It certainly feels like Hilary Clinton is going to run for President

Pages

After watching this video of her interview with Jon Stewart

I actually like her answers, her personality, and her policies but I am kind of tired of political families. It isn't new (the Kennedys, the Bushs, etc) but I think in a country of 300+ million we can find more than a handful of families that have members worthy of the office.

farley3k wrote:

I think in a country of 300+ million we can find more than a handful of families that have members that have the money/recognition to winthe office.

FTFY.

Demosthenes wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I think in a country of 300+ million we can find more than a handful of families that have members who are "dead-broke" win the office.

FTFY. ;)

Double FTFY

Was there ever a doubt she'd run?

garion333 wrote:

Was there ever a doubt she'd run?

She's been saying she wouldn't for a while.

But, no. Not really

If she does, she will lose.

On the one hand, I hope she doesn't run, because everyone trying to tar her with the Benghazi brush won't know what to do with themselves.

On the other, they'll probably think they have some political weight and forced her out of the race, and break their arms trying to pat themselves on the back.

Oh god, that was Obama's plan with the ACA all along!

LeapingGnome wrote:

If she does, she will lose.

I'm not sure. Vs any current GOP leader I'd say her win is almost guaranteed. If the GOP changes to their primaries keep lunatics like Cruz or Walker out of the general election, then she may have some serious competition.

Is there any serious argument that her candidacy is flawed from the start?

jigoku wrote:

Is there any serious argument that her candidacy is flawed from the start?

Yes, there is.

Boobs.

Yes, I'm serious. I sincerely believe that her being a woman is a significant problem, electorally.

Jonman wrote:
jigoku wrote:

Is there any serious argument that her candidacy is flawed from the start?

Yes, there is.

Boobs.

Yes, I'm serious. I sincerely believe that her being a woman is a significant problem, electorally.

I suppose we should've started with *my* definition of serious, which certainly doesn't include the sex of a candidate. But - ugh. I see your point.

Jonman wrote:
jigoku wrote:

Is there any serious argument that her candidacy is flawed from the start?

Yes, there is.

Boobs.

Yes, I'm serious. I sincerely believe that her being a woman is a significant problem, electorally.

as long as no one tries to explain things to her with pie charts and big numbers, she'll do just fine.

That didn't stop the Republicans from running Sarah Palin. 10% of the states today are run by female governors. I don't think it's going to be a big issue outside of states where she would not win anyway (because of the scarlet D she has on her pantsuit top).

Robear wrote:

That didn't stop the Republicans from running Sarah Palin. 10% of the states today are run by female governors. I don't think it's going to be a big issue outside of states where she would not win anyway (because of the scarlet D she has on her pantsuit top).

Palin as VP.

Women as Governors.

This is not the same as running for the Presidency.

Clinton will just further corporate interests which, in my opinion, is the biggest threat to this country. Unfortunately she has more name recognition and money than Elizabeth Warren and so she will get the nomination.

I will note that people were saying the same things regarding our current President.

That being said, I think the loudest opponents will be those that hate the Clinton last name even more than they hate the D next to it.

Expect a metric ton of 20 year old arguments to resurface. (failed universal healthcare, the whole Clinton/Rodham-Clinton idiocy, her mental health/stamina, blow jobs in the WH) And I think they will have a two pronged attack because they can attack her by attacking Bill too. I am not saying it is right. I will say it would be foolish to underestimate its effectiveness.

Although I guess it's worth pointing out that everyone thought she was a lock for the nomination at this time in the 2008 election cycle...

She's a total lock this time, this is going to be so great you guys don't even know

Really looking forward to this election.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Although I guess it's worth pointing out that everyone thought she was a lock for the nomination at this time in the 2008 election cycle...

She's a total lock this time, this is going to be so great you guys don't even know

Really looking forward to this election.

Any thoughts on who you see leading the GOP nominees this time around?

Right now, it's way too messy to make a prediction.

Who do I want? Of the current crop of contenders, I'd prefer Ryan and Bush in that order.

But my dark horse "please run" is Huntsman.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Right now, it's way too messy to make a prediction.

Who do I want? Of the current crop of contenders, I'd prefer Ryan and Bush in that order.

But my dark horse "please run" is Huntsman.

I don't think he'll make it all the way but if he did i'd probably vote for Huntsman over the other usual suspects.

I'd certainly like him more than Ryan or Bush... but that's not exactly a glowing endorsement either.

It will be very interesting to see to what degree the negative rhetoric about Hillary Clinton returns if (when) she runs. Her overall image as portrayed in the mainstream media really seems to have been boosted overall when she was Sec'y of State, notwithstanding Benghazi.

You would never have seen this meme prior to 2009:

IMAGE(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27rynOXO11rt7gleo1_500.jpg)

I don't think the primary arguments against Clinton will have to do with her being a woman. Of course, you can count on the usual suspects to use her gender as a funny way to make fun of her, but the attacks will on the imaginary story Republicans cooked up about Bengahzi.

Both of these attacks will work in her favor, and I see the Republicans failing to dig themselves out of the mud long enough to connect with the uncommitted voters. It's exactly the same tactic that killed Kerry when he aligned himself with Michael Moore his film, Fahrenheit 9/11. It motivated the faithful and turned off the center. That election should have been a landslide for Kerry.

It's too early to call anything, though, because no one knows who will run for the Republicans.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Right now, it's way too messy to make a prediction.

Who do I want? Of the current crop of contenders, I'd prefer Ryan and Bush in that order.

But my dark horse "please run" is Huntsman.

I think Huntsman would win against any likely Democratic nominees, but don't see him making it through the Republican primaries this time, either.

Ryan and Bush are less-strong candidates in the general election, I suspect, but definitely stand a better chance of getting the nomination (how Ryan is taken seriously on anything is beyond me, but that's a derail for this thread).

On topic, I'd prefer someone other than Hilary Clinton to win the Democratic primary (as I did in 2008), but more out of a desire to avoid presidential dynasties than out of a major disagreement with her politics - though I'll definitely look at a sane candidate of any party who is earnestly committed to rolling back the expanded view of the executive branch put forward by Bush and continued by Obama.

The only people that care about Benghazi are people that would vote republican no matter what, I don't think it will be a factor. Clinton won't win because she is a woman and she is a woman that can't count on the female vote and she is an also-ran. I think she would be a good pick for VP, but for President I think she will lose and it almost wouldn't matter who the conservatives put up.

Clinton is too hawkish for my tastes. Of course maybe she was just playing the attack dog role for Obama, but I somehow doubt it. Though after Obama I think I'm done believing in hope and change for a while. I'm not sure how much of a difference the nominee from either major party is going to make at this point. Certainly none of the big front runners that we know about right now are going to be the kinds of politicians to turn back the dial on Presidential power and I have no clue how any single person could make the slightest bit of difference in the congressional log-jam.

If it ends up a match up between Bush vs Clinton then my opinion is we have hit rock bottom. I share farley3k's sentiment here and I would love to vote for a strong female candidate as I think we need more of that representation in our political discourse. A Huntsman vs. Warren match up would awesome even if it would be difficult for me to choose. I'd happily suffer through that.

LeapingGnome wrote:

The only people that care about Benghazi are people that would vote republican no matter what, I don't think it will be a factor. Clinton won't win because she is a woman and she is a woman that can't count on the female vote and she is an also-ran. I think she would be a good pick for VP, but for President I think she will lose and it almost wouldn't matter who the conservatives put up.

As fangblackbone mentioned, this is exactly the same conventional wisdom folks were posting about Obama, including here in P&C. I think the fact that she not only ran a good tough race versus Obama in 2008, but her popularity nearly derailed Obama's support among Democrats points to the fact that she will be accepted as a legitimate candidate.

Her campaign may get derailed and she may flame out, but it won't be because she is a woman.

Oh I think she can win the Dem nomination. I just don't think she can win the election.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Oh I think she can win the Dem nomination. I just don't think she can win the election.

I get that, but your reasoning is the same as to why Obama couldn't win the election.

Jayhawker wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

Oh I think she can win the Dem nomination. I just don't think she can win the election.

I get that, but your reasoning is the same as to why Obama couldn't win the election.

Indeed, but as with Obama's victories, a lot depends on the other guy. To claim that Obama had no disadvantage due to the color of his skin would be disingenuous - it just so happens that Romney had a greater disadvantage in being a colossal douchebag.

Same for Hilary. She has a disadvantage in being a woman, but if her opponent is, say, Santorum, then she'll wipe the floor with him nonetheless.

I think that being black is less of a penalty than being a woman. Heck, just look at when black men got the vote compared to women. Racism at this point doesn't seem to be of the "all black people are stupid/untrustworthy/violent/whatever" type, but just "most" or "more often than white people". You can still have "good" black people like Herman Cain:

Ann Coulter wrote:

Our black people are so much better than their black people.

I feel like women have a harder battle to fight because their differences from the white male "standard" are perceived as being so much more universal.

Edit: Which isn't to say that I think Hillary Clinton couldn't be our next President, I just think she has more of a penalty than Obama did as a (half)* black man.
* I don't think that he had less of a penalty as a mixed race candidate than an entirely black candidate would have had, but it is something to consider.

Pages