Stats

Comments Posted By AdLib

Displaying 2,251 To 2,280 Of 19,504 Comments

Could Hillary Clinton Become the Next Republican President?

Couldn’t agree more, TresL!

» Posted By AdLib On July 10, 2014 @ 10:33 am

MBE, you’re of course right that Rove, the Kochs, etc. have continued trying to stockpile ammunition against Hillary so there will be new accusations against her (very trumped up ones too like Benghazi) but the game they’re going to be playing will be so exposed when they come at her with decades old charges that include trying to tar her with Bill’s actions while President.

My bet is that they will hold back on attacks on Hillary during the Dem primary, in hopes that she will win and to keep their attacks “fresh” for the GE. Then there will be a massive avalanche of attacks on her. They may think that will work but it could have a boomerang effect on the public, turning them against the attackers and gravitating to Hillary out of empathy.

But Hillary may not make it to the GE. I sure am getting the feeling of the “inevitable” candidate once again having feet of clay. With all her strengths and overpowering advantages, when she speaks out, she frequently trips herself up. And if it becomes a close race between her and someone else, if she and Bill start getting scared that 2016 will turn out like 2008, they could push the panic button, launching a brutal negative campaign (as they did when they were foundering in 2008)that brings them down instead.

Elizabeth Warren would be an ideal candidate for me but I believe her when she says she’s not going to run in 2016. Sherrod Brown is a great potential prospect if he wants to run. Joe Biden is such a solid and dependable Progressive, he shouldn’t be counted out.

I like Bernie Sanders but the superficial things could prove difficult for him (even though that’s not fair). Being a socialist and independent, looking a bit old, these should be irrelevant but voters can be a bit shallow when it comes to such things. He’s almost always in the right place on the issues and a true Progressive but I wouldn’t give him the strongest chance to win…though his influence in a primary in pulling candidates over to the Left could be invaluable.

» Posted By AdLib On July 10, 2014 @ 10:31 am

Thanks RSGMusic, very appreciated!

It is a game that politicians typically play with the public, putting on a song and dance for elections to tell people what they think will get them elected…which sometimes has no bearing on what they will actually do once they’re in office (Republicans Governors appear to be the biggest role models for this including Pat McCrory in NC, Scott Walker in WI, Rick Scott in FL, Tom Corbett in MI, etc., all stunning the electorate with what they’ve done once they won office).

I’m going to be patient to see who runs in the Dem primary and I’m not going to count anyone out or anyone in (hear that, Hillary?).

Remember how Obama was discounted early on as to why he couldn’t win? “He’s black.” “He’s not black enough.” “He’s too young.” “He’s inexperienced.” “He’s only a one term Senator.” “No one knows who he is and Hillary can’t be beaten.”

I also agree with your view that as time goes by, Obama will be seen as a great President who steered the course of the nation through stormy seas with a steady hand. Lincoln was not so popular during his Presidency. It’s hard for some people to view the present with a wider view, in context of the past and what lies ahead. However, the remarkable accomplishments of this President and how he has worked hard to move the country forward will be appreciated more and more as time goes by.

» Posted By AdLib On July 10, 2014 @ 10:14 am

Good question KT, maybe some influence there (though it is a US version of a British series).

I’ll bet there are many politicians reflected in the Underwoods…and some Hollywood producers too!

» Posted By AdLib On July 10, 2014 @ 9:59 am

VB, spot on! No question in my mind how heavy handed the gender card will be played by Hillary’s team and core supporters, to try and insulate her from criticism and attacks, just as we saw in 2008.

As I mentioned below to cyndibru about race, it is a negative reflection on those who would use gender or race to justify their support or opposition to candidates.

In a nation where equality is supposed to be supported, all candidates no matter their gender or race should be treated with the same respect and level of scrutiny. Elections are supposed to be about issues, not the color of one’s skin or the gender of the candidate.

We shouldn’t respect prejudice in any case, especially when it swings in a desirable way, we should be supporting candidates and voting based on the issues and character a candidate represents.

» Posted By AdLib On July 10, 2014 @ 9:54 am

cyndibru, in 2008 Progressives expressed the same reservations about Hillary and Hillary lost. So your proposition has history and reality against it. I would also add my POV to Kalima’s and others’ comments that trying to attribute Obama’s election to his race is an unfortunate, race-based mindset that is frequently used by those on the Right and is disappointing to see you echo.

Trying to disqualify the intelligence and ability to discern of all those who voted for a candidate you did not support, and reduce them to simple and wrong minded people who voted on race alone actually reflects the race consciousness of the one proposing such a ridiculous accusation.

Such a tactic is also trying to trivialize the issues Obama stood for and that voters overwhelmingly supported that led to his election, including the ACA, women’s rights, immigration reform, financial reform, protecting SS and Medicare from being destroyed by privatization, etc.

Also, such a racial theory falls apart when it comes to Obama’s re-election in 2012 since the factor you try to represent as the only reason Obama was elected didn’t exist then, namely, he wasn’t running to become the first African American President.

I am always happy to discuss and debate different points of views on issues but when that is all reduced into such simplistic, racial terms in order to devalue others, it is beneath consideration as a serious or substantive POV.

» Posted By AdLib On July 10, 2014 @ 9:44 am

Misterbadexample, I actually think much of the trove of opposition research Rove and others have on Hillary are so old, most people are not going to care. I’ll also bet that much of it is against Bill Clinton who isn’t the candidate. However, considering all the pies that the Clintons have their fingers in and have had their fingers in over the last couple of decades, there is probably enough to break something new every week.

It should be a consideration, we remember how gleeful the Repubs were in 2008 at being able to use their compiled attacks against her in a GE…and how unprepared they were for Obama being the nominee.

I’d have to say at this point it is likelier than not that she would win the Dem nom and the GE but far from a certainty. I would especially point to what a terrible campaigner she is and how she frequently says things that get her in trouble (including her propensity to lie).

With Hillary tacking to the right, against Obama’s Presidency and for greater militarism, don’t be surprised if a Dem as unknown nationally as Obama was in 2007, emerges as the Progressive alternative to Hillary and becomes more attractive to Dem voters than Hillary.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 5:11 pm

Thanks kevinbr38!

Right with you on that, we do need to stand strongly behind Obama and getting out the vote this year. Betrayal is the new black this season, more Dems are strutting around thinking how cool they are for dissing Obama but those ingrates should be countered with Dems and Progressives who know what loyalty means.

As for Hillary picking a Progressive as a running mate, I think she’ll do just the opposite and pick a blue dog or a conservative Dem. She’s already acting like she doesn’t need to pander to Progressives, with her chicken hawk rhetoric and insulting Obama, she no doubt believes, “Who else are they going to vote for anyway?” So she has now positioned herself to appeal to Republicans and conservatives, hence this latest campaign style of hers.

I don’t think she really wants a more Progressive America, she is part of the 1% who are flourishing and getting richer each year while the 99% fall behind. The status quo is making her family and friends more wealthy and powerful each year, I don’t think she wants that to change.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

Allymax, you nailed it, the key word that comes to mind for me with regards to Hillary is “inauthentic”. She says things that have the depth of a cookie sheet, her words always seem like a means to an end instead of meaningful and genuine, as if she is only saying something to manipulate instead of saying things earnestly.

Her backstabbing of Obama seems just like a political calculation that it would benefit her, I never see any struggle with conscience from her when she changes positions, she just seems to have decided on a particular day that she’ll gain more from saying this today instead of that.

And your points on Hillary’s faux “charity”, giving money to her family’s foundation is supposed to be doing something that she and her family don’t benefit from are well made.

If someone starts out her campaign this way, where is there for her to go during the campaign but lower?

And welcome to The Planet, Allymax!

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 4:52 pm

Nirek, I feel the same way. Being a purist and being willing to act against one’s own interest because someone doesn’t conform to all your political beliefs is just foolish. I may not be crazy about Hillary being President but I would be furious if Rand Paul was President…and if my refusing to vote for Hillary brought that about.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 4:44 pm

Thanks Murph!

Really enjoyed reading your recollection of 2007 and your punchline about supporting Obama after seeing how slick and elitist Hillary’s operation was.

Kind of ironic too that Obama pioneered the small donation financing through the web and out-raised her in the end!

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 12:14 pm

Kalima, great articles and I borrowed from them in my post! Where would I be without Morning Blog?

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 12:10 pm

NoMan, I think Hillary’s blatant lie about being shot at on the runway in Bosnia helped defeat her in 2008 but if one believes that leopards don’t change their spots, I would expect more such lies to come out in the Dem primary and they may be just as devastating.

Though I found that lie reflective of an unprincipled, greedy human being, what turned me most against Hillary in 2008 was the unapologetic racism she tried to use against Obama, through both the Rev. Wright attacks and the Birther crap (remember that interview where she refused to declare that Obama was an American citizen?). And as I mentioned, it was Hillary’s camp and supporters that started up the whole Birther attacks on Obama.

She may try to start off her run as being above it all but if an opponent starts to catch up to her or even pass her in polls, I have no doubt we’ll see that same mercenary Hillary revealed who has no boundaries when it comes to trying to take the power she feels entitled to have.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 12:09 pm

Hey VB! Yep, the Clinton machine is in full swing…and perpetual damage control with such an accident-prone candidate. You’re so right, millions of women want to vote for her primarily because they want to elect the first woman President. Anyone who remembers the nastiness of the PUMAs knows how low some of those supporters will go to get her elected at any price.

But they lost in 2008 so victory is not a lock for 2016 despite how it might seem.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 11:56 am

Forgot to mention, I think your concern about the vulnerability of any candidate other than Hillary would be addressed through the primary process itself. Dem voters are mainstream voters, a candidate that wins the primaries would have displayed the viability, smarts and electability that would have been necessary to win the primaries.

I think its a fait accompli, whichever candidate wins the Dem primary, will be battle tested and have passed that test. And he/she will be far more appealing to a majority of voters than the likely Repub candidate so I think we’ll be in a strong position with whoever wins.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 11:45 am

Kes, I don’t know that I would attribute as many doubts to all of the candidates that you addressed. Don’t forget that Hillary has huge potential negatives too, that could make her an even worse candidate than some of those listed above. I think she is a very stumbling campaigner, she lies and plays dirty, she says the wrong thing and creates uproars repeatedly.

One thing that is clear about her, she has no loyalty and will stab her own party’s President in the back if it’s to her political advantage. The question that really comes to mind is, does she really have any convictions on issues or is it all negotiable depending on what’s more personally advantageous?

I have always liked Sherrod Brown, he is the real deal, a true and principled Progressive. He would absolutely be on my list for consideration.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 11:37 am

TresL, thanks so much and welcome to The Planet!

Right with you on all your points. I do think Biden will throw his hat in the ring and he would be at the top of my list of candidates I may support (I don’t think Elizabeth Warren will run but if she did, she’d be my top pick).

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 11:22 am

Sally, I agree with your bottom line, no matter how negative Hillary may be as President for those with Progressive values, allowing a Repub to be elected would be exponentially worse and would be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. So, I too would vote for Hillary if she became the Dem nominee but as a way of voting against the Repub.

I don’t agree though with your proposition that Hillary is no different than any other candidate that would run for office because they all have ties to wealthy people. The Clintons are multimillionaires many times over, they have lived as elitists most of their lives, Bill Clinton’s foundation necessitates him having extremely close relationships with the wealthiest and most powerful people in the US and around the world and the Clintons’ family have been ensconced in Wall Street and hedge funds.

No other potential Dem candidate, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, etc. is so wealthy nor is embedded in their daily life in that rarefied 1%er circle and no other Dem candidate is as war-minded as Hillary.

So while all candidates may need to court and build relationships with the massively wealthy, only Hillary is one of them herself.

Oh and BTW, everything I write actually is always pertfec. 😉

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 11:14 am

monicaangela, I sure wish your prayers came true but I’m afraid that it’s part of those people’s identity to be eternally hungry for money and power.

For me, Gore not winning decisively in 2000 and Bush being in a position to have the SCOTUS declare him President was a hard lesson about how much worse things can get when not voting for the lesser of two evils allows the most evil to win.

As you can tell from my post, I’m with you on not wanting Hillary to become President but if she wins the Dem primary, I would vote for her in a GE because opening the door for a Rand Paul or a Jeb Bush to be President would be even worse.

Sometimes there isn’t a choice between something good and something bad, sometimes it’s between not good and terrible. I don’t want that to be the scenario in November so I will be seeking a candidate to support in the Dem primary that is a true Progressive and could beat Hillary.

She was inevitable in 2008 and look what happened. History can indeed repeat itself and with her turning on Obama and a number of Progressive principles, I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.

» Posted By AdLib On July 9, 2014 @ 10:54 am

Why Democrats Lag Behind Despite Growing Population Advantages

Miles, it is such a simple and Progressive fix, it really needs to happen.

If the worst thing is that millionaires don’t get every dollar back that they put into SS, just most of it, and SS is stabilized for ALL Americans, that is such a painless way of protecting everyone in America when they retire.

And do millionaires really need an extra hundred dollars each month so much more than 99% of Americans need SS when they retire? It’s not even a question, this should be done ASAP…though we may have to wait until 2022, the first election after the next census and redrawing of districts.

» Posted By AdLib On July 7, 2014 @ 12:08 pm

Hey confuseddemocrat, I have a bit of a different take on the reason the Dems aren’t dominating politics due to demographics as they should be.

You propose that it is policy based, my take on it is that it is more process based.

As we’ve seen on policies like the gun control bill, where 90% of the nation supported it yet it wasn’t passed…and still nearly all the politicians who blocked it will be re-elected, the public’s positions on policy seem to have little connection nowadays to elections.

I would suggest that the disconnect between demographics and Dems not being more dominant is due to three things, gerrymandering by Republicans, voter suppression laws and tactics and the outsized influence of the wealthy on elections.

The House majority is a travesty, it is hardly reflective of the nation’s sensibilities as The Founders intended and is instead a Frankenstein created by Repubs through tortured gerrymandering. The majority in The House represents a small minority of Americans and they are not representative of America, they are far more white, religious, conservative and older than average Americans. So until 2020 and we have a new census and new drawings of districts, it is sadly irrelevant how demographics keep changing to favor the Dems since we don’t currently have a genuinely representative House.

The Voter ID laws, the slashing of early voting days, the attempts to build hurdles to keep that very demographic from even registering is a big contributor too.

And the unlimited hundreds of millions if not billions that the Koch Brothers, oil companies, gun manufacturers, etc. can pour into elections buy Congresspeople and work effectively as a scare tactic to force them to vote in their favor or have that mountain of money turned against them to take away their seat.

As for your descriptions of the stimulus and the avoidance of prosecuting the criminals on Wall Street, I agree. With the stimulus, Obama was new in the Presidency and tried so hard to be bipartisan that he ended up undercutting the effectiveness of the stimulus just to bring Repub votes on board. They betrayed him and their promises of course and we ended up with a stimulus that was too much a tax cut and credits plan which as you say, was a kind of Trickle Down Lite. At the same time, it did have hundreds of billions of domestic spending and did make a profound impact on arresting the freefall of our economy and the hemorrhaging of jobs. It should have been much larger on spending and a fuller and faster recovery would have occurred but Obama was trying to bring the country together by working with Republicans so the intentions were good but the outcome was not as good as it should have been.

I don’t agree though that Dems have run as the lesser of two evils, they have run on the ACA, on income inequality, on protecting SS and Medicare from being privatized, on gay rights, on gun control, taxing the wealthy and providing for the needy, etc.

IMO, this is not the case of the Dems being too much like Repubs on the issues, it is the system of elections that is corrupting our representative government. Repubs support taking contraception away from women as well as abortion, they pass laws attacking Latinos, they want to go to war in a variety of nations, they want religion to trump law, they express racism and chauvinism with no apologies, they want to gut SS and Medicare by privatizing them, they want to slash spending on the poor, they want to block any progress for the nation under this President…I really don’t see Dems as being anywhere near Repubs on most issues.

If we could have (as is the case here in CA) states use independent boards to draw districts, that alone could cure the misrepresentation of the people in DC. And if we could legislate public funding for elections and ban the unlimited spending of the wealthy to taint elections, then we’d have a true democracy flourishing here that genuinely represented the demographics and views of this nation.

» Posted By AdLib On July 7, 2014 @ 12:00 pm

The Irresponsible Electorate and the 4th of July

Cheers, kevinbr38!

» Posted By AdLib On July 4, 2014 @ 5:09 pm

Murph, it takes thoughtfulness and a sense of responsibility to be a good citizen and those traits are sadly missing in a big swath of the population.

Being a citizen is a job, it takes work to follow what’s going on in one’s society and many just lazily listen to their favorite news shows/channels and simply suck up whatever the media pours out.

That is what I find the polling you listed reveals. It’s not as much a negative reflection of Obama as it is a negative reflection of the lazy in the electorate. How lazy minded to think, “Well, if everything isn’t going great, I guess the other guy would’ve been a better president”?

There is no evidence of critical thinking in such responses (I’m sure being at war with Syria and Iran right now, repealing the ACA and supporting the actions and agendas of racists, Wall Street, oil companies and billionaires would have made things much better for the same complaining Americans).

The subtext of this poll is what matters, not the context. People are upset because there’s not a lot being done to help the majority in this nation and had they been paying attention just a little bit, they would recognize that it has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the Repubs in Congress.

So the nation celebrates with barbecues and fireworks…when many should be celebrating by educating themselves as is their duty as citizens.

Happy 4th to you, Murph and the many well informed folks who justify my optimism in this country and make up the membership of The Planet.

» Posted By AdLib On July 4, 2014 @ 2:23 pm

The Weekend Music Thread-Independence

Nirek, great clip! Also appreciated the clips from Yankee Doodle Dandy, showed the film to my daughter (again) on the 4th (she loves the singing and dancing).

» Posted By AdLib On July 5, 2014 @ 4:47 pm

No worries, Sally, it’s removed. Feel free to try again!

» Posted By AdLib On July 5, 2014 @ 4:45 pm

On a lighter note…

America, Fuck Yeah! – Team America

» Posted By AdLib On July 5, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

As long as I’m at it, another clip from a classic film that urges to fight for liberty, compassion and unity:

The Great Dictator

» Posted By AdLib On July 5, 2014 @ 4:31 pm

It’s not music but it is music to the ears of those who love classic film and what’s best in America:

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

» Posted By AdLib On July 5, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

I’m Free – Rolling Stones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWFk9Dj3LsE

I’m Free – The Who
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGa70tVYVKo

Free as a Bird – The Beatles

» Posted By AdLib On July 5, 2014 @ 3:47 pm

The Political Illiteracy of Progressives: Matthews vs. Warren

KT, exactly, the absence of links to objective sources that would validate such an ambitious proposition undermine it. When one can document all the successes of Dems since 2008, one would expect at least a little legit documentation for such a dubious claim.

When so many here have worked hands on with fellow Progressives and Dems and achieved goals, it is kind of surreal to hear the claim that the Dem Party doesn’t even exist. Frankly, it sounds more like wishful thinking for some reason.

» Posted By AdLib On July 3, 2014 @ 4:56 pm