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.

(Washington Times)   Like that pack of weenies that have been sitting in the back of your fridge Hillary 2016 is well past its sell by date   (washingtontimes.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, hillary, sell-by dates, press pool, Inauguration Days, chattering classes  
•       •       •

1119 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2013 at 3:51 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-27 04:22:00 PM  
4 votes:

ikanreed: I'm not voting for Hillary '16 for the same reason I didn't vote Hillary '08, we live in a society of 300 million people, only a couple dozen of whom are blood relatives of a previous president.


...Hillary isn't a blood relative of any previous president...
2013-09-27 05:16:58 PM  
3 votes:

SisterMaryElephant: She might be getting past her fark-by date, and it appears that's all that matters to the GOP. Not that Hillary was ever in a prime fark-me state, but you get the point.


True, but I'd still fark her daughter just to say I did.

ShadowKamui: Uh she did a terrible job as SoS


Whatever you have to tell yourself.  She facilitated the freedom of Chen Guancheng without ruining ties between the U.S. and CHina, she was a main force behind the meamningful reforms now underway in Burma, including the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, she brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012, She made finding business opportunities overseas for U.S. companies a top priority, and has been the most active and widely-travelled SoS in U.S. history.  Purely from a foreign policy standpoint, there's no one on the Republican side that can even hold a candle to her.
2013-09-27 04:01:43 PM  
3 votes:
I don't really want Hilary. She's far too right wing for me. I will take her over absolutely any Republican out there but I won't like it and I'll likely vote against her in a primary unless her opponents are the liberal equivalent of the GOP's 2012 clowncar.

I also think with Bill and Obama campaigning for whoever gets nominated in 2016 that the Democrats is pretty much a lock. So, again, I'd prefer it if the eventual candidate was someone who could shift the country farther left.
2013-09-27 06:29:41 PM  
2 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Apik0r0s: Whoever the Democrats do nominate, it needs to be a minority again. It brings out the best in the GOP, in front of everyone.

Nominate a liberal Jew. That would make the evangelicals' heads explode.


What the hell is wrong with Feingold anyway? I liked him.
2013-09-27 04:52:51 PM  
2 votes:

doloresonthedottedline: Was Obama also too right wing? Because in that election he never really committed to left win policy positions while she did.

/would love a really liberal president but it ain't happenin
//also, the first female leaders usually have to be pretty conservative, and Hillary looks great when you consider that


Obama is also too right wing for me. I recall Obama coming off as the more liberal of the two in the primaries. Even though one of the big points, him being against the individual mandate, got thrown out almost immediately after he got elected.
2013-09-27 04:10:00 PM  
2 votes:

blasterz: super_grass: Remember when they used the same smear against McCain?

Yep. Chuck Norris said he was too old.

//of course so did many liberal media outlets


Honestly at least for me, and I only speak for me, his age only became an issue for me when he nominated Palin. If he had picked up someone like Pawlenty, he likely would have still lost, but the age thing wouldn't have been a big deal.
2013-09-27 03:59:30 PM  
2 votes:
Dear conservatives,
Your fear of Hillary is palpable, and it brings me great joy.
2013-09-27 03:59:11 PM  
2 votes:
She'll be a lightning rod for two more years, then a more likable Democrat will emerge to actually get the nomination.
2013-09-27 02:35:57 PM  
2 votes:
His concern is noted
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-27 01:49:05 PM  
2 votes:
Like that little pack of weenies who run the Washington Times?
2013-09-27 01:34:36 PM  
2 votes:
The last time we elected a 69 year old it was Ronald Reagan and he went senile in office.
m00
2013-09-28 12:00:26 AM  
1 vote:

James!: The last time we elected a 69 year old it was Ronald Reagan and he went senile in office.


Actually in defense of Hillary, women live longer than men and seem to maintain a sharper mind for longer too. A good argument for Hillary would be "all of the experience, none of the senility."

Hell, GWB seemed to be going senile in his 50s.

But in all seriousness, Hillary is probably the farthest right person in the Democratic party. So she's not an extremist. Her only motive to govern is legacy (whereas Obama is probably thinking about his post-presidential career). She's sharp minded, and a very good diplomat.

Yeah the talking heads on the right will of course skewer her, but she probably won't engender any sort of frothy rage in most Republican voters.

I think she's a terrible person, but I also think she'd govern reasonably well. Better than Obama certainly, and better than anyone Republicans have put up in recent years. I say this as a Libertarian... the Republican candidates have been so awful that yes Hillary would be better in my opinion. I'm past the point of finding politicians that are remotely close to my ideals, and really at this point I just want someone with a brain who has thought-out positions and that avoid the things that are so awful they transcend party lines. And who I feel actually cares about something other than their own career/wealth.

So obviously I don't agree with her on MANY (most?) positions, but I think she definitely would have DESTROYED the banks and wall street that took bailout money and turned around and paid themselves bonuses. And I think we'd have stronger civil liberties than under Obama and Bush. She would have put her boot so far up the NSA's ass when the news broke about the spying. Think about that. Obama admitted he heard the news about the extent of NSA spying from the newspaper. No heads rolled. Whether you agree with the bailouts or not, the banks completely defrauded the American people. No heads rolled. Eric Holder went on camera and said there were like 42 cases of serious fraud that were prosecutable. No bankers have gone to jail.

And don't get me wrong. Romney would have been an unmitigated disaster. McCain would have been a moderate disaster. Bush was a disaster. Obama is a disaster. If you are a small-government person and intellectually honest, you'll realize Republicans are worse on this issue than Democrats. Being small-government doesn't mean cutting food stamps that are 1% of your budget while overlooking the fact the other 99% of the budget is handouts to the wealthy. You can be small-government and keep food stamps, and welfare, and school lunch programs. Because these things are pennies. Pennies!

So yeah, I can live with Hillary. Unless Republicans put up someone who understands that small-government means cutting subsidies for the wealthy BEFORE you cut subsidies for the poor. But that's not going to happen.
2013-09-27 10:33:52 PM  
1 vote:

TheWhoppah: IF Wendy Davis is elected in Texas... and that is a huge IF at this point... but IF she can pull it off and deliver TX on the national ticket then the GOP is toast.  Also Cruz couldn't resign from Senate to run for president if a Dem is picking his interim replacement. You can dream.


When do Senators resign to run for president?
Bob Dole and who else?
2013-09-27 05:45:12 PM  
1 vote:
I think the better analogy is this:

Hillary is the Hulk Hogan of the Democratic Party. As long as she's seen as a viable contender, there will be no standout Dem that can be developed as a viable candidate, and the party will stagnate underneath her ego and her cronies. And when she's finally kicked to the curb, there will be no one substantial to take her place.

So yeah, you Dems go on and point and laugh at the GOP and forget about the swinging party pendulum that's been going on since time immemorial.
2013-09-27 05:39:10 PM  
1 vote:
Whoever the Democrats do nominate, it needs to be a minority again. It brings out the best in the GOP, in front of everyone.
2013-09-27 05:33:46 PM  
1 vote:

Highroller48: Wishful Thinking is cute.

Considering the likely slate of Republiderp potential candidates, the Dems could put up GEORGE Clinton and still win 300 electoral votes.

Seriously, the House and Senate Republicans can't even get on the same page as each other over their core issues.  How in the world are they going to prop up a united front?  It wouldn't even surprise me to see 2 Republican candidates splitting the vote. One for the RNC and one for the Tea Party.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will win.  If that happens we can look forward to at least another 4 more years of the comedy gold that is Tea Party butthurt.
Just watching Glenn Beck cry and Karl Rove have another reality-meltdown on election night would be worth all the campaign BS.

Orly Taitz launching her "Women Can't Be President" lawsuits will be the icing on the cake.


I would absolutely vote for George Clinton.
2013-09-27 05:32:45 PM  
1 vote:

Trey Le Parc: BMulligan: James!: The last time we elected a 69 year old it was Ronald Reagan and he went senile in office.

Women generally age better than men, in terms of health. I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I don't think her age is a significant issue. Also, fark the Moonies.

Men age like wine.  Women age like milk.


You're saying that vinegar is preferable to aged cheese?
2013-09-27 05:11:12 PM  
1 vote:

ShadowKamui: Failed dialog w/ Russia, no resolution to Iran or NK, cluster-f*ck of Egypt all started under her watch. You're just blaming Kerry for at worse continuing all her screw ups


We haven't had a resolution with Iran or NK prior to Hillary Clinton either.  And you're going to blame the Secretary of State for Egypt?  LOLWUT?
2013-09-27 05:01:01 PM  
1 vote:
I am a liberal. I have a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton. I have also come to like her over the last 10 years. I think she was a good Sec of State. Based on her resume, I think she is one of the most qualified people in this country to be president. I will vote for her if she wins the primary. In my gut, though... I do worry about her being too old. I will obviously still vote for over anyone in the GOP clown show, but it is still a valid concern. Just sayin.
2013-09-27 04:41:20 PM  
1 vote:

Geotpf: OtherBrotherDarryl: I don't think the Dems would win if she got the nomination.  IF she got the nomination...she messed that one up bad in 2008.

Much to my surprise, she did an excellent job as Secretary of State-much better than her replacement is currently doing.

However, her age is a large issue, IMHO.  I think she is simply too old at this point.  2008 was basically her only shot, and she probably blew that chance way back in 2002 when she voted for the Iraq war in the Senate.


Uh she did a terrible job as SoS

Failed dialog w/ Russia, no resolution to Iran or NK, cluster-f*ck of Egypt all started under her watch.  You're just blaming Kerry for at worse continuing all her screw ups
2013-09-27 04:41:00 PM  
1 vote:
but a woman in public life is getting past her sell-by date at 69".


She might be getting past her fark-by date, and it appears that's all that matters to the GOP.  Not that Hillary was ever in a prime fark-me state, but you get the point.


How's that outreach going for the GOP?
2013-09-27 04:40:43 PM  
1 vote:
Why is there a conservative oriented Hilary thread about her ineligibility every week? We're two years before an sane Democrat would declare, and at this point it's only giving her greater awareness than she would otherwise have if they just did something else.

Its silly. At this rate all she will have to do is make a vague statement two years out and every candidate on the right will embarrass themselves attacking her, allowing an actual candidate to appear after they have ruined their appearance to the public as being vindictive and aggressive. Even if she runs in the end, the longer they attack her the better her position becomes as aggressive campaigns do not poll well long term.

It makes no sense to me.
2013-09-27 04:36:43 PM  
1 vote:

odinsposse: I don't really want Hilary. She's far too right wing for me. I will take her over absolutely any Republican out there but I won't like it and I'll likely vote against her in a primary unless her opponents are the liberal equivalent of the GOP's 2012 clowncar.

I also think with Bill and Obama campaigning for whoever gets nominated in 2016 that the Democrats is pretty much a lock. So, again, I'd prefer it if the eventual candidate was someone who could shift the country farther left.


Was Obama also too right wing? Because in that election he never really committed to left win policy positions while she did.

/would love a really liberal president but it ain't happenin
//also, the first female leaders usually have to be pretty conservative, and Hillary looks great when you consider that
2013-09-27 04:30:55 PM  
1 vote:

aaronx: Lord Dimwit: It's looking like it's going to be Cory Booker

Oh, dear, I hope not.


Do you have any links to credible articles about Booker, or is that opinion piece the only one?  Pretty sure "Is rich" and "Knows/hangs out with other rich folk" isn't an actual progressive's criticism of the guy.  How he might use his wealth, sure, or how he might treat the poor, definitely a valid question.  Outcomes in the city he was mayor of sounds like a good topic too. Pareene doesn't seem to have much actual content on those things. Just saying.
2013-09-27 04:30:55 PM  
1 vote:

OtherBrotherDarryl: I don't think the Dems would win if she got the nomination.  IF she got the nomination...she messed that one up bad in 2008.


Much to my surprise, she did an excellent job as Secretary of State-much better than her replacement is currently doing.

However, her age is a large issue, IMHO.  I think she is simply too old at this point.  2008 was basically her only shot, and she probably blew that chance way back in 2002 when she voted for the Iraq war in the Senate.
2013-09-27 04:22:46 PM  
1 vote:

ikanreed: I'm not voting for Hillary '16 for the same reason I didn't vote Hillary '08, we live in a society of 300 million people, only a couple dozen of whom are blood relatives of a previous president.


Hillary is a blood relative of a former president?

Dude. She's not from Arkansas.
2013-09-27 04:19:02 PM  
1 vote:

Lord Dimwit: It's looking like it's going to be Cory Booker


Oh, dear, I hope not.
2013-09-27 03:30:25 PM  
1 vote:

OtherBrotherDarryl: I don't think the Dems would win if she got the nomination.  IF she got the nomination...she messed that one up bad in 2008.


Do any Farkers recall Ms. Clinton's reprehensible behaviour during the 2008 primary?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-27 03:11:19 PM  
1 vote:

OtherBrotherDarryl: I don't think the Dems would win if she got the nomination.  IF she got the nomination...she messed that one up bad in 2008.


Yes, I'm sure Santorum will take it.
2013-09-27 03:04:22 PM  
1 vote:
Well, if the Moonies say so.
2013-09-27 02:55:46 PM  
1 vote:
when did she announce? did it get lost during Ted Cruz' filibuster?
2013-09-27 02:54:21 PM  
1 vote:

Blues_X: The conservatives keep bringing this up, out of fear.


they are shiatting themselves over things that are not likely to happen.  like almost everything else since January, 2009.
2013-09-27 01:47:38 PM  
1 vote:
The conservatives keep bringing this up, out of fear.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 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