tired shrew … My God. Isn't there somebody new, or at least kewl, from you retread regressives – oops, I mean troglodytes, or progressive lites? Take your pick. Nobody is less appealing than KillBillary!
Well said!
"Run, Bernie, run…."
Amazing how many trolls this sort of post attracts. And such stupid ones, at that.
"Go Bernie S!"
Scratch what I said about Nobody. Odysseus' blinded Cyclops is much more exciting than the Pantsuitasauras!
+Steve S, it's true what they say about libs talking to themselves
America just needs a new political system…let alone discussing who to be the next president from a choice of vile scumbag sewer rat candidates. Republicans/Democrats, right/left wing…American politics moves in the same direction…One the most greatest deceptions in history.
Yeah, we sure better watch out for "the most greatest deceptions in history." Pardon me +Nayan Punjab, but are you even American? If not, what gives you the right to talk about "the next president from a choice of vile scumbag sewer rat candidates"?
I get the feeling you're an immigrant to England. We kicked Brits out of these United States for claiming to know better than US about a representative form of government, NOT; they were lorded over by a despot King! Don't pretend to lecture Americans about our political system.
We're constrained by a penchant for a somewhat self-imposed two-party system, not required, getting ourselves the practical choice of the lesser of two evils, but there's room for more.
+Steve S "Amazing" isn't the word I;d use, but, yeah.
Voting for Hillary is a vote to attack Iran (for Israel), and to suck up to corporations like no Democrat before her. I am done compromising. To vote for her would be endorsing the system that is now going to give us a Republican in pants versus a Republican in a skirt to choose from. I will not help this corrupt system by giving it my endorsement. And I will not vote for her, period.
+Timothy W I would like there to be more differences between Clinton and a strong, moderate GOP candidate — but we're unlikely to get one of those, either. If you really feel that there's no effective difference between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker, or Jeb Bush, I have to respectfully disagree.
+Dave Hill
I do, and we shall. But out of curiosity what do you think ARE the substantive differences?
Don't vote democrat or republican. Vote for someone who is going to be a great leader. It's not hillary. Not all the candidates have come in yet. I don't vote by parties I try and vote for the right person for the job. I think Paul Ryan would be a great one. If he chose to run he is the only one who has my full support. He's not afraid to tackle the tough things.
+Timothy W In terms of big business / Wall Street / corporate interests, certainly not much. I expect her homeland security positions to be similar.
I think she will be somewhat more hardline from a defense/diplomacy perspective than Obama has been, but less so (or perhaps more rationally so) than a GOP candidate.
I expect her to be more moderate on social programs than likely GOP picks, though, like her husband, overly willing to compromise.
I think she'll be significantly more progressive on social issues than the GOP, both ideologically and pragmatically.
I would expect her SCOTUS nominees to be more liberal than a GOP president would nominate.
As a Dem president with (most likely) a GOP House and Senate, I would expect her to create a friction/resistance to letting Congress have its own way, in a fashion that a GOP candidate would not.
+Tiffany Swartz Paul Ryan's tackling of budget issues is tax cuts for the wealthy and significant reduction of social services, largely to the exclusion of all else. I don't think that's the right way to tackle it.
+Dave Hill Disappointing, too. These people are so hostile and out of touch with reality that they're just not worth wasting time on. Favorite phrase: "liberal fascists". WTF?
+Steve S It's when it escalates into (or even starts with) name-calling, and nasty name-calling at that, and I'm "Are we in the 5th Grade again?"
I don't mind disagreement. I don't even mind doltish disagreement. But some level of civility is mandatory.
I've banned more people and posts on this thread than I've done in the last two years. It's going to be a long election season.
+Tiffany Swartz I vote based on policies, not people.
Elizabeth Warren is by far the best choice for 2016 but Hilary Clinton is the only realistic option. Even tho she might be a little too centrist and not as progressive she will be great at working with Congress and getting shot done and also, her foreign policy skills are unmatched.
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Rubio have little foreign policy xp. While Hillary might not be the best choice she will definitely do until a more progressive candidate comes along.
+Timothy W If a Republican is elected we will be in several wars not just with Iran and virtually everything will be privatized giving large corporations unlimited power.
Hillary Clinton is the only realistic option hands down.
we are living in difficult time now and i'm not
sure that Hillary could deal with it we need
a strong leader not a continuation of a weak
Obama be a democrat or a republican……..
I voted for Obama the last two times. There is no way I could lend my support to Hillary Clinton! Despite what my peers think this country is not better off right now. A true change is needed and unfortunately she cannot provide it
+guy laurent I don't agree with your premise of Obama being a weak leader, so I'm equally uncertain about your premise that Clinton couldn't deal with difficult times.
Of course, I don't accept the premise that these are especially difficult times, vs. any other period going back at, say, 5 year intervals.
+Dave Hill i only go by what i see him do
and so far i don't see him as a strong leader
you have your standard mine are a little
different than yours i guess we can't all agree
that's the reason we will agree to disagree…
+Mike Rí What specific "true change" do you feel is needed?
+guy laurent I'm wondering what examples of strong leadership that you feel Obama didn't do or step up to.
i don't want to give you a list but i don't like the
way he deal with foreign affairs…
+guy laurent I don't have any particular problem with how he's handled foreign affairs (at least not in general), but without more specifics I guess we'll just have to agree we disagree.
+Mike Rí It's better off than it would have been under McCain or Romney.
Why you people are willing to vote for somebody you don't like is beyond me. Why volunteer to compromise your principals? Nobody is holding a gun to your heads.
+Timothy W Voting serves two purposes:
1. To identify who you like best as a candidate.
2. To put someone in office.
Ideally, these two are the same purpose. But often, in the realm of politics (esp. in a winner-takes-all contest like the presidency), they are not. I may like Elizabeth Warren best, and write her in as a candidate … but if she is not running, my vote will only reflect Purpose 1, not Purpose 2.
Hillary Clinton is not all of that and a bag of chips to me. But in a two-party system election, against a GOP contender, casting m vote for my ideal candidate is not going to get that person elected, and in turn weakens the electability of someone I can tolerate (vs folk I probably can') by that one vote.
I can vote on the principle of adding to the total of someone I like best, or I can vote on the principle of defeating those I dislike most. The latter seems the more prudent course, whether I enjoy it or not.
+Timothy W I'm voting for her, not marrying her. I don't have to love her, or even like her. She just has to be the best candidate, and she is.
+Steve S
She's your candidate. Not mine.
+Steve S If she is the best candidate the USA
is in deep kimchee !!!!! Where were you guys when they were in the Whitehouse? How soon we forget !!!!!!
keep on following on the yellow brick road and it will lead you to nowhere….
Maybe THE DONALD will throw his hat in the ring.
Bernie Sanders 2016! Hillary is fantastic compared to the alternatives, but Bernie Sanders is fantastic compared to Hillary.
+JANET SENKARIK I was voting for Bill Clinton to defeat G H W Bush, Bob Dole, and Ross Perot (twice). I was being disappointed, yes, by legislation like DOMA, and concerned over NAFTA and the shape of some of the welfare reform enacted, but also watching the US enjoy its largest peacetime economic expansion in history, including actual budget surpluses.
I was also watching the GOP morph into the far-Right-pandering, defeat-the-other-guy-at-any-cost band of political hooligans that it has become today.
400,000,000 people in our country yet the only choices we are given are the lessor of 2 EVILS
+guy laurent
Like what?
Cuba? Iran? This is historical!
Drone warfare? Whats better, republican pilfer politics and out of control fuel prices?
Would you rather deal with McCain on foreign policy? How about Rubia, Bush or Cruz?
Obama has done a far better job than any republican would have.
Its nothing but republican bunk like the morning Joe blowhard that says different!
+J. Meye sorry but you are living in a la,la
dream world if you think Obama is doing a good job. i agree with you Mc Cain i don't
want him either forget Bush Rubio, and Cruz,
i don't know enough about them. what we need is a strong leader and i don't anyone in the near future…….
Ever hear of a hustle called "two brothers and a stranger" republican/democratic parties are no more than a fake circus show to distract from the corporate money laundry for the corporate owners.I mean 400,000,000 people in America and the so called choice we are given is the same lessor of two evils. Please the same game plan keeps rolling no matter who is the white house scapegoat fall guy to cover up the fact that We live in a Vatican corporate Fascist dictatorship for the purpose of preventing revolution. Question: How do you prevent slaves from revolting? Answer:Tell them they are free and they choose the leaders. Therefore no reason to revolt.
+David Byrd A "Vatican corporate Fascist dictatorship"? Dammit, my mom told me I shouldn't leave the Church. I wonder if my old membership card still works …
It would be a violation of the 6th Amendment prohibition against 'cruel and unusual punishment' to force the American public to look at that on the evening news for the next 5 years.
Note: sniping at Clinton on the basis of her looks is not only asinine ad hominem sexism of the first order, but will earn you the banhammer.
In the interest of fair play, if Christie decides to run, fat jokes about him will likely incur a similar penalty.
And if Rick Scott enters the race … well, we'll see.
+guy laurent Apparently you just don't get it, to much Fox entertainment and right wing babble probably!
The right wing said they weren't going to cooperate with Obama and they didn't.
Considering everything said and done Obama and the democrats did a fantastic job!
I give him a 96% without the 10% extra he deserves!
From a non partisan white independent point of view!
+J. Meye no what i don't get is idiot like you.
Okay, that's probably it for useful content on this thread.