Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   StopHillary2016.org is now a thing. From the creator, a Romney manager, "Obama's 4 year head start let him win" No, not being mentally incompetent helped him win. But go fight your windmills   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, political action committees, executive directors, Republican, Matt Rhoades  
•       •       •

793 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:14 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-06-21 09:15:49 AM  
Is it just a webpage of Benghazi memes?
 
2013-06-21 09:17:27 AM  
Grifters gonna grift.
 
2013-06-21 09:19:05 AM  
This headline is not a good headline.
 
2013-06-21 09:19:47 AM  
That lazy, incompetent, do-nothing empty-suit spent four years organizing, planning, and executing his plan to ascend to the highest office in the land... twice.

That guy can't do anything right.
 
2013-06-21 09:20:40 AM  
If she doesn't run they'll give all the money back right?
 
2013-06-21 09:20:42 AM  
Chances are if you show that headline to most American's they'll wonder what Hillary Duff has planned in 2016 that they need to worry about stopping.
 
2013-06-21 09:21:13 AM  
I guess this guy doesn't realize that the longer a Republican campaigns, the longer he will have to pretend to be a reasonable human being.  You will slip up, it's inevitable...  you won't know a mic is live, or you won't know that you're secretly being videotaped or you'll just forget yourself and say what you really believe.  Starting a campaign this early when you actually require tricking a majority of people is a mistake.
 
2013-06-21 09:21:18 AM  
Yesterday I saw a sign in a window: "I'm Ready for Hillary."
*shudder*
 
2013-06-21 09:21:43 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-06-21 09:22:55 AM  

MichiganFTL: Chances are if you show that headline to most American's they'll wonder what Hillary Duff has planned in 2016 that they need to worry about stopping.


A Lizzie McGuire reunion.
 
2013-06-21 09:23:07 AM  
https://www.stophillary2016.org/

And that's it, the whole page.

I think the GOP should continue to spend lots of time and energy preparing to run against Hillary, sort of for the same reason I think they should spend lots of time and energy combating voter fraud:it keeps them busy not addressing the structural and ideological issues in their own party,

And for the LULZ, never forget the LULZ.
 
2013-06-21 09:23:43 AM  

jigger: Yesterday I saw a sign in a window: "I'm Ready for Hillary."
*shudder*


I've still got a "Searching for Bush" sticker on the back of my conversion van.
 
2013-06-21 09:24:14 AM  

Mercutio74: I guess this guy doesn't realize that the longer a Republican campaigns, the longer he will have to pretend to be a reasonable human being.  You will slip up, it's inevitable...  you won't know a mic is live, or you won't know that you're secretly being videotaped or you'll just forget yourself and say what you really believe.  Starting a campaign this early when you actually require tricking a majority of people is a mistake.


Of course you won't know that you're secretly being videotaped, that's what Oblama has been doing for 10 years now! Wake up libtards!

/no point in secretly videotaping, they'll do it when they know the cameras are on.
 
2013-06-21 09:24:19 AM  
Romney had been running for the presidency since 2005. Didn't help him.
 
2013-06-21 09:24:34 AM  
Why are the conservatives so afraid of a smart, strong, conservative woman?
 
2013-06-21 09:24:55 AM  
America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House.

Yes, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years truly was a dark time in American history.
 
2013-06-21 09:25:04 AM  
I was hoping to sell national parks and then re-lease them for twice the price for the next 5000 years, like a Romney administration would do.
 
2013-06-21 09:25:11 AM  
Love this too:

Our research efforts NOW will help us stop Hillary in 2016.

Honestly, between Whitewater and Benghazi, she might be the single most investigated person in America.
 
2013-06-21 09:25:21 AM  

Rapmaster2000: jigger: Yesterday I saw a sign in a window: "I'm Ready for Hillary."
*shudder*

I've still got a "Searching for Bush" sticker on the back of my conversion van.


I'm assuming that's been on there since 1976 and just took on a different meaning for a bit. Nice work.
 
2013-06-21 09:25:58 AM  
All they need to do is present their rational agenda disapassionately and calmly:

1. She has lady parts and will start crying during a crisis
2. She murdered Vince Foster
3. She is Satan incarnate, also Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and with another slot for a rotating set of dictators to be named on an as-needed basis
4. She will bribe lazy urbanites to vote for her in exchange for free stuff
5. She will bribe illegals to vote for her in exchange for citizenship and free stuff
6. She is teh ghey and will force your children to be teh ghey

They can't possibly fail if they stick to this simple plan.  It's when they start adding on the weird, crazy stuff that things go wrong.
 
2013-06-21 09:26:09 AM  

MFAWG: Love this too:

Our research efforts NOW will help us stop Hillary in 2016.

Honestly, between Whitewater and Benghazi, she might be the single most investigated person in America.


A-Rod.
 
2013-06-21 09:26:12 AM  

Rapmaster2000: jigger: Yesterday I saw a sign in a window: "I'm Ready for Hillary."
*shudder*

I've still got a "Searching for Bush" sticker on the back of my conversion van.


It's the Free Candy on the side that is hindering your efforts.
 
2013-06-21 09:27:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House.

Yes, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years truly was a dark time in American history.


www.joeydevilla.com
Nice foresight, Onion.
 
2013-06-21 09:28:03 AM  

johnryan51: If she doesn't run they'll give all the money back right?


Just like Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, gave back the money they took from their suckers. (Side note: The ad I keep seeing on my right should read, "HELP ALLEN WEST from having to get a job and work like the little people.")
 
2013-06-21 09:28:32 AM  

MichiganFTL: MFAWG: Love this too:

Our research efforts NOW will help us stop Hillary in 2016.

Honestly, between Whitewater and Benghazi, she might be the single most investigated person in America.

A-Rod.


A Rod was a rookie when they started in on her.
 
2013-06-21 09:29:59 AM  
www.rumproast.com
 
2013-06-21 09:30:09 AM  
From the website in question:

"America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House. "

I agree! Who the heck wants budget surpluses and scaled down spending anyway?!
 
2013-06-21 09:30:16 AM  
When your hate of the opposition is stronger than the support of your candidate.
 
2013-06-21 09:31:33 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: peace


Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.
 
2013-06-21 09:32:55 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House.

img.fark.net
"Well...funk YOU, America Rising. I didn't want the job any way."
 
2013-06-21 09:35:47 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.


Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.
 
2013-06-21 09:35:56 AM  
I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.
 
2013-06-21 09:37:14 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.


Don't you remember that epic Hillary/Rudy election back in 2004?
 
2013-06-21 09:37:20 AM  

Kibbler: All they need to do is present their rational agenda disapassionately and calmly:

1. She has lady parts and will start crying during a crisis
2. She murdered Vince Foster
3. She is Satan incarnate, also Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and with another slot for a rotating set of dictators to be named on an as-needed basis
4. She will bribe lazy urbanites to vote for her in exchange for free stuff
5. She will bribe illegals to vote for her in exchange for citizenship and free stuff
6. She is teh ghey and will force your children to be teh ghey

They can't possibly fail if they stick to this simple plan.  It's when they start adding on the weird, crazy stuff that things go wrong.


You forgot:

7. Tax cuts for the rich.
 
2013-06-21 09:37:25 AM  

MFAWG: https://www.stophillary2016.org/

And that's it, the whole page.

I think the GOP should continue to spend lots of time and energy preparing to run against Hillary, sort of for the same reason I think they should spend lots of time and energy combating voter fraud:it keeps them busy not addressing the structural and ideological issues in their own party,

And for the LULZ, never forget the LULZ.


A Norton security warning?

Oh, right, click through, expose my PC...a donation page.

heh.  funny.
 
2013-06-21 09:37:55 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: [www.rumproast.com image 480x239]


ok, please tell me that's real and from pre-election 2012.
 
2013-06-21 09:37:56 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.


Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes
 
2013-06-21 09:37:56 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.


I don't think she's going to run. I have been fairly certain she will not since she agreed to leave the Senate to become Secretary of sate.
 
2013-06-21 09:38:02 AM  
Good luck with that.
 
2013-06-21 09:38:06 AM  
I.....I don't even know what to say to things like this anymore.  the GOP has completely, collectively, absolutely lost it's entire frikkin' mind.  This kind of pants wetting, bed shiatting crying to mommie antic is now their norm.  And they will lose again, and blame everyone but themselves, just like they do now.

I need more coffee, or vodak, or something.  Maybe acid.
 
2013-06-21 09:38:17 AM  
I'm starting www.Husbands4Hillary.org for us liberal men who would have voted for her anyway, but who value the extra poontang that goes along with being an early and overt Hillary supporter.

You can thank me now... ;^)

/the spousal unit is mad for Hiilary
 
2013-06-21 09:38:47 AM  

EyeballKid: Philip Francis Queeg: America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House.

"Well...funk YOU, America Rising. I didn't want the job any way."


What's going on over here now?
 
2013-06-21 09:38:54 AM  

ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes


Random missile strikes are now "wars"?
 
2013-06-21 09:38:59 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: I.....I don't even know what to say to things like this anymore.  the GOP has completely, collectively, absolutely lost it's entire frikkin' mind.  This kind of pants wetting, bed shiatting crying to mommie antic is now their norm.  And they will lose again, and blame everyone but themselves, just like they do now.

I need more coffee, or vodak, or something.  Maybe acid.


Well thanks for playing into their strategy jerk. They know if they're insane long enough they'll drive you to drink acid/kill yourself and then they'll have one less voter against them.
 
2013-06-21 09:39:55 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.

I don't think she's going to run. I have been fairly certain she will not since she agreed to leave the Senate to become Secretary of sate.


She looked terrible the last 6 or 8 months of her tenure as Secretary of State.
 
2013-06-21 09:40:17 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.


I bloody well hope they do. I have nothing personal against Mrs. Clinton, but she does come across as exceptionally ethically ambiguous - I mean more so than usual. I would have some difficulty encouraging my husband to vote for her, and I would have to, since he really doesn't like her.
 
2013-06-21 09:40:26 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.


Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).
 
2013-06-21 09:40:41 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.


I don't know what he's on about, specifically, but launching cruise missiles from afar and enforcing no fly zones counts as "fighting wars" to these idiots.

These are the same morons, after all, who, from Sept. 10 1998 to Sept. 10 2001 couldn't find enough saliva to keep up their blathering about Clinton's "dog wagging" attacks on Al Qaeda then, on Sept. 12 2001 couldn't catch a breath between their attempts at blaming him for not doing anything to stop them from committing the 9/11 attacks.
 
2013-06-21 09:42:05 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Random missile strikes are now "wars"?


Since when is bombing a nation not an act of war? Are you going to argue what happened in the Balkans wasn't a war?
 
2013-06-21 09:42:13 AM  

MichiganFTL: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I.....I don't even know what to say to things like this anymore.  the GOP has completely, collectively, absolutely lost it's entire frikkin' mind.  This kind of pants wetting, bed shiatting crying to mommie antic is now their norm.  And they will lose again, and blame everyone but themselves, just like they do now.

I need more coffee, or vodak, or something.  Maybe acid.

Well thanks for playing into their strategy jerk. They know if they're insane long enough they'll drive you to drink acid/kill yourself and then they'll have one less voter against them.


Now that I've mopped the coffee off the keys...thank you for making their diabolical plan clear and saving me from furthering their cause!  How could I have been so blind?
 
2013-06-21 09:42:19 AM  
Hillary is not going to run in 2016.
 
2013-06-21 09:42:30 AM  

FlashHarry: HotWingConspiracy: [www.rumproast.com image 480x239]

ok, please tell me that's real and from pre-election 2012.


It sure is. They actually announced it the day of the election, if I am recalling correctly. Never did go live, can't imagine why.
 
2013-06-21 09:42:46 AM  

ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes


That's an interesting thought.  Off the top of my head:

Official Reagan:  Beirut, Grenada, Libya.
Unofficial Reagan:  Iran arms sales, Iraq arms sales, Contra support, Mujhadeen support

Official Clinton:  Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, al-Qaeda base strikes
Unofficial Clinton:  ?

Both:  Soviet proxy wars. More can of course be attributed to Reagan, but you can't rightly blame the president for maintaining status quo.
 
2013-06-21 09:42:59 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).


Grenada
 
2013-06-21 09:43:49 AM  

James!: Hillary is not going to run in 2016.


Yeah she is. Unfortunately
 
2013-06-21 09:44:55 AM  
Homies4Hillary.com
biatchesforBiden.com
Castro2016.com
 
2013-06-21 09:45:10 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).


Yeah, you're missing several for Reagan.

I'm surprised you forgot about his great achievement of invading Grenada as a distraction from the Beirut bombing.
 
2013-06-21 09:45:49 AM  
"Mentally incompetent"?  Are we just going to pretend that means what subby seems to think it does?
 
2013-06-21 09:45:55 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).



If you set the bar that low, we'll have to include Grenada, Iran, Iraq, and Honduras to the account of the Blessed and Peaceful St. Reagan.
 
2013-06-21 09:45:58 AM  

ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes


...there have been zero wars fought since Vietnam.

/Plenty of police actions, drone attacks, a few mass troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for conflicts around the world...but no wars.
 
2013-06-21 09:46:16 AM  
Everybody tying Clinton to Somalia...um, thing is, you know who initially sent US troops into Somalia, right? Now, it's easy to forget, given that it was a rare occasion when a Democratic president had to start his tenure in office cleaning up the mess from when the previous president was in over his head.
 
2013-06-21 09:46:49 AM  

ShadowKamui: Grenada


Yup, forgot that one. Clinton still beats Reagan for number of military interventions, though. According to those here though, Grenada wasn't "big enough" to be a "real war".

It's only from the post-Iraq perspective that the 90's look "peaceful" for America.
 
2013-06-21 09:46:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Hillary is not going to run in 2016.

Yeah she is. Unfortunately


Nope.
 
2013-06-21 09:47:53 AM  

ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes


Weren't those NATO actions, and not exclusively a US decision? (unlike Iraq)
 
2013-06-21 09:48:13 AM  

Churchill2004: Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).


So, basically, a bunch of U.N. enforcement operations, most of which resulted in little to no casualties on the U.N. side and hardly any for the U.S., count as "wars" in your book?

Aside from Somalia, that's a pretty shiatty list if you're trying to argue against the "peace" angle, especially considering what proceeded him and it's just completely incomparable to most of the rest of the 20th century.

Yea, I'll take the Clinton years, thanks.
 
2013-06-21 09:48:34 AM  
Haiti

I wouldn't call our intervention in Haiti a war.
 
2013-06-21 09:48:44 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Iran, Iraq, and Honduras


None of these had American military involved- and I'm not trying to say Reagan was great. His wars sucked too. I'm saying it's a myth that Clinton was an unusually "peaceful" President.
 
2013-06-21 09:49:05 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: FlashHarry: HotWingConspiracy: [www.rumproast.com image 480x239]

ok, please tell me that's real and from pre-election 2012.

It sure is. They actually announced it the day of the election, if I am recalling correctly. Never did go live, can't imagine why.


so awesome.

you know, i used to hate the right-wing echo chamber, but now it brings me endless pleasure.
 
2013-06-21 09:52:16 AM  

James!: Nope.


She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.
 
2013-06-21 09:53:14 AM  
stophillary is a website consisting of nothing but a non-flattering picture of Hillary Clinton, two short paragraphs and a pledge form which allows you to enter credit card info.  How can I get into that business?
 
2013-06-21 09:54:10 AM  
Da fuq is that headline even trying to say? Headline is shiat, submitter.
 
2013-06-21 09:54:38 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Iran, Iraq, and Honduras

None of these had American military involved- and I'm not trying to say Reagan was great. His wars sucked too. I'm saying it's a myth that Clinton was an unusually "peaceful" President.


Yes, as a matter of fact they did have US military involved. You might recall that we were blowing things up on a pretty regular basis in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, and occasionally got blown up in return (i.e. USS Stark). As for Honduras, we deployed troops from the 7th Infantry Division and the 82nd Airborne in March of 1988.
 
2013-06-21 09:55:22 AM  

WippitGuud: Weren't those NATO actions, and not exclusively a US decision? (unlike Iraq)


Almost everything on his list was NATO intervention (although, as usual, we were the bulk of forces in those types of operations) or cruise missile strikes and most of them resulted in few if any casualties for NATO forces in general and our troops in particular. I'd be willing to bet that in most of those cases more U.S. soldiers were injured or killed in routine training during the time periods of those 'wars' he rattled off.

Compared to the prior century what with World I, II, Korea, Vietnam, numerous skirmishes in South America, Libya, Lebanon and significant internal strife in the 60s and 70s and the two wars that followed from 2001 to today, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to argue that Clinton's tenure, particularly the last 3/4 or so of it, weren't an unusually quiet time.
 
2013-06-21 09:56:07 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Nope.

She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.


I find the second one more likely.
 
2013-06-21 09:57:13 AM  

Halli: Romney had been running for the presidency since 2005. Didn't help him.

 
2013-06-21 09:57:45 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 09:58:30 AM  
Romney started running for president in 2005, halfway through his term as governor.  His campaign is whining about Obama's headstart?
 
2013-06-21 09:58:56 AM  
"America Rising"? They're running Bob Dole again?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 09:59:32 AM  
Another misfired Republican strategy.  They are focusing solely on the other side's leaders without building up any leaders of their own.  Who do they support?  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not going to run.  If the focus is all about Hillary, she already dominates the discussion and will win.

That leaves the Republicans with Bobby Jindal (idiot) and Marco Rubio (idiot).  Good luck with those guys.
 
2013-06-21 09:59:48 AM  
The stophillary site is brought to us by the AmericaRisingPAC which nothing but a website that asks for money and promises they'll provide some content in the future.  Gotta love the GOP  money raising scam complex.
 
2013-06-21 10:00:59 AM  

skozlaw: Almost everything on his list was NATO intervention


I don't see what difference this makes. If we'd had NATO on our side in Iraq it wouldn't have made the war any less stupid.

skozlaw: or cruise missile strikes and most of them resulted in few if any casualties for NATO forces in general and our troops in particular.


Only an American could say launching cruise missiles and killing people is "not big enough" to be a "real war".

skozlaw: I'd be willing to bet that in most of those cases more U.S. soldiers were injured or killed in routine training during the time periods of those 'wars' he rattled off


So only American casualties count?

skozlaw: particularly the last 3/4 or so of it


Serbia would like a word with you.
 
2013-06-21 10:01:10 AM  
What difference does it make now! I say lets make Chelsea Clinton the next Ambassador to Libya
 
2013-06-21 10:02:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Nope.

She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.


Probably her only real challenge might be Julian Castro, which I would much rather see him become her Vice Presidential pick. Put him in the stable for a few years, let him have two terms of executive branch experience then you have a prime candidate right in the middle of a latino surge in demographics. You have the transition of Obama to Clinton to Castro, which are three strong candidates if they can keep their noses clean. Because lets be honest, 2016 is gonna be a powerhouse year for Democrats. Obamacare is going to be in effect for two years, Afghanistan is gonna be done, the deficit will be lower, you have tons of money already established in the coffers, permanent grassroots organizations for national campaigns, and most importantly TWO Democratic Presidents who have favorable ratings. If the republicans cannot pick up steam then they will not be able to step outside the arena of state politics for a good while. 

/State politics is the only area where republicans seem to be gaining ground.
 
2013-06-21 10:03:35 AM  

James!: I find the second one more likely.


Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?
 
2013-06-21 10:04:37 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Philip Francis Queeg: America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House.

Yes, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years truly was a dark time in American history.

[www.joeydevilla.com image 620x458]
Nice foresight, Onion.


I'm convinced that article was written by a time traveler.
 
2013-06-21 10:05:09 AM  
Obama had a 4 year head start on Romney?
The same Romney who also started campaigning for the Presidency in 2008?
The one who was also unemployed betwixt 2008 and 2012, and didn't have to spend time on little things like running the country?
That's the Mitt Romney were talking about, right?
 
2013-06-21 10:05:27 AM  

James!: WTF Indeed: James!: Hillary is not going to run in 2016.

Yeah she is. Unfortunately

Nope.


To what flash of insight do you credit this unskewed conclusion?
 
2013-06-21 10:05:38 AM  

Churchill2004: I'm saying it's a myth that Clinton was an unusually "peaceful" President.


You're saying something that's not true. You can't just rattle off a list of things and completely ignore their intensity then declare yourself correct solely by quantity. The vast majority of things you listed off had very small theaters of operations that lasted only briefly and were NATO operations to boot. None resulted in mass causalities and as a whole there were only a few U.S. casualties at all. The Haiti example is particularly bullshiat since the entire thing was resolved before the damned troops even landed. And even the one particularly violent example you listed, Somalia, resulted in only about 100 U.S. casualties including wounded.

You're full of crap. The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts, particularly after Mogadishu made him gun-shy about putting boots on the ground in dangerous situations.

Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, I say, you're full of crap.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:26 AM  
Hillary Clinton for Senator from Illinois, 2016. She'd crush Mark Kirk in the election and be able to serve 2 or 3 terms before retiring. That'd be a much better use of her time than fighting a losing battle for POTUS.

She can't win. Too much baggage. Too old in 2016. GOP hates her with a passion.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:27 AM  

tinderfitles: Probably her only real challenge might be Julian Castro, which I would much rather see him become her Vice Presidential pick. Put him in the stable for a few years, let him have two terms of executive branch experience then you have a prime candidate right in the middle of a latino surge in demographics. You have the transition of Obama to Clinton to Castro, which are three strong candidates if they can keep their noses clean. Because lets be honest, 2016 is gonna be a powerhouse year for Democrats. Obamacare is going to be in effect for two years, Afghanistan is gonna be done, the deficit will be lower, you have tons of money already established in the coffers, permanent grassroots organizations for national campaigns, and most importantly TWO Democratic Presidents who have favorable ratings. If the republicans cannot pick up steam then they will not be able to step outside the arena of state politics for a good while.


Who knew Julian Castro was a Farker? Seriously though, you have no shot.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:28 AM  
I think she'll run unless health problems prevent it. But it'd be hilarious if she fakes it long enough to distract the GOP and leave it completely unprepared for the actual Democratic candidate.
 
2013-06-21 10:06:30 AM  
I just want to see Hillary win so I can watch the TeaTards wet themselves for another 4 years.
 
2013-06-21 10:07:04 AM  

WTF Indeed: You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else.


Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008. Her campaign was pretty much constantly in reaction modes, one step behind the Obama campaign. Her campaign neglected the smaller primary states to a large degree, and they simply did not build up the ground organization they needed to win. They assumed they would get the nomination, and that made them very complacent.
 
2013-06-21 10:07:09 AM  

Churchill2004: So only American casualties count?


When you're talking about peace in America, yea, any more dumb questions?
 
2013-06-21 10:07:32 AM  

Churchill2004: ShadowKamui: Grenada

Yup, forgot that one. Clinton still beats Reagan for number of military interventions, though. According to those here though, Grenada wasn't "big enough" to be a "real war".

It's only from the post-Iraq perspective that the 90's look "peaceful" for America.


Or, you know, a post-Vietnam perspective.

I don't really remember anyone saying that Clinton's era was more peaceful than Reagan's. Your brought up that canard.
 
2013-06-21 10:07:45 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: MichiganFTL: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I.....I don't even know what to say to things like this anymore.  the GOP has completely, collectively, absolutely lost it's entire frikkin' mind.  This kind of pants wetting, bed shiatting crying to mommie antic is now their norm.  And they will lose again, and blame everyone but themselves, just like they do now.

I need more coffee, or vodak, or something.  Maybe acid.

Well thanks for playing into their strategy jerk. They know if they're insane long enough they'll drive you to drink acid/kill yourself and then they'll have one less voter against them.

Now that I've mopped the coffee off the keys...thank you for making their diabolical plan clear and saving me from furthering their cause!  How could I have been so blind?


Actually, smart money says this is just a regular old shake-down, collecting money from rubes who have hated Hillary since they were first told to in the 90s and don't even know WHY, they just do.
 
2013-06-21 10:09:01 AM  
"Obama's 4 year head start let him win"

Romney has been running for President longer than 4 years.
 
2013-06-21 10:11:15 AM  

skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts


Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.


Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.
 
2013-06-21 10:13:05 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?


She's utterly incompetent at managing and has a massive superiority complex; her campain is going to screw up again in the primaries
 
2013-06-21 10:13:10 AM  

Churchill2004: skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts

Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.


So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?
 
2013-06-21 10:13:39 AM  

Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.


And here it comes....
 
2013-06-21 10:13:47 AM  

TheBigJerk: Satan's Bunny Slippers: MichiganFTL: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I.....I don't even know what to say to things like this anymore.  the GOP has completely, collectively, absolutely lost it's entire frikkin' mind.  This kind of pants wetting, bed shiatting crying to mommie antic is now their norm.  And they will lose again, and blame everyone but themselves, just like they do now.

I need more coffee, or vodak, or something.  Maybe acid.

Well thanks for playing into their strategy jerk. They know if they're insane long enough they'll drive you to drink acid/kill yourself and then they'll have one less voter against them.

Now that I've mopped the coffee off the keys...thank you for making their diabolical plan clear and saving me from furthering their cause!  How could I have been so blind?

Actually, smart money says this is just a regular old shake-down, collecting money from rubes who have hated Hillary since they were first told to in the 90s and don't even know WHY, they just do.


Oh I agree completely.  Which of course is right back to the bed wetting pants shiatting antics they are so fond of.  Everything that isn't babby jeezus/rich old white man approved is skeeeery!  Must collect more money for the rich!  We don't know why, but they tell us it's what we must do!

I used to weep for them.  Now I just can't wait for them to finish imploding.  Even the shills here don't have much to say anymore.
 
2013-06-21 10:13:50 AM  
Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em
 
2013-06-21 10:13:51 AM  

IlGreven: ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes

...there have been zero wars fought since Vietnam.

/Plenty of police actions, drone attacks, a few mass troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for conflicts around the world...but no wars.


Vietnam (and Korea too) was a police action.

Last declared war for a lotta countries was WW2.
 
2013-06-21 10:14:35 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008. Her campaign was pretty much constantly in reaction modes, one step behind the Obama campaign. Her campaign neglected the smaller primary states to a large degree, and they simply did not build up the ground organization they needed to win. They assumed they would get the nomination, and that made them very complacent.


Hillary's campaign was run well. Her downfall was that no one saw Obama's fundraising system coming. She got unlucky in 2008.  Her ground game was just fine and again, was defeated by an opponent who pulled in hundreds of thousands of new volunteers. You can't plan for or defeat that level of influx. Saying she ran a bad 2008 campaign means you have no idea how that primary was run.
 
2013-06-21 10:14:58 AM  
You know what?  I'm gonna give him every single thing he mentions as a "Clinton War".  Because that means Clinton was the mega-uber-super-war god - and Reagan was a lily-livered hippie coont
 
2013-06-21 10:15:32 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?


Me?  Sure, I'd run.  Hillary? No way in hell.  She's going to spend the next three years with a giant flashing target on her back because everyone believes she's going to run (despite her saying she won't) and once the GOP has spent all their rage on her she'll reiterate that she doesn't want to run and a whole new flight of dem candidates will appear.
 
2013-06-21 10:16:22 AM  

jakomo002: Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em


Yes
Yes
Yes

She makes them very very scared.  Almost as much as the blah man in the WH right now.  Not because of any real threat, but because she's not a rich old white man.
 
2013-06-21 10:16:29 AM  
My early prediction is she will run, and she will win.  Unless the GOP has an electable candidate hidden somewhere.  Maybe Christie, if he can navigate the primaries without going all wing nutty.
 
2013-06-21 10:16:32 AM  

ShadowKamui: WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?

She's utterly incompetent at managing and has a massive superiority complex; her campain is going to screw up again in the primaries


She's utterly competent at managing and doesn't have a massive superiority complex; her campaign is going to pull ahead in the primaries.

You see... if you just make a statement without including an reasons or facts, it's easy to just state the counter argument and it's as valid as yours.  You are really just name calling at this point.
 
2013-06-21 10:17:02 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: America Rising was formed to prevent Americans from ever having to see another Clinton in the White House.

Yes, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years truly was a dark time in American history.


It allowed the poors and riffraff a chance to pull even with the wealthy. Why, they even had to tolerate some of the filthy unwashed at their country clubs.

Thank Hayek for Bush, though. He returned the world to its proper order.
 
2013-06-21 10:18:05 AM  

jakomo002: Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em


She killed a man while whitewater rafting or something. It has never been clear.
 
2013-06-21 10:18:51 AM  

max_pooper: So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?


Who said anything about the GOP? I just don't think a man who bombed several countries and launched an illegal war in Serbia should be held up as an exemplar of "peace."

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....


So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?
 
2013-06-21 10:19:01 AM  

WippitGuud: ShadowKamui: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Uh Bosnia, Somalia and a bunch of random missile strikes

Weren't those NATO actions, and not exclusively a US decision? (unlike Iraq)


Clearly you've forgotten Poland.
 
2013-06-21 10:19:08 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008. Her campaign was pretty much constantly in reaction modes, one step behind the Obama campaign. Her campaign neglected the smaller primary states to a large degree, and they simply did not build up the ground organization they needed to win. They assumed they would get the nomination, and that made them very complacent.


While we're being honest, let's remember that she ran a neck and neck race with Obama to the very end, and he is a magnificent campaigner.  Against anyone else it would have been a slam dunk.
 
2013-06-21 10:19:27 AM  

James!: WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?

Me?  Sure, I'd run.  Hillary? No way in hell.  She's going to spend the next three years with a giant flashing target on her back because everyone believes she's going to run (despite her saying she won't) and once the GOP has spent all their rage on her she'll reiterate that she doesn't want to run and a whole new flight of dem candidates will appear.


This is what I see coming too.  Although I'd vote for her, I dont' see her running.  But she'll be the shiny flashy thing the GOP chases for the next three years, and then they (GOP) will be caught totally off guard by the Dem that does run, and will trip over themselves trying to defend against the newcomer.  And they will fail miserably.  Again.


I can't wait!!!  :D
 
2013-06-21 10:19:51 AM  

Churchill2004: Which is equally true of Reagan


Out of curiosity, who, aside from you, pushed this comparison anyway? You seem to be the only person debating that angle.

Churchill2004: And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war


Who said it wasn't? The point is that it was a particularly low-key war for the U.S. and resulted in few casualties. According the wiki article, in fact, there were only two U.S. deaths and they were non-combat; it would appear we mostly lost equipment.

You can't just ignore the intensity of the war if you're going to argue about the relative status of peacefulness. Two wars are not automatically equally violent just because they're both wars.

Churchill2004: Again, so only American casualties count


Again, yea, if you're going to talk about the peacefulness of AMERICA.

I can only assume your goalpost-shifting and strawmen are an implicit admittance that you're completely wrong?
 
2013-06-21 10:19:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008. Her campaign was pretty much constantly in reaction modes, one step behind the Obama campaign. Her campaign neglected the smaller primary states to a large degree, and they simply did not build up the ground organization they needed to win. They assumed they would get the nomination, and that made them very complacent.

Hillary's campaign was run well. Her downfall was that no one saw Obama's fundraising system coming. She got unlucky in 2008.  Her ground game was just fine and again, was defeated by an opponent who pulled in hundreds of thousands of new volunteers. You can't plan for or defeat that level of influx. Saying she ran a bad 2008 campaign means you have no idea how that primary was run.


Still wallowing in that complacency, huh?

She didn't get unlucky, she got beat, despite starting with almost all of the advantages.
 
2013-06-21 10:21:05 AM  

Churchill2004: What a myopic view


The Clinton era was, by any metric, relatively peaceful. That means relative to all of the other presidencies.

It's been my pleasure to help you understand this.
 
2013-06-21 10:22:20 AM  

phalamir: You know what?  I'm gonna give him every single thing he mentions as a "Clinton War".  Because that means Clinton was the mega-uber-super-war god - and Reagan was a lily-livered hippie coont


No, every American President for a long time has been a criminal, including Reagan and Clinton.

Not liking Clinton doesn't make me a Republican. I'm not. I hate American imperialism, regardless of party. I think it's setting the bar way too low to declare Clinton a "peaceful" President.
 
2013-06-21 10:22:57 AM  

ShadowKamui: WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?

She's utterly incompetent at managing and has a massive superiority complex; her campain is going to screw up again in the primaries


Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point. Then in the general the Bill & Barry Show will pound the GOP nominee into paste with all the bed wetting, pants shiating legitimate rape buffoonery the GOP have loaded themselves down with for the past 8 years.

It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.
 
2013-06-21 10:23:08 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?


Did the Blessed St. Reagan the Peaceful use military force for domestic political gain?
 
2013-06-21 10:24:12 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: peace

Clinton fought more wars/interventions than Reagan.

Oh do tell what wars Clinton fought.

Really? Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia/Kosovo.... vs. Libya and Lebanon for Reagan (feel free to tell me any I'm missing for Reagan).

Yeah, you're missing several for Reagan.

I'm surprised you forgot about his great achievement of invading Grenada as a distraction from the Beirut bombing.


Even my mother, who worshiped Ronald Reagan like a god, could see that Grenada was nothing but a distraction. That was perhaps the single most embarrassing misuse of the American military in my lifetime, and that's saying something. It did lead to a bad Clint Eastwood movie, though, so there was that.
 
2013-06-21 10:24:38 AM  

Churchill2004: max_pooper: So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?

Who said anything about the GOP? I just don't think a man who bombed several countries and launched an illegal war in Serbia should be held up as an exemplar of "peace."

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?


So the fact that Bill Clinton is a politician proves your assertion that he used military force for domestic political gain?

That's some fine logic there, Lou.
 
2013-06-21 10:24:40 AM  

max_pooper: Churchill2004: skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts

Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.

So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?


Around 2004, I distinctly remember hearing the military complaining that Clinton tied their hands and refused to send them into conflicts.  The accusation was that Clinton was too worried about the appearance of having Americans killed, and not interested in intervening to save the innocent.
 
2013-06-21 10:25:21 AM  

Stone Meadow: It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.


Nope, I like Hillary but she isn't ever going to be president. Not even once, not even a little.
 
2013-06-21 10:26:04 AM  
Cons, there's a really easy way to win the 2016 election, but you'll never do it. I mean, it's really simple, and by looking at several polls, you'll come to the same conclusion, so long as you're honest with yourselves. If Republicans are so convinced Hillary Clinton will run for president, simply nominate a candidate....


...

...

...wait for it...


who's left of Hillary.

Have fun, GOP.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:01 AM  

skozlaw: I can only assume your goalpost-shifting and strawmen are an implicit admittance that you're completely wrong?


Keep in mind, you're talking to a fark indy who's previously claimed that most of the Tea Party were former Iraq-war protestors during the Bush era.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:25 AM  
the democratic pantsuit > the republican empty suit
 
2013-06-21 10:27:32 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Still wallowing in that complacency, huh?

She didn't get unlucky, she got beat, despite starting with almost all of the advantages.


Yeah, I'm still wallowing in the complacency of facts and historical trends.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:40 AM  

MFAWG: https://www.stophillary2016.org/

And that's it, the whole page.

I think the GOP should continue to spend lots of time and energy preparing to run against Hillary, sort of for the same reason I think they should spend lots of time and energy combating voter fraud:it keeps them busy not addressing the structural and ideological issues in their own party,

And for the LULZ, never forget the LULZ.


Not as good as Roger Stone's Citizens United Not Timid. That man is pure class.
 
2013-06-21 10:28:03 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?

Did the Blessed St. Reagan the Peaceful use military force for domestic political gain?


Yes.
 
2013-06-21 10:29:04 AM  

Stone Meadow: Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point. Then in the general the Bill & Barry Show will pound the GOP nominee into paste with all the bed wetting, pants shiating legitimate rape buffoonery the GOP have loaded themselves down with for the past 8 years.

It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.


Obama + Bill Clinton on the fundraising and GOTV trail would be freaking nuts.
 
2013-06-21 10:29:22 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: skozlaw: I can only assume your goalpost-shifting and strawmen are an implicit admittance that you're completely wrong?

Keep in mind, you're talking to a fark indy who's previously claimed that most of the Tea Party were former Iraq-war protestors during the Bush era.


What? I never said that.
 
2013-06-21 10:29:24 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: Still wallowing in that complacency, huh?

She didn't get unlucky, she got beat, despite starting with almost all of the advantages.

Yeah, I'm still wallowing in the complacency of facts and historical trends.


You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?
 
2013-06-21 10:30:23 AM  

Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Philip Francis Queeg: Churchill2004: Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that.

And here it comes....

So Bill Clinton isn't a politician?

Did the Blessed St. Reagan the Peaceful use military force for domestic political gain?

Yes.


Odd that you never mentioned that while extolling the peaceful virtues of his administration.
 
2013-06-21 10:31:43 AM  

Stone Meadow: ShadowKamui: WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?

She's utterly incompetent at managing and has a massive superiority complex; her campain is going to screw up again in the primaries

Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point. Then in the general the Bill & Barry Show will pound the GOP nominee into paste with all the bed wetting, pants shiating legitimate rape buffoonery the GOP have loaded themselves down with for the past 8 years.

It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.


You seriously think no other Dem is going to run against her?
 
2013-06-21 10:31:47 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Odd that you never mentioned that while extolling the peaceful virtues of his administration.


You fail at reading comprehension. You're the only one "extolling the peaceful virtues of [an] administration".
 
2013-06-21 10:31:50 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008. Her campaign was pretty much constantly in reaction modes, one step behind the Obama campaign. Her campaign neglected the smaller primary states to a large degree, and they simply did not build up the ground organization they needed to win. They assumed they would get the nomination, and that made them very complacent.

Hillary's campaign was run well. Her downfall was that no one saw Obama's fundraising system coming. She got unlucky in 2008.  Her ground game was just fine and again, was defeated by an opponent who pulled in hundreds of thousands of new volunteers. You can't plan for or defeat that level of influx. Saying she ran a bad 2008 campaign means you have no idea how that primary was run.


The increasingly absurdist "The primary in State X doesn't really count because Y" was pretty bad; and when they were pre-calling the reasons State X didn't count was just stupid - let's piss off primary voters by insulting them before the vote.  Also, "McCain is better than Obama" was crap too - you don't fellate the enemy.  I think she would have won the general if she won teh primary, but her campaign invented a couple of new ways to shoot itself in the foot.  And it stemmed from the assumed win - when Obama didn't fold, they went defensive and snotty, when they should have went with polite disdain (for the other guy, not the voters).  Organizationally, her campaign was good, and it was generally really on the ball - but when things went fuzzy, the campaign threw wobblers it didn't need to.  And it probably gave Obama a boost he wouldn't have gotten if her campaign had simply shut its mouth, politely patted him on the head, and then ignored him
 
2013-06-21 10:33:14 AM  

WTF Indeed: Is it just a webpage of Benghazi memes?


Driving in this morning I saw a bumper sticker that read:

"COWARD
You left them there to die
BENGHAZI"

The "O" in coward had Obama's little symbol. Right next to his Bush-Cheney sticker. I lol'ed.
 
2013-06-21 10:33:31 AM  
I don't want her to run. I'd rather she make Republicans think she's running, until they blow a ton of money trying to stop her and she says at the latest possible moment, "Nah, on second thought, I'll just retire instead."
 
2013-06-21 10:36:48 AM  

jakomo002: Seriously, what is with the pure hatred they have with Hillary?  That she was married to Bill?  That she is a woman?  Lawyer?  Honestly, is there a real rational reason?

/I'm serious
//I don't think she's any more of a lying coont than the rest of em


It's mainly because as First Lady, she made some comment about not wanting to be portrayed as baking cookies and sh*t, and she emphasized how she had a career of her own prior to Bill's election to President.

That was it. That was all it took. The Republicans have hated and feared her ever since. And I for one f*cking love it.
 
2013-06-21 10:37:16 AM  
After all of the GOP sexism during the last several years, we need a Hillary presidency more than ever. It will just make the GOP heads explodes.
 
2013-06-21 10:37:34 AM  

Churchill2004: ShadowKamui: Grenada

Yup, forgot that one. Clinton still beats Reagan for number of military interventions, though. According to those here though, Grenada wasn't "big enough" to be a "real war".

It's only from the post-Iraq perspective that the 90's look "peaceful" for America.


And yet more American service members were killed in action under Reagan.
 
2013-06-21 10:38:08 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: WTF Indeed: James!: I find the second one more likely.

Imagine yourself in 2015. You're leading in most polls, the GOP candidates are pathetic at best, and you can raise $100m at the drop of a hat. You have a choice between running for President(something you've already done, and done well) or giving it all up to someone else. Do you really think a Clinton would give up the easiest shot at President anyone has had since Nixon in '72?

Me?  Sure, I'd run.  Hillary? No way in hell.  She's going to spend the next three years with a giant flashing target on her back because everyone believes she's going to run (despite her saying she won't) and once the GOP has spent all their rage on her she'll reiterate that she doesn't want to run and a whole new flight of dem candidates will appear.

This is what I see coming too.  Although I'd vote for her, I dont' see her running.  But she'll be the shiny flashy thing the GOP chases for the next three years, and then they (GOP) will be caught totally off guard by the Dem that does run, and will trip over themselves trying to defend against the newcomer.  And they will fail miserably.  Again.


I can't wait!!!  :D


That's what happened against Obama.  The GOP was completely preparing for a fight against Hillary. When Obama got the nomination, they were lost.  It was one of the reasons the GOP was pushing for Biden to resign after his "gaffes."  They probably figured Obama would nominate Hillary as his VP and they would be able to use all of the ammo they had on her.
 
2013-06-21 10:39:54 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Obama + Bill Clinton on the fundraising and GOTV trail would be freaking nuts.



img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 10:40:39 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?


Let me explain to you how federal primary campaigns work.  Say there are five candidates for office, all with name req, and all calling the same party people to enlist there help. Five candidates fighting over the same finite pool of volunteers. Those volunteers in turn canvass the same finite pool of primary voters.

In 2008 the Clinton campaign had the vast majority of those party people locked up months and years ahead of time figuring that the same rules will apply to that primary that apply to all other primaries forever. Then Obama comes along and pulls some people from that pool of volunteers, but also pulls thousands of new volunteers into the primary, who in turn pull in thousands of new voters into the primary.  The advantages you claim Hillary squandered were actually very aptly used in every primary, the problem was that Obama's machine dragged in far more volunteers and voters than Hillary could muster.
 
2013-06-21 10:40:46 AM  

PanicMan: max_pooper: Churchill2004: skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts

Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.

So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?

Around 2004, I distinctly remember hearing the military complaining that Clinton tied their hands and refused to send them into conflicts.  The accusation was that Clinton was too worried about the appearance of having Americans killed, and not interested in intervening to save the innocent.


Some of the military guys have finally come around on Clinton. Some. There are a lot though who prove why the Defense Department shouldn't be your diplomacy arm, as it's too often used by our country.

/Hint: "bomb it" is not a diplomacy tactic.
 
2013-06-21 10:41:25 AM  
There's a lot of research to be done and questions to ask.  For example:

- When typing OMG BENGHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZIIIII, what is the proper number of A's to use?  Do you go all caps, bold, upsize the font, or all three?

- Should Fox News throw hissy fits about BENGHAZI 73 times a day, or stop being so conservative and move into triple digits?

- Can we learn from techniques used to bring down Hitler after the Holocaust became Hitler's BENGHAZI?
 
2013-06-21 10:42:27 AM  
dammit...Hillaryis45.com is taken!!
Good thing we still have hillaryis44.com...stupid man world.
 
2013-06-21 10:43:39 AM  

WippitGuud: Satanic_Hamster: Obama + Bill Clinton on the fundraising and GOTV trail would be freaking nuts.


[img.fark.net image 600x400]


I still love that picture.
 
2013-06-21 10:49:15 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?

Let me explain to you how federal primary campaigns work.  Say there are five candidates for office, all with name req, and all calling the same party people to enlist there help. Five candidates fighting over the same finite pool of volunteers. Those volunteers in turn canvass the same finite pool of primary voters.

In 2008 the Clinton campaign had the vast majority of those party people locked up months and years ahead of time figuring that the same rules will apply to that primary that apply to all other primaries forever. Then Obama comes along and pulls some people from that pool of volunteers, but also pulls thousands of new volunteers into the primary, who in turn pull in thousands of new voters into the primary.  The advantages you claim Hillary squandered were actually very aptly used in every primary, the problem was that Obama's machine dragged in far more volunteers and voters than Hillary could muster.


Of course we could also mention her early advantages in campaign fund raising and support of the party organisation and super delegates. We could also ask why such a strong campaigner, and such a well run campaign could not draw in the number of volunteers required. We could ask why they were so complacent to assume that the "rules" would remain the same, rather than seeking ways of shaking things up to their advantage.

And no, her advantages weren't very aptly used in every primary. One of her campaign'[s primary strategic errors was the choice not to strongly contest many of the primaries in so called minor states. This allowed Obama to generate momentum through a series of victories.

Were you involved in her 2008 campaign, by any chance?
 
2013-06-21 10:58:31 AM  

verbaltoxin: PanicMan: max_pooper: Churchill2004: skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts

Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.

So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?

Around 2004, I distinctly remember hearing the military complaining that Clinton tied their hands and refused to send them into conflicts.  The accusation was that Clinton was too worried about the appearance of having Americans killed, and not interested in intervening to save the innocent.

Some of the military guys have finally come around on Clinton. Some. There are a lot though who prove why the Defense Department shouldn't be your diplomacy arm, as it's too often used by our country.

/Hint: "bomb it" is not a diplomacy tactic.


No no no, BSABSVR.
 
2013-06-21 11:07:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Of course we could also mention her early advantages in campaign fund raising and support of the party organisation and super delegates. We could also ask why such a strong campaigner, and such a well run campaign could not draw in the number of volunteers required. We could ask why they were so complacent to assume that the "rules" would remain the same, rather than seeking ways of shaking things up to their advantage.


Someone's not getting the idea of what a primary entails or how campaigns work.  1) An early advantage in money is only one until someone starts catching up. 2) Again, she did draw lots of volunteers, however the abnormal(best way to describe the 08 Obama campaign) drew in thousands of volunteers and voters that did not normally vote in primaries, therefore changing the margins for victory(eg what happened again in Ohio in 2012, resulting in Rove's breakdown).

Philip Francis Queeg: And no, her advantages weren't very aptly used in every primary. One of her campaign'[s primary strategic errors was the choice not to strongly contest many of the primaries in so called minor states. This allowed Obama to generate momentum through a series of victories.


"Momentum" is the word Skip Bayless would use if he was a political pundit. It means nothing in reality and is created by hard work and some luck.  Saying Hillary ran a shiatty campaign is not only is false, it doesn't give the Obama campaign the credit it deserves for running a masterful campaign to defeat one of the best campaigners in the last 40 years.
 
2013-06-21 11:11:15 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Nope.

She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.


so long as she doesn't pick herself (and the republicans do what they usually do) i'll vote D again. if she runs then it's third party. want a woman president run ms warren. hell pretty much any democratic woman other than hillary.
 
2013-06-21 11:13:36 AM  

WTF Indeed: 1) An early advantage in money is only one until someone starts catching up.


Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to keep pace in fundraising. One of their errors, and a pretty serious one at that.

WTF Indeed: 2) Again, she did draw lots of volunteers, however the abnormal(best way to describe the 08 Obama campaign) drew in thousands of volunteers and voters that did not normally vote in primaries, therefore changing the margins for victory(eg what happened again in Ohio in 2012, resulting in Rove's breakdown)


Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to draw in enough new voters who supported her. Another failure on their part.

WTF Indeed: "Momentum" is the word Skip Bayless would use if he was a political pundit. It means nothing in reality and is created by hard work and some luck.


Yup, Hillary's campaign failed to put in the hard work in the smaller states.  You identified that error nicely.

You didn't answer the question about your role in Hillary's masterful, entirely successful, unstoppable juggernaut of a campaign in 2008.
 
2013-06-21 11:14:49 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: They're running Bob Dole again?


Not even Bob Dole wants Bob Dole to run again.

/Bob Dole.
 
2013-06-21 11:16:40 AM  

James!: Stone Meadow: It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.

Nope, I like Hillary but she isn't ever going to be president. Not even once, not even a little.


You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

ShadowKamui: Stone Meadow: Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point.

You seriously think no other Dem is going to run against her?


Oh, there will be other Democrats in the early primaries all right. Maybe even one or two 'serious' ones, but as her lead builds up they will drop out quickly and endorse her. If there is anything the Democrats have learned from the GOP in recent years it is to fall in line quickly and present a unified front. At the end of the day it's all about winning the election. The GOP have let themselves forget that truism, and are paying the electoral price.
 
2013-06-21 11:20:00 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to keep pace in fundraising. One of their errors, and a pretty serious one at that.


Both campaigns raised a record amount of money. How is that a failure?

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to draw in enough new voters who supported her. Another failure on their part.


Obama was able to tap into large black and youth voters that had never, and I mean never, voted before. How is that a failure?

Philip Francis Queeg: Yup, Hillary's campaign failed to put in the hard work in the smaller states.  You identified that error nicely.


Smaller states, while important, will not win the nomination. Ask Ron Paul and Howard Dean about how their strategies of winning small states worked out for them.

Philip Francis Queeg: You didn't answer the question about your role in Hillary's masterful, entirely successful, unstoppable juggernaut of a campaign in 2008.

I was field director for the Obama campaign.
 
2013-06-21 11:21:28 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: You didn't answer the question about your role in Hillary's masterful, entirely successful, unstoppable juggernaut of a campaign in 2008.

I was field director for the Obama campaign.


I was A field director.

FTFM
 
2013-06-21 11:22:06 AM  

Stone Meadow: You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.


Other than Hillary herself stating that she didn't want to run in 2016?
 
2013-06-21 11:28:44 AM  

James!: Stone Meadow: You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

Other than Hillary herself stating that she didn't want to run in 2016?


citationneeded.jpg
 
2013-06-21 11:29:23 AM  
Philip Francis Queeg, it's pretty obvious you haven't worked on many campaigns and while I commend your attempt to assert your 'vast knowledge' of a topic over someone whom I'm sure you have highlighted as a troll, you're actual knowledge of how elections and politics works is obviously limited to the debating on internet forums. However you do seem to have a passion for politics, so I would suggest that you contact your local party and volunteer. They are always looking for passionate people to help elect good people to office.
 
2013-06-21 11:29:40 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to keep pace in fundraising. One of their errors, and a pretty serious one at that.

Both campaigns raised a record amount of money. How is that a failure?


You admitted that she failed to maintain her advantage. Letting your opponent catch up is a failure.


Obama was able to tap into large black and youth voters that had never, and I mean never, voted before. How is that a failure?

And Hillary'scampaign failed to tap into large numbers of new voters. Hercampaign complacentlybelieved the "rules" would remain the same, as you yourself admitted. They failed to react quickly and properly to Obama's initiatives. That is a failure.

WTF Indeed: Smaller states, while important, will not win the nomination. Ask Ron Paul and Howard Dean about how their strategies of winning small states worked out for them.


How about I ask Obama how his strategy of winning small states worked out for him? But it's nice to see you acknowledge that Hillary's advantages were not aptly used in every primary.

WTF Indeed: I was field director for the Obama campaign.


Fair enough. I would suggest that if Hillary does run, and you chose to work on her campaign, that you endeavor top learn from the errors and mistakes of her 2008 campaign, rather than embrace them. Complacency in 2016 will bring no more success than complacency did in 2008.
 
2013-06-21 11:33:36 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008.


well to be fair she was dodging sniper fire.

not meant to be a factual statement.
 
2013-06-21 11:36:16 AM  

Stone Meadow: James!: Stone Meadow: You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

Other than Hillary herself stating that she didn't want to run in 2016?

citationneeded.jpg



"No. No, I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24/7 job, and I'm looking forward to retirement at some point." - Oct. 13, 2009 on NBC's "Today."

"Well, not me. But it will be someone." - asked about the United States electing a female president during a Dec. 5, 2010, interview with TV New Zealand.

"I think I will serve as secretary of state as my last public position and the probably go back to advocacy, and probably on behalf of women and children." - Dec. 3, 2010 at a town hall in Manama, Bahrain.

"I am very happy doing what I'm doing, and I am not in any way interested in or pursuing anything in elective office." - Nov. 21, 2010 in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

"I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.


I don't know when I turned into farking google.
 
2013-06-21 11:40:39 AM  

James!: "No. No, I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24/7 job, and I'm looking forward to retirement at some point." - Oct. 13, 2009 on NBC's "Today."

"Well, not me. But it will be someone." - asked about the United States electing a female president during a Dec. 5, 2010, interview with TV New Zealand.

"I think I will serve as secretary of state as my last public position and the probably go back to advocacy, and probably on behalf of women and children." - Dec. 3, 2010 at a town hall in Manama, Bahrain.

"I am very happy doing what I'm doing, and I am not in any way interested in or pursuing anything in elective office." - Nov. 21, 2010 in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

"I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.


I don't know when I turned into farking google.


To be fair, any question asked before she resigned as SoS would bring up ethics questions. Saying "Yes I'm running for office in 2016" while Secretary of State would be so many levels of wrong.
 
2013-06-21 11:44:56 AM  

WTF Indeed: To be fair, any question asked before she resigned as SoS would bring up ethics questions. Saying "Yes I'm running for office in 2016" while Secretary of State would be so many levels of wrong.


To be fair, being a member of the Obama admin is all it takes to bring up ethics questions for a lot of people.

She's either been lying consistently for three years or she honestly doesn't want to run again.
 
2013-06-21 11:47:36 AM  

verbaltoxin: That was it. That was all it took.


well that and hillarycare. she was doing what seemed to many like team presidenting, not a good idea.
 
2013-06-21 11:48:39 AM  

James!: To be fair, being a member of the Obama admin is all it takes to bring up ethics questions for a lot of people.

She's either been lying consistently for three years or she honestly doesn't want to run again.


That's not the case here. The only answer she could legally give to that question while SoS is "No".  So yes, she would have to lie to consistently for three years since anything but "No" would bring down a rain of hell.
 
2013-06-21 11:51:09 AM  

James!: I don't know when I turned into farking google.


farking google is illegal in all but three states. Also, you sound..."concerned."
 
2013-06-21 11:53:09 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: James!: I don't know when I turned into farking google.

farking google is illegal in all but three states. Also, you sound..."concerned."


Concerned about what?
 
2013-06-21 11:56:50 AM  

Curious: verbaltoxin: That was it. That was all it took.

well that and hillarycare. she was doing what seemed to many like team presidenting, not a good idea.


They hated her well before that. The healthcare reform debate, and her role in it, turned a froth to a boil.

I stand by my statement, though. She's still useful. All she has to do is entertain the Presidency, and that will be enough for the DNC to get together formidable candidates.
 
2013-06-21 12:08:03 PM  

James!: "I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.

I don't know when I turned into farking google.


When you make unsubstantiated statements. But now that you have attempted to back up your assertion, read more carefully. The first of those were in the context of "I have a job to do right now and am not (present tense) running for my next job", and the second you swung and missed by a mile. Read the quote in its context...it's NOTHING like what you imply.
 
2013-06-21 12:08:38 PM  
If she trolls the heck out of the GOP and then refuses to run, she will defuse a lot of Republican bankrolling.

/Has the IRS looked into this Super PAC yet?
 
2013-06-21 12:11:49 PM  

Stone Meadow: James!: "I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.

I don't know when I turned into farking google.

When you make unsubstantiated statements. But now that you have attempted to back up your assertion, read more carefully. The first of those were in the context of "I have a job to do right now and am not (present tense) running for my next job", and the second you swung and missed by a mile. Read the quote in its context...it's NOTHING like what you imply.


"I know what she said, but what she meant was..."

Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.
 
2013-06-21 12:18:35 PM  

James!: Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.


Politics is never a waste of time, but in the meantime I am as convinced she will run as you appear to be that she won't. Time will tell.
 
2013-06-21 12:42:52 PM  

Stone Meadow: James!: Stone Meadow: It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.

Nope, I like Hillary but she isn't ever going to be president. Not even once, not even a little.

You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

ShadowKamui: Stone Meadow: Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point.

You seriously think no other Dem is going to run against her?

Oh, there will be other Democrats in the early primaries all right. Maybe even one or two 'serious' ones, but as her lead builds up they will drop out quickly and endorse her. If there is anything the Democrats have learned from the GOP in recent years it is to fall in line quickly and present a unified front. At the end of the day it's all about winning the election. The GOP have let themselves forget that truism, and are paying the electoral price.


She's the poster child of not falling in line.  She's also extremely likely to blow up during a debate and becoming a leper like Dean
 
2013-06-21 12:47:29 PM  

Stone Meadow: James!: Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.

Politics is never a waste of time, but in the meantime I am as convinced she will run as you appear to be that she won't. Time will tell.


The 'what does it matter' comment is going to look awful in commercials if she decides to run.  The minority vote will most likely be much lower than 08 or 12.  It will be a close election in 16.
 
2013-06-21 01:02:42 PM  

pxsteel: Stone Meadow: James!: Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.

Politics is never a waste of time, but in the meantime I am as convinced she will run as you appear to be that she won't. Time will tell.

The 'what does it matter' comment is going to look awful in commercials if she decides to run.  The minority vote will most likely be much lower than 08 or 12.  It will be a close election in 16.


Maybe, but I think the GOP have blow their collective wad wrt Hillary. Other than looking pants-on-head stupid by trying to tar her with Bengazi, what new do they have to complain about? That said, I do agree the popular vote will be fairly close. After all, 45% vote one way or the other no matter the election or candidate, but the Electoral College will be another blowout.
 
2013-06-21 01:04:20 PM  

pxsteel: The 'what does it matter' comment is going to look awful in commercials if she decides to run.


Not to anyone who might have even considered voting for Hillary, so, um, what does that matter?

pxsteel: The minority vote will most likely be much lower than 08 or 12. It will be a close election in 16.


Nobody even knows who'll be running more than three years from now, so you must be a time traveler from the future. You should be playing the stock market instead of doing this.
 
2013-06-21 01:08:30 PM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?

Let me explain to you how federal primary campaigns work.  Say there are five candidates for office, all with name req, and all calling the same party people to enlist there help. Five candidates fighting over the same finite pool of volunteers. Those volunteers in turn canvass the same finite pool of primary voters.

In 2008 the Clinton campaign had the vast majority of those party people locked up months and years ahead of time figuring that the same rules will apply to that primary that apply to all other primaries forever. Then Obama comes along and pulls some people from that pool of volunteers, but also pulls thousands of new volunteers into the primary, who in turn pull in thousands of new voters into the primary.  The advantages you claim Hillary squandered were actually very aptly used in every primary, the problem was that Obama's machine dragged in far more volunteers and voters than Hillary could muster.


That is one of the best explanations I've ever read, to the point that I may copy pasta it for future reference.
 
2013-06-21 03:03:21 PM  
Could Hillary get 70% of the woman vote in the general election? I think she could. That would be hard to beat.
 
2013-06-21 05:29:14 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.


The Rs assume it out of some form of, apparently, pants-shiatting terror.

The Ds are saying '...you know, they might have something there...' while snickering quietly.

/Or at least I am.
//Can't say I know much about her politics, but if the Rs are freaking out  this much, and given her usually-impressive competency...
 
2013-06-21 08:07:25 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.


She's got the money, the power, the name recognition, and she came within a nonce of winning the nomination last time (and she got her own meme since then).  None of the other Democratic (realistic) possibilities have any of that, nor Obama's X-factor.  Plus she seems to have jettisoned the fools who gave her bad advice last time.  If you are a Democrat thinking about the Presidency, the odds are so not in your favor it isn't even funny.  Most will decide to hold off just because being "the guy Hillary tore a strip off of" is not worth it.  Oh, some will contest it, but only the most pathologically egocentric would want to.
 
2013-06-21 10:02:59 PM  
Stop Hillary indeed.  Now if it was Warren/Wyden, I'd feel like I was actually voting *for* someone and not just against the other guy.
 
2013-06-22 01:36:25 AM  

tinderfitles: Probably her only real challenge might be Julian Castro, which I would much rather see him become her Vice Presidential pick. Put him in the stable for a few years, let him have two terms of executive branch experience then you have a prime candidate right in the middle of a latino surge in demographics.


Generally speaking, being VP is a political dead end. Only one VP has immediately been elected as Pres. since the 1830s.
 
2013-06-22 03:38:59 AM  
The GOP is making the exact same mistake they made in '08. They're focusing on Hillary, and when she's not the nominee (because like hell she'll win the nomination, even if she DOES run), they'll have precisely squat on the actual nominee, so they'll have to throw random, conspiracy theory bullshiat at him/her, like they did with Barack Obama's birth certificate, salad and condiment habits, people he shared a room with at some point, and so on. They'll come off as crazy jackasses, lose again, and HOPEFULLY become entirely irrelevant.
 
m00
2013-06-22 01:55:48 PM  
You guys are all crazy. Obama beat Hillary in the primaries because the Bilderberg group thought the best way to increase Bush-era pro-1%er policy through 2016 was to make the President a black man, so that any policy criticism could be dismissed racist. They're saving Hillary for 2016, so they can get another 8 years of pro-1% policy and label any criticism as misogynist. After that, they'll probably find someone who is openly gay and served in the military... which is why they're laying the groundwork now to make that a thing. Jews and Asians will have to wait.
 
Displayed 189 of 189 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report