If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Hillary Clinton would "Clear the field" in 2016   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 100
    More: Obvious, Governor Martin O'Malley, house minority whip, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Biden, Governors of New York, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo  
•       •       •

2082 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2013 at 9:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-20 09:17:29 AM
I don't disagree, but let's remember that we were saying almost the exact same thing in early 2005.
 
2013-02-20 09:17:35 AM
Nice to see her and Bill are still keeping it fresh.
 
2013-02-20 09:19:09 AM
Does anyone else remember that she was, um... really, really bad at this in 2008?  Am I the only one?
 
2013-02-20 09:19:36 AM
she couldn't be bothered to run an energetic, effective campaign before, I don't see why that would change 8 years later
 
2013-02-20 09:20:21 AM

Lost Thought 00: she couldn't be bothered to run an energetic, effective campaign before, I don't see why that would change 8 years later


What, "learning from past mistakes" isn't possible?
 
2013-02-20 09:22:14 AM
Benghazi will haunt her in 2016.
 
2013-02-20 09:22:52 AM

Lost Thought 00: she couldn't be bothered to run an energetic, effective campaign before, I don't see why that would change 8 years later


Because unlike that time she's actually had experience running a campaign and in a political office for a number of years?

The last time she was First Lady, had a senatorial campaign she won with Bill's charisma and connections, and little real experience.

Now, she has actual experience, and would likely have help from the same people that beat her despite her clear advantages in terms of insider connections.
 
2013-02-20 09:23:44 AM

TIKIMAN87: Benghazi will haunt her in 2016.


Are you saying it's Hillary's Macho Grande?
 
2013-02-20 09:24:35 AM

qorkfiend: Lost Thought 00: she couldn't be bothered to run an energetic, effective campaign before, I don't see why that would change 8 years later

What, "learning from past mistakes" isn't possible?


It's possible, but it doesn't happen often for people over the age of 60
 
2013-02-20 09:24:53 AM

Lawnchair: Does anyone else remember that she was, um... really, really bad at this in 2008?  Am I the only one?


To be fair, that was against Obama, who is excellent at campaigning, without having seen him campaign, and not against the hypothetical Rubio/Christie/whoever the fark the GOP decides to throw in the ring
 
2013-02-20 09:25:22 AM
I say this as a NY resident. Please, please let Andrew Cuomo run for President. Just to get him the hell out of here. The only reason he looks like a decent governor is because of the two members of the brain trust who were in office before him. ANYONE would look good after Eliot Spitzer and David Patterson.
 
2013-02-20 09:26:16 AM

Vodka Zombie: TIKIMAN87: Benghazi will haunt her in 2016.

Are you saying it's Hillary's Macho Grande?


No, this is Obama's Macho Grande. But he couldn't handle it.
 
2013-02-20 09:26:31 AM

TIKIMAN87: Benghazi will haunt her in 2016.


No it won't.  if anything, that would only help her get elected.  what's going to sink Hillary is her inability to lead.  her performance in the DNC primary race against Obama was epic levels of incompetence.  she's not only tone deaf when it comes to judging her own party, but she also showed Romney levels of truth twisting insanity (dodging sniper fire in Bosnia?  really?).

I know I won't vote for Hillary.  Not only do I think she's a terrible leader, but I also am very very tired of political dynasties.  No more Bush family, no more Clintons, no more Kennedys.  No more Romney.  I'm flat out against electing ANYONE who's the son or daughter of a career politician.
 
2013-02-20 09:28:46 AM
You know what we be smart after running a hard-fought Obama reelection campaign to keep young, minority, and other disaffected voters engaged in the political arena despite their disillusionment with the process? Running some old, white, dynasty candidate that feels entitled to their turn at running the country. Is the DNC trying to throw the 2016 election because they have a lot of outstanding loans or something? Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden is a good candidate. Start grooming Cory Booker immediately.
 
2013-02-20 09:29:04 AM

yawn_stretch: I say this as a NY resident. Please, please let Andrew Cuomo run for President. Just to get him the hell out of here. The only reason he looks like a decent governor is because of the two members of the brain trust who were in office before him. ANYONE would look good after Eliot Spitzer and David Patterson.


Also recall who his opponent was in the last gubernatorial election.
 
2013-02-20 09:30:43 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You know what we be smart after running a hard-fought Obama reelection campaign to keep young, minority, and other disaffected voters engaged in the political arena despite their disillusionment with the process? Running some old, white, dynasty candidate that feels entitled to their turn at running the country. Is the DNC trying to throw the 2016 election because they have a lot of outstanding loans or something? Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden is a good candidate. Start grooming Cory Booker immediately.


Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.
 
2013-02-20 09:31:48 AM

Lawnchair: Does anyone else remember that she was, um... really, really bad at this in 2008?  Am I the only one?


Hopefully she learned something from the experience.

And anyone who had any part of managing her 2008 campaign is not allowed within 1000 miles of this one.
 
2013-02-20 09:33:07 AM

qorkfiend: Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.


If that woman is old, white, and named Clinton, it probably will. The GOP could run Jeb Bush. We could start the 90s-00s all over again.
 
2013-02-20 09:33:58 AM

qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You know what we be smart after running a hard-fought Obama reelection campaign to keep young, minority, and other disaffected voters engaged in the political arena despite their disillusionment with the process? Running some old, white, dynasty candidate that feels entitled to their turn at running the country. Is the DNC trying to throw the 2016 election because they have a lot of outstanding loans or something? Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden is a good candidate. Start grooming Cory Booker immediately.

Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.


no more dynasties.  Not Republican ones, not Democratic ones.  Hillary would be a horrible choice for the Democratic party in 2016.
 
2013-02-20 09:34:46 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: qorkfiend: Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.

If that woman is old, white, and named Clinton, it probably will. The GOP could run Jeb Bush. We could start the 90s-00s all over again.


And why would that be? You seriously think that people will go "To hell with it, I'm voting Republican" simply because the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton?
 
2013-02-20 09:35:27 AM

Weaver95: qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You know what we be smart after running a hard-fought Obama reelection campaign to keep young, minority, and other disaffected voters engaged in the political arena despite their disillusionment with the process? Running some old, white, dynasty candidate that feels entitled to their turn at running the country. Is the DNC trying to throw the 2016 election because they have a lot of outstanding loans or something? Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden is a good candidate. Start grooming Cory Booker immediately.

Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.

no more dynasties.  Not Republican ones, not Democratic ones.  Hillary would be a horrible choice for the Democratic party in 2016.


It's not a dynasty if you have to get elected on your own merits.
 
2013-02-20 09:37:03 AM
qorkfiend:
And why would that be? You seriously think that people will go "To hell with it, I'm voting Republican" simply because the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton?

no, but if my choice is between a theocratic nutball Republican and another Clinton then...well, f*ck.  I'm staying home that election cycle.  I'd vote libertarian but those stupid sons of biatches want to hand control of the internet over to Comcast and that's dumber than putting Hillary in the oval office.
 
2013-02-20 09:38:12 AM

Weaver95: qorkfiend:
And why would that be? You seriously think that people will go "To hell with it, I'm voting Republican" simply because the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton?

no, but if my choice is between a theocratic nutball Republican and another Clinton then...well, f*ck.  I'm staying home that election cycle.  I'd vote libertarian but those stupid sons of biatches want to hand control of the internet over to Comcast and that's dumber than putting Hillary in the oval office.


Seriously? You'd voluntarily turn control of the country over to a theocratic nutball Republican, rather than see Hillary Clinton in office? Why do you believe this to be the best course of action?
 
2013-02-20 09:38:46 AM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You know what we be smart after running a hard-fought Obama reelection campaign to keep young, minority, and other disaffected voters engaged in the political arena despite their disillusionment with the process? Running some old, white, dynasty candidate that feels entitled to their turn at running the country. Is the DNC trying to throw the 2016 election because they have a lot of outstanding loans or something? Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden is a good candidate. Start grooming Cory Booker immediately.

Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.

no more dynasties.  Not Republican ones, not Democratic ones.  Hillary would be a horrible choice for the Democratic party in 2016.

It's not a dynasty if you have to get elected on your own merits.


I don't care.  which part of this is so difficult to understand?  NO MORE Bush family, no more Clintons, NO MORE Kennedy family.  No more Romney clones/pod people.  I'm tired of seeing the same names on the ballot(s) all the damn time.
 
2013-02-20 09:39:56 AM

qorkfiend: yawn_stretch: I say this as a NY resident. Please, please let Andrew Cuomo run for President. Just to get him the hell out of here. The only reason he looks like a decent governor is because of the two members of the brain trust who were in office before him. ANYONE would look good after Eliot Spitzer and David Patterson.

Also recall who his opponent was in the last gubernatorial election


I could never forget Carl Palladino. I think he quite nearly managed to piss off every constituency in New York State at nearly the same time. That's something to be proud of.
 
2013-02-20 09:41:02 AM

Weaver95: qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You know what we be smart after running a hard-fought Obama reelection campaign to keep young, minority, and other disaffected voters engaged in the political arena despite their disillusionment with the process? Running some old, white, dynasty candidate that feels entitled to their turn at running the country. Is the DNC trying to throw the 2016 election because they have a lot of outstanding loans or something? Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden is a good candidate. Start grooming Cory Booker immediately.

Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.

no more dynasties.  Not Republican ones, not Democratic ones.  Hillary would be a horrible choice for the Democratic party in 2016.

It's not a dynasty if you have to get elected on your own merits.

I don't care.  which part of this is so difficult to understand?  NO MORE Bush family, no more Clintons, NO MORE Kennedy family.  No more Romney clones/pod people.  I'm tired of seeing the same names on the ballot(s) all the damn time.


What's strange to me is that you would disqualify people from holding office on the basis of their family.
 
2013-02-20 09:41:09 AM

qorkfiend: And why would that be? You seriously think that people will go "To hell with it, I'm voting Republican" simply because the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton?


Because Hillary Clinton isn't an energizing figure. Her gender is meaningless because she's basically the poster child of the entitled Washington establishment. Furthermore people already had the chance to see her as a presidential candidate, and decided to go with someone that inspired them. People won't vote Republican if Hillary is the nominee, but barring a miracle where she starts channeling Elizabeth Warren, they'll just stay home and play XBox instead of going to the polls.
 
2013-02-20 09:42:08 AM
Strangely, the GOP says Obama will be clearing fields in 2016.
 
2013-02-20 09:43:01 AM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend:
And why would that be? You seriously think that people will go "To hell with it, I'm voting Republican" simply because the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton?

no, but if my choice is between a theocratic nutball Republican and another Clinton then...well, f*ck.  I'm staying home that election cycle.  I'd vote libertarian but those stupid sons of biatches want to hand control of the internet over to Comcast and that's dumber than putting Hillary in the oval office.

Seriously? You'd voluntarily turn control of the country over to a theocratic nutball Republican, rather than see Hillary Clinton in office? Why do you believe this to be the best course of action?


Because if/when our elections become nothing more than Hobson's choice, there's no point in even pretending to play in a rigged game.  my choice has already been made for me, anything I say or do afterwards is merely cosmetic and pointless.  if that's too cryptic for you tho, then lemme put it to you this way - Hillary is JUST AS BAD as [insert GOP religious fanatic here].  so are the libertarians.  there's no point in even pretending to care about that list of 'choices'.  i'll save my time and money and go get drunk on election day and toast the death of democracy in this country.
 
2013-02-20 09:43:10 AM
not a fan of political dynasties but I don't think she'd make a bad president.

I have to admit, I am curious as to what a female presidency would bring. I only speak from my own admittedly narrow perspective and experiences around the women in my life (wife, mom, daughter, bosses, x-girlfriends, etc.) but when any one of them digs in their heals on something, it's pretty much game over and the best thing you can do is to just leave the room/situation as quickly as you can, there will be no more reasoning (if there was any to begin with). The current congress vs. Hillary would be popcorn material to say the least.
 
2013-02-20 09:43:22 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: qorkfiend: And why would that be? You seriously think that people will go "To hell with it, I'm voting Republican" simply because the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton?

Because Hillary Clinton isn't an energizing figure. Her gender is meaningless because she's basically the poster child of the entitled Washington establishment. Furthermore people already had the chance to see her as a presidential candidate, and decided to go with someone that inspired them. People won't vote Republican if Hillary is the nominee, but barring a miracle where she starts channeling Elizabeth Warren, they'll just stay home and play XBox instead of going to the polls.


Maybe. If the Republican nomination and campaign are the derpfests we remember from 2012 - and it's almost guaranteed that they will be - that will be more than enough to offset any laxity engendered by Hillary Clinton. Clinton's pick of Vice President would also go a long ways towards fixing that.
 
2013-02-20 09:44:10 AM
qorkfiend:
What's strange to me is that you would disqualify people from holding office on the basis of their family.

well yeah, but then again I actually paid attention in history class the day we covered the Revolutionary war.
 
2013-02-20 09:44:39 AM

Weaver95: Hillary is JUST AS BAD as [insert GOP religious fanatic here].


You're serious? You see not a single speck of difference between Hillary Clinton and a Republican religious fanatic?
 
2013-02-20 09:45:25 AM

Lost Thought 00: she couldn't be bothered to run an energetic, effective campaign before, I don't see why that would change 8 years later


She's got street-cred today.  More experience and being the presumptive nominee, gives you an edge.  But by far the biggest advantage is that she will be running against a GOP candidate accepted by the Tea Party.
 
2013-02-20 09:45:32 AM

Weaver95: qorkfiend:
What's strange to me is that you would disqualify people from holding office on the basis of their family.

well yeah, but then again I actually paid attention in history class the day we covered the Revolutionary war.


Oh? We fought the Revolution so that certain people couldn't run for office?
 
2013-02-20 09:46:07 AM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: Hillary is JUST AS BAD as [insert GOP religious fanatic here].

You're serious? You see not a single speck of difference between Hillary Clinton and a Republican religious fanatic?


nope.  just different flavors of authoritarian badness is all.
 
2013-02-20 09:46:22 AM

rtaylor92: I have to admit, I am curious as to what a female presidency would bring. I only speak from my own admittedly narrow perspective and experiences around the women in my life (wife, mom, daughter, bosses, x-girlfriends, etc.) but when any one of them digs in their heals on something, it's pretty much game over and the best thing you can do is to just leave the room/situation as quickly as you can, there will be no more reasoning (if there was any to begin with). The current congress vs. Hillary would be popcorn material to say the least.


It would probably be something along the lines of Margaret Thatcher, who had to act like she had six balls pumping testosterone into her body in order to overcompensate for the worry that her delicate femininity wouldn't allow her to make the tough decisions.
 
2013-02-20 09:46:43 AM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend:
What's strange to me is that you would disqualify people from holding office on the basis of their family.

well yeah, but then again I actually paid attention in history class the day we covered the Revolutionary war.

Oh? We fought the Revolution so that certain people couldn't run for office?


the Founding Fathers had this thing against monarchy....
 
2013-02-20 09:46:48 AM

Weaver95: qorkfiend: Weaver95: Hillary is JUST AS BAD as [insert GOP religious fanatic here].

You're serious? You see not a single speck of difference between Hillary Clinton and a Republican religious fanatic?

nope.  just different flavors of authoritarian badness is all.


I'm floored. I thought you had a great deal more sense than that.
 
2013-02-20 09:47:24 AM

Weaver95: qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend:
What's strange to me is that you would disqualify people from holding office on the basis of their family.

well yeah, but then again I actually paid attention in history class the day we covered the Revolutionary war.

Oh? We fought the Revolution so that certain people couldn't run for office?

the Founding Fathers had this thing against monarchy....


Someone is proposing re-establishing a monarchy, instead of voting on President every 4 years?
 
2013-02-20 09:47:42 AM

qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: qorkfiend: Yeah, I bet the prospect of electing the first woman President will really turn off young, minority, and other disaffected voters, especially considering her opponent would likely be an old white man.

If that woman is old, white, and named Clinton, it probably will. The GOP could run Jeb Bush. We could start the 90s-00s all over again.

And why would that be? You seriously think that people will go "To hell with it, I'm voting Republican" simply because the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton?


I don't know about anyone else's reasoning for not wanting to vote for Hilary Clinton. Myself, I just can't muster any enthusiasm. She doesn't appeal to me as a candidate. I've never been a fan of the whole concept of the Democratic Leadership Council and she was very involved with that whole movement. There's just something about her as a candidate that's uninspiring. When I think that Daniel Patrick Moynihan retired so she could run for the Senate, it makes me a little sad.

As to your question, I don't think people will vote Republican because she might be the Democratic nominee. I think they will probably do what Weaver is talking about. Stay home. I'll probably vote Green party if she's the candidate.
 
2013-02-20 09:47:59 AM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend:
What's strange to me is that you would disqualify people from holding office on the basis of their family.

well yeah, but then again I actually paid attention in history class the day we covered the Revolutionary war.

Oh? We fought the Revolution so that certain people couldn't run for office?

the Founding Fathers had this thing against monarchy....

Someone is proposing re-establishing a monarchy, instead of voting on President every 4 years?


have you paid ANY attention to HIllary's career at all?
 
2013-02-20 09:49:45 AM

qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend: Weaver95: qorkfiend:
What's strange to me is that you would disqualify people from holding office on the basis of their family.

well yeah, but then again I actually paid attention in history class the day we covered the Revolutionary war.

Oh? We fought the Revolution so that certain people couldn't run for office?

the Founding Fathers had this thing against monarchy....

Someone is proposing re-establishing a monarchy, instead of voting on President every 4 years?


keep voting for the same political dynasties over and over again and  yeah, you aren't a Republic anymore.
 
2013-02-20 09:50:13 AM

Lawnchair: Does anyone else remember that she was, um... really, really bad at this in 2008?  Am I the only one?


In fairness, I think she believed she was a shoo-in.  She thought she'd be the default Dem pick, and that the Republicans were so unpopular after the W. admin that she'd have no trouble waltzing into the WH.  That pesky Barack Obama character, who actually tried during the primaries, kind of ruined those plans.

Anyway, I think she loosened up a bit while at State.  I like her a lot better now than I did 5 years ago.
 
2013-02-20 09:50:35 AM

TIKIMAN87: Benghazi will haunt her in 2016.


no it won't.
 
2013-02-20 09:58:29 AM

TIKIMAN87: Benghazi will haunt her in 2016.


Is this what Republicans believe?
 
2013-02-20 10:00:38 AM
uh how bout no
unless the republicans co-operate and put another clown up
even then id consider the clown carefully
 
2013-02-20 10:15:55 AM
Let's see, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, two of the most charismatic presidents in memory, will be campaigning for whomever the Dems put up. I think they could nominate a piece of toast and have a decent chance.

Seriously, you damn well know G. Dub isn't going to come out of hiding. Rubio's a clown, the other Bush is still a Bush, Christie will probably stoke out before next year at the rate he's going... Who else have the pubs got that can campaign? Piyoush Jindal? Rand PAUL? Those are not serious people.
 
2013-02-20 10:18:02 AM
Please no. I don't dislike Hillary, not really, but I would so much prefer our first lady-President be someone else. Like Elizabeth Warren.
 
2013-02-20 10:40:57 AM
Just another decoy -- present Hillary as the front runner.  Rush and the hordes get whipped into a froth.  Rama-dama, here's the next Obama and everyone keeps firing shots at Hillary.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report