Presidential ambitions. Hillary, really?

Republicans have too many choices. There are lots of new faces, governors, Senators and others. Democrats have one big choice - Hillary Clinton. It is hard to call her a new face. She is more like a big-assed old truck on a narrow highway. Nobody can pass her. The Democrats in general don’t have a strong bench. Hillary has sucked the air and money out of the process. If Hillary didn’t run, who would it be? They have not developed a farm club. The potential Democratic field belongs in an old folks home.

If my man Scott Walker is a full twenty years younger than Hillary. Even a youngster like Elizabeth Warren is eligible for Social Security. There is nothing wrong with being old. It is comforting that the leading Democrats are older than I am. Joe Biden was in the Senate when I was still in HS. How cool is that. A man who lives forever. Elizabeth Warren is an inspiration. She didn't even get started until she was old enough to tap her 401k. Maybe there is still hope for me.

We assume that all these old Democrats have some new ideas. Or maybe a new and inexperienced guy will come and pick up all the marbles when the old gals and guys are napping, like Obama did in 2008. Actually, I think I would prefer Joe Biden. He seems a really nice guy and he is always good for a few laughs.

I don't think Hillary is as smart as people think she is. I mean, she is smarter than average, maybe even as smart as I am, but no rocket scientist. His most salient accomplishment was to marry and stay married to Bill Clinton. Her attractiveness eludes me. I have heard her speak on several occasions. She has the charisma of my eight grade Latin teacher. I am not sure even Democrats really like her as much as they say. They just see her as inevitable as a rainy day and have thought up reason why they like it.

Posted by Christine & John at November 8, 2014 8:09 PM
Comments
Comment #385165

I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary. I had enjoyed Obama as something of a Democrat celebrity after his 2004 convention speech but I didn’t think he would be president, ever. There’s still a chance Hillary’s not running but it would shock pretty much everyone if she didn’t.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 9, 2014 1:09 AM
Comment #385167

Hillary Clinton isn’t going to be President. She may lost the Democratic nomination, or she may lose the general election, but if she runs she will lose. This is just my intuition, but I just can’t see her winning the general election.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2014 11:22 AM
Comment #385169

Most successful modern presidential campaigns require the candidate to make more than one run before succeeding. A successful campaign requires connections, staffing, and calling in favors. Clinton and Obama are the exceptions, but they always were, from the time Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar & Obama nailed it at Harvard. Obama turned out to be an extraordinary campaigner and organizer, and went on to be an extraordinary president.

Hillary has this network already established, and her educational background & job experience suggests she has similar potential. So does Biden, to some extent.

For the GOP, Jeb Bush and Romney are the only plausible candidates with the connections and infrastructure already in place.

I just don’t see anyone seriously challenging Hillary. It’s not that I wouldn’t consider supporting Biden or Elizabeth Warren. It’s just that, unless they or someone else appears out of nowhere possessing the kind of extraordinary abilities of an Obama, they don’t stand much of a chance of overcoming her advantages.

Posted by: phx8 at November 9, 2014 3:29 PM
Comment #385170

Someone once quipped” Hillary can’t act natural in her own bathroom.”

I think this is very telling and very true.

Hillary and many of her keen followers believe it’s “her turn.” There is no such thing as someone’s turn.”

Her book tour has been a disaster! She flip flops, when it’s politically expedient and she hates her enemies even more than both Nixon and Obama do.

On a related note (and this is my humble opinion), no presidential candidate should be chosen as the primary winner unless they have at least been a one-term governor (Sarah Palin need not apply).

Most presidents in the modern era who have had a modicum of success have been governors. As a governor, one must deal with budgets (balancing it yearly), a cabinet, deal with and work with the state legislature, handle a myriad of crises as well as an occasional natural disaster or two. In a word, it is a great step to becoming the Commander-in-Chief.

Obama is prime example of someone bereft of any ‘real’ experience in running complex entities. The same goes for Hillary.

The one exception: if a person has high-level military experience, high-level business experience or is a unique individual with a compelling history and track record of accomplishment - especially while under extreme pressure or circumstance.

This is my own bias. Thus, people like Rand Paul, Paul Ryan (whom I like a lot!), Ted Cruz and other non-governors should stay home.

Call me cynical, but I believe people such as John Kacsich, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, among others, have the edge from a “leadership” and “CEO of a state” standpoint.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 9, 2014 8:03 PM
Comment #385171
Hillary has this network already established, and her educational background & job experience suggests she has similar potential. So does Biden, to some extent.

Such a network is important, but not to the detriment of everything else. Let’s face it, people are tired of Obama. 6+ years in the White House have transformed the guy into just another Washington pol. In 2016, people will be yearning for hope/change just like they did in 2008. Washington insiders like Clinton, Cruz and Rubio won’t stand a chance. Governors will be in a much better position to deliver the goods: Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick and others definitely have a good chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, I can easily see her losing to Republican former governor (Walker, Kasich, Snyder, Christie).

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2014 9:21 PM
Comment #385172
On a related note (and this is my humble opinion), no presidential candidate should be chosen as the primary winner unless they have at least been a one-term governor (Sarah Palin need not apply).

Kevin, really! GWB, need I say more? I guess kudos are due as at least you didn’t use the CEO position as some sort of a magic qualifier for president. oh crap of course….

The one exception: if a person has high-level military experience, high-level business experience…..

Once again GWB need I say more? Well at least you didn’t include actor as an important qualification. But speaking of actors Reagan was also a governor and his administration was the most corrupt in modern history, I guess it depends on what it is you are looking for in a leader.

Since when does being a governor or CEO give one any foreign policy experience such as say a Secretary of State?

Both Clinton and Obama have shown intelligence is much more important than being a governor of Texas or a CEO of any business. You have to go back to GHWB or Eisenhower to get any intelligence on the right and neither was a governor.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 9, 2014 9:22 PM
Comment #385173

j2t2,

Just because governors have important advantages doesn’t mean we have to ignore everything else either. Nor does it mean all governors are automatically superior candidates. The only contention here is that governors are better when all else is the same.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2014 9:31 PM
Comment #385212

“There are times, there’s no doubt about it, where, you know I think we have not been successful in going out there and letting people know what it is that we’re trying to do and why this is the right direction,” Mr. Obama said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/politics/obama-blames-himself-and-his-team-for-a-failure-to-sell-policies.html?emc=edit_th_20141110&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=55454588

I didn’t think it was possible for obama to be this blind to reality after the thumping the party received last week.

Is it possible he doesn’t know how many people don’t want “obamacare”, illegals in this country not deported, and continued blocking of the Canada pipeline?

Does he really have a plan to change public opinion or is it just wistful thinking?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2014 2:00 PM
Comment #385213

Is it possible he doesn’t know how many people don’t want “obamacare”, illegals in this country not deported, and continued blocking of the Canada pipeline?

There’s that way to look at it also. Every story, two sides and all.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 10, 2014 2:08 PM
Comment #385214

RF,

It’s widely reported in the media that neither the PPACA nor immigration nor Canadian oil pipelines were major issues. Voters complained of gridlock in Washington and they also complained about the poor economic recovery (mostly attributed to stagnant wages). Obama’s problem right now is one of leadership, not ideology.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2014 2:19 PM
Comment #385216

I don’t see much of a problem at all. Obama won the 2012 election with high turnout, and Democrats did well. The GOP saw no reason to observe that mandate, and filibustered and obstructed. The GOP did well with low turnout midterm of 2014.

Guess what? 2016 will be a high turnout election. There’s no reason for the Democrats not to use the filibuster between now and then to do the exact same thing the GOP did. There is literally nothing to lose. Obama can use executive orders as necessary, and the onus for failing to pass anything will fall on the conservatives. Meanwhile, the Senate is virtually guaranteed to go back to the Democrats in 2016. If the GOP was ‘born on third base’ in the recent midterm, the Democrats will be born on third base with no outs, bases loaded, the score tied, the heart of the line-up due to bat, the wind blowing to center field, facing a pitcher with a record number of blown saves.

I do think Obama will cut a deal for the Keystone pipeline. It will never be built. Oil is down to $77 and dropping, and those tar sands are expensive to produce. The GOP will get a meaningless victor for something that will never happen, so they can claim they won something. Obama can negotiate for something worthwhile- say, passage of an AG, Surgeon General, and a voice vote on the 25% of the ambassadorships that remain unfilled, as well as all those judges.

Or, the Democrats can simply wait until 2016, when they will get what they want from the Senate anyway.

The ONLY question whether it will be a supermajority.

Posted by: phx8 at November 10, 2014 4:29 PM
Comment #385217

Hopefully Obama will be confrontational and push the GOP as hard as possible with executive orders. The goal here is convince the GOP base to move so far right in the primaries that they nominate Ted Cruz. I think they will.

Posted by: phx8 at November 10, 2014 4:40 PM
Comment #385218

Great strategy for a president. But what the hell, he isn’t a leader, just a slimy politician.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2014 5:08 PM
Comment #385219
The only contention here is that governors are better when all else is the same.

Warren, and this statement may or may not be true, which was my point. Using the examples I mentioned both Carter and Reagan were governors yet look at the difference, Reagan ran the most corrupt administration in modern times. GWB was a governor that beat a non governor, Al Gore who looking back may well have been the better choice. Even John Kerry who wasn’t a governor was arguably a better choice.

In the examples Kevin uses Kacsich, Walker and Christie being superior in leadership to Paul et al I would say based on what, scandals? ability to attract big money? or for true leadership?

I’m just not seeing where using the “he was a gov so he must be better” model works Warren.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 10, 2014 6:18 PM
Comment #385220

If Obama pushes with executive orders; he will only do it tempting the Republicans to impeach him. The Democrats would love an impeachment, which would bring out the base in 2016. Although, before the left goes nuts on this subject, there have been no calls for impeachment from Republicans. The only ones talking of impeachment are the Democrats. But this does not change my belief that Obama would love to push the Republicans to impeachment. I don’t think the Republicans will fall for this divisive trick.

Regarding the 2016 elections, it is becoming harder and harder for Democrats to capture House and Senate seats. While the Democrats have possibly at least 50% of the voters; the Democrat electorate is centralized in populous cities. While Republicans or conservatives are gaining territories in the mid-west and the state’s non-populous areas.

Regarding Hillary, she is part of the old guard Democratic liberals. In short, one writer stated that Hillary is sucking all the oxygen out of the Democratic Party. She has the pulpit and she has the money, so it makes it impossible for a young Democrat to immerge.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 10, 2014 6:18 PM
Comment #385222
In the examples Kevin uses Kacsich, Walker and Christie being superior in leadership to Paul et al I would say based on what, scandals?

Each of these men has fought big political fights with statehouse Democrats and later won reelection in a blue state. Some have proven themselves capable of compromise, something very valuable to Americans weary of the partisan divide that strangles Washington today. Similar things could be said for Democratic governors (Cuomo, Patrick, O’Malley, etc). However, isn’t the case for Clinton, Cruz, Rubio, etc.

I’m just not seeing where using the “he was a gov so he must be better” model works Warren.
I should emphasize that it isn’t merely about being a governor, but being a governor and gaining the experience that only a governorship can provide. Looking back, neither Carter nor GWB had the sort of experience I describe: Neither pushing a policy through a state and subsequently won reelection despite the state’s political tilt. Neither had to fight with a statehouse controlled by the opposite party.
Reagan ran the most corrupt administration in modern times.
I’m not talking about corruption, I am talking about leadership. For all his ideological faults, Reagan was an excellent leader, which is why his political philosophy remains so entrenched today. Reagan converted the ideologies of millions of Americans.
the onus for failing to pass anything will fall on the conservatives.
For the past 4 years, conservatives have had the obligation to pass legislation in the House that could earn 60 votes in the Senate and failed miserably; however, they did not pay any price in last week’s election.
I do think Obama will cut a deal for the Keystone pipeline. It will never be built. Oil is down to $77 and dropping, and those tar sands are expensive to produce. The GOP will get a meaningless victory for something that will never happen, so they can claim they won something. Obama can negotiate for something worthwhile- say, passage of an AG, Surgeon General, and a voice vote on the 25% of the ambassadorships that remain unfilled, as well as all those judges.
Agreed. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2014 7:04 PM
Comment #385323

http://www.fashionfast.net/
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
http://www.fashionfast.net/
Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
Jeans price is $34
Jewelry $15
Door to Door services!

Posted by: gfsretywe at November 12, 2014 11:31 PM
Post a comment