She only fight for presidency as a desire for a blaze of glory and authority. In the past six years, I didn't see her to make any suggestion to solve the problems which now are themes of her propaganda. She will get much cash donations even if she is going to loose in this game. Why don't she join this game?
2
“For months, the suspense surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plans to make a second attempt at the White House had little to do with whether and everything to do with why:What would be her rationale for running for Presidency?”
Any suspense regarding a Presidential bid by Hillary Clinton hasn’t trickled down to the masses.
There’s been as much suspense about Hillary Clinton’s run or rationale
as there has been about the inevitability of death and taxes.
Hillary’s Rationale is the same as any other Presidential candidate’s rationale. She wants to be #1.
Ask any Kindergardener.Now,get back to reporting some real news.
Any suspense regarding a Presidential bid by Hillary Clinton hasn’t trickled down to the masses.
There’s been as much suspense about Hillary Clinton’s run or rationale
as there has been about the inevitability of death and taxes.
Hillary’s Rationale is the same as any other Presidential candidate’s rationale. She wants to be #1.
Ask any Kindergardener.Now,get back to reporting some real news.
2
Well, first off, the fact that she has not driven a car MIGHT mean she is capable of using public transportation.
More importantly, who would think of asking a MAN why he wants to run for President?
Go, Hill.
More importantly, who would think of asking a MAN why he wants to run for President?
Go, Hill.
2
"Mrs. Clinton has voiced her support for the “fast-food and domestic workers all across our country who ask for nothing more than a living wage and a fair shot.”
Another example of craven Hilary banality as she is about to be trampled by the $15 minimum wage issue.
This is the kind of nonsense that we will be hit with when asking "why is HC running"--what does she believe in? Even she no longer knoiws.
Another example of craven Hilary banality as she is about to be trampled by the $15 minimum wage issue.
This is the kind of nonsense that we will be hit with when asking "why is HC running"--what does she believe in? Even she no longer knoiws.
1
What difference will she make???
2
I've seen some of the "piling on" video clips from a few of the Republican wing-nuts, and it's just hilarious. Attacking her personality, not any plans or platforms, is downright hilarious. They have nothing to say for themselves, so they say shi**y things about her. If it's about the ""old" HRC, I'd say, better that than any of the "new" Republicans. We wish we could hear from the "old" Republicans.
3
I read a few days ago a comment of someone suggesting if she had Liz Warren as her running mate, it would be a done deal. Would that such a team of Hil and Liz be a reality. I'd vote for 'em in a heartbeat. Too bad she could not start outlining and revealing a "dream team". The White House could sure use a dream team. I like, but don't "love" H.R.C, but really, is there anyone else better or more qualified or experienced and "in the know" on both sides of the aisle than Hilary? I doubt it. I'm sure there are plenty of misogynistic men out there who curse her under their breath and don't want to see women in powerful positions. Those guys are total wimps and ought to go live in a backwards Middle Eastern or African Country where women are second class and kept silent. I personally believe there are a lot of smart and level headed women who would have done and would do a better job running governments and businesses than a lot of men. WOW, just imagine two Earth Mothers in the White House running the show, and how about another woman as House Speaker and successor to R.B. Ginsberg! Go ladies!!!
1
Hillary Clinton stated that she has not personally driven a car for over 20 years.
How in-touch can she really be with the needs of the middle class?
Would you really vote for a person that doesn’t drive a car? Come on, really?
The middle class drives everywhere. Pickup trucks, SUVs, Hybrids.
Soccer moms, sports Dads, contractors, workers... all of us. The middle class doesn't have chauffeurs, drivers, or transportation staffs.
How in-touch can she really be with the needs of the middle class?
Would you really vote for a person that doesn’t drive a car? Come on, really?
The middle class drives everywhere. Pickup trucks, SUVs, Hybrids.
Soccer moms, sports Dads, contractors, workers... all of us. The middle class doesn't have chauffeurs, drivers, or transportation staffs.
10
Yeah, and we don't have Secret Service protection either. Give us a break.
3
But elected officials and their spouses do...are you suggesting that governors, senators, cabinet members and even the POTUS and families should be driving themselves? Does that include the Republicans also?
Attack her political policies and positions and offer critiques in those areas and leave the theatrical psychological ploys to professionals.
Attack her political policies and positions and offer critiques in those areas and leave the theatrical psychological ploys to professionals.
1
I swore I wouldn't do it - but I just watched Hillary's two minute presidential bid announcement so that I could get up to speed on the latest epoch-making development in our national politics.
It's marvelous. If Proctor and Gamble wanted to sponsor someone for the job, this is what they'd come up with.
Will she be handing out free Tide™ detergent pods, out of her purest - if somewhat patronizing - impulses toward us "little people" - during her first campaign tour through Iowa?
It's marvelous. If Proctor and Gamble wanted to sponsor someone for the job, this is what they'd come up with.
Will she be handing out free Tide™ detergent pods, out of her purest - if somewhat patronizing - impulses toward us "little people" - during her first campaign tour through Iowa?
7
Her problem, if it is one, to Democrats is that although Republicans obviously would prefer a Republican, and seem to dislike/distrust her personally (very) intensely, as far as I can tell, a healthy share of them (in places like Long Island) believes that at least on a number of economic, social, and foreign issues, she, in her current incarnation, would be an acceptable President. That’s more of a problem for Republican candidates.
3
All that's missing from Hillary's campaign announcement video is a LGBT hedge fund manager of a colourful hue happily signing on to a 50 per cent tax on capital gains, carried interest, and dividends remarking that "Hey, our 2014 bonuses alone totalled more than twice the income of all America's minimum wage workers!"
And a Walton signing on to estate tax remarking "Gosh, my family has more wealth than the bottom 50 per cent of Americans!"
And any one of the top ten income earners in the U.S. observing that "My income alone would be enough to end homelessness in America!"
And a raid on a Cayman Islands law firm with the lawyer confessing "Gosh, our rich clients have $16 trillion parked in tax havens so maybe some of it should go back to the U.S.!"
Pity that won't happen. So bring on the video of kittens and puppies!
And a Walton signing on to estate tax remarking "Gosh, my family has more wealth than the bottom 50 per cent of Americans!"
And any one of the top ten income earners in the U.S. observing that "My income alone would be enough to end homelessness in America!"
And a raid on a Cayman Islands law firm with the lawyer confessing "Gosh, our rich clients have $16 trillion parked in tax havens so maybe some of it should go back to the U.S.!"
Pity that won't happen. So bring on the video of kittens and puppies!
5
Obama’s victories proved that the “ground game” of targeting and motivating voter registration and turnout -- down to the precinct level in key counties in key states -- was arguably more important than the message. Especially among young and minority voters. I’ve heard about how Hillary intends to do a lot of “one-on-ones” and “go small.” But I haven’t heard anything about how her campaign is developing and implementing this type of micro-targeting that was largely credited for Obama’s two victories…
2
Great. For the first time, we will have two republican candidates to choose from for the president. Cant wait.
3
Nice photo ops of HRC surrounded by the people she wants you to support, take care of. This is her constituency. They want your support, literally. If you choose not to support these folks, they will arrange for your support by coercion. We are done. We have given at the office. Please go away, leave us alone. God knows, we want to leave you alone, forever..
5
Unless Jeb Bush has some skeleton in his closet, this is starting to look like a shoo-in.
2
He has quite a few skeletons in his closet and some very public missteps.
3
I will be so proud, as a young woman, to vote for Hillary for president. I hope the NYT can put on its big-kid pants and quit picking on her, as it has done for years, but I'm not holding my breath. GO HILLARY!
10
NYT has given her plenty of coverage, not all if it negative, some seemed very supportive. I can't recall the last Hilary-free day, expect there wont be such a thing for at least 19 months...
1
There are really only two things which sell on election day: (1) things are going so well, we need more of the same, or (2) change is necessary. Of the two, change is almost always the better pitch, because the average voter does not really have it too well, ever.
Obama was swept into office on change. How did that turn out?
He has perverted justice by permitting war criminals to walk while he has incarcerated sick people for finding relief in marijuana. He has made a huge mess of the Middle East, where he conducts unauthorized war and extra-constitutional killing for the sake of the oil companies, which care more about their profits than the environmental damage they are causing. Oh, and he signed off on the Republican health care plan. Meanwhile, under his watch, wealth has moved from the people to the upper one tenth of one percent at a record pace -- and this is just a prelude for the fallout from the next crash.
Was this the change we thought we could believe in?
Obviously, Hillary, who is knee deep in the status quo, can't sell this debacle as something we should embrace, at least not if people open their eyes. But how can she sell change? The lust for power will prevent her from speaking the truth about Obama's mistakes, especially since she probably agrees with him on most of his decisions.
I'm sure that with carefully worded slogans, Hillary will be able to get a lot of votes. It's the media's job to crack through that calculated code.
Obama was swept into office on change. How did that turn out?
He has perverted justice by permitting war criminals to walk while he has incarcerated sick people for finding relief in marijuana. He has made a huge mess of the Middle East, where he conducts unauthorized war and extra-constitutional killing for the sake of the oil companies, which care more about their profits than the environmental damage they are causing. Oh, and he signed off on the Republican health care plan. Meanwhile, under his watch, wealth has moved from the people to the upper one tenth of one percent at a record pace -- and this is just a prelude for the fallout from the next crash.
Was this the change we thought we could believe in?
Obviously, Hillary, who is knee deep in the status quo, can't sell this debacle as something we should embrace, at least not if people open their eyes. But how can she sell change? The lust for power will prevent her from speaking the truth about Obama's mistakes, especially since she probably agrees with him on most of his decisions.
I'm sure that with carefully worded slogans, Hillary will be able to get a lot of votes. It's the media's job to crack through that calculated code.
3
And you think soft and cuddly John McCain, or warm, charismatic Mitt Romney, were going to do better. Or maybe that astute foreign affairs expert Sarah Palin would have balanced things out.
Remember that McCain wanted to support arming ISIS and couldn't possibly have known that all of the Iraqi refugees we created would eventually want to make their way back to their homes.
Mitt Romney, who was correct that the economy would be fully recovered by 2014, although completely wrong in thinking that it could only happen if he were elected.
Like Obama, you need to judge Clinton relative to the alternatives, not some fantasy leader that you cobbled together from watching the History Channel.
Remember that McCain wanted to support arming ISIS and couldn't possibly have known that all of the Iraqi refugees we created would eventually want to make their way back to their homes.
Mitt Romney, who was correct that the economy would be fully recovered by 2014, although completely wrong in thinking that it could only happen if he were elected.
Like Obama, you need to judge Clinton relative to the alternatives, not some fantasy leader that you cobbled together from watching the History Channel.
2
In almost any Presidential Election each Party gets 45 % of the vote
so the fight is over the un-decided 10 %.
The Democrats should have run Hillary in 2008 and Obama as VP.
Then the would have been set for 2016.
The Republicans would do well to run Jeb and then either Cruz or Rubio
to increase their Hispanic Vote.
Meanwhile the Rich get even more rich - what oh what do they do with their
ill-gotten wealth and the rest of us are left to survive as best we can.
Meanwhile China is taking over the South China Sea...
so the fight is over the un-decided 10 %.
The Democrats should have run Hillary in 2008 and Obama as VP.
Then the would have been set for 2016.
The Republicans would do well to run Jeb and then either Cruz or Rubio
to increase their Hispanic Vote.
Meanwhile the Rich get even more rich - what oh what do they do with their
ill-gotten wealth and the rest of us are left to survive as best we can.
Meanwhile China is taking over the South China Sea...
1
There's a tune that I can't get out of my head...
"I met a girl a month ago
I thought that she would love me so.
But in time I realized.
She had a pair of roving eyes.
I remember the nights we dated,
Always acting sophisticated,
Talking about high society,
Then she tried to make a fool out of me.
They call her Donna, Donna the Prima Donna
Broke my heart now.
Thinks she's smart now.
We're apart now."
Donna's now 69 and still hasn't grown up.
"I met a girl a month ago
I thought that she would love me so.
But in time I realized.
She had a pair of roving eyes.
I remember the nights we dated,
Always acting sophisticated,
Talking about high society,
Then she tried to make a fool out of me.
They call her Donna, Donna the Prima Donna
Broke my heart now.
Thinks she's smart now.
We're apart now."
Donna's now 69 and still hasn't grown up.
4
We liberals and left-leaning folks sometimes need reminders about our own messy history. A vote for Nader in 2000 = having bought a share in the nightmare that followed.
For many liberals being 'right' (or righteous?) has been paramount, even if it meant losing. Or turning their backs on the current President. But being right is worth 20 points and it's a 100 point game.
Both houses of congress are in the hands of Republicans who have shown no interest in addressing concerns of the 'middle class' (as it used to be called): social justice, economic fairness, education. The idea of adding a Walker or even a Bush to that dangerous brew is unacceptable.
But preventing another nightmare calls for focus and discipline. It calls for progressive voters to resist the warm glow of a protest vote for Warren or any others who appeal to liberal fastidiousness.
It's become yet another cliche to declare that 'the stakes are high this time.' But, yes, the stakes are high.
For many liberals being 'right' (or righteous?) has been paramount, even if it meant losing. Or turning their backs on the current President. But being right is worth 20 points and it's a 100 point game.
Both houses of congress are in the hands of Republicans who have shown no interest in addressing concerns of the 'middle class' (as it used to be called): social justice, economic fairness, education. The idea of adding a Walker or even a Bush to that dangerous brew is unacceptable.
But preventing another nightmare calls for focus and discipline. It calls for progressive voters to resist the warm glow of a protest vote for Warren or any others who appeal to liberal fastidiousness.
It's become yet another cliche to declare that 'the stakes are high this time.' But, yes, the stakes are high.
11
When Congress/Senate was in the hands of the Dems what did they do for the Middle Class? Both houses have been bought and paid for.
5
Oh brother, this again. Don't blame Nader voters for the 200,000 registered Florida Democrats who voted for BUSH and the half of registered Democrats who didn't show up to the polls at all. The Democrats failure is their own and nobody else's, and they may well repeat that failure by running a war hawk and Wall Street shill unopposed. Some GOP alternative.
1
She just announced, people. Surely, her positions and vision will unfold during the campaign. Hopefully, they will be informed by a great deal of listening to the people she seeks to represent. She has the credentials, the experience, the intelligence and the compassion. Give her a chance to communicate with the electorate. (And remember, she will also be dealing with a perhaps unprecedented level of vitriol - some of which quite takes my breath away.)
13
She will have to deal with lots of irrational hatred and vitriol, but that's hardly unprecedented. She and President Clinton were falsely accused of murder, drug running and a variety of factless charges. The hatred and slime rained on President Obama is well documented.
2
Many think we need a woman in the White house. Fine, why not?
I'm all for it. But not THIS woman.
She has proven herself to be an excellent team marketer of her most conveniently placed political image of the day. She has been able to play very well off her husband and motivate staff on a very high level. At times, could even be seen as a decent actress. Given her checkered record however, I see her as a self elitist, completely untrustworthy career politician of the worst kind. The latest mess; her "lost" 30,000 Secretary of State e mails and the lame excuses that followed. Frankly, I just cannot believe her on any level.
Not someone I'd want running anything, much less the country.
I'm all for it. But not THIS woman.
She has proven herself to be an excellent team marketer of her most conveniently placed political image of the day. She has been able to play very well off her husband and motivate staff on a very high level. At times, could even be seen as a decent actress. Given her checkered record however, I see her as a self elitist, completely untrustworthy career politician of the worst kind. The latest mess; her "lost" 30,000 Secretary of State e mails and the lame excuses that followed. Frankly, I just cannot believe her on any level.
Not someone I'd want running anything, much less the country.
6
Didn't everyone have to explain why they should be elected when they ran for student class president beginning in junior high school? Pretty sure this isn't anything earth-shattering.
2
Once again, the language the NYT uses is suspect: why would Hillary need a "rationale" to run? Why does not the NYT not question the "rationales" of the GOP candidates?
I am getting really sick and tired of the way the NYT is handling Ms. Clinton's candidacy.
I am getting really sick and tired of the way the NYT is handling Ms. Clinton's candidacy.
8
I don't know which is worse, a presidential campaign that runs for almost two years, or the obscene amount of money that will be thrown into the abyss. This may be interesting and entertaining, but I doubt that it will be enlightening. Ladies and gentlemen - I may care about what you stand for, but I am more interested in what you will fall for.
4
I've given up on the US and have my out. But before the train leaves, I would like to figure out how to get in on the "consultant" gravy train (you know, like those guys who brought us Iraq and the "Forever War." I live in latin america- I don't need much.
1
I see Mrs. Clinton as being high on Rhetoric and low on accomplishment in her government service roles of Secretary of State and Senator of NYS serving with Chuck Schuemer.
Secretary of state Kissinger served during the successful reestablishment of a solid relationship with China while Mrs Clinton served during the Middle East meltdown. Schuemers is constantly in the spot light and appear close to replacing Reed as minority leader.
What successful outcomes did she achieve in either role. What, other than decisive rhetoric would make her appealling as a candidate? Sadly I think ideology based talk is far more important than achievement in politics. Again, how has Mrs. Clinton government service to date had a positive impact. I'm listening!
Secretary of state Kissinger served during the successful reestablishment of a solid relationship with China while Mrs Clinton served during the Middle East meltdown. Schuemers is constantly in the spot light and appear close to replacing Reed as minority leader.
What successful outcomes did she achieve in either role. What, other than decisive rhetoric would make her appealling as a candidate? Sadly I think ideology based talk is far more important than achievement in politics. Again, how has Mrs. Clinton government service to date had a positive impact. I'm listening!
6
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/?p=2
Check out HRC record, quite alot of "Did not Vote" much ike Obama.
Check out HRC record, quite alot of "Did not Vote" much ike Obama.
2
As nearly everyone commenting here is a liberal we might all bear in mind, Ms. Clinton is not angling for our vote. We'll vote for her because the alternative is unthinkable. We can speculate and bloviate and machinate but the fact is, it's those independent voters she's angling to invigorate.
And don't underestimate women. I knew hard and fast republican women who would have voted for her the last time she ran. More than 50% of the population is women. Her message needs to speak to all women. Not just college educated, white collar ones.
And don't underestimate women. I knew hard and fast republican women who would have voted for her the last time she ran. More than 50% of the population is women. Her message needs to speak to all women. Not just college educated, white collar ones.
3
You make a very good point.
This news item starts with the question: "What would be [Hillary's] rationale for seeking the presidency?"
No discussion of the "rationale" for any person from either party seeking the presidency is in fact necessary. Yet news reporters and political pundits routinely discuss the "rationale" topic when a person announces her/his presidential "bid."
The straightforward "rationale" is the outsized ego which each of them possesses, which imbues her or him with the burning ambition to be on the world stage for at least four years as the "most powerful person in the world."
During their marathon campaigns in the coming 19 months, all presidential aspirants will of course be conveying their "fundamental" "rationale," which is of badly wanting to "serve" Americans in the capacity of the next US president. And then they will be deploying endless campaign "strategies" to "knock out" whichever "opponent(s)."
Top fundraisers and bundlers are predicting that close to $5 billion will have been spent by all presidential aspirants together for their 2016 election campaigns ---more than double the money spent in the last election.
Fat cats, on their part, will be eager to fill the campaign chests of their favorite candidate with oodles of money in pursuit of their own agendas.
No discussion of the "rationale" for any person from either party seeking the presidency is in fact necessary. Yet news reporters and political pundits routinely discuss the "rationale" topic when a person announces her/his presidential "bid."
The straightforward "rationale" is the outsized ego which each of them possesses, which imbues her or him with the burning ambition to be on the world stage for at least four years as the "most powerful person in the world."
During their marathon campaigns in the coming 19 months, all presidential aspirants will of course be conveying their "fundamental" "rationale," which is of badly wanting to "serve" Americans in the capacity of the next US president. And then they will be deploying endless campaign "strategies" to "knock out" whichever "opponent(s)."
Top fundraisers and bundlers are predicting that close to $5 billion will have been spent by all presidential aspirants together for their 2016 election campaigns ---more than double the money spent in the last election.
Fat cats, on their part, will be eager to fill the campaign chests of their favorite candidate with oodles of money in pursuit of their own agendas.
Hillary and I were born within a few months of each other, and in the past I really liked her.
She has lost her humanity and become a cartoon character. Too much money. Too many endorsements.
When did this happen before? Never in my lifetime.
She has lost her humanity and become a cartoon character. Too much money. Too many endorsements.
When did this happen before? Never in my lifetime.
3
Hillary states that the top are running the show and I am the champion for the strugglers. The Clintons are very comfortable with the wealthy. The wealthy are large contributors to various Clinton causes. So, why knock the top-tier earners? Why not, for once, state the truth. I know the wealthy and honor them. I know of the struggler and I honor them. I will be the one to bring the two together to reduce the inequality gaps. It is status quo to say you are the underdog. It is more effective and honest to say I am not going to make one side the bad guy. I am the builder of the bridge over the inequality gap.
2
Ask the same question of every other candidate not just Hillary? "Why do you want the job and what makes you qualified to hold the position of President?" Have all of the Republican candidates answer it too.
7
mrs. clinton needs to do something none of her opponents or other party members are willing to do - BE SPECIFIC.
1
I think the Times let Hillary down a bit with today's paper. The photo accompanying this story was captioned "The announcement video focused on voters of all stripes", but the photo montage tellingly did not include any white males at all, and instead was essentially the standard stereotyped rainbow thing yet again. To her credit, Ms. Clinton's video did include white males, and in exactly the way that we should be represented, as a part of the larger whole, no different from all of the others.
Ms. Clinton will need the votes of white males like me, and whoever put that video together seems to understand that. Let's not carelessly undermine it.
Ms. Clinton will need the votes of white males like me, and whoever put that video together seems to understand that. Let's not carelessly undermine it.
4
Mrs. Clinton got into politics at the top, beside her husband as his most trusted and candid advisor. This is hazardous to one's health, mental and physical. Politics at the presidential level is played on the very extreme end of rough. Being governor of Arkansas is like the proverbial Sunday school picnic in comparison.
She has been indelibly burned by her experience along side her husband in the giant fish bowl of the White House. Aside from innate caution, this is why she comes off as one of the most scripted, careful presidential candidates this side of that fella Mitt Whatisname, who made talking robots look sincere and animated.
I have great doubts whether there is anything left of a real person behind the studious exterior that she can bring forth to reveal to the American public. She knows, all too well, that she is in a high wire act where one mistake can lead to disaster. Plus, there's that vision thing. If she has it, what is it?
She seems to have something of a tin ear in regard to the ideas and written speeches shoved forward for her by her whip smart campaign assistants. Whatever they come up with, goes. If she once had a common touch, she's lost it and she is, it appears, afraid, actually afraid, to step forward with her own ideas. She seems to be playing a role, hoping she doesn't flub a line. We had a candidate like that in Romney, who came across to most people as a multimillion dollar phony. The voters rejected him soundly.
She has been indelibly burned by her experience along side her husband in the giant fish bowl of the White House. Aside from innate caution, this is why she comes off as one of the most scripted, careful presidential candidates this side of that fella Mitt Whatisname, who made talking robots look sincere and animated.
I have great doubts whether there is anything left of a real person behind the studious exterior that she can bring forth to reveal to the American public. She knows, all too well, that she is in a high wire act where one mistake can lead to disaster. Plus, there's that vision thing. If she has it, what is it?
She seems to have something of a tin ear in regard to the ideas and written speeches shoved forward for her by her whip smart campaign assistants. Whatever they come up with, goes. If she once had a common touch, she's lost it and she is, it appears, afraid, actually afraid, to step forward with her own ideas. She seems to be playing a role, hoping she doesn't flub a line. We had a candidate like that in Romney, who came across to most people as a multimillion dollar phony. The voters rejected him soundly.
2
With Hillary you get the sense she's all about her, her ego, her Foundation, her place in history. To me, she's just not believable! Too political. Too pompous. Too much an air of entitlement. Too many scores to settle. Too angry. Shows poor judgment (stating she was under fire when she wasn't, accepting very questionable millions from bad governments, using her own server, deleting everything she didn't want to divulge).
10
To a certain extent ego is what drives anyone who runs for the presidency.
I personally don't like her for a number of reasons but I find it interesting that she gets criticized for qualities that would either go unremarked on or praised if she was a man.
I personally don't like her for a number of reasons but I find it interesting that she gets criticized for qualities that would either go unremarked on or praised if she was a man.
Not to be a killjoy, but why Hillary exactly? Not sure I see the compelling reason to put up again with what we all know is coming if we reinstall the Clintons in the White House.
4
Coming from someone who rakes in $200,000 per speech at Goldman Sachs, saying, “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” smacks of cynical triangulation. It is also both clever and futile: Clever, because by appropriating Elizabeth Warren's policies for herself, Warren will sound like she is stealing Clinton's lines if she does decide to run; futile, because it will result in the dislike progressives now feel for Clinton turning to loathing, and they will express it by contributing even more time, money, and energy to a Warren campaign.
5
The fact that Hillary is a female is not a qualification, it's an accident of birth.
I have deja vu, Hillary reminds me of the irrepressible Bella Abzug but Bella actually seemed sincere.
The people who think Hillary is 1. truthful 2. sincere 3. trustworthy 4. have American values are completely deluded.
As U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary 1. maintained secret email communications 2. illegally maintained a server for this which was likely hacked by our adversaries 3. solicited donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation.
This stinks to high heaven, and also shows Hillary has a total lack of respect for the laws and rules of being a State Department employee.
Right, she was our employee when she did just whatever she desired. No one had the nerve to even question her.
I have deja vu, Hillary reminds me of the irrepressible Bella Abzug but Bella actually seemed sincere.
The people who think Hillary is 1. truthful 2. sincere 3. trustworthy 4. have American values are completely deluded.
As U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary 1. maintained secret email communications 2. illegally maintained a server for this which was likely hacked by our adversaries 3. solicited donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation.
This stinks to high heaven, and also shows Hillary has a total lack of respect for the laws and rules of being a State Department employee.
Right, she was our employee when she did just whatever she desired. No one had the nerve to even question her.
7
Hillary's claim to entitlement for the office of president because she is female is an affront to all women.
3
Obama promised to bring everyone together...then set race relations back 50 years. Clinton promises to bring everyone together...and will set sex relations back 50 years. Disagree with Obama = racist. Disagree with Clinton = misogynist.
Hillary, aside from being a woman, is everything the progressives usually hate: rich, white, Wall St. Lackey (far lefties call her the candidate from Goldman-Sachs, and career politician (in Washington since the days of Nixon). But the dens will still vote for her, not because she's presidential, but because she's not a republican. That my friends is the essence of American decay.
Hillary, aside from being a woman, is everything the progressives usually hate: rich, white, Wall St. Lackey (far lefties call her the candidate from Goldman-Sachs, and career politician (in Washington since the days of Nixon). But the dens will still vote for her, not because she's presidential, but because she's not a republican. That my friends is the essence of American decay.
5
Can you provide the quotes for this?
stambo2001 - It's not President Obama's fault that racism is alive and well in America. All he did was get elected, treat everyone with kindness and respect and work hard. He can't help the fact that there are people who dislike him because of the color of his skin.
stambo2001 - It's not President Obama's fault that racism is alive and well in America. All he did was get elected, treat everyone with kindness and respect and work hard. He can't help the fact that there are people who dislike him because of the color of his skin.
Let's stop trying for "Firsts" and do what's right by America.
I'm afraid we are doomed to another Clinton-Bush election year.
I'm afraid we are doomed to another Clinton-Bush election year.
4
Hillary Clinton is the Queen apparent whose very candidacy (and potentially Jeb Bush's) are the very sign of the collapse of US democracy into lobbyist run Oligarchy.
In the now ex Left UK Guardian we read not 1 but 3 articles on Hillary; they do pile on the abuse or support for a very few select 'personalities' and as such are now the center/right version of the Daily Mail (hard rIght) today covering her as though she was the perfect politician without any background, discussion of her record, philosophy or critique; just gush.
We have ''Hillary Clinton's journey to Iowa: 1,000-mile road trip in a 'Scooby-Doo' van'' (wow cool Scooby Doo!) with the comment ''The unorthodox start to the Clinton campaign surprised the political establishment, and is being spun by her campaign as an idea that the candidate casually came up with herself.''
We have ''Campaign launch excites UK voters shock – too bad it’s Hillary Clinton’s '' whose rhetoric is almost religious, like Christs 2nd coming; ''on Sunday, something miraculous happened. A political leader stepped up and managed to galvanise the electorate. A leader, beloved and respected in equal measure, somehow scooped up all the ill-feeling and apathy in this country ....It was wonderful to watch. And the political leader was Hillary Clinton, who simply said that she’d quite like to be president. “I wish I was American so that I could vote for Hillary”.
This is how you write to children and not to grown up voters! Disgusting
In the now ex Left UK Guardian we read not 1 but 3 articles on Hillary; they do pile on the abuse or support for a very few select 'personalities' and as such are now the center/right version of the Daily Mail (hard rIght) today covering her as though she was the perfect politician without any background, discussion of her record, philosophy or critique; just gush.
We have ''Hillary Clinton's journey to Iowa: 1,000-mile road trip in a 'Scooby-Doo' van'' (wow cool Scooby Doo!) with the comment ''The unorthodox start to the Clinton campaign surprised the political establishment, and is being spun by her campaign as an idea that the candidate casually came up with herself.''
We have ''Campaign launch excites UK voters shock – too bad it’s Hillary Clinton’s '' whose rhetoric is almost religious, like Christs 2nd coming; ''on Sunday, something miraculous happened. A political leader stepped up and managed to galvanise the electorate. A leader, beloved and respected in equal measure, somehow scooped up all the ill-feeling and apathy in this country ....It was wonderful to watch. And the political leader was Hillary Clinton, who simply said that she’d quite like to be president. “I wish I was American so that I could vote for Hillary”.
This is how you write to children and not to grown up voters! Disgusting
1
Hillary loses me here:
>>>She supports President Obama’s decision to use his executive powers to reshape the nation’s immigration policy, saying it was needed “to begin fixing our broken immigration system and focus finite resources on deporting felons rather than families.”
We need enforcement of immigration laws, and a national, mandatory E-Verify. We also need a reduction of immigration numbers. A million legal immigrants annually, along with all the illegal immigrants who end up staying here, and are getting amnesty under President Obama, is way too much. (And the Senate bill would have tripled legal immigration.) You can't deal with global warming, as she wants to do, when you have a population explosion. And you can't help the underclasses, as she (rightly) wants to do, when you're letting in millions more low/no-skilled immigrants.
>>>She supports President Obama’s decision to use his executive powers to reshape the nation’s immigration policy, saying it was needed “to begin fixing our broken immigration system and focus finite resources on deporting felons rather than families.”
We need enforcement of immigration laws, and a national, mandatory E-Verify. We also need a reduction of immigration numbers. A million legal immigrants annually, along with all the illegal immigrants who end up staying here, and are getting amnesty under President Obama, is way too much. (And the Senate bill would have tripled legal immigration.) You can't deal with global warming, as she wants to do, when you have a population explosion. And you can't help the underclasses, as she (rightly) wants to do, when you're letting in millions more low/no-skilled immigrants.
5
I'm sick of the media coronation of Hillary. I didn't like her in 2008 and I don't like her now. She almost acts like showing up is enough, like she took the Woody Allen mantra too seriously. It's her time as Secretary of State that bothers me the most. She came across as being an SOS on auto-pilot, smiling and flying around the world non-stop, with empty reset buttons and illusions about the Arab Spring. I don't see how she can run on that record when we have John Kerry, a fully vetted former presidential nominee, former senior senator on track to become a truly historic SOS. He makes her attempt look like the resume building fluff it was. Our country deserves an internationally respected leader. It's time for the media to do it's job and call for the candidacy of John Kerry. He would be a more appropriate ideological follow-up to Barack Obama, a man I still respect. It's also the reason I see the GOP doing everything they can to destroy Kerry's groundbreaking with Iran, they know how strong it would make him in 2016. As always, it's about politics.
4
Hillary Clinton has been running for President since she was First Lady. Like the Bushes and the Kennedys before her, she seems to lean heavily on a Presidency that belongs to a family member in other words entitlement. The Democrats are now handing the nomination to her on a silver platter. Why is there no opposition out there? Are there no other qualified Democrats who will launch campaigns because they've been told the field is closed? This is shameful and this lifetime Democrat won't vote for her. A field of one is no democracy at all.
4
Everything smells. Fetid, manipulative, contrived, a candidacy fitting for the political system of today. Surround oneself with communications experts. When even "middle class" is deemed unsafe, to be replaced by "everyday Americans," one sees the oiled machinery at work. Pack Bill and Hillary off to Argentina, as the Juan-Evita Show redux. Yes, never a question of "whether," and instead, "why," as though the latter a matter of poll taking, high-priced consultancies: democracy the threadbare expression of whatever it takes to win.
By all means Hillary; she has panted over power (Bill a sick puppy by comparison) ever since Wellesley, an Amazonian bloodlust combined with pettiness of mind and principle. To our good fortune, she now says, she is offering herself up to an American public desperately in need of her leadership. Mother Theresa in sacrificial garb (in fact besmirching every decent symbol in world politics as she claws her way forward). Can Republicans do much worse? Probably not.
By all means Hillary; she has panted over power (Bill a sick puppy by comparison) ever since Wellesley, an Amazonian bloodlust combined with pettiness of mind and principle. To our good fortune, she now says, she is offering herself up to an American public desperately in need of her leadership. Mother Theresa in sacrificial garb (in fact besmirching every decent symbol in world politics as she claws her way forward). Can Republicans do much worse? Probably not.
5
The Republicans can and will be infinitely worse.
1
I love not having any choice. So much simpler.
3
Don't fall into that trap. There's a huge difference brtween the Democrats and the Republicans.
1
After the historically unprecedented level of disrespect Republicans have shown our current president, why would anyone want to run? Hillary shows a lot of courage in declaring her candidacy in the current toxic political environment.
6
Mrs. Clinton's entire rationale for "running for President" can be encapsulated in two points:
1. It's my turn.
2. I'm a woman, you must vote for me.
I would argue that it is not her turn, her ilk (Ivy elites) have been destroying what this country was for decades now. Just look at the Supreme Court, 200 law schools in the nation, ONLY TWO represented on it.
As for voting for a woman, I would, IF she was qualified and put the people of the country before their own interests - the Clintons do not as proven by the wealth they have extracted by their "positions". Whatever happened to politicians that served instead of enriched themselves?
1. It's my turn.
2. I'm a woman, you must vote for me.
I would argue that it is not her turn, her ilk (Ivy elites) have been destroying what this country was for decades now. Just look at the Supreme Court, 200 law schools in the nation, ONLY TWO represented on it.
As for voting for a woman, I would, IF she was qualified and put the people of the country before their own interests - the Clintons do not as proven by the wealth they have extracted by their "positions". Whatever happened to politicians that served instead of enriched themselves?
5
When and where exactly did she say that?
One of the earlier commenters suggest that Mrs. Clinton is the smartest person in the potential presidential field. The smartest person does not fail the Bar exam on their first attempt. Her husband is the brains of the operation, albeit, a very sleazy character in terms of his dealings with women, who are not his wife.
In MA, we had our previous Governor fail the Bar exam multiple times before he passed, and we all know how badly Gov. Patrick performed for the people of the Commonwealth.
Being a geriatric woman is not a qualification, so no matter who you have been married to , or what offices you were able to claim based on an ignorant electorate or a President wanting to keep you as an ally as opposed to critic.
In MA, we had our previous Governor fail the Bar exam multiple times before he passed, and we all know how badly Gov. Patrick performed for the people of the Commonwealth.
Being a geriatric woman is not a qualification, so no matter who you have been married to , or what offices you were able to claim based on an ignorant electorate or a President wanting to keep you as an ally as opposed to critic.
5
Why doesn't the New York Times as all the Republican candidates why they want to be president as well as asking Ms. Clinton? The Times is and has been intimidated by the right wing saying it is a liberally biased newspaper. Be the New York Times, stand up for the facts and fairness.
4
Hillary has already demonstrated she doesn't have the character or integrity to be President by:
1. Her deception regarding the Benghazi Libya attack.
2. Her breaking of the law by hiding and failing to disclose her emails while
secretary of state. She also potentially jeopardized national security.
3. Her questionable campaign donations.
We need a president with unquestionable honesty after the last 8 years
1. Her deception regarding the Benghazi Libya attack.
2. Her breaking of the law by hiding and failing to disclose her emails while
secretary of state. She also potentially jeopardized national security.
3. Her questionable campaign donations.
We need a president with unquestionable honesty after the last 8 years
6
The only question is if there will be a credible opponent in a Democratic primary?
Most feel she needs at least one to sharpen her debating skills.
April 12th was not only an exciting day for Democrats. It began open hunting season for those crazy Republicans. Toward that effort, give 'em hell, Hillary!
Most feel she needs at least one to sharpen her debating skills.
April 12th was not only an exciting day for Democrats. It began open hunting season for those crazy Republicans. Toward that effort, give 'em hell, Hillary!
So this is what electoral politics in the US has come to. We progressives and liberal independents are expected by the Democrats to accept the "presumptive" nominee without a hard fought open primary (meaning, choice) because "it's her turn" and she is somehow much less worse than the Republican nominees.
The Democrats will use hysteria and emotional blackmail to try to browbeat those of us who reject Clinton as immoral for her war mongering and corporate pandering. They are still whining about Ralph Nader's 2000 run, which in a true open democracy should cause no backlash, even though they have not put forth a candidate with the intelligence, accomplishment, morals and humanity that Nader possesses in my long lifetime.
Her hawkishness directly caused the loss of life and limbs of thousands of Iraqi women and children (the ones she "cares" so much about) through her politically calculated vote for Bush's illegal war of aggression. The displacement of millions, destruction of families and of the infrastructure of an entire country, that resulted in the conditions that have led to the rapid take over of the region by ISIS, were facilitated by her vote and allegiance to (and ownership by) the Israel lobby.
The Democrats will use hysteria and emotional blackmail to try to browbeat those of us who reject Clinton as immoral for her war mongering and corporate pandering. They are still whining about Ralph Nader's 2000 run, which in a true open democracy should cause no backlash, even though they have not put forth a candidate with the intelligence, accomplishment, morals and humanity that Nader possesses in my long lifetime.
Her hawkishness directly caused the loss of life and limbs of thousands of Iraqi women and children (the ones she "cares" so much about) through her politically calculated vote for Bush's illegal war of aggression. The displacement of millions, destruction of families and of the infrastructure of an entire country, that resulted in the conditions that have led to the rapid take over of the region by ISIS, were facilitated by her vote and allegiance to (and ownership by) the Israel lobby.
10
I can't hit "recommend" on this comment enough times. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has left its base voters - those of us to the left of Ronald Reagan on virtually any big issue - with the comment threads under the hagiographies of the "presumptive nominee" to be heard. So much for "representative democracy".
3
Independent
Your contribution made me reflect on my elderly Iraqi friend who was to come to America in 1965, and recruited many of us in the Children's International Community. Fierce she can be at times in her views, and strong as she has been back and forth over the decades bringing her family to safety. The tears that some of us shed when America went to war on Iraq under the Bush presidency in 2003. Why? was our recurring question.
When she, a Jewish mutual friend. and I went to vote for President Obama for the second time, it was with a lift in our step and today, the name Bush is never mentioned in the household of my friend from Baghdad. Or, the shouting begins.
She has never ever mentioned Mrs. Clinton as taking part in the violent assault of Iraqi women and the death of children and she knows far more about her country than this American by a long margin. Never. Neither of us trust the G.O.P. and neither of us will ever vote for these well-meaning, inexperienced Republican candidates.
Mrs. Clinton, to my mind, is already a champion with her substance, her character, her strength of mind and long experience in the political arena, and I know quite well that she will never put our children at risk in the line of fire and send our brave troops to a country that is in worse shape than it has ever been, since the Bush Administration went in search of weapons of mass destruction. In some ways, she reminds me of my Iraqi friend.
Your contribution made me reflect on my elderly Iraqi friend who was to come to America in 1965, and recruited many of us in the Children's International Community. Fierce she can be at times in her views, and strong as she has been back and forth over the decades bringing her family to safety. The tears that some of us shed when America went to war on Iraq under the Bush presidency in 2003. Why? was our recurring question.
When she, a Jewish mutual friend. and I went to vote for President Obama for the second time, it was with a lift in our step and today, the name Bush is never mentioned in the household of my friend from Baghdad. Or, the shouting begins.
She has never ever mentioned Mrs. Clinton as taking part in the violent assault of Iraqi women and the death of children and she knows far more about her country than this American by a long margin. Never. Neither of us trust the G.O.P. and neither of us will ever vote for these well-meaning, inexperienced Republican candidates.
Mrs. Clinton, to my mind, is already a champion with her substance, her character, her strength of mind and long experience in the political arena, and I know quite well that she will never put our children at risk in the line of fire and send our brave troops to a country that is in worse shape than it has ever been, since the Bush Administration went in search of weapons of mass destruction. In some ways, she reminds me of my Iraqi friend.
2
Sooo...you're going to vote Republican? Green? Not vote? No one running "pure" enough? Votes have real life consequences, is what I said to a perfectly nice, intelligent colleague of mine who said that, by voting, I was just "perpetuating a corrupt system". Well, if enough people hadn't voted for this President, my family wouldn't have health insurance. Also, I am somewhat concerned about the SCOTUS. I'll vote for the candidate who most shares my values - AND can WIN.
Signed,
Still Whining About Nader
Signed,
Still Whining About Nader
4
Ms. Clinton was a do-nothing senator of New York- As Secretary of State was a war monger, the only national policy she had was aggression
6
Hope she and her whole family are going to massively downsize and take a vow of poverty,so she won't look like a hypocrite.
3
Hillary Clinton wants to be president because she wants to protect every day Americans and save social security and Medicare from the attacks of Republicans
6
Interesting goals.
How does that song go? "But Not For Me." I'm a registered Democrat and an Obama supporter, but that won't transfer to Mrs. Clinton. Yes she was secretary of state, but what did she accomplish other than lots of air miles? Any treaties or agreements? None that I can remember. And yes, she was responsible for the debacle in Benghazi, which was not a "who cares" moment, as she put it. Now what about those emails? That could easily be construed to be a criminal act. I also remember her "winning trades" in chicken futures, which were clouded by suggestions that she came by them illegally, but that was a long time ago. Why does she give the impression that she would say anything to get elected? Does she have any core values beyond money and power? I don't think so.
3
Mrs. Clinton is stepping down form the board of the Clinton Foundation. Does anyone believe that a sleazy country, needing favors from the US will not give plenty of cash to that foundation? Of course, Mrs. Clinton will not benefit from that contribution... not much!
3
Hillary would be a poor representation of all women as the first female president.
4
Says a man.
I'm a woman. I'm not crazy about her but I really don't appreciate men telling women who best represents them.
I'm a woman. I'm not crazy about her but I really don't appreciate men telling women who best represents them.
1
Hillary's campaign theme is evident. It's about how she's going to reboot the middle class American dream -- while Republicans are seeking to shore up the 1% who contribute millions in campaign dollars to maintain their privileged position. So class inequality has finally made it onto the main stage of a presidential campaign -- and every candidate is forced to say we've got to even the odds of success in our country. Problem is, every candidate knows that most campaign dollars come from the 1% and very few of those folks want to pay more taxes (Warren Buffet does, but he's committed most of his fortune to the Gates Foundation).
3
She wants the job because she wants to be Queen. She will morph into whatever positions her advisers tell her are necessary to win the election. Then she will do just as Obama has done, ignore most of them. From their time in Arkansas until now her integrity has been continually in question. The Clinton/Obama motto:
“It may be true that you can’t fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.” Will Durant
“It may be true that you can’t fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.” Will Durant
5
Why does Rodham-Clinton want the job? That's easy. She thinks she is entitled. She thinks she has earned it. She thinks she deserves it after all these years in the public trough. Her problem is: she has no idea who she really is. She therefore has continually to reinvent herself. But phony is as phony does. We are all weary of seeing the Clintons at play. It's not over, folks. It looks like we will have to put up with these aging, tired people for a few more years. Maybe they will go away sooner than that. I hope so.
6
Ironic. Hillary espouses her want to help the little people, the average Joe and Josephine in the US. Yet, it is fact that she treats the members of her secret service detail as her minions, no not minions, her personal slaves. Since when do we accept a potential candidate that says one thing, but in reality does another. We now know it as fact that President Obama has no regard for the Constitution, and given that we all know that that their are laws and rules for the little people like you and me, and a whole other set for Hillary, do you honestly believe that Hillary will abide by the Constitution? Hillary Clinton thinks of herself as a member of this nations elite, and all that it should afford here. Do you think this is going to change? When she worked on the committee to impeach Richard Nixon, she proposed that he not be allowed legal counsel. Seriously? This one of the basic tenets of our constitution. Wake up folks, learn from history. Cougars can't change their spots and Hillary won't!
4
Robert Dana makes a good point:
"If we lived in times like those that her husband inherited, I wouldn't be so concerned about the prospect of Mrs. Clinton being President."
I remember well when Bill Clinton came along. The Berlin Wall had just come down. There were no major conflicts. It looked like we might have a decade or more of peace. Being President is always tough, of course, but in 1992, it was much easier than usual -- really hard to screw up.
As Mr. Dana points out, it ain't that way today. A lot more conflict. Is Hillary the right one to deal with Iran? Cuba? Netanyahu? Putin? Reasonable minds will differ on those questions, of course. But we should all agree on this: the road ahead is a lot less smooth and clear today than it was when Bill Clinton took office.
"If we lived in times like those that her husband inherited, I wouldn't be so concerned about the prospect of Mrs. Clinton being President."
I remember well when Bill Clinton came along. The Berlin Wall had just come down. There were no major conflicts. It looked like we might have a decade or more of peace. Being President is always tough, of course, but in 1992, it was much easier than usual -- really hard to screw up.
As Mr. Dana points out, it ain't that way today. A lot more conflict. Is Hillary the right one to deal with Iran? Cuba? Netanyahu? Putin? Reasonable minds will differ on those questions, of course. But we should all agree on this: the road ahead is a lot less smooth and clear today than it was when Bill Clinton took office.
2
We sure as hell don't want a republican dealing with these conflicts! They got us into them. And yes, she'll do a good job.
3
Thinker,
Your thoughts are helpful and make this American reflect. Before Mr. Obama came on board, I was set to vote for Mrs. Clinton, and one of the reasons to the honest, was the presence of Mr. Clinton in the background. Times have changed, and yet I wonder if the tragedy of 9/11 would have happened if Mr. Clinton had still been in office. As to President Obama, I feel confident in saying that this would not have occurred.
Mrs. Clinton, while being American to the core, has traveled the globe when her spouse was in office, and is highly sophisticated when it comes to her way in being at ease with different cultures and heads of state.
Pragmatic, serious and far more sensitive to others than one gives her credit for, she has been Secretary of State under grueling circumstances. I commend her. Hardly an easy task, but one well accomplished on her part, and she is better prepared now, and willing to learn more with the backing of seasoned and measured political figures behind her, powerful they are.
We will most likely vote Republican and become an Insular Super Power, but this American still hopes that Mrs. Clinton might win against the heavy handicaps that have been placed on her and against the odds, she will emerge as the Champion she was born to be.
Your thoughts are helpful and make this American reflect. Before Mr. Obama came on board, I was set to vote for Mrs. Clinton, and one of the reasons to the honest, was the presence of Mr. Clinton in the background. Times have changed, and yet I wonder if the tragedy of 9/11 would have happened if Mr. Clinton had still been in office. As to President Obama, I feel confident in saying that this would not have occurred.
Mrs. Clinton, while being American to the core, has traveled the globe when her spouse was in office, and is highly sophisticated when it comes to her way in being at ease with different cultures and heads of state.
Pragmatic, serious and far more sensitive to others than one gives her credit for, she has been Secretary of State under grueling circumstances. I commend her. Hardly an easy task, but one well accomplished on her part, and she is better prepared now, and willing to learn more with the backing of seasoned and measured political figures behind her, powerful they are.
We will most likely vote Republican and become an Insular Super Power, but this American still hopes that Mrs. Clinton might win against the heavy handicaps that have been placed on her and against the odds, she will emerge as the Champion she was born to be.
1
A reader asks, rhetorically:
"Ego aside, what drives anyone to seek the presidency?"
You've asked us to answer that question by eliminating the real answer: ego.
That's why Hillary, or any candidate, really wants to be President. I agree she shouldn't be singled out to answer that question, whose answer we all already know.
The real question is: "Why would WE want this person to be President?"
"Ego aside, what drives anyone to seek the presidency?"
You've asked us to answer that question by eliminating the real answer: ego.
That's why Hillary, or any candidate, really wants to be President. I agree she shouldn't be singled out to answer that question, whose answer we all already know.
The real question is: "Why would WE want this person to be President?"
1
"For months, Mrs. Clinton has lamented the stagnant wages holding back lower-income people and the concentration of wealth among a sliver of the wealthiest..."
The most telling part of that sentence is the first two words. Yes, she has been pushing that message...ever since it became popular. She may outdo Mitt Romney as the ultimate political weather vane. Hillary reminds me of the student who didn't do the hard work and is now copying off her classmate, say Elizabeth Warren, who did do the hard work and has been hammering that message for years, not months. Now Hillary is trying to co-opt that message to shape her own campaign. But anyone who thinks she is looking out for the "everyday American" has been hoodwinked. Hillary's loyalties lie with Wall Street and the MIC, and her inevitability as the Dem candidate and only viable alternative to the GOP means the wealthy special interests have already won, and the election is still well over a year away. I can't take credit for the following passage. It was posted anonymously by a Guardian reader, but I believe it crystallizes the opinion of many liberals (like myself) regarding Hillary Clinton:
"If ever there was a member of The Establishment - who will be shackled by connections, big money, favors to pay, and a political insider mentality, it's Clinton. Her election will ensure maintenance and protection of the oligarchy status quo. I'm dismayed that the Democrats cannot offer ANYBODY as an alternative."
The most telling part of that sentence is the first two words. Yes, she has been pushing that message...ever since it became popular. She may outdo Mitt Romney as the ultimate political weather vane. Hillary reminds me of the student who didn't do the hard work and is now copying off her classmate, say Elizabeth Warren, who did do the hard work and has been hammering that message for years, not months. Now Hillary is trying to co-opt that message to shape her own campaign. But anyone who thinks she is looking out for the "everyday American" has been hoodwinked. Hillary's loyalties lie with Wall Street and the MIC, and her inevitability as the Dem candidate and only viable alternative to the GOP means the wealthy special interests have already won, and the election is still well over a year away. I can't take credit for the following passage. It was posted anonymously by a Guardian reader, but I believe it crystallizes the opinion of many liberals (like myself) regarding Hillary Clinton:
"If ever there was a member of The Establishment - who will be shackled by connections, big money, favors to pay, and a political insider mentality, it's Clinton. Her election will ensure maintenance and protection of the oligarchy status quo. I'm dismayed that the Democrats cannot offer ANYBODY as an alternative."
3
No amount of obfuscation and double talk can change Hillary Clinton's dismal record as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. She accomplished nothing in either position, except to waste taxpayers money jetting around the world on one empty diplomatic mission after another. Clinton would be an obscure second rate lawyer in some backwater law firm if not for latching on the her husband's rising star. Yet the Democrat party will nominate her for president and trust that she can hoodwink hopelessly naive Democrat voters once again. Pitiful.
6
OK, I think we all agree: Hillary need not explain why she wants to be President.
Maybe that's sexist. Maybe it was racist when they asked Obama that question in 2008, or anti-white-male when they asked Bill Clinton in 1992.
Frankly, I have no interest in learning why Hillary wants to be President. (That hardly strikes me as an unnatural urge.) All I want to know is why WE should want her (or any other particular candidate) to be President.
Maybe that's sexist. Maybe it was racist when they asked Obama that question in 2008, or anti-white-male when they asked Bill Clinton in 1992.
Frankly, I have no interest in learning why Hillary wants to be President. (That hardly strikes me as an unnatural urge.) All I want to know is why WE should want her (or any other particular candidate) to be President.
There s no "rationale."
Other than that she want to be President.
Other than that she want to be President.
4
In this great democracy of 300+ million citizens is there no one with new, dynamic leadership ability than JEB or Hillary? They are voices from the early 90's, still residing in the high-donor political realm. Is there no one else?
3
Really Amy? She has to explain why she wants this job, because with the other guys it is obviously not necessary to demand the same. Speechless
6
This is a pretty offensive premise since I don't remember Bill Clinton or Obama being asked why they want to be president it quite this way. I have never voted for a democrat in a presidential election and only once for a republican. The last thing we need as a country is another Bush or Clinton, but this article strikes me as overtly sexist.
6
i am not a misogynist and believe anyone honest and hardworking can handle the domestic presidency of the US. But in light of complete biased attitudes towards women in the most troubled international world communities - Jews who will not touch or even sit next to women on airplanes, Arabs who will not shake hands with, nor even address women who are not their wives - is electing a woman to lead the free world the most responsible and effective thing we can do? I'm sure this sounds backward and narrow minded, but I want a leader who will stand up to international trouble and garner respect and admiration and yes, some fear, from any potential adversary. Hillary is not that leader.
Please. Your view is backwards and misogynist, right out of the 1950s. Women have been commanding respect as world leaders since the days of Elizabeth I. What about Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher?
Unlike her husband who comes across as genuine and sincere she presents herself as defensive, Suspicious, devious. Expect her to stay away from the press she feels may ask probing Questions.
1
Hillary is a difficult candidate to build excitement around because no one quite knows why she would want to hold the office of the Presidency. However, one vibe that I do NOT get from her is that she feels entitled to be President or that she has "come to claim her throne" or any of that other foolishness Reince Priebus has been spouting for the past few weeks. I think that people who say she has an aura of entitlement just want to dislike her, but have no legitimate reason to back-up their aversion. Don't get me wrong, Hillary is a flawed candidate and she'll have to answer some tough questions on the campaign trail; but people who think she feels entitled don't pay close enough attention to politics to know what her flaws are.
I don't believe that Hillary feels this is her rightful office, but I also don't think that she's the "people's champion" as her closeness with Wall Street would indicate otherwise. However, if it comes down to Hillary and any of the current Republican candidates, I would have to roll with Team Hillary.
I don't believe that Hillary feels this is her rightful office, but I also don't think that she's the "people's champion" as her closeness with Wall Street would indicate otherwise. However, if it comes down to Hillary and any of the current Republican candidates, I would have to roll with Team Hillary.
1
During the ancient days of Gore v. Bush some of my progressive friends stated that the result doesn't matter since they are two peas in a pod beholden to the same military industrial complex. Of course after 8 years of Bush, and the current Supreme Court, hopefully they have rethought their earlier position. Now we ask of Ms. Clinton why she wants (deserves?) to be president. The NYT and other so-called main stream media again sets her up to be marginally supported by the left while she is already violently opposed by the right. What is wrong with you GUYS? Can you see the difference between her and the Republican candidates?
5
Sure, Jason. MS. Clinton has two X chromosomes, the Republican candidates only have one. All are tools of Wall Street, AIPAC, the MIC, and Big Oil. Next question.
All the Hillary supporters on this board and out there seem to have amnesia about the last congressional elections. Republicans are supposed to be a clown show, far-right extremists, an embarrassment to our country, unqualified, and so on. They may be all those things but they seem to win elections. People vote for them. People vote for them more than they vote for the saintly Democrats.
Of course the entire universe knows that Hillary is a better, more qualified, and more uniquely suitable candidate for president than anyone else on the planet. How could it be otherwise? I mean the Republican candidates don't even have their own sexist line available: vote for me because I am a man.
Secretly, most Democrats think Republicans win elections because the electorate is generally stupid. (And thinking that seems to be working really well lately.) And when Hillary loses to some venial extremist far-right Republican, every reason on earth will be offered except that the ugly Republican may be a better President.
Of course the entire universe knows that Hillary is a better, more qualified, and more uniquely suitable candidate for president than anyone else on the planet. How could it be otherwise? I mean the Republican candidates don't even have their own sexist line available: vote for me because I am a man.
Secretly, most Democrats think Republicans win elections because the electorate is generally stupid. (And thinking that seems to be working really well lately.) And when Hillary loses to some venial extremist far-right Republican, every reason on earth will be offered except that the ugly Republican may be a better President.
1
Quite frankly much of the NYT coverage of Hillary Clinton is very disappointing as is its coverage of all the presidential candidates. It borders on tabloid style reporting. Most of us pretty much know the personalities of many or most of the candidates as we have been bombarded with such information and videos for quite some time. What we need to know are the positions the candidates are taking on the critical issues facing our country. We need to know what any candidate intends to do about the gross inequities in our tax structure, both personal and corporate. What do they intend to do about the severe income inequality, failing public education, college tuition costs, enhancing or improving health care insurance, veterans benefits, social security, infrastructure rebuilding. What are their Middle East policies and their position regarding Putin's aggression in Eastern Europe.
I'm tired of the slogan "we need to take our country back". I'd like to know how candidates plan on taking our country forward.
I'm tired of the slogan "we need to take our country back". I'd like to know how candidates plan on taking our country forward.
6
Steve - the candidates would really not like to be asked these questions. Hillary in particular avoids real questions like the plague, by all accounts. This is because the candidates - and Hillary in particular - have no interest whatsoever in representing we peasants and plebians and so need to manipulate us through media image engineering and slogans.
The Democratic Party elite aren't even going to allow a real primary this time, it seems. If they cannot or will not allow their core voters an alternative to their precious Baby Boomer oligarch then I am done with them forever.
The Democratic Party elite aren't even going to allow a real primary this time, it seems. If they cannot or will not allow their core voters an alternative to their precious Baby Boomer oligarch then I am done with them forever.
While I am not enthusiastic about Hillary, this business of why she wants the job or convince us that she wants the job is ridiculous. I assume every one running wants the job and has some focus group tested spiel on why they want it. The relevant question is whether they are qualified or even remotely competent to hold the job. She wins on that question.
Even so, I'd probably only vote for her to avoid giving the key of the kingdom to the lunatics in Congress, and to avoid the scenario of the next president packing the Supreme Court with more Clarence Thomas clones.
Even so, I'd probably only vote for her to avoid giving the key of the kingdom to the lunatics in Congress, and to avoid the scenario of the next president packing the Supreme Court with more Clarence Thomas clones.
2
It's a fair question to ask anybody who's running for president, and it famously tripped up Ted Kennedy, who seemed to think that he was simply the next Kennedy in line for the job. But Hillary has so clearly had her sights set on this target for so long, that one senses her entire adult life has been one long campaign for the White House. Add to that her shifting, weathervane-like political positions over the years, and it's easy to believe that this is less about wanting to lead the country than about wanting to fulfill a lifelong dream of sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.
3
This strikes me as just a re-run of 2008. Then to, Hillary was "inevitable" -- at least until Obama came along. Then too, some people said Hillary should explain why she wanted to be President. Then too, other people said it was sexist to ask her this question (and later said it was racist when Obama was asked the same question).
One big difference from 2008, apparently: This time, there doesn't appear to be anyone to knock out Hillary. No Obama this time, just Hillary. She does appear to be "inevitable" this time.
One big difference from 2008, apparently: This time, there doesn't appear to be anyone to knock out Hillary. No Obama this time, just Hillary. She does appear to be "inevitable" this time.
1
Many comments here on the sexist presumptuousness of asking why Clinton is running. What an odd and ideologically telling position to take. Do we not deserve some clarity about her goals? The GOP is running a contested primary where the candidates, no matter how they are reflexively vilified here, will be required to distinguish their positions from each other. You may take issue with them, but they will present their ideas for inspection. Why should Clinton be treated any other way? She seems to have fans supporting her rather than informed advocates. It is sexist to absolve Clinton of the requirements asked of anyone aspiring to the presidency.
6
Looks like Hillery has 16 months to convince enough voters that she is now what she says she is instead of who she and is has always been.
1
President Obama moved the country away from the "either you are with us or against us" foreign policy and extricated us from two endless wars. He picked the economy up off the floor and brought it back to something with a future. He appointed two reasonable Supreme Court Justices and extended the civil rights of everyone. He started us, finally, down the path of Universal Health Care. And he did it all in the face of relentless obstructionism from the opposition Party.
I think Hillary Clinton should run a campaign that pledges to continue the good work, both domestically and internationally of President Obama. How's that for a rationale?
I think Hillary Clinton should run a campaign that pledges to continue the good work, both domestically and internationally of President Obama. How's that for a rationale?
19
To Marv,
Sounds like a fine rationale to me, and I hope candidate Clinton does just that. Pres. Obama did all you describe, and more, and in both 2008 and 2012 received a higher percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat since LBJ in 1964, and FDR in 1944.
She should emphasize that Pres. Obama's accomplishments, particularly on the domestic front, are typical of the good things Democrats have accomplished over the years. And those things, from Social Security, to Medicare, to the ACA, have always been opposed by the GOP. This is a case where partisanship and the truth go hand-in-hand.
Sounds like a fine rationale to me, and I hope candidate Clinton does just that. Pres. Obama did all you describe, and more, and in both 2008 and 2012 received a higher percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat since LBJ in 1964, and FDR in 1944.
She should emphasize that Pres. Obama's accomplishments, particularly on the domestic front, are typical of the good things Democrats have accomplished over the years. And those things, from Social Security, to Medicare, to the ACA, have always been opposed by the GOP. This is a case where partisanship and the truth go hand-in-hand.
1
This is a good post and I hope you're right but I fear that she'll take us into another war.
Unfortunately I have an even greater fear what a Republican would do to the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately I have an even greater fear what a Republican would do to the Supreme Court.
1
Some commentators question why Hillary should clearly state why she wants to be President. Her response so far is “I want to be your champion.” Cute, and should not to be confused with why she wanted to give $350,000 speeches to Wall Street bankers. It was obvious, she wanted the money. The question then becomes what did the Wall Street bankers want for their $350,000. Did they want a Champion or was it simply a business transaction? Do you think Wall Street or Main Street is in a better position to get a Champion for their interests?
2
That's a very good question and a fair one. I find it interesting that no one asked Romney the same question.
Hillary's video announcement of her campaign was just a Cheesy Informercial. It was lightweight, superficial, and unconvincing.
2
I voted for Hillary in 2008 but am unimpressed with her now. When she was being grilled by the press over her emails, she came across as Nurse Ratchet in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" when the mental patients started asking too many questions. She even had the tightly rolled hairdo for it. I don't think we should put her in charge of the asylum.
1
The whole Hillary, as the foregone anointed Democratic choice speaks volumes about elemental weakness in the Democratic Party.
Same for the last election when the greatest Big Blue failing was a broad effort to finesse campaigns away from the perceived taint of strong association with the pet programs of the sitting Democrat in the White House. The Democratic presidential candidate for 2016 needs to contend with the issue of continuing diminution of the party’s clout in the Congress and the impact that bodes for in being able to effectively govern if elected.
The notion that Sunday’s announcement of the absolute obvious was done without an already fully crafted campaign strategy and plan for the execution of the presidency is incredible.
Playing coy with the core issue of most Americans having been substantially left behind in what has been a nearly booming recovery for big business and Wall Street will make voters all the more antsy about Mrs. Clinton core intentions. Substituting “everyday americans” for the “middle class” seems a vapid play and not very encouraging.
Same for the last election when the greatest Big Blue failing was a broad effort to finesse campaigns away from the perceived taint of strong association with the pet programs of the sitting Democrat in the White House. The Democratic presidential candidate for 2016 needs to contend with the issue of continuing diminution of the party’s clout in the Congress and the impact that bodes for in being able to effectively govern if elected.
The notion that Sunday’s announcement of the absolute obvious was done without an already fully crafted campaign strategy and plan for the execution of the presidency is incredible.
Playing coy with the core issue of most Americans having been substantially left behind in what has been a nearly booming recovery for big business and Wall Street will make voters all the more antsy about Mrs. Clinton core intentions. Substituting “everyday americans” for the “middle class” seems a vapid play and not very encouraging.
1
Hillary Clinton just declared her candidacy and already Cuomo, Schumer and some other Democrats have endorsed. At least DeBlasio says he wants to wait to see what her platform is before giving his endorsement. Good for him! Can we not have some debate at least on policy issues and what she proposed to do before anointing her queen? I don't like any of the Republican candidates, but at least they're their base voters a choice. Why don't Democrats get a similar choice? And why in heaven's name must she or any candidate declare themselves 18 months before the election anyway? Other countries, such as Great Britain, have a 6 week election campaign season and do just fine. Is this 2 year long ordeal another example of our "American exceptionalism?"
7
I agree that Democrats need to offer a choice but the Cuomo, Schumer et al have known her for years. Why wouldn't they endorse someone they know well?
"Try listening to what she actually says, not the press coverage."
OK, I did. Sounds like she's for "everyday Americans." I guess that's all I need to know.
And here I thought it might be useful to hear whether she'd vote for war at every opportunity, as she's done in the past. I thought it might be useful to hear whether she'd ever behave contrary to instructions from Benjamin Netanyahu, as she's always done in the past. I thought it might be useful to hear whether she'd consider talking with Iran, or Cuba, though she's never suggested that in the past.
But now I know, thanks to you: None of that matters. All I need to know is that she's for "everyday Americans."
Thanks.
OK, I did. Sounds like she's for "everyday Americans." I guess that's all I need to know.
And here I thought it might be useful to hear whether she'd vote for war at every opportunity, as she's done in the past. I thought it might be useful to hear whether she'd ever behave contrary to instructions from Benjamin Netanyahu, as she's always done in the past. I thought it might be useful to hear whether she'd consider talking with Iran, or Cuba, though she's never suggested that in the past.
But now I know, thanks to you: None of that matters. All I need to know is that she's for "everyday Americans."
Thanks.
5
At this moment, Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate electable.
Democratic side is barren, Republican side is full of harmful people for the future and good of this Country.
Jeb Bush if he really can overcome the primary , it can be another electable candidate.
One should ask this fundamental questions. During the 8 years of Obama presidency what GOP did for USA.
I am sorry but answer to that question ties my hand to vote for Hillary.
Democratic side is barren, Republican side is full of harmful people for the future and good of this Country.
Jeb Bush if he really can overcome the primary , it can be another electable candidate.
One should ask this fundamental questions. During the 8 years of Obama presidency what GOP did for USA.
I am sorry but answer to that question ties my hand to vote for Hillary.
2
Just love Hillary! She is polarizing, calculating, disingenuous defines her to a T, insincere, ambitious to a fault, inevitable (only she believes this), thinks she’s entitled, over confident, secretive (ha!), will do anything to win and represents the past while being completely out of touch. And, gosh. This grandma can chop up a mean email server in a jiffy to avoid being caught in a lie or a whole pot full of lies.
3
Just because the name is Clinton, and the gender is female, is no reason to vote for her. If I had my choices, and I have to vote for a women with marginal accomplishments, and a lot of personal baggage, I would rather vote for Sarah Palin.
2
Hillary Clinton is an old tiresome trifling natural history museum relict from the last millennium. No human being seeking the office of President of the United States of America is ordinary, humble, humane, human and empathetic.
Hillary had her turn in White House influence as more than a First Lady in her husband's 2 terms as POTUS. And she lost her place in line as the inevitable first credible woman to seek the presidency to Barack Obama. But for the incredible immature ignorant incompetent intemperate herd of Republicans running against her she would have no chance.
Hillary had her turn in White House influence as more than a First Lady in her husband's 2 terms as POTUS. And she lost her place in line as the inevitable first credible woman to seek the presidency to Barack Obama. But for the incredible immature ignorant incompetent intemperate herd of Republicans running against her she would have no chance.
2
I do believe Hillary Clinton is ready to be our President, and that she brings wisdom and maturity to the role. Life has a way of cultivating humility in each of us, provided we listen to and learn from our lessons along the way.
5
I admired the video as a piece of work; as a launch pad, I thought it played cold and removed. More Hillary -- less slick advertising. Let Hilary shine. She's got it in her.
8
Sort of like watching 'ANTIQUE ROADSHOW'; nostalgia only, utterly useless.
I have read a lot of the blogs on Hillary. I just want to mention that Bill will become "first guy" and as I remember his 8 years in office were pretty good especially considering his successor! Go Hillary!
3
I will never forgive HRC for her Iraq War vote.
On the other hand, her intelligence and vast experience will probably make her a great president. She pretty much knows the ins and outs of all aspects of governments, and given the position, might be able to get something done.
Everybody needs to give her a break and respect her experience.
On the other hand, her intelligence and vast experience will probably make her a great president. She pretty much knows the ins and outs of all aspects of governments, and given the position, might be able to get something done.
Everybody needs to give her a break and respect her experience.
2
I will never forgive her for voting in favor of that bogus bankruptcy "reform" act, but I'll still vote enthusiastically for her over any conceivable Republican.
1
At this juncture all I can say after viewing that glossy video is I sure hope Joe Biden hasn't thrown in the towel.
There is no choice but to support Clinton if we want avert the creeping Republican anti-democratic fascist spirit, scorn for the poor, Ayn-Randian incompetence, and anti-Christian slavishness to the rich. But the test of whether she can be a good president is whether she can stand up to the military-financial-imperial complex and the dogmatic, wacko interventionist external regime changers (see Libya, CIA-sonsored plots and plans to overthrow Syria's Assad (which created the whole problem) ISIS, and now the dangerous Netanyahu-plans to attack Iran and overthrow Iranians as in the time of the Shah). That she couldn't and couldn't foresee the nasty results of her failure is the one big thing she has going against her.
For anyone who thinks the Clinton family and the Bush family are both political dynasties, you need to look up the definition of a dynasty.
Then, after you've looked up dynasty and found out what it actually means, do yourself a favor and look up "Bush family political line."
Then, after you've looked at the long list of hereditary politicians from the Bush family, try to look up "Clinton family political line."
Oh.
Wait.
You can't.
There is no exhaustive list of hereditary politicians from the Clinton family. Gee. Isn't that interesting?
But you wanna know what the best part of all is?
The Bush family isn't even close to being finished with their actual real deal political dynasty.
Lil' George P. Bush has of course recently joined the family business.
And meanwhile what's that evil Clinton "dynasty" up to?
Not a lot. Hillary - one person, not an entire family - is running for president.
Other than that?
Well, Bill is out of politics, and Chelsea has never even been in politics.
So, let me say this one more time: if you think the Clinton family and the Bush family are both political dynasties, you either have no idea what a dynasty is, or your so politically ignorant that you believe the only presidents in the entire history of this country have been Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
Which is it?
Then, after you've looked up dynasty and found out what it actually means, do yourself a favor and look up "Bush family political line."
Then, after you've looked at the long list of hereditary politicians from the Bush family, try to look up "Clinton family political line."
Oh.
Wait.
You can't.
There is no exhaustive list of hereditary politicians from the Clinton family. Gee. Isn't that interesting?
But you wanna know what the best part of all is?
The Bush family isn't even close to being finished with their actual real deal political dynasty.
Lil' George P. Bush has of course recently joined the family business.
And meanwhile what's that evil Clinton "dynasty" up to?
Not a lot. Hillary - one person, not an entire family - is running for president.
Other than that?
Well, Bill is out of politics, and Chelsea has never even been in politics.
So, let me say this one more time: if you think the Clinton family and the Bush family are both political dynasties, you either have no idea what a dynasty is, or your so politically ignorant that you believe the only presidents in the entire history of this country have been Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
Which is it?
3
She plans to occupy the white house, it is her turn. This now top .1% earner, who only travels by private plane is now champion of the forgotten middle class? Multimillion dollar donations from foreign governments while secretary of state, $250,000 speeches to public universities, all charitable donations go to her charity which employ her friends and supporters. Believes flying many miles is a accomplishment when only the pilot accomplished anything.
Can some less famous and more competent woman run for office please
Can some less famous and more competent woman run for office please
3
Amazing how limited the candidate choice and subject. Can they grasp Yemen's children as problem.
Everyone running for the Presidency needs to articulate why they are running and what they're goals and policies would be. This is not specific to Hillary Clinton.
1
Here's the answer for why these Republicans want to run:
Jeb Bush: I think it's about time we have an Hispanic president. !Por favor, vote para me!
Marco Rubio: I think it's time we have a legitimate Hispanic president, not that fake Jeb Bush.
Ted Cruz: I'm smarter than y'all, I'm the only one who wants to completely destroy our government and start over, and I'm Hispanic. Well, Canadian. Canadian-American. My daddy's Hispanic. Cuban, actually. Our new best bud is Cuban. Cuban cigars for all!
Scott Walker: Is this a test question? Why do you think I dropped out of college? I hate tests.
Jeb Bush: I think it's about time we have an Hispanic president. !Por favor, vote para me!
Marco Rubio: I think it's time we have a legitimate Hispanic president, not that fake Jeb Bush.
Ted Cruz: I'm smarter than y'all, I'm the only one who wants to completely destroy our government and start over, and I'm Hispanic. Well, Canadian. Canadian-American. My daddy's Hispanic. Cuban, actually. Our new best bud is Cuban. Cuban cigars for all!
Scott Walker: Is this a test question? Why do you think I dropped out of college? I hate tests.
3
Just say "No" to Hillary. Democratic party- please come up with a better candidate.
2
Reality check I believe any man or women who runs for president should be respected by every one even if they don't like person personley .Think its time we have choice ,it be good time for woman both partys to represent us all. I believe best choice would be some one already in white house .
Hillary shouldn't avoid her historic alignment with the President; but embrace it. The fact is, notwithstanding all the obstruction, the President has been quite successful - albeit less so in touting, marketing and defending same. She needs to "specifically" detail such accomplishments is a forceful way. For example the tremendous positive impact the Affordable Health Care Act has made; and will continue to make for the entire nation by: (1) reducing and ultimately eliminating the costly "donut hole" in Medicare prescription coverage for "millions" of seniors (2) providing medical coverage - to date - for over ten "million" heretofore uninsured citizens (3) providing "economic stimulus/jobs" in the private-sector medical field in responnce to this tremendous increase in customers (4) elimination of insurance reduction/denial for people with preconditions (5) providing coverage for children up to age 26 who live at home, and ultimately conveying to the world, the compassion with which our tremendous Nation treats it's people.
I guess this means that for the next 18 months we will need to listen to the Repubs go on and on about the never ending Benghazi coverup crusade.
1
Here's why Hillary wants the job. Greed, power-lust, ego and self-aggrandizement. It's not that complicated.
1
Mrs. Clinton impresses me that she is an incredibly intelligent and articulate human being. She also leads me to believe that she is endowed with an incredible narcissism, a lack of understanding, and more importantly is wildly out of touch with what needs fixing in the US. She is surrounded by the same ole cast of characters and a tired and standard political message. Entitlement is something she does not lack and makes me believe this is less about me (us) than it is about her legacy and place in history.
I sense we are a society without direction or a mission. Our infrastructure, both morally and physically is decaying and I believe it is time for a reset of values and expectations. At this time she strikes me as not being the person unafraid to tell us the real truth and give us a plan or roadmap to regenerating a great America and inspiring us to all pull in harness.
I sense we are a society without direction or a mission. Our infrastructure, both morally and physically is decaying and I believe it is time for a reset of values and expectations. At this time she strikes me as not being the person unafraid to tell us the real truth and give us a plan or roadmap to regenerating a great America and inspiring us to all pull in harness.
2
The media is asking Mrs. Clinton the wrong question. Instead of asking her "why do you want to run," the question that should be put to her is: "Do you think corporations should be treated as people in our legal system."
1
Obama champions reform but has not been shrewd enough to get a lot done and has been too much diverted by foreign policy considerations. Hillary is plenty shrewd and a foreign policy expert. Her domestic agenda is less inspiring than that of Obama's, but she is likely to get more done. I think she'd make a fine President for these troubled times. We could use a stronger hand at the helm.
3
Where are the articles requiring other candidates to explain their rationale? The writers form Politico will be a pain to read as we go through this cycle . . .
Hillary Clinton is the only one running so far who has stood up for protecting women's reproductive rights and therefore family planning. The men on the GOP side want to set women back to the last century. If you want to see a brilliant person who is eloquent and experienced watch this clip of Sec Clinton putting Rep Chris Smith of NJ in his place. As a previous commentator wrote- she is the smartest one in the room.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9rC0MaBJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9rC0MaBJc
17
And yet as Senator she paid her female staff less than the male counterparts and took money from UAE which as we know is a bastion for womens rights. don't you see the hypocrisy or do you just like her b/c she's a D?
1
It is very disturbing to me as a woman that Anyone would vote for anyone just on issue of women's rights
Shows a total lack of understanding of the mess the World is in that has been made worse under this President and with Hillary as Sect of State
Family Planning is readily available for any responsible woman at Planned Parenthood that is supported by US taxpayer to the tune of $400 million a year
But this expects one to be personable responsibility for ones life ... Not subjugating it to gov.
Sad state of affairs when anyone is a one issue voter... You need to widen your horizons
Shows a total lack of understanding of the mess the World is in that has been made worse under this President and with Hillary as Sect of State
Family Planning is readily available for any responsible woman at Planned Parenthood that is supported by US taxpayer to the tune of $400 million a year
But this expects one to be personable responsibility for ones life ... Not subjugating it to gov.
Sad state of affairs when anyone is a one issue voter... You need to widen your horizons
There's no credible support for the article's assertion that Hillary Clinton faces more pressure than any other candidate to explain why she is running. It's one thing to push candidates to answer real questions,but this kind of coverage of an announcement frankly edges toward parody,
Not a great introduction. Reminiscent of Mitt Romney playing the role "The Mature Adult".
Perhaps the viewer is being invited to observe how much more erratic and adolescent the Klown Kar gets with each passing day. Since all but the annointed Bush are only running for leadership of the extreme right wing factions that will take over the Republican Party in 2016, maybe this is a subtle reminder that HRC has a demonstrated skill-set at dealing with crazies.
Perhaps the viewer is being invited to observe how much more erratic and adolescent the Klown Kar gets with each passing day. Since all but the annointed Bush are only running for leadership of the extreme right wing factions that will take over the Republican Party in 2016, maybe this is a subtle reminder that HRC has a demonstrated skill-set at dealing with crazies.
2
Mrs. Clinton's campaign slogan (to paraphrase Herbert Hoover):
A private server in every house and foreign money in every foundation
A private server in every house and foreign money in every foundation
3
It is one thing to run a well scripted campaign and and another to have the qualifications to be president.
5
Hillary's so called rational about the rich not paying their far share of taxes etc is the biggest every hypocrite double talk. The simple facts are that it was Bill Clinton and his entourage that repealed the long standing Glass-Steagall Act, thus starting the banking system owned by wall street types to start their binge of total unregulated malfeasance of the already fundamentally flawed economic system. Where by banks and other fiscal entities mixing commercial banking with investment banking, insurance boondoggle , mortgage mess, freaking hedge fund managers, private equity, derivative gambling and so called economists cooking up new theories and stop gap measures etc at the drop of a hat. The Clintons with the creation of their so called Charitable Private Foundation started collecting IOUs hand over fist. These so called donation have been not just from their like minded greed types in the US but worldwide. There is not much anything charitable not for profits Clinton Foundation has ever down. The whole business is a facade, where all taxes are differed. In fact these A List hypocrite Clintons are paying no taxes and nor is there anything so called charitable about this Foundation.All the while they live high on the hog like their rich friends and cohort. That folks is about the biggest ever lie and down right two faced hypocrisy.
2
I cannot believe the money that will be spent from here to election day in Nov 2016. I would rather we feed the poor, help students with college tuition, fix our infrastructure and limit campaign spending and ads to 2 months before the election.
1
We have Citizens United which legally sells the office to the highest bidder. We have no campaign finance reform. WE made this Supreme Court with our votes, either for "cultural" reasons or because we couldn't be bothered. Knock on doors, take a vacation day to work a campaign and bring voters out of the shadows. Make a new Supreme Court.
1
With the exception of Obama , Clinton is the least transparent, honest and forthright candidate for president. One only need review her history in wild bills run for the presidency with all his mistresses, then her time in the white house with filegate etc., and then her tour of duty as sec of state during which she not only did not accomplish anything except racking up airline miles, and on and on.
Voting for anyone solely based on sex is not the reason to elect anyone.
Remember in 2016 Vote NO on Clintons
Voting for anyone solely based on sex is not the reason to elect anyone.
Remember in 2016 Vote NO on Clintons
3
I believe HRC's biggest obstacle is not HRC, but the Democratic Party itself. HRC has been consistently centrist, if not somewhat conservative, especially on the issues of foreign policy and use of our military along with her pro Wall Street relationships. The fact is she is in not in the middle of the Democratic Party, but to the far right within the Party. But, her stances on these issues has not changed that much since she was a Goldwater Girl in the 1960's whereas the Democratic Party seems to be moving toward a more populist progressive position in the wake of middle class devastation and foreign policy disasters of the past few years. HRC's problem is with the Democratic Party not because of her personality/likeability, but because of her foreign and domestic policy stances, and this where the enthusiasm gap will come from. Jeb Bush has the same problem with his Party. He is too centrist too far left in his own party. If we end up with another Bush - Clinton election we could be looking at an election like Clinton - Dole 1996, which the late Christopher Hitchens described as two sides of the same coin election.
1
She should absolutely explain her reasons for wanting to be President. As should Jeb and Ted Cruz and Huckabee and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. And for every time someone -- whether they be media or armchair pundit -- insists she offer a list of her "accomplishments", they should ask the same of Jeb and Ted Cruz and Huckabee and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.
Anyone who wants a job as important as this should absolutely earn it. And she is. Gotta say, though, in my opinion, coming out of the gate, Mrs. Clinton has a leg up -- as in decades of consistent public service usually offered under the unforgiving glare of an unkind spotlight -- on her competition.
Anyone who wants a job as important as this should absolutely earn it. And she is. Gotta say, though, in my opinion, coming out of the gate, Mrs. Clinton has a leg up -- as in decades of consistent public service usually offered under the unforgiving glare of an unkind spotlight -- on her competition.
4
Is this the best the democrats have to offer? Frankly, I'd vote for the devil himself before I'd vote for this lying politician.
2
And which lying politician would you vote for?
1
BE AWARE!
If we lose the ACA there will be no pre condition coverage!
It's your family! GOOD LUCK!
If we lose the ACA there will be no pre condition coverage!
It's your family! GOOD LUCK!
1
Judy,
Not sure what this has to do with Hillary Clinton running for President. If the Supreme Court rules against the US in the Burwell case, what, exactly, could Hillary do to change that? Will she mount a new legislative effort? If so, will it turn out better than her effort in 1994? Why, exactly, should we think so?
Some supporters describe Hillary as "strong." That's not an adjective I'd ever think of for her. When she was Senator, she did nothing momentous -- her approach was "go along to get along." She took polls, and followed what those polls told her. (That's probably why she voted for the Iraq war, for example.) When she was Secretary of State, she flew around a lot and gave a lot of speeches, but nothing happened that I can recall.
The only time I've ever seen Hillary be "strong" was in 1994, when she and Ira Magaziner dropped a 2,000-page health care bill on Congress' desk and said "Here, adopt this." Congress didn't, of course -- she ran into opposition from both parties and set back health care legislation for well over a decade. Obama was still dealing with the fallout from that disaster when the ACA got proposed and adopted over 15 years later.
Maybe a "strong" President isn't needed -- just a cautious, finger-to-the-wind poll-driven caretaker. If so, Hillary fits that bill well. But if it's "strength" you're looking for, you'd better pick someone else.
Not sure what this has to do with Hillary Clinton running for President. If the Supreme Court rules against the US in the Burwell case, what, exactly, could Hillary do to change that? Will she mount a new legislative effort? If so, will it turn out better than her effort in 1994? Why, exactly, should we think so?
Some supporters describe Hillary as "strong." That's not an adjective I'd ever think of for her. When she was Senator, she did nothing momentous -- her approach was "go along to get along." She took polls, and followed what those polls told her. (That's probably why she voted for the Iraq war, for example.) When she was Secretary of State, she flew around a lot and gave a lot of speeches, but nothing happened that I can recall.
The only time I've ever seen Hillary be "strong" was in 1994, when she and Ira Magaziner dropped a 2,000-page health care bill on Congress' desk and said "Here, adopt this." Congress didn't, of course -- she ran into opposition from both parties and set back health care legislation for well over a decade. Obama was still dealing with the fallout from that disaster when the ACA got proposed and adopted over 15 years later.
Maybe a "strong" President isn't needed -- just a cautious, finger-to-the-wind poll-driven caretaker. If so, Hillary fits that bill well. But if it's "strength" you're looking for, you'd better pick someone else.
4
That's a very good point. People who are paying for good coverage through their employer don't realize that they could lose that coverage if they have to change jobs.
1
Thinker of Northern Cal - "you'd better pick someone else"....Who? Give us a name or two, please! I'd gladly pick someone else if there was "someone else" running - on the Dem side, that is. Certainly not one of the wingnuts on the Right!
Interesting question. Just yesterday, I asked some folks - why does Hillary Clinton want to be President? They all looked at me with quizzical expressions. Many are lifelong Democrats.
The answer is simple. She wants to be President.
This isn't a female/male thing. Indeed, among candidates who were elected in my lifetime, other than Kennedy, Reagan and Obama -- who all had visions for where they wanted to bring the country -- most candidates want the job, well, because they want it. And, that's not good enough.
Mrs. Clinton can now invent and articulate a vision. (She didn't the first time.) But, we know it will be contrived and not heartfelt. She'll do and say what she must in order to win. (It's not a coincidence that much of her record as Secretary of State has been deleted.)
If we lived in times like those that her husband inherited, I wouldn't be so concerned about the prospect of Mrs. Clinton being President. But we don't.
The answer is simple. She wants to be President.
This isn't a female/male thing. Indeed, among candidates who were elected in my lifetime, other than Kennedy, Reagan and Obama -- who all had visions for where they wanted to bring the country -- most candidates want the job, well, because they want it. And, that's not good enough.
Mrs. Clinton can now invent and articulate a vision. (She didn't the first time.) But, we know it will be contrived and not heartfelt. She'll do and say what she must in order to win. (It's not a coincidence that much of her record as Secretary of State has been deleted.)
If we lived in times like those that her husband inherited, I wouldn't be so concerned about the prospect of Mrs. Clinton being President. But we don't.
11
Good post.Her husband was President,during that sweet spot,after the cold war and before 911.She isn't going to be that lucky.
1
How depressing: the possibility that the country might face enduring almost ten more years of this woman, who William Safire so accurately defined as " not just a liar, but a congenital liar." How sad we can't do better than this current crop of people seeking the most important office in America. Ms. Warren, time to enter, stage left!
1
Stephanie, I've los count as to how many people keep bringing her name up but nothing to substantiate her qualifications. Doubless this comment gets printed since I've posted it before and its been censored. Not sure why. It's a legitimate question that certainly deserves to be answered.
1
Since Hillary Clinton was not born into a wealthy family, what's wrong with her stating that she wants to help the middle class?
1
Bravo! Mrs. Hillary R Clinton! Finally, we can see if you are the American President your country has been waiting for. I trust that you are a person of action, not a "procrastinator," like President Obama.
If Barack Obama had acted faster in regard to international issues like the Arab Spring, then the world would not be facing ISIS. Now, this problems is not only in the Middle East but as well in Africa, South-Asia, including the Philippines.
Let's remember the cases of Syria and Iraq. The fanatical problems in these two countries are due to Obama's late reaction. He let these problems for tomorrow. Now he does not know what to do with them. The result is called "Procrastination."
If Barack Obama had acted faster in regard to international issues like the Arab Spring, then the world would not be facing ISIS. Now, this problems is not only in the Middle East but as well in Africa, South-Asia, including the Philippines.
Let's remember the cases of Syria and Iraq. The fanatical problems in these two countries are due to Obama's late reaction. He let these problems for tomorrow. Now he does not know what to do with them. The result is called "Procrastination."
2
It's sad this country can't produce something better than Bushes and Clintons.
3
Hillary Clinton's appeal to some Democrats remains a mystery. She has done nothing of note in her time in the Senate and at State other than vote for the Wars and contribute to the further unraveling of much of the Middle East. She and her husband have been doing the bidding of Wall Street and Big Business throughout their entire political lives. She is an uninspiring speaker, ponderous on the campaign trail and not particularly likeable. So again... I am at a loss to see her appeal. The Democrats are gambling big time doubling down on Hillary and defeat is a very likely outcome. Time for the Clintons to get off the stage.
4
With all due respect, wasn't Angela Davis the first female to campaign for president?
3
No. Victoria Woodhull ran for president in 1872 and Belva Lockwood in the 1880s.
I suppose this art. falls into the category, "what can we write today about Clinton that will subject her to tests we would never dream of asking a male candidate?" Does anyone at this moment in our history have any doubts about why Clinton want to be president? If so, such person hasn't been paying attention. Why does the Times publish such drivel?
2
No, she doesn't need to explain why she wants it; she needs to explain why we should vote for her. To me, her candidacy feels like a step back in time. I hear no new ideas, no fresh approaches, just "it's my turn." That's not enough.
19
As we have all learned from current experience electing a candidate because of race or gender is never a good idea.
Did I miss something? When did she say "It's my turn?"
'What would be her - Hillary Clinton's - rationale for seeking the presidency' is being asked in the very first paragraph of this quite strange op-Ed. Has this question ever been asked of Ted Cruz yet, the one that mentions Jesus ad infinitum in his speeches as a rational for seeking the presidency?
Bill Clinton's campaign slogan was 'A bridge to the 21rst Century'.
Ever since Obama became president, his opposition, now controlling both chambers of Congress, has ideologically inched closer to fascism and wants to put us smack back into the 1900s.
They wrap themselves in the flag while carrying the cross, as Sinclair Lewis already speculated in the mid 1930 when returning from Europe. They hate all these 'others', gays, Latinos, women's rights to make decisions about their own body, the less fortunate among us, that oh so socialist ideal of universal healthcare, unions, a decent minimum wage, one person, one vote, etc., etc.
God forbid - pun intended - should any Republican win the presidency. With possibly replacing one or two Supreme Court seats, an election of one of these god-fearing candidates will have catastrophic consequences for this country for decades to come, not just for a couple of election cycles.
Bill Clinton's campaign slogan was 'A bridge to the 21rst Century'.
Ever since Obama became president, his opposition, now controlling both chambers of Congress, has ideologically inched closer to fascism and wants to put us smack back into the 1900s.
They wrap themselves in the flag while carrying the cross, as Sinclair Lewis already speculated in the mid 1930 when returning from Europe. They hate all these 'others', gays, Latinos, women's rights to make decisions about their own body, the less fortunate among us, that oh so socialist ideal of universal healthcare, unions, a decent minimum wage, one person, one vote, etc., etc.
God forbid - pun intended - should any Republican win the presidency. With possibly replacing one or two Supreme Court seats, an election of one of these god-fearing candidates will have catastrophic consequences for this country for decades to come, not just for a couple of election cycles.
6
My daughter met then Senator Clinton at a party for which she was working as a waitress. When my daughter came home that night she was very excited telling me that Senator Clinton stopped to say hello to her and spent several minutes just talking with her just like a concerned parent or friend would. My daughter was extremely impressed with her saying how really down to earth she is.
4
Unfortunately that has nothing to do with running a country. While she may have more credentials than Obama had (which was zeroi), she is still deficient compared to the many other candidates and potential candidates. Folksy, like here husband, has nothing to do with the needed integrity and ethics to properly run this country.
1
"Mrs. Clinton has a chance to become the first female nominee from either major party."
Now that we've had our first bi-racial President and Mrs. Clinton will be the "first female nominee" the time has come to list all ethnic, religious and sexual groups who have not had a run for President and make sure they do.
We need no longer look for competency in our elected officials as long as they represent an important "niche" group of Americans and symbolize our diversity. "E Pluribus Pluribus"
Now that we've had our first bi-racial President and Mrs. Clinton will be the "first female nominee" the time has come to list all ethnic, religious and sexual groups who have not had a run for President and make sure they do.
We need no longer look for competency in our elected officials as long as they represent an important "niche" group of Americans and symbolize our diversity. "E Pluribus Pluribus"
10
Did you just call Hilary incompetent? There are many adjectives you can use to describe her. Incompetent is not one of them.
@ Jolene - IMO the thought of having a candidate for Presidency because that candidate is the "first" of it's kind is disgustingly stupid. As a nation we need to find and vote for the best, not the "first" of anything.
"competent - having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully." Yes, of the many adjectives I could use I certainly believe that incompetent is one of them. We are talking about the Presidency of the United States.
"competent - having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully." Yes, of the many adjectives I could use I certainly believe that incompetent is one of them. We are talking about the Presidency of the United States.
Electoral process corruption doesn't give any leverage to the electorate. The electorate has no option except to choose a better candidate out of the bare minimum choice. Unfortunately, Supreme Court of America has given free hand to the corporate donations. The corporate corruption is not the exclusive right in America alone but extends to a number of countries including India. So the menace continues to the detriment of the common man.
Unless and until this corrupt culture is eliminated completely, nothing much can be expected from the elected representatives including the Head of a Nation by the common man.
Unless and until this corrupt culture is eliminated completely, nothing much can be expected from the elected representatives including the Head of a Nation by the common man.
4
So she's tough and pragmatic. Yes, I'd love to see Warren run to make her pay more attention to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, but why exactly is it wrong for her to be strong?
I will hope that she begins to absorb the real trouble brewing as we continue to put fossil and industry ahead of everything else and trash our planet, and put that good pragmatic toughness to work to solve our biggest worldwide problem. There's much more chance she will do so than any of the triangulators on the right. Their pragmatism goes against the good in the human race and puts the wealthy and powerful in a special class by themselves, driving our train to the biggest wreck yet.
So let's stop with the personality stuff and see what she's made of. I don't get that acting determined is not an asset in somebody who is faced with this nonsense every day.
Finally, people are waking up to how difficult it has been for Obama to maintain his excellence, but perhaps they have to get this perspective in the coming race rather than using it to ramp up nostalgia.
The good old days never were, but we can keep on trying to do our best with the present and future.
I will hope that she begins to absorb the real trouble brewing as we continue to put fossil and industry ahead of everything else and trash our planet, and put that good pragmatic toughness to work to solve our biggest worldwide problem. There's much more chance she will do so than any of the triangulators on the right. Their pragmatism goes against the good in the human race and puts the wealthy and powerful in a special class by themselves, driving our train to the biggest wreck yet.
So let's stop with the personality stuff and see what she's made of. I don't get that acting determined is not an asset in somebody who is faced with this nonsense every day.
Finally, people are waking up to how difficult it has been for Obama to maintain his excellence, but perhaps they have to get this perspective in the coming race rather than using it to ramp up nostalgia.
The good old days never were, but we can keep on trying to do our best with the present and future.
24
The Hillary that gets elected will be nothing like the Hillary that attempts to rule or the related arrogance in relation to Congress.
Would love to hear from her why I should actually vote for her other than her being the defacto candidate. Show me how you're not cozy with the banks still. Show me HOW you'll fight for the middle class (or what's left of it).
I don't see myself casting a vote for the Right, as their candidates aren't very strong in my opinion, but I need a more compelling message from Hilary. You've been a ghost for two years, stop stepping on eggshells and get out there and prove you deserve it.
I don't see myself casting a vote for the Right, as their candidates aren't very strong in my opinion, but I need a more compelling message from Hilary. You've been a ghost for two years, stop stepping on eggshells and get out there and prove you deserve it.
8
Here is why I will vote for her: We as Americans like to glorify our boys, telling them that they can anything. But we tell our girls they are forever daddy's little girl i.e. she cannot break the glass ceiling unless she gets male helpers. Why do Africans, Asians, Europeans and even our poorer South American neighbors think differently from us? Even Canadians can dare to vote for A. Kim Campbell. Only in America? We gave Obama a chance. Let us give her the opportunity without judging her through the lens of Mr. Clinton. Hilary, if you become the candidate you have my vote. We do not give our ladies, daughters, mothers and even grandmas a chance yet they bore the males who rule them. No equal pay, no equal promotion, glass ceiling, etc.
I can tell you why I'm going to vote for Hillary in three syllables. 'Su-preme Court'.
22
Absolutely the whole reason 2016 is so important. Getting folks to see this clearly is a message the Dems MUST PROIRITIZE.
1
WHY? I think it's the first time I remember ANY candidate being asked this question. I have a better question. Why is the NYT treating Hillary Clinton like a neophyte?
8
They are not only treating her like a neophyte, they're treating her as someone to always suspect of having ulterior motives, like she's a conniving power hungry diva. Of course we know none of the other candidates have big egos or ambitions. Hah! Hillary has been a public servant for decades and has more qualifications than just about anybody out there. This article is a true hack job.
1
My personal favorite from the NY Post the day of Hillary's Announcement? Front page: "Hil No. NO NO NO NO NO...." Gee, when did the boys of the NY Post start pulling Terrible Two tantrums?
You boys in the media need to get a grip. Reagan was 69, nearly 70, when he became president. You can drop the "She's too old" excuse. Accent on the word the boys hate most? "SHE." How dare any woman upset the 235+ year old male bastion of candidates?
Mrs. Clinton? Why use "Mrs.?" Is that to show her subordination to a husband...gotta get that male superiority act in there somewhere, right boys? Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was a Rodham by birth and a Clinton only by marriage.
Would you call Laura Bush, Laura Welch Bush? Laura Welch? You bet not. That MRS degree is the shining crown jewel for any woman, according to male superiority control freak.s
So..Now that one NY paper has gone gender biased...which will be the next to follow suit? Will they even recognize gender bias until women get fed up with the insinuations?
Take a look at who the GOP is offering: all middle aged, white males....not a woman among them. Oh sure...they hauled out Carly Fiorina and Nikki Haley...but don't count on either of them making it two steps head of any GOP bull. Not when Ole Charley and Davy Koch are at the helm of the GOP.
You boys in the media need to get a grip. Reagan was 69, nearly 70, when he became president. You can drop the "She's too old" excuse. Accent on the word the boys hate most? "SHE." How dare any woman upset the 235+ year old male bastion of candidates?
Mrs. Clinton? Why use "Mrs.?" Is that to show her subordination to a husband...gotta get that male superiority act in there somewhere, right boys? Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was a Rodham by birth and a Clinton only by marriage.
Would you call Laura Bush, Laura Welch Bush? Laura Welch? You bet not. That MRS degree is the shining crown jewel for any woman, according to male superiority control freak.s
So..Now that one NY paper has gone gender biased...which will be the next to follow suit? Will they even recognize gender bias until women get fed up with the insinuations?
Take a look at who the GOP is offering: all middle aged, white males....not a woman among them. Oh sure...they hauled out Carly Fiorina and Nikki Haley...but don't count on either of them making it two steps head of any GOP bull. Not when Ole Charley and Davy Koch are at the helm of the GOP.
13
Wow, Eleanore... :-) I support Clinton, but uhhh... Perhaps we need to know whether M(r)s Clinton prefers Mrs. or Ms. I'm a male who very much respects whichever she prefers, but I don't know that she's stated a preference. What I do know is I don't remember ever having seen "Ms." Clinton in use anywhere, and I don't remember ever having her request otherwise.
As for your other comments, well... No objection to your other comments. :-)
As for Carly "I was a disaster at HP" Fiorina, and Nikki Haley, keep in mind that the GOP candidate will most likely be selecting a female VP for political reasons, and nothing anything to do with whether they think she should really be the VP or not. Plus I don't think they'll make the Sarah Palin mistake this time around.
As for your other comments, well... No objection to your other comments. :-)
As for Carly "I was a disaster at HP" Fiorina, and Nikki Haley, keep in mind that the GOP candidate will most likely be selecting a female VP for political reasons, and nothing anything to do with whether they think she should really be the VP or not. Plus I don't think they'll make the Sarah Palin mistake this time around.
1
In addition to telling the middle class how to make speeches like she does to increase their earnings I think Hillary should tell us exactly how she was able to turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures when Bill was governor of Arkansas into $100,000 in 10 months. I know she will say that is old news and will not answer. However, like most everything shady Hillary has been involved in over the years it isn't old news because young voters never heard of it and it also isn't old news because we never got a rational explanation. Check it out. The real question is, will the press threat Hillary the way they did Mitt Romney or just give her a pas. Very convenient that there isn't anyone in the Democrat party opposing her. I have a tip for all the GOP candidates. They should focus on how they will beat Hillary and not attack each other. The GOP candidate with the best plan to beat Hilary should get the GOP nomination. If they beat each other up instead of going after the one and only Democrat candidate, they will be handing Hillary the Presidency and all she has to do is make taped or set up speeches. We know from what happened to Mitt Romney that the debate moderators help the Democrats after what Candy did to mitt so there will not be any tough questions there either.
1
This is something new...being trotted out just for Clinton? Besides ambition unbridled by the Peter Principle, why does anybody run for a higher political office?
Funny though, don't seem to recall that question being put to Cruz...or Paul...or Rubio. But will now expect it to be...and Bush can explain why he wants to be POTUS, just has soon as he stops operating his candidacy outside of the campaign finance laws and actually declares.
Funny though, don't seem to recall that question being put to Cruz...or Paul...or Rubio. But will now expect it to be...and Bush can explain why he wants to be POTUS, just has soon as he stops operating his candidacy outside of the campaign finance laws and actually declares.
5
While the person who is President must be at least reasonably capable (President George W. Bush's judgment substantially challenged the low end of capability and competence, but he did get communicate in a personable way), getting anything done in Washington today depends on the party of the President and which party controls the House and Senate, and which people hold important Congressional positions. Dealing with national problems DEPENDS on which party controls the levers of government, and which levers. Other than the NYTimes, news outlets focus almost exclusively on the PROCESS of the daily campaign AND NOT anywhere near enough on the substance of party positions on big and small issues awaiting legislative and administrative action. Selling papers and advertising does depend on giving people what they want to hear but feeding people process pap all day every day malnourishes the body politic, causing national political illness.
1
Blah blah blah.....Clinton represents establishment in America, then makes her first campaign statement about the middle-class. So what? That's not what I'm worried about. America is not ready for a woman president, no matter how many personalities support Clinton, and her public record is all about her attempt at "making it", rather than about "making it for". The Democrats have an election they strongly can win because the Repubblican candidates are off the wall. Yet they carry the weakest candidate into an election they choose to lose.
1
While many are complaining that sexism is the reason why people are asking why Hillary Clinton want to be president, I don't see it that way at all. People are asking the question because when she ran in 2008 she failed to provide any sort of reason. As a result, she came across to many voters like a person who felt she was "owed" the Democratic nomination, and they were turned off. I happen to be one of those voters.
I like Hillary Clinton in a lot of ways. I admire her intelligence and her inner strength. But what I don't like about her is that she is intensely secretive and far too cozy with many of the big money interests in this country. While I understand the former, I have a hard time voting for a Democrat when it comes to the latter.
I like Hillary Clinton in a lot of ways. I admire her intelligence and her inner strength. But what I don't like about her is that she is intensely secretive and far too cozy with many of the big money interests in this country. While I understand the former, I have a hard time voting for a Democrat when it comes to the latter.
5
She failed to provide a "reason" for her 2008 run? Are you kidding? Did you not listen to a single campaign speech? Did you not listen to the debates?
When you repeat the line that she thinks she is "owed" the job, you are repeating the opposition's press line. Try listening to what she actually says, not the press coverage.
When you repeat the line that she thinks she is "owed" the job, you are repeating the opposition's press line. Try listening to what she actually says, not the press coverage.
5
Dynasty, shmynesty. I would like to add to the chorus of voices that aim to rubbish irrelevant issues that cloud objective assessment of an individual's worth. Which single individual has fought harder, clawed deeper, worked longer, than Hillary.
I have some concerns about Hillary (whom she takes money from, and abuse of the term "Gandhi."), and none of them relate to her qualifications. Nor to her connection to Bill. They all relate to the unmitigated glee I experience (in terms of a warm glow) about the prospects of seeing talking heads on radio and TV plain explode, the right wing extremists plain convulse in pain, and males finally getting to a point that it makes them no less manly to work with qualified people regardless of gender. I want my daughters - who are currently debating about becoming pilots, chefs, business owners, fashion designers, to include in their repertoire - governors, senators (alas, on account of being foreign born, they could never run for President).
YOU GO HILLARY!!!
But, would you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop taking money from interests with blood on their hands (such as Saudis, other OPEC members, religious nuts, intrepid polluters)? Thank you.
Kalidan
I have some concerns about Hillary (whom she takes money from, and abuse of the term "Gandhi."), and none of them relate to her qualifications. Nor to her connection to Bill. They all relate to the unmitigated glee I experience (in terms of a warm glow) about the prospects of seeing talking heads on radio and TV plain explode, the right wing extremists plain convulse in pain, and males finally getting to a point that it makes them no less manly to work with qualified people regardless of gender. I want my daughters - who are currently debating about becoming pilots, chefs, business owners, fashion designers, to include in their repertoire - governors, senators (alas, on account of being foreign born, they could never run for President).
YOU GO HILLARY!!!
But, would you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop taking money from interests with blood on their hands (such as Saudis, other OPEC members, religious nuts, intrepid polluters)? Thank you.
Kalidan
9
There is no Clinton dynasty. Democrats please drop that nonsense. There is no comparison between Jeb, 4th in a line of Senators & Presidents and Hillary, who came from a nonpolitical middle class family and through her own incredible gifts, intelligence, and nonstop work, earned the position she's in now, inevitable Democratic candidate. She might not be your ideal choice, she is certainly not mine. But the dynasty/monarchy indignation is a silly reason to throw votes to a party that will actively harm this country and set us back again. So what if she was the First Lady? While FLOTUS, she proposed a sweeping health care plan 15 years before we managed to pass one. If nothing else, think of the 3 Supreme Court justices that the next President may have to replace, and the consequences having a 6-3 conservative-liberal SCOTUS could have. Democrat votes are too precious to give away this election over nothing more than a name.
18
What makes her inevitable? How does someone who was polling behind John Edwards in 2008 suddenly become "inevitable".
Now the Dems have a candidate who is a one percenter,runs a multibillion dollar foundation,loves the Banks/Wall Street,votes for war,destroys a file server under subpoena,and has more prior scandals than anyone in recent history.Now there's someone who doesn't get my vote.
14
Given that all of these "scandals" were manufactured by the opposition and failed to produce a single indictment, why are you blaming her?
In spite of the facts, the "scandals" have done their dirty work. They have made you refuse to vote for her, which was the Republican goal all along. You were such an easy mark.
In spite of the facts, the "scandals" have done their dirty work. They have made you refuse to vote for her, which was the Republican goal all along. You were such an easy mark.
9
Come on Bud. Fess up. You wouldn't have voted for her if she was Joan of Arc.
1
"Manufactured by the opposition"????
Really none of that is true. The FACT that she took money from UAE while SOS.....FACT she paid her female staffers less than male counterparts while Senator.........All Facts and not manufactured except by HRC herself. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Really none of that is true. The FACT that she took money from UAE while SOS.....FACT she paid her female staffers less than male counterparts while Senator.........All Facts and not manufactured except by HRC herself. Sorry if the truth hurts.
1
As the Roman Empire faded, the emperors became weaker and less respected by the citizens. The currency was debased and the military over extended. Sound a bit familar? Does Clinton have the same chracter as Washington or Lincoln? Put her gender aside. We need younger leaders to be guiding the country forward not retreads who are way too old, be it in the congress, the president, or the chair of the Federal Reserve. Wake up America, or else we might be the next Roman Empire. We have been warned.
4
Wake up to what? Rubio? Paul? Jindal? Cruz?
While I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, these "young generation" candidates make her look like a sining star.
By the way, America, the so "called greatest country in the world" has already followed the path of Rome. We even have a two class system; instead of slaves, we have the 99% subjected to the 1% oligarchs. Like the old Senate and Roman Assemblies, our Congress is equally corrupt. We just have not have a president yet to declare themselves Caesar. Throughout the nation, states are limiting voting rights; to enforce this two class system. And we have Ayn Rand "wage slavery". When CEOs make a thousand times more than an employee; you have serious problems. Finally, like Rome, instead of legions, we have Homeland Security granting police powers to keep the masses in line.
And overseas, the US is viewed and reviled, like the Roman Empire of 1500 - 2000 years ago. A 100 - 150 years ago, American was loved and respected, but it took post WWII foreign policy to change that. Military force, overthrowing governments (CIA), spying on other nations, propping up dictators, etc.
So, Senātus Populusque Rōmānus (SPQR) or Senātus Populusque Civitatum Foederatarum Americae (QRCFA). I just wonder who the "barbarians at the gates" when this nation goes the way of Ancient Rome.
While I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, these "young generation" candidates make her look like a sining star.
By the way, America, the so "called greatest country in the world" has already followed the path of Rome. We even have a two class system; instead of slaves, we have the 99% subjected to the 1% oligarchs. Like the old Senate and Roman Assemblies, our Congress is equally corrupt. We just have not have a president yet to declare themselves Caesar. Throughout the nation, states are limiting voting rights; to enforce this two class system. And we have Ayn Rand "wage slavery". When CEOs make a thousand times more than an employee; you have serious problems. Finally, like Rome, instead of legions, we have Homeland Security granting police powers to keep the masses in line.
And overseas, the US is viewed and reviled, like the Roman Empire of 1500 - 2000 years ago. A 100 - 150 years ago, American was loved and respected, but it took post WWII foreign policy to change that. Military force, overthrowing governments (CIA), spying on other nations, propping up dictators, etc.
So, Senātus Populusque Rōmānus (SPQR) or Senātus Populusque Civitatum Foederatarum Americae (QRCFA). I just wonder who the "barbarians at the gates" when this nation goes the way of Ancient Rome.
4
You may be interested to know that Washington left office with a rather low approval rating. It's not something we talk about in our propaganda/history textbooks. The populous was rather annoyed with his efforts to normalize relations with Britain.
Nope. "Rome was not room enough" (Julius Caesar) for all the slaves who worked for them and all the lazy citizens who just relaxed and watched their version of Superbowl (Gladiator Games). To survive Rome just became an inverted pyramid messing up with the likes of Queen Cleopatra of Egypt, and gobbling more and more countries. Of course it would collapse out of sheer weight. But, Americans are hard working. Sure we had slaves and indenture servants in Antebellum South, but we sacrifice so much for America. The problem now is Republican and Democratic or the Geezers at Capitol whom Shakespeare's must have had in mind when he wrote Julius Caesar since we the people cannot tell if they are our friends or enemies -the Roman mob saw Cinna the poet on the streets and said "kill him for his bad verses"( J.C.).
America will live forever and ever because of Citizen USA. So please do not compare us with anyone else in the world: no country in the history was ever created for the common man except America. Our constitution was deliberately framed to protect us. Forever.
America will live forever and ever because of Citizen USA. So please do not compare us with anyone else in the world: no country in the history was ever created for the common man except America. Our constitution was deliberately framed to protect us. Forever.
Hillary or one of the clowns? Tough choice.
6
You could make a case that Jeb isn't really a clown. Yet.
By the time he gets the nomination that will change, of course.
By the time he gets the nomination that will change, of course.
So now we have Hillary the populist, saying things like "the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top." She fails to mention that the corporate-friendly and banking-friendly policies supported by her husband's administration did much of the deck stacking.
I have little doubt she'll get the nomination of her party. And she will more than likely defeat the Republican candidate. Most Americans will see her as the lesser of two evils. But, once in office, I fear that we will no longer see Hillary the populist, and she'll be just as business- and banking-friendly as her husband. Sure, she'll nominate Supreme Court Justices who support a woman's right to choose and gay rights. But these same nominees will also believe that corporations are people, the deranged legal concept that has helped give rise to the corporate state.
I have little doubt she'll get the nomination of her party. And she will more than likely defeat the Republican candidate. Most Americans will see her as the lesser of two evils. But, once in office, I fear that we will no longer see Hillary the populist, and she'll be just as business- and banking-friendly as her husband. Sure, she'll nominate Supreme Court Justices who support a woman's right to choose and gay rights. But these same nominees will also believe that corporations are people, the deranged legal concept that has helped give rise to the corporate state.
25
Your comment about "nominees will also believe that corporations are people" is unsubstantiated and false. PLEASE take note of actual FACTS.
President (Bill) Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer to the Supreme Court. In Citizens United, Ginsburg and Breyer BOTH voted AGAINST the expansion of political corruption endorsed by the right wing justices.
Likewise other claims I've seen (elsewhere) about Obama being "just like Bush" are fallacious in so far as they apply to Supreme Court nominees. Sotomayor voted AGAINST Citizens United and the expansion of political corruption. (Kagan was not on the Court yet, but I think most people would have no problem envisioning how she would have voted.)
President (Bill) Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer to the Supreme Court. In Citizens United, Ginsburg and Breyer BOTH voted AGAINST the expansion of political corruption endorsed by the right wing justices.
Likewise other claims I've seen (elsewhere) about Obama being "just like Bush" are fallacious in so far as they apply to Supreme Court nominees. Sotomayor voted AGAINST Citizens United and the expansion of political corruption. (Kagan was not on the Court yet, but I think most people would have no problem envisioning how she would have voted.)
Are you more fearful about her than about Walker, Paul, or Cruz? Time for liberals to grow up and realize the costs of lofty idealism and unrealistic expectations for Hillary to become something she is not.
1
Indeed, the differences between Hillary and the GOP candidates are cosmetic. Fundamentally, the power structure that protects wealthy special interests will remain unchanged, to the detriment of everyone else.
Ms. Clinton has been the senator from New York, she's been a successful Secretary of State, and a groundbreaking First Lady. In other words, she's accomplished more than most. Why does she want to run for president for a second time and why does she want this office? She could retire and use her experience to advise others. I understand wanting to do it because it's there and she wants it but I'd like to know what she thinks she can accomplish without the grandstanding that accompanies these runs by all parties, not just her.
Furthermore, I think that leaving the Democratic field open to her is bad politics. She's not going to be pressed to refine or update her positions. She will not have to sharpen her stands against like minded opponents. And what if she stumbles and damages her chances? There is no one else to pick up the pieces. Having one candidate is a very poor plan since any politician can be hiding unsavory items that will end their run for any office.
I want to know why I should vote for Ms. Clinton. I want to know why she is the best Democrat, not the only Democrat. I want to know what she's learned in the last 20-25 years about America and the world. I don't want to feel that I'm voting for her only because I don't want to see any Republican in the White House, especially one that signed a traitorous letter intended to undermine international negotiations. Ms. Clinton, the ball is in your court. Convince me without fanfare.
Furthermore, I think that leaving the Democratic field open to her is bad politics. She's not going to be pressed to refine or update her positions. She will not have to sharpen her stands against like minded opponents. And what if she stumbles and damages her chances? There is no one else to pick up the pieces. Having one candidate is a very poor plan since any politician can be hiding unsavory items that will end their run for any office.
I want to know why I should vote for Ms. Clinton. I want to know why she is the best Democrat, not the only Democrat. I want to know what she's learned in the last 20-25 years about America and the world. I don't want to feel that I'm voting for her only because I don't want to see any Republican in the White House, especially one that signed a traitorous letter intended to undermine international negotiations. Ms. Clinton, the ball is in your court. Convince me without fanfare.
17
"Successful Secretary of State"? Please explain how? (And travel umpteen thousand miles making speeches about womens' rights doesn't count.) Saying she was successful and over and over again doesn't make it so.
Moreover, the world has exploded under Mrs. Clinton's and Misters Obama's and Kerry's watch. Reset buttons. Redlines not enforced. Our enemies know we are a weak paper tiger and our friends know they can rely on us for nothing.
Moreover, the world has exploded under Mrs. Clinton's and Misters Obama's and Kerry's watch. Reset buttons. Redlines not enforced. Our enemies know we are a weak paper tiger and our friends know they can rely on us for nothing.
1
Power power and she wants to be on the National Mall. Hillary stay home and be a real grandma to that 5-6 mos old granddaughter.
These election seasons are too long. I don't know why we have to sit through another 15 months of this. Our entire system needs revamping. Between this and all of the money that is spent BUYING a presidency, I am just thoroughly disgusted with the entire process. And in the end, it doesn't really matter.
78
Susan in NY - I understand your discouragement - truly! But never think that it doesn't matter! It matters a lot! There IS a vast difference in the parties - just take a look at the GOP party platform and all the things they are AGAINST!
Please vote for a Democrat! Maybe we'll have more than one choice in the end!
Please vote for a Democrat! Maybe we'll have more than one choice in the end!
5
I agree with you. Regarding money, forget the middle class champion line of all contenders, you don't raise that kind of money from big business and wealthy donors without being beholden to them and their interest.
1
The most effective way to counter tv ads, ie Money in Politics, is to turn off the tv set. Go to on-line streaming, PBS, and pay tv. "Ditch cable."
Money rules our elections, but only because people are relatively stupid.
Money rules our elections, but only because people are relatively stupid.
" Businesses don't create jobs"!!!!! I think she needs a bit of coaching. Talk about "out of touch"!!! She's "out to lunch".
19
Actually Jim, businesses don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs. No business in the world is going to create a job no matter how much money you throw at them if no one wants their product.
1
Ms. Clinton said "Let me be absolutely clear about what I've been saying for a couple of decades: Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out -- not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas."
She's not out of touch at all. She understands perfectly well how jobs are created, and the desperate little right wing meme you've recited doesn't change that fact.
She's not out of touch at all. She understands perfectly well how jobs are created, and the desperate little right wing meme you've recited doesn't change that fact.
1
On the ipad version, the Times headline says Clinton "Still Has to Explain Why" she is running. Why? Because she can win. And so the Supreme Court isn't totally dominated by corporate and reactionary religious interests for thirty years. So we have a fighting chance to slow climate change. So women and girls around the world have someone who wants them to be educated and have rights. So women here can have reproductive choice. And so--finally--we can have a woman as President. That isn't enough for the headline writers at the Times, or the sniffy too-good-for-politics moralists who fill these comment pages? Wake up. Republicans control both Houses of Congress, and their party is controlled by people who will take this country back decades. Clinton is our best hope to stop that.
36
You are absolutely correct! This piece in the Times is just another slap in the face to Hillary Clinton. We will see many more attacks on her as time goes by.
Reality check theres another choice far better already in office or shares the office if you know what I mean
How does her being a woman make her more deserving of the position than her male contenders of either party.
I'm going to let you in on an open secret, raising the kind of money required to compete in Presidential elections requires big $$ from big business and wealthy donors, and the reason they're giving big $$ is to have their interests promoted and protected.
I'm going to let you in on an open secret, raising the kind of money required to compete in Presidential elections requires big $$ from big business and wealthy donors, and the reason they're giving big $$ is to have their interests promoted and protected.
1
Rather than ask why she wants to be president. We should ask what has she ever done to earn the right to be president. I say absolutely nothing. She was a poor secretary of state and did nothing previous to that. As far as what a liberal calls gains a Republican calls frightening. We've had the highest tax increase ever and have borrowed enough money to keep the next 3 generations in debt. You can call that a gain. I say we should be ashamed. We are now, because of the health care mess, taking the middle class and lowering them down to a lesser class. What in God's name would Hilliary do to help that. Rush us there faster.?
12
jacrane - Please tell us you don't want any of the GOP alternatives!
Republicans are never too frightened to spend money on useless wars and handing out tax dollars to their corporate buddies doesn't seem to bother them either.
1
Nothing prior to Secretary of State? How about NY Senator?
2
I truly wanted to vote for her but she has too much baggage, and by releasing the video of common folk speaking for her doesn't make you like us Hillary. Far from it. Not at your tax bracket. She relates more to the upper echelon of society one that we can only hope to aspire to.
12
I like Hilary but think Elizabeth Warren is a better candidate.
8
Warren might be better to the left, but she can't win. Nominating someone like Warren means someone like Cruz could actually win.
Kevin - I agree! But Elizabeth Warren says she's not running. Frankly, I think Mrs. Warren may have more influence on policy as a Senator!
@ Kevin.........Why?
Known fact: Democrats do not turn out for mid-term elections.
Known fact: Democrats gather full force for Presidential Elections.
"Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned!"
Known fact: Democrats gather full force for Presidential Elections.
"Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned!"
8
Hillary brings nothing of any real worth to politics. She is a political croney with a glossy exterior, obsesses with power. She has no new ideas, no important reform ideas. She is culturally ignorant and uninspired.
You cannot support her just because the opposition is worse. You CAN however abstain from supporting any candidate out of disgust!
You cannot support her just because the opposition is worse. You CAN however abstain from supporting any candidate out of disgust!
14
Glad you live in Italy where you guys do so much better taking care of your own house than we do here.
As others have mentioned, one of the most important aspects of this election is the prospects for Supreme Court appointments. Hillary Clinton will be elected President of the United States, the alternatives are unthinkable. We, collectively the World, that is, can maybe recover from the catastrophe of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and the ensuing global destabization but if the neo-conservatives gain the Whitehouse agin and pack the court with Taney incarnates, I am deeply afraid.
So, you see, your caricaturization of Ms. Secretary/Senator Clinton is as flawed as your sit on your hands approach to global affairs.
As others have mentioned, one of the most important aspects of this election is the prospects for Supreme Court appointments. Hillary Clinton will be elected President of the United States, the alternatives are unthinkable. We, collectively the World, that is, can maybe recover from the catastrophe of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and the ensuing global destabization but if the neo-conservatives gain the Whitehouse agin and pack the court with Taney incarnates, I am deeply afraid.
So, you see, your caricaturization of Ms. Secretary/Senator Clinton is as flawed as your sit on your hands approach to global affairs.
Amazing.
You'll sit in front of your computer, wasting your time commenting on an article about a person you clearly don't even care about, and yet you won't take the time to cast a vote (for whoever) in an election that would determine who ends up running the country...
No wonder America has no chance of getting better any time soon.
You'll sit in front of your computer, wasting your time commenting on an article about a person you clearly don't even care about, and yet you won't take the time to cast a vote (for whoever) in an election that would determine who ends up running the country...
No wonder America has no chance of getting better any time soon.
I don't care WHY she wants to be president, but I DO care what policies she (and each of the other would-be presidents) plans to try to implement. There's NOTHING about any of that in her video, though. Just platitudes.
If the American public is willing to be satisfied with platitudes, it's going to get unresponsive governments only concerned with promoting the 1%'s agenda. We have to demand more.
If the American public is willing to be satisfied with platitudes, it's going to get unresponsive governments only concerned with promoting the 1%'s agenda. We have to demand more.
14
Think of it this way: How will the rest of the world react if Americans elect one of current Republicans running for president.
6
They won't be happy.
I was in the U.K. last year and more than one person approached me and told me that they are war weary and don't want to see another Republican in office.
I was in the U.K. last year and more than one person approached me and told me that they are war weary and don't want to see another Republican in office.
We will be the laughingstock of the world.
1
Best Qualified? Check. Smartest? Because she's a woman, she has to be, to be where she is. Check. Uniquely experienced? Check. Would sanely choose possibly 4 Supreme Court Justices? Check. Perfect? No, she's human.
Go Hillary!!!!
Go Hillary!!!!
95
Not all humans lie and cheat, and it's offensive for you to imply it.
1
A somewhat arbitrary reasoning Jennifer
Smartest... I'd replace with Cunningest... Habitual liar
A Woman... We don't need a novelty for President we need a person with good experience & Judgement
Uniquely experienced... ??? What does this mean ? She was married to a President , then member of Congress with no measurable accomplishment, was then Sect. Of State during time when US influence in World disintegrated while showing callous lack of concern over Benghazi. no accomplishment worth mentioning
Questionable character...Who 'stands by her man ' after public scandal other than one more politically driven than morally driven?
Who feels she has the right to have private email when a Gov. Appointee then feels she has the right to pick& choose what emails she'll release... What does she have to hide?
What kind of person leaves debts of $12 million after her last campaign then stiffs her creditors
When all the hoopla over voting for her just to get a woman President... Time to investigate just what this person is REALLY like.
Smartest... I'd replace with Cunningest... Habitual liar
A Woman... We don't need a novelty for President we need a person with good experience & Judgement
Uniquely experienced... ??? What does this mean ? She was married to a President , then member of Congress with no measurable accomplishment, was then Sect. Of State during time when US influence in World disintegrated while showing callous lack of concern over Benghazi. no accomplishment worth mentioning
Questionable character...Who 'stands by her man ' after public scandal other than one more politically driven than morally driven?
Who feels she has the right to have private email when a Gov. Appointee then feels she has the right to pick& choose what emails she'll release... What does she have to hide?
What kind of person leaves debts of $12 million after her last campaign then stiffs her creditors
When all the hoopla over voting for her just to get a woman President... Time to investigate just what this person is REALLY like.
1
From her completely unimpressive tenure at two federal positions (Senator and Secretary of State) what can she possibly offer the nation as president? She has lost any earlier passion for helping her fellow citizens - except those who can bankroll her campaigns. Clinton is already a has-been at the start of her campaign.
16
Whatever credentials Hillary Clinton has to run for president, the Democrats should not put all eggs in one basket. But for them there's so much at play. Given the paucity of the Democrats' camp, and the current alignment of political power in Congress, Hillary Clinton is their one and only hope for cementing the policy gains made over the last eight years. Nevertheless they shouldn't ignore candidates like Elizabeth Warren!
13
SIr,
Remember 2000 when some Democrats chose not to back Gore? They backed Nader and gave the whitehouse to George, the bad artist whom The ICC at the Hague wants to try for war crimes.
Do you really want that to happen again?
Remember 2000 when some Democrats chose not to back Gore? They backed Nader and gave the whitehouse to George, the bad artist whom The ICC at the Hague wants to try for war crimes.
Do you really want that to happen again?
2
Clinton/Warren ticket?
The NYT seeks comments on Clinton from some Republicans who have spent over 20 years demonizing her. Well there's an objective source of comment. Will they be asking some Democrats what Paul's, or Bush's, or Rubio's rationale is?
58
So much has been made of political dynasties. To me, it doesn't matter what the family name is. Just the person best suited for the job. And that is Hillary. Note that so-called dynasties (especially liberal ones) such as the patrician Roosevelts (yes, Republican Teddy cared for the small guy and defanged big business) and the tragic Kennedys have provided pragmatic and caring leadership for the country.
19
So here comes the GOP's worst nightmare! What a bitter pill for them.
But perhaps HRC might just cure Republican nastiness, once and for all,
and make them focus on responsible governing rather than on the constant bedeviling of good people who happen to be their political opponents.
Then again, maybe not.
But perhaps HRC might just cure Republican nastiness, once and for all,
and make them focus on responsible governing rather than on the constant bedeviling of good people who happen to be their political opponents.
Then again, maybe not.
10
Probabaly not. The Republicans are out to fracture the country into little pieces.
7
What difference, anyway, does it make?
Unless she turns herself into Elizabeth Warren, this Dem will be a very reluctant Hillary voter.
20
Another Warren fan heard from but nothing to say why she should run. What is her record? Any legislation she has attached her name to?
3
If she does, she'll just prove to be a bigger phony than we already know her to be.
Laura Hunt - A 60 second internet search will provide you with this kind of information.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/141272/elizabeth-warren#.VSu7k...
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/141272/elizabeth-warren#.VSu7k...
1
When I think of HRC and what really stands out in my mind about her is the confirmation hearing for the post as Secretary of State. For those of you who missed it, she was brilliant. Here knowledge was encyclopedic. And yes, as far as I am concerned, she was the smartest person in the room.
Her detractors pretty much sound all alike. Casting dispersions of rumors and choking toxic feelings with never a need for details or facts.
Feelings and intuition trump reality If we have to decide between dynasties, which is absurd just on its face, I vote for Clinton!
Her detractors pretty much sound all alike. Casting dispersions of rumors and choking toxic feelings with never a need for details or facts.
Feelings and intuition trump reality If we have to decide between dynasties, which is absurd just on its face, I vote for Clinton!
42
Her knowledge might have been encyclopedic, but her actions as SOS were nothing less than a tragic novel. She has no wisdom, i.e. the proper use of knowledge. But the dems will carry on with the coronation. Again, a tragedy. We can do much better than HRC as the first female president.
6
She voted for War, she didn't accomplish much as NY Senator and she deleted thirty thousand e-mails..................on yoga and grandchild...yeah right. Return the money from the UAE that she collected for her foundation...........she of women's rights while cashing checks from Arab sheiks......because we all k now that the Middle East is a bastion for women's rights. Telling the American public on Benghazi "What difference does it make" tell that to the four murdered.
1
I am not a fan of Hillary but at least I hope she pushes the level of the debate up out the scatter brained Republicans Candidates, one of which, Ted Cruz, can't legally run for President. With the situation of Ted Cruz 's father fighting along side of Fidel Castro, there was no guarantee the family would be allowed into the US. So the mother issue is moot and the Canadian Birth Certificate proves it.
5
Give it up. Cruz is eligible. He is a citizen, and not a naturalized one either.
Could someone please explain to me how on earth Hillary Clinton could run on a platform of helping the middle class? The woman wouldn't know middle class if she fell into it! Does she rely on her staff to point and say, hey, look Hillary, there's a person from the middle class?
I'm waiting for any candidate, no matter R or D, to say I'm wealthy and proud of it.
I'm waiting for any candidate, no matter R or D, to say I'm wealthy and proud of it.
22
Rose says: "I'm waiting for any candidate, no matter R or D, to say I'm wealthy and proud of it."
You must have been in a coma 3 years ago, and not read up on current events:
Willard Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP Candidate for POTUS was a dictionary-definition version of what you claim to be: "waiting for".
You must have been in a coma 3 years ago, and not read up on current events:
Willard Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP Candidate for POTUS was a dictionary-definition version of what you claim to be: "waiting for".
Not to defend Ms. Clinton but they had almost nothing until after he retired from the presidency. They lived in the Governor's mansion in Arkansas. They did not accumulate a ton of wealth from that position. The money they have now comes from their books and endeavors since Bill Clinton was out of office. I think that she does know what it is to be middle class. At least she would not be proposing policies that would cut the safety net out from under 99% of the country. I hope. I say that because Americans as a whole do not understand the purpose or extent that government assistance plays in our lives. We think welfare queens or cheats when we hear the words government assistance. We don't think of mortgage deductions, disability, social security, dependent exemptions, etc.
Her video with working class Americans want people to think she's part of the Middle / Working class, those who think that need to look again. She's never been a part of the middle class, perhaps when she was attending college but that's about it. She's part of the DC machine and she can't deny that. From her days as First Lady of Arkansas to the White House she's been on the public dole. Who is she kidding?
1
Ted Cruz went on and on in his quest for Americans to imagine his worldly run in his dissertation, awaiting claps and cheers in his pauses. Rand Paul sort of the same minus the imagination.
Hillary portrayed it clearly and explained it in a couple of minutes.
And therein lies the difference. It's not hard to imagine when the images of real people are right before you and you can relate. No need for the imagination, the images in the video are a reality. And the people she wants to represent are a reality - the likes of most of us, the real us, not the imagined. Bring it on.
Hillary portrayed it clearly and explained it in a couple of minutes.
And therein lies the difference. It's not hard to imagine when the images of real people are right before you and you can relate. No need for the imagination, the images in the video are a reality. And the people she wants to represent are a reality - the likes of most of us, the real us, not the imagined. Bring it on.
21
Has presidential politics actually come to this? In watching Ms. Clinton’s announcement video I was reminded of the scene from the film “Conspiracy Theory” (1997) in which Jerry Fletcher, played by Mel Gibson, attempts to woo Alice Sutton, played by Julia Roberts. After Jerry’s extremely awkward statement of love and longing, Alice looks at him incredulously and says, “Jerry, those are song lyrics.”
I felt the same way after hearing Clinton say, “Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion.” The “Everyday Americans” euphemism is nearly new, the campaign is supposedly substituting it for the middle class rhetoric of the past because “the term no longer connotes a stable life.” But “Everyday People” was a 1968 song by Sly and the Family Stone which portrays different people allied against each other, and in the Lovin‘ Spoonful’s “Darlin’ Companion” from 1966, John Sebastian tells his imaginary friend, “I want to be your champion.” I’m probably being too critical and a little too cynical but I think "everyday Americans" deserve more than populist platitudes based on lyrics from almost 50-year-old pop tunes.
I felt the same way after hearing Clinton say, “Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion.” The “Everyday Americans” euphemism is nearly new, the campaign is supposedly substituting it for the middle class rhetoric of the past because “the term no longer connotes a stable life.” But “Everyday People” was a 1968 song by Sly and the Family Stone which portrays different people allied against each other, and in the Lovin‘ Spoonful’s “Darlin’ Companion” from 1966, John Sebastian tells his imaginary friend, “I want to be your champion.” I’m probably being too critical and a little too cynical but I think "everyday Americans" deserve more than populist platitudes based on lyrics from almost 50-year-old pop tunes.
13
"Everyday Americans" is indeed awful.
It's true that "middle class" no longer connotes something stable. That's the whole point! That's why we need to keep using the term. "Middle class" used to represent something people aspired to, with some reason to think they could make it happen, if they worked hard and were prudent and honest. That aspiration is what is becoming a pipe-dream in the America of the 1%. That is the tragedy unfolding in this country.
And now Hillary wants to abandon the only words we have to talk or think about what is happening to us as a society. "Everyday Americans" -- pfft!
It's true that "middle class" no longer connotes something stable. That's the whole point! That's why we need to keep using the term. "Middle class" used to represent something people aspired to, with some reason to think they could make it happen, if they worked hard and were prudent and honest. That aspiration is what is becoming a pipe-dream in the America of the 1%. That is the tragedy unfolding in this country.
And now Hillary wants to abandon the only words we have to talk or think about what is happening to us as a society. "Everyday Americans" -- pfft!
Why she wants to be president? How about this: as of this date, she's the only declared candidate who's willing to say that she believes in the theory of evolution. Can you imagine the embarrassment for the U.S. at an international conference in, say, Geneva, attended by a creationist president?
The world stares aghast at the right-wing freak show that American politics has become; at the very least, Clinton could restore some much-needed credibility to a thoroughly discredited system.
The world stares aghast at the right-wing freak show that American politics has become; at the very least, Clinton could restore some much-needed credibility to a thoroughly discredited system.
77
@gregory910: I think that each candidate needs to be asked this question: Do you believe in the Apocolypse as foretold in the Bible? Because if Ted Cruz or Huckabee or any other Republican is a true evangelical then they have to answer honestly, "Yes". And then what? We disqualify that person as being too irrational to get near the Red button? Or we elect them president so they can begin the Apocalypse? But I do think the question needs to be asked, just as the question about evolution needs to be asked. And global climate change. Ask Marco about the seawater flowing into Miami on a weekly basis. Oh, but he's not a scientist, that's right. He won't answer that question.
1
Well we can all anticipate that the "dirty tricks" and false accusations will be hurled at Ms Clinton. That's what the right wig does. No ideas for moving this country forward just slime the other candidate any way you can.
12
Maybe I missed the portion of Clinton's video where she descibed her "ideas for moving this country forward." Care to enlighten us?
She ran and lost 8 years ago, deservedly. There is no "rationale" for electing another Bush or Clinton, especially not one who would be the second-oldest president ever. Second only to Reagan.
How about Lincoln Chafee for president? Like Hillary, he is a former senator and former Republican. Unlike Hillary, he has principles, and when in Congress voted against the idiotic invasion of Iraq. And he is more than a few years younger.
And if you prefer a female, back one of the dozen female Democrats in Congress with more experience than Hillary who are still under age 65.
The only "rationale" here is the laziness, lack of imagination, and spinelessness of the Democratic leadership. And a national press that is stuck on auto replay.
How about Lincoln Chafee for president? Like Hillary, he is a former senator and former Republican. Unlike Hillary, he has principles, and when in Congress voted against the idiotic invasion of Iraq. And he is more than a few years younger.
And if you prefer a female, back one of the dozen female Democrats in Congress with more experience than Hillary who are still under age 65.
The only "rationale" here is the laziness, lack of imagination, and spinelessness of the Democratic leadership. And a national press that is stuck on auto replay.
17
Hillary has declared her candidacy - no surprise. The question is, will the New York Times endorse her now, or wait until the actual campaign starts?
5
Who knows if she would make a good President. But asking someone why they want a job is a sure way to learn little to nothing about them. It merely presents an opportunity for them to tell you what they think you want to hear. And in this case it is clear that many millions of dollars have already been spent by the Clinton campaign, over a period of years, to do market research on what messages will play the best, refining and polishing those messages, and now presenting them with maximum media effect. Reminds me of the Hunger Games.
4
Whats done is done and in the past. America has to look forward to Hillary Clinton as Captain of the ship of state. Forget the over reaching comments throughout her previous political career, forget get about the US Ambassador forgotten and KIA during her watch, the slate is wiped clean and this is a new beginning. A chance for Hillary to right the wrongs that have occurred during previous administrations, champion of the people. Really!
1
I think Hillary will be sworn in before the GOP decides on a nominee.
3
That sounds like an Irish toast: May Hillary be sworn in before the devil knows she's running.
When will she get around to actually using the word, "jobs"? Caring is nice. Some of us are actually interested in getting back to work.
13
I hear you on that one. Some of us want to be able to have lives based on something other than the gut wrenching fear that we will wind up homeless, hungry, or worse. We've kept our side of the bargain with America by working, not asking for help, paying our taxes, raising our children, and doing our bit. Yet we've been fired or downsized due to our age or experience and been unable to find jobs for the same reasons. Our contributions to America are not being taken into account when we need assistance. Corporations, especially the big ones, can ask for and get whatever tax breaks they want. They can outsource jobs. All we can do is watch. There is no one to speak for us or listen to us.
Some of us want to feel useful again. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to have a decent life.
Some of us want to feel useful again. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to have a decent life.
1
I remember Boehner et al chanting "jobs, jobs, jobs" but I've yet to see anyone ask them about their failure to do anything about jobs.
Edited for one VERY unfortunate mistake: I really think many voters mind are made up, one way or the other and that includes me.
Unless they find *the* national treasury buried under her pillow, she's got my vote.
Not only are her qualifications impressive (Sec of State, First Lady, Senator) but I have liked how she's handled each of those roles. Trying to look at her actual actions through the distortion of the Republican accusations etc, has not been easy. But over time, I have built an enduring image of who this woman is....and what kind of President she will make...and I believe she will best match my values and desires.
Beyond that, I have another reason for voting for her: She is a woman, and not just any woman, but one who has made fighting for female equality the cornerstone of her campaign. We live in a world that is increasingly turning on women, and that will include my daughters, and future granddaughters and great granddaughters. For their sake, I am looking for safer stewardship of their rights here in the US, but also for the other girls worldwide who will be more apt to challenge the patriarchy they live under when they realize the leader of the most powerful nation is just like them.
Kirsten Gellibrand would be the only person that could conceivably challenge a Hilary candidacy, for me OF course, if all goes well, this will further open the door for folks like Ms. Gillinbrand, and dare I hope, perhaps begin to shut down the door of Ted Cruz and his ilk.
Unless they find *the* national treasury buried under her pillow, she's got my vote.
Not only are her qualifications impressive (Sec of State, First Lady, Senator) but I have liked how she's handled each of those roles. Trying to look at her actual actions through the distortion of the Republican accusations etc, has not been easy. But over time, I have built an enduring image of who this woman is....and what kind of President she will make...and I believe she will best match my values and desires.
Beyond that, I have another reason for voting for her: She is a woman, and not just any woman, but one who has made fighting for female equality the cornerstone of her campaign. We live in a world that is increasingly turning on women, and that will include my daughters, and future granddaughters and great granddaughters. For their sake, I am looking for safer stewardship of their rights here in the US, but also for the other girls worldwide who will be more apt to challenge the patriarchy they live under when they realize the leader of the most powerful nation is just like them.
Kirsten Gellibrand would be the only person that could conceivably challenge a Hilary candidacy, for me OF course, if all goes well, this will further open the door for folks like Ms. Gillinbrand, and dare I hope, perhaps begin to shut down the door of Ted Cruz and his ilk.
25
Just a note, being First Lady does not automatically qualify you to become President of the United States.
I really think many voters mind are made up, one way or the other and that includes me.
Unless they find her national treasury buried in her pants, I am likely to vote for her. Why?
Not only are her qualifications impressive (Sec of State, First Lady, Senator) but I have liked how she's handled each of those roles. Trying to look at her actual actions through the distortion of the Republican accusations etc, has not been easy. But over time, I have built an enduring image of who this woman is....and what kind of President she will make...and I believe she will best match my values and desires.
Beyond that, I have another reason for voting for her: She is a woman, and not just any woman, but one who has made fighting for female equality the cornerstone of her campaign. We live in a world that is increasingly turning on women, and that will include my daughters, and future granddaughters and great granddaughters. For their sake, I am looking for safer stewardship of their rights here in the US, but also for the other girls worldwide who will be more apt to challenge the patriarchy they live under when they realize the leader of the most powerful nation is just like them.
Kirsten Gellibrand would be the only person that could conceivably challenge a Hilary candidacy, for me OF course, if all goes well, this will further open the door for folks like Ms. Gillinbrand, and dare I hope, perhaps begin to shut down the door of Ted Cruz and his ilk.
Unless they find her national treasury buried in her pants, I am likely to vote for her. Why?
Not only are her qualifications impressive (Sec of State, First Lady, Senator) but I have liked how she's handled each of those roles. Trying to look at her actual actions through the distortion of the Republican accusations etc, has not been easy. But over time, I have built an enduring image of who this woman is....and what kind of President she will make...and I believe she will best match my values and desires.
Beyond that, I have another reason for voting for her: She is a woman, and not just any woman, but one who has made fighting for female equality the cornerstone of her campaign. We live in a world that is increasingly turning on women, and that will include my daughters, and future granddaughters and great granddaughters. For their sake, I am looking for safer stewardship of their rights here in the US, but also for the other girls worldwide who will be more apt to challenge the patriarchy they live under when they realize the leader of the most powerful nation is just like them.
Kirsten Gellibrand would be the only person that could conceivably challenge a Hilary candidacy, for me OF course, if all goes well, this will further open the door for folks like Ms. Gillinbrand, and dare I hope, perhaps begin to shut down the door of Ted Cruz and his ilk.
5
Hillary may be the most accomplished person to run for President. That being said, the Clinton wealth and the source of the money (Wall Street and Saudi Arabia to name a few) will prove quite problematic for a candidate that many love to hate.
6
This from a woman who has said she has championed women's rights. Paying female staff members less than men while senator from NY. All talk.
“‘Her message has to be pretty well baked,’ said Russell J. Schriefer, who was a senior adviser to the Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012."
Imagine a Democrat taking advice from a Republican on how to beat a Republican! Or the hilarious cheek of someone like Schriefer offering such advice, having himself been associated with such a miserable failure of a campaign as Romney's. And he'll have a lot of company in the horde of “nattering nabobs of negativity” that now infect America.
Why does anyone in the GOP clown-car want to be president? The litany of reasons must surely chill the bones of any thinking American and must motivate someone with the ability and experience of Mrs. Clinton to walk into the hyena den that is now American politics--and to walk in there with the real prospect of dragging America into the 21st century.
Imagine a Democrat taking advice from a Republican on how to beat a Republican! Or the hilarious cheek of someone like Schriefer offering such advice, having himself been associated with such a miserable failure of a campaign as Romney's. And he'll have a lot of company in the horde of “nattering nabobs of negativity” that now infect America.
Why does anyone in the GOP clown-car want to be president? The litany of reasons must surely chill the bones of any thinking American and must motivate someone with the ability and experience of Mrs. Clinton to walk into the hyena den that is now American politics--and to walk in there with the real prospect of dragging America into the 21st century.
14
It's inevitable that Clinton and Bush are going to be the frontrunners. And it's a sad state of affairs when being part of a dynasty is the justification for it. I'm hoping the voting public can put an end to this nonsense and make a statement that we're a democracy, not a monarchy.
11
You opine that 'it's a sad state of affairs when being part of a dynasty is the justification for it.' and that we are 'not a monarchy'.
Within a dynasty and monarchy the 'crown' is inherited by a person of the same blood line. Should Chelsea Clinton ever run for president, one could make that point, but not against Hillary, the wife of a former president.
With yet another Bush wanting to become president, it can indeed be called a dynasty.
Within a dynasty and monarchy the 'crown' is inherited by a person of the same blood line. Should Chelsea Clinton ever run for president, one could make that point, but not against Hillary, the wife of a former president.
With yet another Bush wanting to become president, it can indeed be called a dynasty.
From the article: " [Hillary Clinton said in her Presidential candidacy announcement video] “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top...
...people like us, a position in society my husband, Bill, my daughter, Chelsea, and I have worked very hard to achieve in the past 15 years by hobnobbing with the wealthiest individuals, companies and countries in the world through our thinly-disguised political juggernaut known as The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Our foundation, which poses as a global philanthropic organization, helps us by laundering billions of dollars in donations so that we can achieve our goals of total Democratic political domination in the U.S. while making us seem concerned about, and committed to assisting in the welfare of ordinary people and impoverished nations everywhere. We have clawed our way into the elite, 1% power base in world affairs in order to go down in history as one of the most politically powerful families in recent history. Help us achieve our dreams by voting for me, Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. By doing this, you will ensure that my daughter and granddaughter live in the lap of luxury, and continue our guise of phony concern for the downtrodden of the world." [end quote]
17
Hillary Clinton would love to rewrite her script from Whitewater to Benghazi to the more laughable email question. Hopefully smart women everywhere realize that they are much more qualified and ethical than Hillary and have the same opportunities to reach the highest of offices. Hillary will be battered by stories the press dredges up, her opponents will pummel her, have the usual Clintonian missteps occur and her husband Billy's conquests coming out of the woodwork. Oh, she needs something to run on - you can't run on girl power alone, how about a vision or a policy that all the people can rally to?
4
Yeah, well Benghazi pales to 9/11 and the Iraq War and Whitewater pales to Ted Cruz wanting to shut the government down.
1
There are better people out there but unfortunately none of them seem to be running in 2016.
The overall lack of enthusiasm for Hil, Clinton fatigue, combed with the hatred of the opposition makes this such a sad election.
If the Democrats do not come up with someone else they will lose.
If the Democrats do not come up with someone else they will lose.
11
To whom?
Great American's have lots of History From earth to the moon, from sea bad to space
Can they make another History with Female president Of America
Can they make another History with Female president Of America
5
Hey, NY Times, let the games begin. I've never seen an article like this about a male presidential candidate. Be sure you write one in the future.
13
300 plus million in the US and we keep getting the same choices. I will not vote for a Clinton or a Bush. If they are the only candidates I will go fishing.
8
Has anybody asked Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz to "detail their rationale" for wanting to run for President? It's more of having special rules for the Clintons that are not applied to other candidates.
I can see why people wouldn't want another Bush- we had one Bush that was a one term President and did a mediocre job and another that was 8 years of total disaster in every way. The surpluses left by Bill Clinton became record deficits. We were lied into a disastrous war in Iraq that blew up the Middle East and a mishandled one in Afghanistan- both on the credit card. 9/11 occurred while Bush and Cheney were asleep at the switch, having ignored multiple warnings that bin Laden was intent on attacking the homeland with airplanes. Bush's only response to the last warning was to tell the briefer that he had "covered his a--." The economy plunged into the worst crisis since the great depression, leading to bank bail-outs as the economy teetered on the brink and we lost 750,000 jobs a month. The economy under Bush II gained a whopping 2 million net jobs in his 8 years. Contrast that with he only Clinton President so far. In Bill's 8 years, the Reagan/Bush I budget deficits became surpluses. 22.7 million new jobs in his 8 years. Unemployment dropped to a 30-year low, and GDP grew by 35 percent. Average hourly wages up by 6 percent after inflation and median household income up by 14 percent. There is a big difference between another Bush and another Clinton.
I can see why people wouldn't want another Bush- we had one Bush that was a one term President and did a mediocre job and another that was 8 years of total disaster in every way. The surpluses left by Bill Clinton became record deficits. We were lied into a disastrous war in Iraq that blew up the Middle East and a mishandled one in Afghanistan- both on the credit card. 9/11 occurred while Bush and Cheney were asleep at the switch, having ignored multiple warnings that bin Laden was intent on attacking the homeland with airplanes. Bush's only response to the last warning was to tell the briefer that he had "covered his a--." The economy plunged into the worst crisis since the great depression, leading to bank bail-outs as the economy teetered on the brink and we lost 750,000 jobs a month. The economy under Bush II gained a whopping 2 million net jobs in his 8 years. Contrast that with he only Clinton President so far. In Bill's 8 years, the Reagan/Bush I budget deficits became surpluses. 22.7 million new jobs in his 8 years. Unemployment dropped to a 30-year low, and GDP grew by 35 percent. Average hourly wages up by 6 percent after inflation and median household income up by 14 percent. There is a big difference between another Bush and another Clinton.
22
All this talk about family dynasties is ridiculous. NO ONE is keeping ANYONE else from running for the Presidency. It's not like Hillary Clinton has a firing squad assigned to the homes of fellow Democrats who want to run. So, it's really unfair for the media to attack her in this way.
13
You want a good reason for Clinton? Here it is: supreme court. The next president is going to pick at least one, possibly two. If the Republicans are in office it will be a disaster for our freedoms. Gays and non christians may as well begin turning themselves in at the nearest police station.
23
You've explained a reason to elect a Democrat over a Republican but why Hillary?
Jesse Jackson Jr. and Rod Blagojevich are Democrats. You want a good reason to vote for them? Here it is: supreme court.
Jesse Jackson Jr. and Rod Blagojevich are Democrats. You want a good reason to vote for them? Here it is: supreme court.
Now that Inevitability 2016 has officially stopped being coy, it's finally possible for one voter to form a first impression: slick, distant and manipulative.
Which raises the fear that between now and the coronation, virtually all we'll be seeing is slick, distant and manipulative.
If there is to be any genuine spontaneity, accountability and healthy debate in the 15 months leading up to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, it can't start too soon. But with all potential primary and caucus opposition dwarfed by the Clinton cash colossus, it's not quite clear how that would happen.
For a political cause to resonate and engender confidence beyond a cult of personality, it can't come from inside a bubble. Or at least the Founders didn't think so.
Which raises the fear that between now and the coronation, virtually all we'll be seeing is slick, distant and manipulative.
If there is to be any genuine spontaneity, accountability and healthy debate in the 15 months leading up to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, it can't start too soon. But with all potential primary and caucus opposition dwarfed by the Clinton cash colossus, it's not quite clear how that would happen.
For a political cause to resonate and engender confidence beyond a cult of personality, it can't come from inside a bubble. Or at least the Founders didn't think so.
3
HRC is a "charity" nominee, meaning that like John McCain and Bob Dole on the Republican side, the party "owes" her this much. It's not giving much away since the DNC is likely to lose this round anyway. Bush 41 is the only modern day president to succeed a president (Reagan) of his own party and, more importantly, Obama's administration has been dismal, to say the least. This is a farewell tour and little else. What this country does NOT need is another Clinton or Bush, for that matter.
9
Jack in NY - What this country really needs is for voters to get off their duffs and get involved and VOTE!
1
Dole indeed was given the nomination because the (Republican) Party felt obligated -- though, even so, I think the RP would have picked someone else if they thought he or she could win.
But McCain was no "sense of obligation" pick. He was practically out of it, and there was no talk of that changing, until it turned out (short-term, at least) that the "surge" in Iraq improved the US' situation there. McCain, of course, had been a big champion of the "surge," and his poll numbers starting surging too in the late winter/early spring of 2008. The RP would have sold him down the river otherwise.
But McCain was no "sense of obligation" pick. He was practically out of it, and there was no talk of that changing, until it turned out (short-term, at least) that the "surge" in Iraq improved the US' situation there. McCain, of course, had been a big champion of the "surge," and his poll numbers starting surging too in the late winter/early spring of 2008. The RP would have sold him down the river otherwise.
1
Mrs. Clinton is better qualified to hold the office than Barack Obama was eight years ago and is now. I believe she would at least attempt to govern, which Obama is not capable. She'll have a good team behind her.
7
If "qualified" means having a stronger CV, then yes Clinton was more "qualified" than Obama... and McCain as more "qualified" than Obama. However, the qualifications for the presidency are given in the Constitution and all of these people were qualified.
During the 2008 primaries, Obama displayed more leadership abilities than Clinton or McCain and the voters decided that he was most qualified to be president.
During the 2008 primaries, Obama displayed more leadership abilities than Clinton or McCain and the voters decided that he was most qualified to be president.
That's a sad thought!
Obama ran a better campaign than she did and despite Republican opposition he's done quite well as President.
It's time. I'm excited.
Hillary Clinton, you have my vote.
Hillary Clinton, you have my vote.
16
And the rightwing candidates rational to run is what? We take the country to war; we give tax cuts to the wealthy while doing it; we caused the worst recession in modern history; we shut down the government; we pander to discrimination and hate?
25
Clinton certainly has her faults, but compared with whoever is
offered on the Republican side, she looks better and better.
But spending 2.5 billion on her campaign is a travesty.
offered on the Republican side, she looks better and better.
But spending 2.5 billion on her campaign is a travesty.
"I did not have textural relations with my server in Chappaqua". I can see it now.
She is a disaster on so many levels, it isn't even funny anymore. She learned from Watergate when she was a fledgling (and corrupt) investigative staffer to destroy evidence. She knew had Nixon destroyed his tapes, there would've been no case. She learned. She destroyed evidence on her server.
She will be arrested eventually on obstruction of justice, amongst other charges.
She is a disaster on so many levels, it isn't even funny anymore. She learned from Watergate when she was a fledgling (and corrupt) investigative staffer to destroy evidence. She knew had Nixon destroyed his tapes, there would've been no case. She learned. She destroyed evidence on her server.
She will be arrested eventually on obstruction of justice, amongst other charges.
6
What about Bush/Cheney being held liable for war crimes?
It's all about what the voters can do for her, and she is way too old.
8
Not a great way to begin quoting Reagan, one of the worst Republican presidents that, incidentally, was a double crosser - representing unions leaning Democrat in his Hollywood years - then turning Republican afterwards and basically setting off, together with Margaret Thatcher, the worst economic crisis the entire world will be witnessing decades later.
I suggest she watched a 2009 docufilm on Obama's early years as a community organizer in Chicago (Becoming Barack, evolution of a leader) to draw inspiration on how being "by the people, of the people", and especially taking on board African-Americans' predicaments is all she'd need.
I suggest she watched a 2009 docufilm on Obama's early years as a community organizer in Chicago (Becoming Barack, evolution of a leader) to draw inspiration on how being "by the people, of the people", and especially taking on board African-Americans' predicaments is all she'd need.
2
In 2008 H Clinton sponsored "Housing America's Workforce Act" which sought to engage the private sector in achieving the government's goals in rebuilding the housing industry. The bill highlighted the need for a universal housing plan that employer's across the nation would and could embrace to support housing needs of the general workforce--- the same folks that are a focus of Clinton's 2016 campaign. The universal housing plan was successfully beta tested in Indiana and serves as a tremendous testament to Clinton's ability to rebuild the housing industry, restore the related job revenue and reengage construction workers in the US. Fix housing, become President. Pure Genius!
6
I think Boehner and Mitch would rather deal with Hillary than any of the myriad of GOP hopefuls. The Republican leadership knows what they will get with Hillary but with the GOP hopefuls? Not so much.
If you put Hillary, Boehner and Mitch in a blender and gave it a good mix I think the result would be a smoothie that made everybody happy and everybody sad.
If you put Hillary, Boehner and Mitch in a blender and gave it a good mix I think the result would be a smoothie that made everybody happy and everybody sad.
1
If Mrs. Clinton is the best the US political system can produce it's a sad day indeed. I admit the whole system is decayed and corrupt and she's a part of it with a glossy exterior but a profoundly dark interior. She represents fierce ambition, arrogance and a self-justifying desire for omnipotence. When she is compared to other women in world politics she seems culturally and socially ignorant to me. I remember her comments as she visited the Roman Forum while she was in Rome, Italy on one of her trips. She appeared to no little or nothing of Roman cultural and political history. As far as her character trait for deceit and mendacous behavior she also seems pathological to me.
History has shown that when a nation is ruled by a women it is a sign of great internal decay. I would expect nothing good to come from a presidency with her at the head.
History has shown that when a nation is ruled by a women it is a sign of great internal decay. I would expect nothing good to come from a presidency with her at the head.
2
@Lorenzo: May I draw your attention to Frau Dr. Angela Merkel. I also haven't yet registered the signs of great internal decay in Germany concomitant to her tenure as Chancellor.
I don't understand the obsession with why someone wants to be President, I'm much more concerned with what they want to do when they become President.
6
This is going to be one of the most interesting Presidential Election cycles in years. Whatever your politics, that much will be true. Mrs Clinton must know that it is the last chance for her, she must excel, she must be selfless and provide a mission people can believe in while leading that mission from the front. No more of those dreadful campaign scandals, arguments and leadership failures. This time it must be seamless, squeaky clean and it must be believable. Only one president - Bush-I ever took over from a two term president of the same party since 1951. It's going to be a tough battle, but when she, Clinton-II and I suspect Bush-III stand off, it will be a truly fascinating experience to watch. America needs a defining president. The first black man in that role has failed in that largely because the obstacles were so vastly stacked against him, perhaps the first woman, who could oversee and economic resurgence in America, might be different.
On a lighter note it is a constant amusement that for a nation that fought off monarchy, you are about to either elect the third member of House Bush, or the second of House Clinton. Maybe Mrs Obama might stand in 4 years, or Chelsea...
On a lighter note it is a constant amusement that for a nation that fought off monarchy, you are about to either elect the third member of House Bush, or the second of House Clinton. Maybe Mrs Obama might stand in 4 years, or Chelsea...
3
“If she can show the country, manifesting what kind of leader she would be, manifesting what she cares about, having a sense of vision for the future, the email story becomes pretty small,”
Yes, every presidential candidate needs to show the country what kind of leader he/she would be, but Americans also need to see what kind of leader he/she has been.
Based on the historical facts, i.e. what she actually did in her role as First Lady, what she actually did as a Senator and what she actually did as the Secretary of State, it's hard to discern how she stands out as a leader in the past.
Yes, every presidential candidate needs to show the country what kind of leader he/she would be, but Americans also need to see what kind of leader he/she has been.
Based on the historical facts, i.e. what she actually did in her role as First Lady, what she actually did as a Senator and what she actually did as the Secretary of State, it's hard to discern how she stands out as a leader in the past.
5
The Hillary I volunteered for in 2000 for her Senate seat in New York is back stronger, seasoned and ready to address what ails America. She has served the Senate and as secretary of state with distinction. Whether its Cedar Rapids, Manchester, Charleston, Miami, or the Bronx; I'M READY FOR HILLARY!!!
#Hillary4America!
#MakeHerStory!
#POTUS2016
#Hillary4America!
#MakeHerStory!
#POTUS2016
9
Hillary should concentrate on meeting with Americans across the U.S. and not just those in Iowa and New Hampshire. Let her make this a national campaign and not one set to fit in the traditional nonsense that Iowa and New Hampshire are so important to the exclusion of all others. Let Iowa have their caucuses in a year and New Hampshire its votes, but let's for once not concentrate resources in just those two rather unrepresentative states.
2
I'm ready for Hillary, I suppose, but my question is:
What is an un-everyday American
or is it
everyday Unamericans?
What is an un-everyday American
or is it
everyday Unamericans?
1
Far better Hillary than Jeb, who is hanging back for at least another month so he raise millions of dollars a day from corporate gazillionaires before campaign laws stop him. Bush believes that the most important thing about running for president is being able to outspend his opponents hundreds of times over with enough money to smear and swiftboat all other GOP candidates before turning his guns on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who doubts this should research the Bush machine ads against John Kerry in 2004, smearing Kerry's good name and honorable service as a decorated war veteran in a manner so ugly and defamatory that by the time the Bushes were finished with Kerry, you wondered why Kerry wasn't in prison for treason.
John Kerry is currently serving honorably as Secretary of State. I hope no one in the Bush family is able to gain high office again, no matter how much money they raise from the Koch Brothers to ruin others candidates. Using vast amounts of money to defame your opponents while defrauding your fellow citizens from having their ballots counted is shameful.
The Bushes are liars and ignoble people who care nothing about democracy and use any means to hold power. They've
said exactly that about their political opponents and will try to smear Hillary Clinton as dishonest, cowardly and unpatriotic.
Remember the disgusting Bush campaign against John Kerry, who is currently serving his country with his honor and patriotism never in doubt. Don't be taken in again.
John Kerry is currently serving honorably as Secretary of State. I hope no one in the Bush family is able to gain high office again, no matter how much money they raise from the Koch Brothers to ruin others candidates. Using vast amounts of money to defame your opponents while defrauding your fellow citizens from having their ballots counted is shameful.
The Bushes are liars and ignoble people who care nothing about democracy and use any means to hold power. They've
said exactly that about their political opponents and will try to smear Hillary Clinton as dishonest, cowardly and unpatriotic.
Remember the disgusting Bush campaign against John Kerry, who is currently serving his country with his honor and patriotism never in doubt. Don't be taken in again.
5
Kerry does not have an honorable discharge from the Navy. He has a general discharge, because he failed to meet his reserve duties.
Exactly what he accused Bush of doing. Ironic, isn't it?
His grades at Yale were indistinguishable from George Bush's; they were both "C" students. Bush is modest about it, Kerry claims to be great scholar.
There is a reason why Kerry refused to release his military or academic records until a year after the election. They do not conform to his legend.
Exactly what he accused Bush of doing. Ironic, isn't it?
His grades at Yale were indistinguishable from George Bush's; they were both "C" students. Bush is modest about it, Kerry claims to be great scholar.
There is a reason why Kerry refused to release his military or academic records until a year after the election. They do not conform to his legend.
This will sound overly cynical perhaps, but in this post-Citizens United world, where any presidential campaign is a billion-dollar plus project, the real rationale for any candidacy will be to comfort the comfortable donors and afflict the afflicted voters with a hearty helping of ego on the side.
Whatever rationale is put forth publicly will be window dressing for mass consumption, shaded appropriately to cater to the tastes of those who buy Brand D or Brand R and sufficiently tidied up so as not to offend the narrow slice of the electorate in a handful of states that will actually decide the election.
There has always been an element of this in our politics, but the days when a nobody actually could run for President and win at least a nomination or put up a good fight for one are long gone. The days where a Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart could emerge as real contenders are gone and I think we've lost something in that. Remember, too, that Bill Clinton was a nobody. Under today's system, he might well still be a nobody, for it's hard to imagine a small state governor raising the cash needed to compete.
If Mrs. Clinton really wants a rationale for her candidacy, fixing a system that well might have excluded her husband should be at the top of the list. If she won't do that for the future health of our democracy, she'll just be another pol on some plutocrat's payroll.
Whatever rationale is put forth publicly will be window dressing for mass consumption, shaded appropriately to cater to the tastes of those who buy Brand D or Brand R and sufficiently tidied up so as not to offend the narrow slice of the electorate in a handful of states that will actually decide the election.
There has always been an element of this in our politics, but the days when a nobody actually could run for President and win at least a nomination or put up a good fight for one are long gone. The days where a Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart could emerge as real contenders are gone and I think we've lost something in that. Remember, too, that Bill Clinton was a nobody. Under today's system, he might well still be a nobody, for it's hard to imagine a small state governor raising the cash needed to compete.
If Mrs. Clinton really wants a rationale for her candidacy, fixing a system that well might have excluded her husband should be at the top of the list. If she won't do that for the future health of our democracy, she'll just be another pol on some plutocrat's payroll.
4
Ms. Hillary's rational: I am a women, I deserve to be president. Stupid and sad. America can do better. Don't know who it is but your out there, so please save us from stupid.
8
I support Hillary Clinton for President 2016
8
You are apparently not a US citizen since you are writing from Portugal. It is illegal for her to accept campaign contributions from anyone other than US citizens. But if you contribute to the Clinton Foundation, they'll see that she gets the money.
1
When I heard this was the HRC plan of announcement I thought this was a spoof/attack by her enemies. No joyous crowd? No adoring media to report? Come-on! You're putting me on!
That is was a spoof was confirmed by the subsequent report that it would arrive on Sunday afternoon. Even worse from a publicity viewpoint than Friday afternoon-the time traditionally used by pols wishing bad news to receive the least publicity. And worse yet at a time of year and when families are out at play. And on date when even non-golfers would be glued to the screen watching the end of the closing round of the Masters.
But then the announcement arrived! The predictions were true as to time and manner. But WAIT! I wonder after seeing the content. Was this not N.Korea seizing our screens. Or the modern incarnation of Rod Serling: Don't touch your TV; you are about to enter the twilight (here soporific) zone-as we in this case we viewers assuredly did.
If this was real would HRC not have, say, adopted a modern version of the Henry V speech (full text available online):
"Once more into the campaign dear friends. In peace there's nothing so becomes a woman as modest stillness and humility But when the blast of the campaign opens then imitate the action of the tiger."
And for accompanying music adapted the song I Am Woman.
"I am Hillary, hear me roar. No one's ever going to keep a Clinton Woman down again."
That is was a spoof was confirmed by the subsequent report that it would arrive on Sunday afternoon. Even worse from a publicity viewpoint than Friday afternoon-the time traditionally used by pols wishing bad news to receive the least publicity. And worse yet at a time of year and when families are out at play. And on date when even non-golfers would be glued to the screen watching the end of the closing round of the Masters.
But then the announcement arrived! The predictions were true as to time and manner. But WAIT! I wonder after seeing the content. Was this not N.Korea seizing our screens. Or the modern incarnation of Rod Serling: Don't touch your TV; you are about to enter the twilight (here soporific) zone-as we in this case we viewers assuredly did.
If this was real would HRC not have, say, adopted a modern version of the Henry V speech (full text available online):
"Once more into the campaign dear friends. In peace there's nothing so becomes a woman as modest stillness and humility But when the blast of the campaign opens then imitate the action of the tiger."
And for accompanying music adapted the song I Am Woman.
"I am Hillary, hear me roar. No one's ever going to keep a Clinton Woman down again."
Ever notice?
A Hillary supporter writes that "Hillary's spent her life in public service."
Whether that's correct or not isn't the point here. A Hillary supporter will always say "public service," whereas a Hillary opponent will phrase it like this: "Hillary's spent her life in politics."
A Hillary supporter writes that "Hillary's spent her life in public service."
Whether that's correct or not isn't the point here. A Hillary supporter will always say "public service," whereas a Hillary opponent will phrase it like this: "Hillary's spent her life in politics."
1
Agreed. But what can they say about Ted Cruz?
Out of the Republican field, the only candidate who can credibly post a resume of true "service" in the manner of say, a calling, is Marco Rubio. The rest come across like power hungry narcissists who have no business running the US.
Out of the Republican field, the only candidate who can credibly post a resume of true "service" in the manner of say, a calling, is Marco Rubio. The rest come across like power hungry narcissists who have no business running the US.
Hillary suffers from the "political" version of the fate suffered by some too-old tech companies out here in the Bay Area, especially during the heady dot-com days of the late Nineties.
When company valuations were done -- to justify IPO pricing or acquisition pricing -- companies whose products hadn't yet been marketed almost always fared best. Some skeptics would discount projected profits substantially, but those projections usually started so high that the companies were overvalued evan after a big haircut.
By contrast, companies whose widgets had actually reached the market couldn't be valued solely on discounted projections. The spreadsheet jockeys were forced to pay attention to actual evidence of just how much the world wanted those widgets. As a result, seasoned companies often ended up with lower valuations.
In the 2008 Democratic battle, I often thought that Hillary was like on of those seasoned companies and Obama was like one of the startups with no actual sales under their belts. Obviously Obama ended up with the higher valuation.
When company valuations were done -- to justify IPO pricing or acquisition pricing -- companies whose products hadn't yet been marketed almost always fared best. Some skeptics would discount projected profits substantially, but those projections usually started so high that the companies were overvalued evan after a big haircut.
By contrast, companies whose widgets had actually reached the market couldn't be valued solely on discounted projections. The spreadsheet jockeys were forced to pay attention to actual evidence of just how much the world wanted those widgets. As a result, seasoned companies often ended up with lower valuations.
In the 2008 Democratic battle, I often thought that Hillary was like on of those seasoned companies and Obama was like one of the startups with no actual sales under their belts. Obviously Obama ended up with the higher valuation.
This article notes that Mrs. Clinton, in her 2000 campaign for the senate lacked a "clear cut message."
Why this problem still plagues her is suggested by an article Charles Ferguson, the director of the award-winning documentary, "Inside Job," wrote for Huffington Post in September 2013 headlined "Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton."
In that article he noted that the "Clintons' personal net worth now probably exceeds $200 million, and while earned legally, both the money's sources and the Clintons' public statements indicate a strong aversion to rocking boats or making powerful enemies."
Mrs. Clinton not only has not explained yet in "compelling terms" why she wants to be president - she has never articulated a compelling vision of what American future she intends to lead all Americans toward - thereby energizing the Democrats' badly disenchanted national voter base to go the polls in November 2016 - let alone vote for her if they do. It seems to me that Mark Warner is the only Democrat likely to be able to do that.
The Democratic Party is in the kind of serious trouble it hasn't been in nationally since Jimmy Carter yielded the presidency to Ronald Reagan. And since then, the tendency in pivotal national elections has been to the right - except when the economy was doing well - and it isn't likely improve markedly by late 2016.
All that suggests that our first woman president will be someone like a Carly Fiorina - not Hillary Clinton.
Why this problem still plagues her is suggested by an article Charles Ferguson, the director of the award-winning documentary, "Inside Job," wrote for Huffington Post in September 2013 headlined "Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton."
In that article he noted that the "Clintons' personal net worth now probably exceeds $200 million, and while earned legally, both the money's sources and the Clintons' public statements indicate a strong aversion to rocking boats or making powerful enemies."
Mrs. Clinton not only has not explained yet in "compelling terms" why she wants to be president - she has never articulated a compelling vision of what American future she intends to lead all Americans toward - thereby energizing the Democrats' badly disenchanted national voter base to go the polls in November 2016 - let alone vote for her if they do. It seems to me that Mark Warner is the only Democrat likely to be able to do that.
The Democratic Party is in the kind of serious trouble it hasn't been in nationally since Jimmy Carter yielded the presidency to Ronald Reagan. And since then, the tendency in pivotal national elections has been to the right - except when the economy was doing well - and it isn't likely improve markedly by late 2016.
All that suggests that our first woman president will be someone like a Carly Fiorina - not Hillary Clinton.
1
Very good start for her. That's not a video her 2008 team would have even thought of making. This is a favorable sign that she recognizes just how much the Democratic Party has changed in the last four years, let alone the past eight or sixteen. Her pick for vice president, however, will really tell us where she is leaning, but she can make some decent progress on her campaign before then. She just, in public not merely private settings, has to look real.
1
For heaven's sake, this is the announcement, not the detailed platform. Why are there so many comments about what this ISN'T. There is plenty of time - way too much in my opinion - to fill in the details.
5
The issue is the Supreme Court.
That is the issue.
I am absolutely in favor of a female in the White House; I have nieces and nephews who both need to grow up thinking that it's normal to see a woman as POTUS.
However, the current Supreme Court is so partisan, I can't vote for a Republican candidate for President.
Also, NYT: Lazy journalism wondering about Sec. Clinton's reason to run. She is running for the same reasons everybody runs for POTUS. She has money and thinks she can win.
That is the issue.
I am absolutely in favor of a female in the White House; I have nieces and nephews who both need to grow up thinking that it's normal to see a woman as POTUS.
However, the current Supreme Court is so partisan, I can't vote for a Republican candidate for President.
Also, NYT: Lazy journalism wondering about Sec. Clinton's reason to run. She is running for the same reasons everybody runs for POTUS. She has money and thinks she can win.
6
You are absolutely correct that the five liberal judges rule based on their preferred outcome rather than the law.
I dislike Bill and Hillary, but with the clowns and kooks on the other side, will have to support her without question. If a Republican were elected, we would certainly have a depression lasting years.
8
Do people really think of Hillary as a "fighter?"
In the Senate and as Secretary of State, she was passive, a cipher. The only time she's ever been a "fighter" was during the 1994 health-care debacle, where she struck people in both parties as strident and intolerant. Her health-care bill went nowhere, and she set back that effort for a long time.
In the Senate and as Secretary of State, she was passive, a cipher. The only time she's ever been a "fighter" was during the 1994 health-care debacle, where she struck people in both parties as strident and intolerant. Her health-care bill went nowhere, and she set back that effort for a long time.
Speaking of Hillarycare, in the 10 months that it was on Capitol Hill, Democrats held an 82-seat majority in the House and a 14-seat majority in the Senate. Yes, Democrats. And, of course, there was a Democrat in the White House. Yet it still went down in flames. Couldn't have anything to do with its namesake, could it?
2
I think of her as a negotiator.......and that is much more appealing to me than a fighter, ala Tea Partier nut jobs.
4
She was definitely a fighter against the vast right wing conspiracy that falsely accused her husband of cavorting with that woman.
1
Was it really Amy Chozick of The New York Times, and not some Republican flake, who wrote: "however, she faces enormous pressure to explain, in compelling terms, why she wants the job and is best suited to hold it."?
Will all candidates be asked why they want the job and is best suited to hold it?
Will all candidates be asked why they want the job and is best suited to hold it?
7
Several commenters wonder what "everyday Americans" means.
The Democratic party historically has represented the "lower" classes -- lower, economically, at least. But they've figured out there are a lot more votes to be had in the next layer up -- the "middle class."
How, then, to claim you represent BOTH the old Democratic Party mainstays AND the newly targeted group that offers more votes? Simple -- just say "everyday Americans," and you'll cover both groups.
"Everyday Americans" -- catchy phrase. So was Nixon's "silent majority" in 1968; it got him elected.
The Democratic party historically has represented the "lower" classes -- lower, economically, at least. But they've figured out there are a lot more votes to be had in the next layer up -- the "middle class."
How, then, to claim you represent BOTH the old Democratic Party mainstays AND the newly targeted group that offers more votes? Simple -- just say "everyday Americans," and you'll cover both groups.
"Everyday Americans" -- catchy phrase. So was Nixon's "silent majority" in 1968; it got him elected.
The Democrats have always claimed they represented the lower classes, but in reality they support the 1%, because they are the 1%. Hill is wealthier than Romney, and he was excoriated for his wealth, which he had at least earned. Bill and Hill have never done anything constructive.
1
From the article: " [Hillary Clinton said in her Presidential candidacy announcement video] “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top...
...people like us, a position in society my husband, Bill, my daughter, Chelsea, and I have worked very hard to achieve in the past 15 years by hobnobbing with the wealthiest individuals, companies and countries in the world through our thinly-disguised political juggernaut known as The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Our foundation, which poses as a global philanthropic organization, helps us by laundering billions of dollars in donations so that we can achieve our goals of total Democratic political domination in the U.S. while making us seem concerned about, and committed to assisting in the welfare of ordinary people and impoverished nations everywhere. We have clawed our way into the elite, 1% power base in world affairs in order to go down in history as one of the most politically powerful families in recent history. Help us achieve our dreams by voting for me, Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. By doing this, you will ensure that my daughter and granddaughter live in the lap of luxury, and continue our guise of phony concern for the downtrodden of the world." [end quote]
3
Maybe it's just me, but it feels sexist expecting Clinton to explain her rational for seeking the presidency. Men have been seeking leadership of nations for millennia without justification. Who give it a second thought? It reminds me of Ricky Ricardo telling Lucy, "you've got some splaining to do."
2
I'm no longer voting but I am seeing how all the big news outlets are advertizing for her. Nothing at all negative. Is it me?
2
Too lazy or too foolish to vote? You can take the time to read the paper and whine this note of complaint. Stand up and do something positive.
1
Despite all the concerns and personal agendas, Hilary Clinton can best keep what Obama has achieved on track. Let us not forget what Bush did to America in the eyes of the world, bruising relationships with allies and other countries worldwide. Obama not only rebuilt the confidence of allies and but rebuilt the bridges that were burned by Bush. Another Republican in office will turn back time to those days undoing the mending Obama has successful achieved. Therefore it is critical for America and from a European perspective Hilary Clinton becomes president. The US does not need another southern war monger cowboy in office.
5
Ersatz cowboy.
I echo the question posed by others: Why is Hillary Clinton under some unique obligation, mentioned daily by the NYT, to explain "why she wants to become president?" This sounds more like the sort of stuff I would expect to hear coming from right-wing universe, with of course none of the potential Republican nominees being similarly queried. What's going on here?
7
I already feel like taking a shower, anticipating the mud-slinging fest that really has been going non-stop for years. Only now the hate machine will be full-on. I really do wish there was an alternative to Hillary (Warren) because I fear the hubris and insulation and foul temper that Clinton would take to the White House. But given what the seriously unbalanced GOP has to offer, HRC will probably be the only choice. Her heart is at least in the right place. The GOP has none.
"Everyday Americans"? That's not a term anyone uses in normal conversation. It comes from political consultants. It's artificial, as is everything about Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Is there any reason for her to run other than that "it's her turn"? Does she believe in anything other than that she should be president and populate the government with her minions? Are her positions anything other than what her consultants conclude will produce the money and votes that lead to the magic 270 electoral votes--to be changed as convenient? Can't we find a more authentic leader?
5
Remember Sly and the Family Stone's "I am everyday people?" Nothing wrong with everyday Americans, though I'd prefer everyday people.
1
Does she really believe that she is an "everyday American"???? Really?? Has she gotten her faithful into believing that? Sadder still. She is the 1%; she IS a Washington insider, don't forget that. When could she ever relate to working class people????
1
Within many spheres of activity, champions are the winners, those individuals who have placed first in competitions and/or those individuals who have built up a winning track record.
Mrs. Clinton, if you want to be our champion, please enlighten the American public about how you've been a winner in the past and what you have logged on you track record.
Mrs. Clinton, if you want to be our champion, please enlighten the American public about how you've been a winner in the past and what you have logged on you track record.
3
Virtually all likely candidates, Democrat or Republican, are tainted by the intransigence of the parties toward one another. As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton avoided controversy except in Benghazi, where she was targeted by the lunatic right. Her association with Mr. Obama, the chief polarizing Democrat, is limited. I think Mrs. Clinton has changed from a polarizing figure to one who is mildly disliked by many. Compared to Rubio and Cruz and Warren, she is a centrist who may be palatable to many if loved by few. That is not a bad position to start from.
2
Like climbing any mountain, it is done because it's there. Not many mountains have been so imposing for women, both as voters and candidates, to scale. Let's do it! Because It's There! How beautiful Hilary looks in this moment of decision!
1
I resent those who champion Hillary because she's a woman. Considering the importance of getting the job done, who cares whether she's a woman or a man?
1
No detail needed re Hillary's so-called rationale for running for president. She's delusional and obsessed. End of story.
2
If Mrs. Clinton is serious about supporting everyday Americans, then she may have to give up financial support from some of the fat cats who have been paying her $300,000.00 for her speeches. They're not going to like talk about deep sixing corporate "free trade," raising taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, taxing excessive executive pay and taxing it as ordinary income. Hopefully, Clinton will welcome a little hatred from the forces of Organized Money, who seem to believe that when they buy a government it should darned well stay bought.
4
Why does Mrs. Clinton have to explain why she is running for president? Has the Times asked this of any of the other candidates?
6
Right. I've never heard so many in the media (not only the Times) ask her why she is running. Why is Ted Cruz running? Why in the world is another Bush running? For Bush, the media says that it's the family business. Well, it's the same for the Clintons.
Why did Obama run? There is a quote here about the smallness of government. Huh? I don't ever remember him saying that. It was about hope and change -- the idea of a Black president. That's why I voted for him. He is biracial, as am I, and I wanted to see someone like me in the White House. I wasn't interested in Edwards and conflicted about Hillary.
Now it seems like Hillary is the only choice to lead America, so I'll vote for her.
Why did Obama run? There is a quote here about the smallness of government. Huh? I don't ever remember him saying that. It was about hope and change -- the idea of a Black president. That's why I voted for him. He is biracial, as am I, and I wanted to see someone like me in the White House. I wasn't interested in Edwards and conflicted about Hillary.
Now it seems like Hillary is the only choice to lead America, so I'll vote for her.
Well, as the old Gipper used to say, "Here we go again." And the message is still the old New Deal message, now in designer wrap up. The gap between the rich and the poor is still growing after two terms of the essentially New Deal Democratic President. What makes us think that the first female Democratic New Dealer will do any better? Nothing. She tries to be a positive and optimistic New Dealer in the country that is rent now on a weekly basis by open protests and militant explosions. Hillary is about 50 years too late. Not that the other side is doing any better. She can only win if the other side will do worse that she will. And that's not a good sign. I think I will stay home on the election day.
2
As president, will she insist upon a private server for e-mails?
Let's get real: where is her judgment?
Let's get real: where is her judgment?
8
The old tropes about Hillary having baggage, being cynically calculating, and feeling entitled to the nomination are getting old already. Let's stick to substantive issues, NYT.
6
This is shaping up to be a most interesting election season. The announcement video was sure slick. I want to live in that tolerant, culturally diverse, happy place too! I can't wait to start hearing more about the woman from Hope. Of course she only comes from there through marriage to the man from Hope but then again we get him too; again. The Republicians are going to waste mega bucks beating each other up. When things get bad they will turn their money cannons against Hillary. This will backfire on them too because it will look desperate and she will play it for a sympathy vote. Picking on the nice Grandmother who only wants what is best for us. Rand Paul seems way out of his league and will be the first to dropout. Ted Cruz brings back memories of a scary episode I saw on a variety show as a young child. It was a dance scene with pretty girls dancing around phones to a tune that said "if the devil calls hang up." I had nightmares for weeks! Jeb is the strongest candidate to give her a real run, but the conservatives cannot stomach another Bush. Scott Walker seems minor league. They might have to draft Romney after all the others have fallen to the wayside bloodied and broke. If Hillary just stays the course and keeps the nice Grandmothery champion remake she just may find herself back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Then again it could all go terribly bad. With Mad Men ending we need a new drama series to capture our attention. We are,my friends, in Season 1 episode 1.
3
Yes, I have just finished bingewatching a bunch of shows and was thrilled to hear about Hillary because we do need another drama.
Let the debates begin!
Oh wait....who will Hillary debate?
Let the debates begin!
Oh wait....who will Hillary debate?
In 1978 or 1979, I clipped out an article in the Star Tribune, about Bill and HIllary Clinton that stated wanted they wanted to do to improve the education in the public schools in Arkansas. I thought at the time that he would make a good President some day. I put it away, and never saw it again until after he had been elected President. By that time, I had voted for him as President because of Yugoslavia, as I felt intervention was needed. What I didn't know about the Clintons back then, was what they were, where they came from, and what they wanted out of life. Now, some 36 or 37 years later, we find that Hillary was someone who wanted him and the political life more than the truth. Her husband, in retrospect, should of stated when interviewed in that 60 Minutes Piece before the election that he was a serial adulterer, as we began to see the picture of him in Arkansas before his election. People should own their behavior no matter how despicable it is. In other words, if you would be ashamed of it, you should chose whether or not you want to do it. Hillary and Bill are people that no one understands, but yet liberals flock to their sides like bees on honey. I did not vote for Bill Clinton the second time because I didn't have the stomach for it, as I had reached my limit, about being deceived by deceptive people, both of them. Sure, they are both smart. Have we come to the point that lying outweighs decency. That is the question that the voters will decide.
3
Interesting that both the NYT and WaPo say this weekend that Clinton needs to explain why she wants the job. I don't readily recall that expectation expressed about the various male candidates.
11
Hillary Clinton is being asked why she wants to run because, having kept herself in the limelight for so long, she might be convinced that she doesn't have to justify herself. That's the impression she gives anyway: an impression of smug entitlement.
And what did she just offer us with this announcement? Beyond a couple of platitudes, absolutely nothing, which is why most of the talking was done by her props: a handful of "ordinary Americans" who will keep trying to get by whether she gets elected or not... Hillary Clinton has nothing to offer except the status quo. For all their idiocy, her Republican opponents sound more courageous and inspiring.
Next, she will not fail to reassure us that, in matters of foreign policy, she can be as hawkish as a man. Remember: she voted for the Iraq war, a serious mistake to say the least.
With the challenge of climate change right in front of us, the need for change, particularly the need to confront corporate power, has never been more urgent. Don't count on her for that.
A choice between a Clinton and a Bush dynasty is a parody of democracy and the pathetic symbol of a declining empire.
And what did she just offer us with this announcement? Beyond a couple of platitudes, absolutely nothing, which is why most of the talking was done by her props: a handful of "ordinary Americans" who will keep trying to get by whether she gets elected or not... Hillary Clinton has nothing to offer except the status quo. For all their idiocy, her Republican opponents sound more courageous and inspiring.
Next, she will not fail to reassure us that, in matters of foreign policy, she can be as hawkish as a man. Remember: she voted for the Iraq war, a serious mistake to say the least.
With the challenge of climate change right in front of us, the need for change, particularly the need to confront corporate power, has never been more urgent. Don't count on her for that.
A choice between a Clinton and a Bush dynasty is a parody of democracy and the pathetic symbol of a declining empire.
4
jw--that's the impression she gives to you. What I think about is the Supreme Court and a Republican becoming a justice. To me, that makes Hill look like a savior. I need no other reason to vote for her.
Why the constant harping on why does Hillary wants to be president? Why is she different from the other candidates? Does anyone expect any of them to tell the non-political truth? Don't they all think they would be the best candidate? Don't all grandmothers want to be president? Make the world a better place? All rot, of course, but why pick on Hillary?
5
I don't recall Ted Cruz or Rand Paul being told they needed to explain their rationale for why they wanted to be President. And no, "taking our country back" doesn't count.
12
The United States is a model country. Its successful democracy is a lesson to all other democratic countries. When even small countries have had a woman as the Head of State, it is indeed strange that America has so far not had a woman for the top job.
That being said, I wonder why should Ms.Hillay Clinton contend for this job. I am one of those who feel that politics should not be a family business. Given her husband's stature as President for two terms and her own stint as Secretary of State, it would be easier for Ms.Clinton to win her party's nomination as Presidential candidate. Also, it would be easy for her to raise the necessary funds. But what about other meritorious candidates who does not have the charisma to raise funds? It is not as if there are no other better candidate, much less a woman candidate, in the Democratic party, to bid for the post of President. If Ms. Hillary wins her party's nomination, America may be missing someone who has won the coveted position, truly on merits, and who could set an example for other American women. I am eagerly waiting how Ms.Clinton is going to justify her decision to jump into the fray.
That being said, I wonder why should Ms.Hillay Clinton contend for this job. I am one of those who feel that politics should not be a family business. Given her husband's stature as President for two terms and her own stint as Secretary of State, it would be easier for Ms.Clinton to win her party's nomination as Presidential candidate. Also, it would be easy for her to raise the necessary funds. But what about other meritorious candidates who does not have the charisma to raise funds? It is not as if there are no other better candidate, much less a woman candidate, in the Democratic party, to bid for the post of President. If Ms. Hillary wins her party's nomination, America may be missing someone who has won the coveted position, truly on merits, and who could set an example for other American women. I am eagerly waiting how Ms.Clinton is going to justify her decision to jump into the fray.
1
The United States was never in my opinion meant to support family legacies in the White House. In my opinion the country does not need another Clinton, or Bush,it is indeed time to turn the page and find new effective leadership for the future of this country. Clinton and Bush on running on pure ego,which may be the norm,but we as a country should be collectively wise enough not sign up to be part of their personal hubris. I hear of American exceptionalism, and if there is really such a thing it is expressed perhaps best by not reliving the pat and seeking out better leaders all the time. Obama will be a tough act to follow and neither Clinton or Bush comes close. Time for new leadership.
6
I must be missing something here. What is this bizarre fixation on why Hillary Clinton is running for President? Why does anybody run for the presidency? Why are none of the Republican candidates being asked why they are running? The whole rationale for this story utterly escapes me. Can we please focus on substance for a change, and cut the pseudo-psychoanalysis?
14
Yeah, let's talk about substance.
In 2009 Hillary ran back and forth shrieking Karzai was 'legitimate and certrfied'. Then later she added he was, 'certified and legitimate', even though all international observers agreed it was a fraud, even her own State advisors. Then her own ambassador to Afghanistan publicly stated that 85% of all aid monies to Afghanistan are roundtripped right back to WADC-NOVA, before Hillary herself personally took $5B stolen from Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan, and grifted it directly into Karzai's personal bank at the 2009 International Conference on Afghanistan.
It's right there in the records! That grift was more than all the humanitarian aid in the entire world, combined, that year. To Mr. Certified & Legitimate.
Then she made five trips to Kabul in a row, for no stated public reason, no proclamations, no changes in government policy, carrying unmarked duffel bags, and badda boom badda bing, suddenly she's worth $10M, when she claims her and Bill were 'broke when we left the White House."
How does a Secretary of State who was 'broke' in 2008, and making $150,000 in her first year at State, end up with a $10M fortune in 2009, and oh, her -$35M red broke presidential campaign fund magically paid off?!
And nobody asked any questions, and nobody cared.
In 2009 Hillary ran back and forth shrieking Karzai was 'legitimate and certrfied'. Then later she added he was, 'certified and legitimate', even though all international observers agreed it was a fraud, even her own State advisors. Then her own ambassador to Afghanistan publicly stated that 85% of all aid monies to Afghanistan are roundtripped right back to WADC-NOVA, before Hillary herself personally took $5B stolen from Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan, and grifted it directly into Karzai's personal bank at the 2009 International Conference on Afghanistan.
It's right there in the records! That grift was more than all the humanitarian aid in the entire world, combined, that year. To Mr. Certified & Legitimate.
Then she made five trips to Kabul in a row, for no stated public reason, no proclamations, no changes in government policy, carrying unmarked duffel bags, and badda boom badda bing, suddenly she's worth $10M, when she claims her and Bill were 'broke when we left the White House."
How does a Secretary of State who was 'broke' in 2008, and making $150,000 in her first year at State, end up with a $10M fortune in 2009, and oh, her -$35M red broke presidential campaign fund magically paid off?!
And nobody asked any questions, and nobody cared.
1
I am already tired of this campaign and it isn't even the election year yet. I have received emails all day from Democratic party women, excited by her announcement. I cannot share their joy.
8
The notion that only people with 'middle-class' upbringings can be capable of best representing 'middle-class' interests is laughable. If anything, a 'middle-class' background should be a cause for concern - there is only one way for the aspiring upwardly mobile to leave the 'middle-class' and that is as a faithful toady for the interests of the corporate elite. The Roosevelts did more than anyone else for the common men and and women in this country and they came from the actual aristocracy, not the 'middle-class'. Let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks that Mrs. Clinton's privileged background would make her unqualified to advocate for the best interests of the common people.
1
I've spent hours today reading various articles about Clinton's campaign launch. Most of them, especially the pieces written by other women, are shockingly sexist in tone. Even Maureen Dowd fell into the pit, discussing Clinton's likability and whether she will be able to come across as a caring grandmother figure so her personality won't turn voters off. It's pathetic that our media is more concerned with her personality than her stance on the issues and her ability to lead. We have such a long way to go.
8
Even Maureen Dowd? Dowd has hated and envied Hillary Clinton since about 1991. It's a rare Dowd column which doesn't include an attack on Hillary.
She reminds me of Nixon absent the latters talent, experience (not just meandering the world as sec/state- cf John Kerry), intellegence and accomplishments (China, EPA).
4
Hillary isn't qualified enough like, for example, GW Bush? Puh-lease!
10
John Kerry would make a better president if someone is going to re-run. Hillary is a despised person.
5
She did nothing as senator of New York and was a failure as SoS. I'm sure the NYT will support her even though she is riddled with incompetence and controversy. God help us if this snake wins.
3
Not everyone can be ahead of everyone else. Greed and ambition aren't for everyone, although it sounds right for Hilary.
Too bad we have such a low IQ as a nation that "The Debate" is being driven by plain old nonsense.
STUPIDIST QUESTION media keeps asking: "Why are you running?"
Candidates need to have a stock-answer to this stupid question, and never deviate, and never get trapped into 'explaining' their rationale one bit further.
Stock-Answer: "I'm a public servant, and I want to help make this country even better than it already is". Stop there and NEVER say one bit more. Stupid question 'asked, and answered'.
What kind of President would you be?
ANSWER= "No surprise, I will be pretty much like my husband was. Events will obviously be different and unpredictable, but my approach will be pretty much like his was. And by the way, most people think those were 8 pretty good years." STOP, don't elaborate any further, don't deal in hypotheticals, because (REALLY) the devil is ALWAYS in the details, and the hypotheticals are always extremely simplistic.
What is your 'vision' for the country?
ANSWER= Anybody who has followed Ms Clinton, ALREADY KNOWS THIS.
Two or three sentences repeated ad nausum, DON'T ELABORATE
Reporters will say, 'But for the sake of voters who don't know your record, what would you tell THEM?
((TOO EASY)) Tell them to study my record, and don't try to form opinions about politicians from what they say on the campaign trail.
What's your 'plan'? List 3-5 consistent PRIORITIES, and remind them that you will be President, not absolute monarch. Makeup of Congress is KEY
STUPIDIST QUESTION media keeps asking: "Why are you running?"
Candidates need to have a stock-answer to this stupid question, and never deviate, and never get trapped into 'explaining' their rationale one bit further.
Stock-Answer: "I'm a public servant, and I want to help make this country even better than it already is". Stop there and NEVER say one bit more. Stupid question 'asked, and answered'.
What kind of President would you be?
ANSWER= "No surprise, I will be pretty much like my husband was. Events will obviously be different and unpredictable, but my approach will be pretty much like his was. And by the way, most people think those were 8 pretty good years." STOP, don't elaborate any further, don't deal in hypotheticals, because (REALLY) the devil is ALWAYS in the details, and the hypotheticals are always extremely simplistic.
What is your 'vision' for the country?
ANSWER= Anybody who has followed Ms Clinton, ALREADY KNOWS THIS.
Two or three sentences repeated ad nausum, DON'T ELABORATE
Reporters will say, 'But for the sake of voters who don't know your record, what would you tell THEM?
((TOO EASY)) Tell them to study my record, and don't try to form opinions about politicians from what they say on the campaign trail.
What's your 'plan'? List 3-5 consistent PRIORITIES, and remind them that you will be President, not absolute monarch. Makeup of Congress is KEY
2
Because she has a particular set of skills that will make life very dificult for our country's adversaries.
6
I am discussing Naomi Klein’s book, “This Changes Everything” with a group of friends. My questions are: Has Clinton, or any other candidate read that book? Would the issues discussed in the book influence her in how she formulates her campaign for president? Would it influence her environmental, economic, and foreign policies if she is elected to office?
1
I say NO Bush. NO Clinton.
We need experienced candidates, but ones who are not part of a dynasty, have not been in politics for decades, and owe more favors than can be counted.
Also, if elected, on inauguration day, Jeb Bush would be 63 years old (less than a month shy of 64) and Hillary Clinton would be 69 years old. So, both would be near or past the usual age of retirement. I vote to retire both early – PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.
I hope to be surprised by a “dark horse” candidate in both parties. They have never needed one more than now.
We need experienced candidates, but ones who are not part of a dynasty, have not been in politics for decades, and owe more favors than can be counted.
Also, if elected, on inauguration day, Jeb Bush would be 63 years old (less than a month shy of 64) and Hillary Clinton would be 69 years old. So, both would be near or past the usual age of retirement. I vote to retire both early – PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.
I hope to be surprised by a “dark horse” candidate in both parties. They have never needed one more than now.
2
The only positive is that the presidency ages the POTUS, maybe she'll be gone quicker so we don't have to listen to her lies. How's that for turning a - to a +?
I am never aligned with any stream of political groups. I just can't do it. They always make things seem so black and white. And they are not at all that. And sadly, often these battles are won on the silliest of the agenda.
But I just can't believe that America is so brainless, that they believe in 'democracy' yet they will let Kennedys, Clintons and Bushes run the country. This woman is no good news. She is misleading in her statements and views and always has been. She will never tell the truth, and she is up to no good.
To be honest, I have no idea who is better, but I know she is no good. And I wish, that we as a people who believe in democracy, turn on our brains and be brave enough to move away for these mini-monarchies that have been running the show.
But I just can't believe that America is so brainless, that they believe in 'democracy' yet they will let Kennedys, Clintons and Bushes run the country. This woman is no good news. She is misleading in her statements and views and always has been. She will never tell the truth, and she is up to no good.
To be honest, I have no idea who is better, but I know she is no good. And I wish, that we as a people who believe in democracy, turn on our brains and be brave enough to move away for these mini-monarchies that have been running the show.
6
I've already received a fundraiser email from the DNC regarding Mrs. Clinton's campaign. I was hoping they'd at least keep up appearances during primary season.
1
I get it that Hillary Clinton is the most likely to get the Democratic nomination if the vote were today. I get that she wanted to be President at least from the time that Bill Clinton started his run. I also get that she would be better than any of the Republicans running for nomination.But I do not see anything that says that she will be a strong and effective leader. But then again, what President other than Washington ever showed what a great President he would make before becoming president? Being President of the US is arguably the most important job on earth Others would say being a parent, but get real. However being President and being a parent are both jobs that you learn on the job, but you have to have the right stuff going in.
1
From Drmocracynow.org
Hillary Clinton is reportedly poised to announce her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination this weekend. The move comes as a new investigation has revealed Clinton’s close ties to a Canadian oil company with a history of alleged violence in Colombia. The International Business Times reports while Clinton was secretary of state she backed a Colombian free trade pact she had previously opposed over concerns about labor rights, after the founder of oil giant Pacific Rubiales pledged millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. The founder, Frank Giustra, now serves on the Clinton Foundation’s board. Labor leaders say Clinton ignored accounts of attacks on union organizers in Colombia, instead backing the trade pact which benefited Giustra and other foreign investors.
That's our Hillary
Hillary Clinton is reportedly poised to announce her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination this weekend. The move comes as a new investigation has revealed Clinton’s close ties to a Canadian oil company with a history of alleged violence in Colombia. The International Business Times reports while Clinton was secretary of state she backed a Colombian free trade pact she had previously opposed over concerns about labor rights, after the founder of oil giant Pacific Rubiales pledged millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. The founder, Frank Giustra, now serves on the Clinton Foundation’s board. Labor leaders say Clinton ignored accounts of attacks on union organizers in Colombia, instead backing the trade pact which benefited Giustra and other foreign investors.
That's our Hillary
3
Franklin Roosevelt was an upper class, patrician man. But, he had a way of relating to the common, working class person. As bad as things were in the 1930's, people knew that he had their backs.
He spoke from the heart. I guarantee you that he did not have a media coach. He was his own, upper crust self. When he spoke, the people still knew he was talking to them.
Today's video was horrible. It came across just like a commercial for high-end shampoo. Roosevelt never made shampoo commercials.
There is so much instability in the world today. Droughts, economic malaise, low pay, high medical costs, wars everywhere, cops shooting the place up, and terrorism are scaring people to death. We feel like there is nothing out there to depend on. People want the security that comes form stability. We want to be able to count on tomorrow.
That's what she needs to stand for. We want to embrace tomorrow, not fear it.
Most importantly, she must jettison the Obama strategy of courting women and people of color at the expense of white, working class males. She needs to reach out to them, as Roosevelt did, so that they know she has their backs too.
He spoke from the heart. I guarantee you that he did not have a media coach. He was his own, upper crust self. When he spoke, the people still knew he was talking to them.
Today's video was horrible. It came across just like a commercial for high-end shampoo. Roosevelt never made shampoo commercials.
There is so much instability in the world today. Droughts, economic malaise, low pay, high medical costs, wars everywhere, cops shooting the place up, and terrorism are scaring people to death. We feel like there is nothing out there to depend on. People want the security that comes form stability. We want to be able to count on tomorrow.
That's what she needs to stand for. We want to embrace tomorrow, not fear it.
Most importantly, she must jettison the Obama strategy of courting women and people of color at the expense of white, working class males. She needs to reach out to them, as Roosevelt did, so that they know she has their backs too.
Sadly, political campaigns are no longer about what YOU want to do, instead they have become contests waged around 2 other things
1. How effectively your campaign manages to tear down your opponent IN THE PERCEPTION of persuadable swing voters.
2. Your ability to never say anything that either IS, or could be spun into a "stupid remark" The most recent best example of this is Romney's famous 47% statement.
(for the record, Romney didn't actually mean what it sounded like, he was trying to make a ridiculous technical argument{{OOPs!}}. But what nailed his coffin was his phrase "my job is not to worry about those people{{47% of the population}}).
FOR Ms Clinton, the biggest danger as was discussed on the Sunday shows, is that there is a lot of time, between now, and when the actual campaigning will really start (primary season).
If she's running around giving speeches, there are many opportunities to put her foot in her mouth, AND, the relentless speeches will be rerun/repeats of each other and her message/image will become stale. And if she starts popping-off about every news story of the day, sooner or later, she will say something that will be spun into nonsense, like her comment that when she & Bill left the WH, they weren't well off financially. That was a completely true, and relevant statement, but somehow, it got publicly spun into some kind of unpolitically correct remark.
She should STAY on a listening tour, until just before the primaries start.
1. How effectively your campaign manages to tear down your opponent IN THE PERCEPTION of persuadable swing voters.
2. Your ability to never say anything that either IS, or could be spun into a "stupid remark" The most recent best example of this is Romney's famous 47% statement.
(for the record, Romney didn't actually mean what it sounded like, he was trying to make a ridiculous technical argument{{OOPs!}}. But what nailed his coffin was his phrase "my job is not to worry about those people{{47% of the population}}).
FOR Ms Clinton, the biggest danger as was discussed on the Sunday shows, is that there is a lot of time, between now, and when the actual campaigning will really start (primary season).
If she's running around giving speeches, there are many opportunities to put her foot in her mouth, AND, the relentless speeches will be rerun/repeats of each other and her message/image will become stale. And if she starts popping-off about every news story of the day, sooner or later, she will say something that will be spun into nonsense, like her comment that when she & Bill left the WH, they weren't well off financially. That was a completely true, and relevant statement, but somehow, it got publicly spun into some kind of unpolitically correct remark.
She should STAY on a listening tour, until just before the primaries start.
Hillary Clinton's inclusion of one gay and one lesbian couple in her announcement video, along with a message of the importance of strong families, is historic. Most of my gay and lesbian friends report that they had lumps in their throats or outright cried when they were watching. Try listening to the nasty bigoted anti-gay invective coming from the Republican side, to understand how profoundly important Hillary's historic message is.
3
The script has been tiresome for a very long time. There will be no rewrite for me.
I have repeatedly opposed, on these pages, Mrs. Clinton’s seeking the office of US President, mainly because of the potential danger political dynasties pose to our democracy.
More importantly, however, I have also had serious concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s vote which led to the costly and destructive war in Iraq.
That vote, I felt, was driven by her propensity to make decisions on the basis of domestic political considerations, rather than on the basis of a critical examination of the relevant facts and the potential consequences of waging a war.
In the face of Mrs. Clinton’s announcement today, that she intends to seek the office of US President, I found myself agonizing over whether I could support and vote for her, because while I continue to have these reservations about her, I also strongly feel that none of the current Republican candidates is fit, or should hold that important office.
After long reflections, I finally decided that I have no alternative. I should support Mrs. Clinton, and I will.
I however hope that this agonizing and these reservations which some of us have about Mrs. Clinton, will give her a pause. I hope that she reflects on these feeling that many of us may have.
May be such a pause and such a reflection could make her a stronger candidate.
More importantly, however, I have also had serious concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s vote which led to the costly and destructive war in Iraq.
That vote, I felt, was driven by her propensity to make decisions on the basis of domestic political considerations, rather than on the basis of a critical examination of the relevant facts and the potential consequences of waging a war.
In the face of Mrs. Clinton’s announcement today, that she intends to seek the office of US President, I found myself agonizing over whether I could support and vote for her, because while I continue to have these reservations about her, I also strongly feel that none of the current Republican candidates is fit, or should hold that important office.
After long reflections, I finally decided that I have no alternative. I should support Mrs. Clinton, and I will.
I however hope that this agonizing and these reservations which some of us have about Mrs. Clinton, will give her a pause. I hope that she reflects on these feeling that many of us may have.
May be such a pause and such a reflection could make her a stronger candidate.
60
This may not be the time to be agonizing, for there is reason to believe that our future hangs in the balance if Americans make a poor choice in electing a new President. This may be the time to reflect and think ahead. The Republican Party is damaged and it will take time for some of us to trust any politicians who are running on their ticket.
I am voting for Mrs. Clinton because she is the best qualified candidate for this position, and I have confidence that she is ready to rebuild and strengthen our Country. She will need our help to do this, and if we sit back in our armchairs again, we're in trouble big time. Big trouble for you and I, but mostly for our vision of America in 2020, our children who are going to be carrying the burden.
It's now or never because we are running out of time, and although Mrs. Clinton is not promising us a rose garden, we can roll up our sleeves and begin by addressing the importance of education for all, further job creation, the rebuilding of our Nation's infrastructure, and ensuring that America is the strong Super Power it is meant to be under the Statue of Liberty.
I am voting for Mrs. Clinton because she is the best qualified candidate for this position, and I have confidence that she is ready to rebuild and strengthen our Country. She will need our help to do this, and if we sit back in our armchairs again, we're in trouble big time. Big trouble for you and I, but mostly for our vision of America in 2020, our children who are going to be carrying the burden.
It's now or never because we are running out of time, and although Mrs. Clinton is not promising us a rose garden, we can roll up our sleeves and begin by addressing the importance of education for all, further job creation, the rebuilding of our Nation's infrastructure, and ensuring that America is the strong Super Power it is meant to be under the Statue of Liberty.
1
I share your concerns about a political dynasty---but given the state of the world, those are some small potatoes given the options.
4
Yeah, she's Ms. Expediency. No scruples. But none of the current candidates have any scruples, much less honor. I'm sitting this election out. Can't stand any of these bozos, including Clinton.
3
If 'holding a conversation with the American voters' is the basis for being President, then let's consider Oprah. Or Phil Donahue. Her rational is shallow at best, and laughable at worst. No, check that....it's scary. God help us.
1
There has already been one book titled "Blind Ambition" about John Dean. Someone could recycle the title for a book about Hillary Clinton. As much as I would like to support a woman for the presidency, I have never had a reason to support a Hillary Clinton run for that office. She just seems to be a bad fit, like asking Russell Crowe to perform brain surgery. I wasn't at all impressed with her stint as Secretary of State... John Kerry seems to have accomplished more in half the time, and as First Lady she was just an open umbrella on a golf course during a thunderstorm. I sure hope several Democrats and/or independents successfully challenge her. Otherwise, just to protect the SCOTUS, I'll vote for anyone but a Republican.
1
Hillary wants to keep up the good work done by President Obama and earlier by her husband. She is the Democrat in the best position to do so. It would be dereliction of duty for her not to to run since she had been beating all possible Republican contenders in the polls for a long time.
2
.
.
Her rationale for running? Seriously?
I think it's quite simple. She doesn't want the Executive Branch controlled by Republicans. Her name recognition gives her a good head start on the nomination and the general election. Any other Democrat would have to do a HUGE amount of work familiarizing him/herself with voters.
Why is it important that Republicans not control the Executive Branch? Well, for one thing, their party wants Vice Presidents such as Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, and Dan Quayle. For another thing, total mismanagement of the economy leading up to 2007-2008. Also, expensive and tiresome ground wars.
And then there is the big reason: We NEED Democrats appointing Federal Judges/Justices. (By "We", I mean our entire nation, with its communal interests that outweigh individual issues.)
Finally, why Mrs. Clinton quite specifically, besides name recognition? Add up her years of Federal Government experience (2001-2013). Now add up Elizabeth Warren's plus Martin O'Malley's plus Andrew Cuomo's.
OH -- and some of us wish to see a bit more diversity in the Oval Office before we return to electing light-skinned Christian men every four years.
.
Her rationale for running? Seriously?
I think it's quite simple. She doesn't want the Executive Branch controlled by Republicans. Her name recognition gives her a good head start on the nomination and the general election. Any other Democrat would have to do a HUGE amount of work familiarizing him/herself with voters.
Why is it important that Republicans not control the Executive Branch? Well, for one thing, their party wants Vice Presidents such as Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, and Dan Quayle. For another thing, total mismanagement of the economy leading up to 2007-2008. Also, expensive and tiresome ground wars.
And then there is the big reason: We NEED Democrats appointing Federal Judges/Justices. (By "We", I mean our entire nation, with its communal interests that outweigh individual issues.)
Finally, why Mrs. Clinton quite specifically, besides name recognition? Add up her years of Federal Government experience (2001-2013). Now add up Elizabeth Warren's plus Martin O'Malley's plus Andrew Cuomo's.
OH -- and some of us wish to see a bit more diversity in the Oval Office before we return to electing light-skinned Christian men every four years.
5
Our country is in desperate need of a proven leader who is an excellent mediator and peacemaker. None of these candidates,including Mrs.Clinton, have the character and experience of such a leader. Hillary Clinton punched her ticket in the Congress and State Department. However, she has no significant legislation or foreign policy that she was responsible for. Let's face it - Hillary wants to make the history books as first woman to be US President. And she will pretend to be whomever her advisers tell her she must pretend to be in order to "fool" the voters into voting for her. Finally, Hillary had many years to enjoy the perks that come with living in the White House. I'm sure that Hillary and Bill would love to have these perks for another 4 years.
Will the very best candidates please step forward asap. No more Clintons or Bushes in the White House!
Will the very best candidates please step forward asap. No more Clintons or Bushes in the White House!
5
Dee,
What goes around, comes around. Some of us, whether republican or democrat, or independent-minded, were so busy trying to bring down the President and our Administration during these last few years, that we forgot to put out a search party for the next presidential candidate that the greater majority of us would wish to lead our Country.
Mrs. Clinton is now an 'official' Democrat candidate, and with her professional background, and highly acute political insight and experience, she continues to grow stronger in this American's view.
What goes around, comes around. Some of us, whether republican or democrat, or independent-minded, were so busy trying to bring down the President and our Administration during these last few years, that we forgot to put out a search party for the next presidential candidate that the greater majority of us would wish to lead our Country.
Mrs. Clinton is now an 'official' Democrat candidate, and with her professional background, and highly acute political insight and experience, she continues to grow stronger in this American's view.
One difference between her and the Ted Kennedy interview with Roger Mudd: I don't believe Kennedy had announced his candidacy yet at the time of the interview which placed him in the position of explaining why he was running when he wasn't running yet.
And Mrs. Clinton hasn't given any answers as to what she will do about income inequality which will probably be the major issue of the campaign. It's difficult if not impossible to be both for keeping unfair tax breaks for the very wealthy, very few of whom are going to give money to someone who opposes these, while trying to stitch up the increasingly fraying social safety net. We know the Republicans have no intention of doing more than paying lip service to the latter. Let's see if she can do any better.
And Mrs. Clinton hasn't given any answers as to what she will do about income inequality which will probably be the major issue of the campaign. It's difficult if not impossible to be both for keeping unfair tax breaks for the very wealthy, very few of whom are going to give money to someone who opposes these, while trying to stitch up the increasingly fraying social safety net. We know the Republicans have no intention of doing more than paying lip service to the latter. Let's see if she can do any better.
1
Hillary has been fanatically focused on power her whole life. Even those close to her have said she used William for this purpose, someone she could "groom". But look now: every likely Republican candidate beats her in popularity in the first primary states. Surveyed groups, including groups of leftist college students, consider her untrustworthy. (Maybe something to do with illegally hiding work emails in a server in her basement 'cause rules are for little people. Then lying and saying "it was for the convenience of having only one appliance" - before it was revealed that she has both a Blackberry and an iPhone. Enough lies already, Hill.) She had her chance in 2008 and blew it by being a robotic Miss Washington Insider Apparatchik. What has she accomplished? Even supporters stumbled on that question. (Here's one: Benghazi. And arming Mubarak's police with tear gas and riot gear behind the scenes, while praising the demonstrators in public.) As the Onion writes, her campaign motto is simply "I deserve this". And her campaign strategy will be "massive amounts of historical inevitability". Supporters: Israel and the corrupt Sunni tyrants that ally with that state - they have already given her many millions in funding. She's going to spend 1.6 billion on her campaign - bought and paid for by foreign interests and their agents. "Flat broke", Hillary?
2
I can already tell you the Dems are really not smart by placing all there eggs with Clinton. This country does not need another Clinton or Bush. Can America come up with someone else. We are slowly drifting towards monarchy. This country is starting to lose its democracy.
3
Jesse, regardless of our Party affiliation if we have one, we are not placing all our eggs in one basket although I enjoyed seeing some of our children celebrate Easter and Spring this year at the White House courtesy of its amazing newsletter.
We don't have a political candidate was a recurring refrain on my part as of late, when asked by European friends. We have one now, a highly recognizable one, and it will take a tremendous effort to restore not only Democracy, but some of our Humanity.
Mrs. Clinton is not interested in living in a castle, or wearing a crown. She is not a crook nor a cook. She is an experienced politician with years of accrued knowledge, and has announced her candidacy with a fine reference from President Obama, and the backing of Mr. Clinton, one of our former commanders-in-chief.
We don't have a political candidate was a recurring refrain on my part as of late, when asked by European friends. We have one now, a highly recognizable one, and it will take a tremendous effort to restore not only Democracy, but some of our Humanity.
Mrs. Clinton is not interested in living in a castle, or wearing a crown. She is not a crook nor a cook. She is an experienced politician with years of accrued knowledge, and has announced her candidacy with a fine reference from President Obama, and the backing of Mr. Clinton, one of our former commanders-in-chief.
Those who have been shocked at the presumptuousness of a lawless president Obama changing laws and simply choosing not to enforce others will have no excuse should they vote for Ms. Clinton. She has demonstrated throughout her public life that she refuses to obey laws that apply to her lessers whether they involve FBI files or laws specifying that officials use government email accounts.
People have gone to prison for having unauthorized access to just one person's FBI file, but Hillary had her hands on nearly a thousand and knew that she'd never have to answer for it. Those voting for her can have nothing to say when she does whatever she wants with THEIR personal info.
People have gone to prison for having unauthorized access to just one person's FBI file, but Hillary had her hands on nearly a thousand and knew that she'd never have to answer for it. Those voting for her can have nothing to say when she does whatever she wants with THEIR personal info.
5
I'm not necessarily for Hiliary Clinton, but your commentary smacks of the right's focus on details in order to distract from the lawlessness of the real powers that be..the oil cartel, the bankers and the war profiteers that have gained power over the past fifty to sixty years since WWII over the direction of our country. How surveillance in its present state of extreme power pales the issue of those emails you obsess over. The entire government apparatus of surveillance, does not belong to just one party, although I think the Kellogs Root and Brown connections are deserving of some public airing.
2
How anyone can support her after that Bosnia sniper lie is beyond belief. The woman is so power hungry or delusional she will say or do anything. She's Nixon in a pantsuit. My guess is all the lust for the presidency is to fill an emotional void that her husband considers her just another woman among many many many others.
She should seek validation or love some other way. Or seek therapy. Just don't seek the presidency. Why should the whole country suffer so she can try and find emotional fulfillment.
She should seek validation or love some other way. Or seek therapy. Just don't seek the presidency. Why should the whole country suffer so she can try and find emotional fulfillment.
3
Again, all I hear in your comment is sexism…angry sexism. I'm not necessarily for Hiliary Clinton, but the hatred and personal anxt and loathing couldn't be more clear. It seems to have much more to do with the hatred of a powerful female figure than anything Hiliary Clinton may have done or not done.
2
At this moment, Hillary Clinton is by far the best of the declared candidates for President. She has great intelligence and deep governmental and political experiences to go with it.
You can tell she is the best candidate just by seeing the venom thrown at her by the GOP. The same venom that the GOP threw at Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The GOP fears these threw Democrats.
You can tell she is the best candidate just by seeing the venom thrown at her by the GOP. The same venom that the GOP threw at Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The GOP fears these threw Democrats.
7
Let's see if Candidate Clinton can do better than than Candidate Kennedy did in 1979. I doubt it. She's coming from exactly the same place he was - the Ivory Tower of Political Entitlement. 30+ years later I hope and pray the country will see through this chicanery. But my expectations are low...
4
There is no more or less political entitlement by Clinton then Bush and his family members! I do not care for any dynasty taking place in this country. Both families are entitled for that matters. It's because the differences are all for show. They are all globalists that lead America into endless wars. Endless wars since WWII is what Americans do for a living.
1
Of the potential candidates out there, Hillary is probably the best bet for the Democrats... for a number of reasons. First, if the party can show unity by lining up behind one consensus candidate, it will be a major victory in itself especially in the face of a fragmenting GoP. Second, Hillary has the experience not just in national politics but in international relations. She has been a part of the Obama administration's concerted strategy to engage the nations of the world in a way that shows long term thinking rather than the older shoot-first-talk-later approach the US was known for. And third, as a woman, she would be an incredibly important exemplar for this nation that still suffers ridiculous levels of gender bias. Just look at the percentage of women in Congress. Or at the salary disparity. Or at the twists and turns in healthcare laws that are weighted against a woman's right to choose. It's time women had better representation in positions of political, executive and legislative power so this nation can start making some progress out of the stone age.
5
It gets down to the presidential debates, which are no longer run by the League of Women Voters, but by a corporation owned together by the Democrat and the Republican parties. They decide together, behind closed doors, who gets to debate and which questions will be allowed. Don't kid yourself. Our democracy is a sham. The outcome is predetermined by those that keep us in endless wars.
1
When the Clintons left the White House this nation was at the all time peak of history - not just our history, but of all history: Domestic prosperity, International Peace, our Moral Authority/Perceived Legitimacy on the international stage was at an all time high. There is no other nation in history comes close other than Roosevelt's America.
Who is not nostalgic for the 90s? I haven't had truly gainful employment since 2005 (Bush Admin's high tide). When Bush Sr was president I was laid off for a year, I lost my savings. Then Clinton was elected, I got a job. By 2000 I was making six figures. I then went back to school and got advanced degree. Then nothing. I still have the debt, but my income is a 5th of what it was. I'll take all the Clinton drama over any the Bush trauma (that both I, the country and the world has experienced) ANY. DAY. OF. THE. WEEK.
The nomination is not a lock for Hillary. Bernie Sanders could easily win New Hampshire. If by some quirk he walked off with Iowa Hillary would be back where she was in 2008, but we'd be on our way to our 1st socialist president (since FDR).
If Hillary stays true to the Middle Class and Strong Families theme, and wins the nomination she should be able to use that theme to walk off with the election. I mean land slide, with coattails perhaps, even upsetting both houses of Congress. That could get us a trillion dollar infrastructure/highway bill we badly need. Then the economy would, once again, under a Clinton, take off.
Who is not nostalgic for the 90s? I haven't had truly gainful employment since 2005 (Bush Admin's high tide). When Bush Sr was president I was laid off for a year, I lost my savings. Then Clinton was elected, I got a job. By 2000 I was making six figures. I then went back to school and got advanced degree. Then nothing. I still have the debt, but my income is a 5th of what it was. I'll take all the Clinton drama over any the Bush trauma (that both I, the country and the world has experienced) ANY. DAY. OF. THE. WEEK.
The nomination is not a lock for Hillary. Bernie Sanders could easily win New Hampshire. If by some quirk he walked off with Iowa Hillary would be back where she was in 2008, but we'd be on our way to our 1st socialist president (since FDR).
If Hillary stays true to the Middle Class and Strong Families theme, and wins the nomination she should be able to use that theme to walk off with the election. I mean land slide, with coattails perhaps, even upsetting both houses of Congress. That could get us a trillion dollar infrastructure/highway bill we badly need. Then the economy would, once again, under a Clinton, take off.
34
Yes, I am hopeful you are correct. But the wars will continue I suspect. Hiliary Clinton has been a hawk in the past. The ones that benefit from that are in both political parties. It's all the same for them. Who ever gets in, has to make sure their gravy train continues.
1
I agree. And don't forget when Clinton left office we had a budget surplus, not a deficit, and Clinton also gave a clear warning to Bush to watch out for Al-Qaeda.
When Clinton left office, the dot.com bubble had burst and the country was in recession. Clinton reduced defense spending, decimating the intelligence services and eliminating all human intelligence in the Middle East, and leaving us vulnerable to the attack that took place eight months after he left office. He had eight years in office during which a reasonable President would have modernized the military to adapt to the end of the Cold War. Instead, draft dodger that he was, he starved it. This meant that Bush was forced to go to war with the military he had, a opposed to the military he needed.
The last transportation bill that was passed was under Bush in 2005, which expired in 2009. Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, the best they could do was pass one and two year extensions of the 2005 bill. Having another Democrat in the Presidency is not going to get any structural improvements in government.
And the Clinton years were good because we were riding on 12 years of Republican leadership. (Carter damaged the economy and world standing, Regan repaired it. Obama damaged the economy and world standing (with Hillary's help) and the next president will have to repair it.
The last transportation bill that was passed was under Bush in 2005, which expired in 2009. Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, the best they could do was pass one and two year extensions of the 2005 bill. Having another Democrat in the Presidency is not going to get any structural improvements in government.
And the Clinton years were good because we were riding on 12 years of Republican leadership. (Carter damaged the economy and world standing, Regan repaired it. Obama damaged the economy and world standing (with Hillary's help) and the next president will have to repair it.
I am frequently critical of Hillary Clinton, but felt that the 2016 announcement video was generally excellent. The video focused on the plans and aspirations of ordinary Americans, with Clinton avering to the American people that she wanted "to be your champion" and "to work hard for your vote".
These are the correct themes to sound and Clintqn should stick to them.
These are the correct themes to sound and Clintqn should stick to them.
52
Hillary has already had plenty of chances to be a champion and to "work hard for my vote". However, as Secretary of State didn't do much except help herself. She is now comfortably part of the 1%. But, in what way is the world a better place because of her service as Secretary of State?
1
It looks like Hillary is again going to run on a platform of "hope and change" rather than have any substance to her platform.
Her main claim is "vote for me because I am the Democratic Party". Of course this fails to mention that she has crushed all potential contenders among other democrats.
Her main claim is "vote for me because I am the Democratic Party". Of course this fails to mention that she has crushed all potential contenders among other democrats.
1
So now we have Hope-y Change-y Hillary!
But it's clear that underneath she is a purely manipulative and cynical politician who is all to eager to step on all Democratic competitors and cover up her lifetime of scandals ranging from Whitewater to email-gate.
But it's clear that underneath she is a purely manipulative and cynical politician who is all to eager to step on all Democratic competitors and cover up her lifetime of scandals ranging from Whitewater to email-gate.
The media keep saying that Hillary has to explain why she wants to be president and calling it a "central question". Give me a break. That's not a central question, it's a stupid question. Any answer is going to sound pretentious.
The central question for ALL the candidates is what will you fight for and prioritize to achieve as President?
The media seems to single out Hillary to harass while the clowns on the Republican side get away with ignorance and no rationale whatsoever.
It seems like the kind of situation where the smart kid in school is pressured with high expectations and the dumb kids are allowed to get away with shenanigans because of low expectations.
I am not amused by the Republican class clowns because I know there is too much at risk if one of them gets into the White House....
The central question for ALL the candidates is what will you fight for and prioritize to achieve as President?
The media seems to single out Hillary to harass while the clowns on the Republican side get away with ignorance and no rationale whatsoever.
It seems like the kind of situation where the smart kid in school is pressured with high expectations and the dumb kids are allowed to get away with shenanigans because of low expectations.
I am not amused by the Republican class clowns because I know there is too much at risk if one of them gets into the White House....
141
Get ready for another nineteen months of candidates on both sides explaining in only the simplest, most carefully chosen, most headline-worthy phrases why they want to be president, and where they want to take the country. If it's substance you want, even the barest substance, another country whose electorate actually thinks might be more your speed.
21
Board of Wal-Mart. Voted for Iraq war. Overpaid "author" of mediocre, ghost-written books. All talk, no substance. Looked aghast in the war room during the Bin Laden operation. Weak echo of a few of Elizabeth Warren's passionate issues. Anointed by Wall street donors. Entitled. Privileged lifelong existence. Business as usual.
76
Yes, and the alternative is?
2
I agree completely. Why are we reading so much about her advisors, her handlers, her team of image makers? Lots of talk from all her people about how to get this woman elected but none of it seems genuine. Stage managed and scripted.
Hey Frank, don't compare Hillary to the Almighty.
Compare her to the alternative (s).
Compare her to the alternative (s).
2
Anti-climatic. Ho-hum. I am already bored.
15
What a shame that it's all about excitement instead of substance.
After seeing the coverage of today's event -- if it even is an event -- and after scanning the comments here, I am filled with dread, not depression but dread of the next year and a half.
24
If you want a popular President that everyone will love, then vote for Tyler Swift.
If you want a uniquely qualified steadfast and experienced statesman to lead and represent us, then Hillary Clinton is the most qualified individual in the nation at this date.
The dream team would include Senator Warren as Vice President.
I would vote again after declaring my lack of confidence in the process.
If you want a uniquely qualified steadfast and experienced statesman to lead and represent us, then Hillary Clinton is the most qualified individual in the nation at this date.
The dream team would include Senator Warren as Vice President.
I would vote again after declaring my lack of confidence in the process.
43
Qualified how? What has she accomplished other than failures?
1
The Clintons, unlike the Obamas, understand the White House is more than a place to live. We give the President the White House as a tool to convince or persuade or demand the opposition cooperate. I have total faith the Clintons will get it done when they return. They understand how the machine operates, and unlike the Obamas, they aren't disgusted by the guts of governing.
18
Under Clinton, the rich kept getting richer; he signed the bill that repealed much of Glass-Steagel and gave the banks power to turn Wall Street into a casino where only the house wins. He signed NAFTA, which has done a great deal to make life tougher for 'the everyday American:" and worse for the everyday Mexican, and not so great for the everyday Canadian, either.
The Clintons did not get in the way of a prosperous time. But paved the way for the difficult times that have followed.
Why does Hilary Clinton want to be president? Just ego. Some resentment stirred in perhaps, of her husband, and perhaps some thought that she'd move ahead the cause of women. But mainly ego, and because she can.
The Clintons did not get in the way of a prosperous time. But paved the way for the difficult times that have followed.
Why does Hilary Clinton want to be president? Just ego. Some resentment stirred in perhaps, of her husband, and perhaps some thought that she'd move ahead the cause of women. But mainly ego, and because she can.
How sad it is to be comfortable with the term 'Clintons' and talk of their return to power. A monarchy is not what America is supposed to be.....
You do realize that there is only one president. You sound like both Bill and Hillary would be running the country.
1
She would vanquish every single Republican presidential candidate out there except Jeb Bush
Jeb matches her on experience, intelligence and gravitas and probability trumps her on authenticity and likability. He speaks fluent Spanish and, because of his demeanor, is impossible to characterize as either a fire-breathing right-winger or an out of touch Romney-esque millionaire.
Imagine Jeb Bush speaking fluent Spanish on the campaign trail in high Latino population swing states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado and North Carolina.
That's something this country has never seen before. It might be the X factor.
Jeb matches her on experience, intelligence and gravitas and probability trumps her on authenticity and likability. He speaks fluent Spanish and, because of his demeanor, is impossible to characterize as either a fire-breathing right-winger or an out of touch Romney-esque millionaire.
Imagine Jeb Bush speaking fluent Spanish on the campaign trail in high Latino population swing states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado and North Carolina.
That's something this country has never seen before. It might be the X factor.
12
Jeb Bush is to authenticity what Sheldon Adelson is to free thought.
3
J.E.Bush is C.I.A. and I don't want any more world expeditions in Geopolitical games.
Jeb is pudgy disaster who embodies an extremist position on choice,harmed the state he lead, stole a Presidential election for his brother and has the support of the precisely the same millionaires who supported Romney
Most probably he'd be as attractive to Spanish speakers as Palin was to women.
Most probably he'd be as attractive to Spanish speakers as Palin was to women.
I have always wondered why anyone would want to be POTUS. A partial answer is that they are supremely confident (almost narcissistic) in their assessment of being able to contribute to the betterment and welfare of Americans, and possibly the world.
There will be other reasons specific to each individual who throws in his/her name in the hat. But it is extraordinarily sexist to pose this question only in case of HRC. I suppose an XX arrangement of the chromosome is a barrier, at least in the minds of pundits. It is time to move away from this version of soft sexism. At least I expect better from the esteemed NYT.
There will be other reasons specific to each individual who throws in his/her name in the hat. But it is extraordinarily sexist to pose this question only in case of HRC. I suppose an XX arrangement of the chromosome is a barrier, at least in the minds of pundits. It is time to move away from this version of soft sexism. At least I expect better from the esteemed NYT.
25
Clearly, with HRC it is the need to wield power over political enemies and have her day of reckoning with them. Is Gennifer Flowers in the WITSEC program? Or Mrs. Jenkins? Johanna Broadrick? Monica Lewinski may simply want to move out of the country and off the grid for a few years.
And it officially begins. Criticism and questioning of HRC laid at the feet of sexism. Will it be at least 2024 before we can start to run a legitimate country, fueled by merit and not identity pandering? No. Thank. You.
1
Mr. Shrum advised three President hopefuls who all went on to lose. He noted that Reagan converted his negatives into positives. Therein lies the problem. Hillary Clinton's positives are numerous and easily highlighted while her negatives are inventions of sadistic political critics. Mr Shrum needs to understand the expansive experience Mrs. Clinton has, not concentrate on the gossip. Dignity should be the order of the day, not damage control.
20
If it's fair to ask Mrs. Clinton why she wants to be President it's just as fair to insist that every one of the Republican contenders tell us why they ever wanted to be in government. One may have some doubts about Hillary's suitability to advocate for the middle class. Her opponents, on the other hand, believe neither in government nor in the middle class. If you happen to be something other than a billionaire anarchist Mrs. Clinton may represent your only reasonable choice.
173
The Republicans' answer is that they want to be in the government to dismantle it. Of course the real reason is that they want to dismantle the parts that put restrictions on the avarice of their wealthy supporters and the social net protecting the less affluent while keeping the programs in place that benefit the former group but they can't say except, as Mitt Romney did, when they think no one except them can hear them say this.
Right. You took the words out of my mouth. Why do THEY (and there are many of them) want to be president. What can THEY do for the MAJORITY of the US population that she cannot?
Hillary does come from the (former) middle class and did not grow up w/ a silver spoon in her mouth.
What an odd statement to say that Clinton faces "enormous pressure" to explain why she is running for president. Are the two declared Republican candidates (so far) Ted Cruz and Rand Paul under similar pressure? The Republican agenda gets scarier and scarier. Simply stopping them is enough of an answer from Clinton.
195
You say Clinton faces 'enormous pressure to explain why she's running,
. . . but not Paul, or the Cruiser
Actually, they won't stop telling us why they're running:
They want to "take our country back"
Back to exactly where, you might ask.
As Howard Dean pointed out,
. . . they want to take the country back to the sixties.
Not the 1960s, but the 1860s.
As both Michele Bachmann, and Ms Pailin both said a few years ago
. . . Slavery wasn't really all that bad, because white slavemasters treated their 'charges' quite well, since anything that was harmful to their slaves wasn't in the interest of their economic bottom line.
The stronghold of the GOP is in the south, where many good-ole-boys still believe that it would have been better for America if the North hadn't defeated the South in the Civil War.
. . . but not Paul, or the Cruiser
Actually, they won't stop telling us why they're running:
They want to "take our country back"
Back to exactly where, you might ask.
As Howard Dean pointed out,
. . . they want to take the country back to the sixties.
Not the 1960s, but the 1860s.
As both Michele Bachmann, and Ms Pailin both said a few years ago
. . . Slavery wasn't really all that bad, because white slavemasters treated their 'charges' quite well, since anything that was harmful to their slaves wasn't in the interest of their economic bottom line.
The stronghold of the GOP is in the south, where many good-ole-boys still believe that it would have been better for America if the North hadn't defeated the South in the Civil War.
1
Exactly!
Al the criticism may work in Hillary Clinton's favor. But most of all, I think she need to be humble and engaged with people, all the time.
She might focus on problems with a a "War on Error".
"Laugh and the world laughs with you"
She might focus on problems with a a "War on Error".
"Laugh and the world laughs with you"
2
I would like a candidate who wants to be president of everyone, not poll-driven segments of the populace. I don't like it when candidates play one demographic against another. When Hillary says she will fight for me, who is she fighting against? Isn't that person her constituent too?
18
"When Hillary says she will fight for me, who is she fighting against? Isn't that person her constituent too?"
Funny you should say that. When I hear the Republicans say they are "going to take this dountry back," many of us find ourselves wondering "from whom?" From me, obviously, but also from: the poor; children; minorities; gays; progressives; labor unions; the middle class; non-Christians; intellectuals; teachers; Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid recipients; people from blue states; immigrants...
And once they "get it back," I shudder to think what they are going to do with it.
When Hillary says she is fighting for you, why do you assume it is a zero-sum game? Unless you think your interests are antithetical to those of the rest of us.
Funny you should say that. When I hear the Republicans say they are "going to take this dountry back," many of us find ourselves wondering "from whom?" From me, obviously, but also from: the poor; children; minorities; gays; progressives; labor unions; the middle class; non-Christians; intellectuals; teachers; Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid recipients; people from blue states; immigrants...
And once they "get it back," I shudder to think what they are going to do with it.
When Hillary says she is fighting for you, why do you assume it is a zero-sum game? Unless you think your interests are antithetical to those of the rest of us.
Sorry there was no suspense, everyone knew she was running.
9
Her rationale boils down to this: I'm qualified because my husband was president, therefore you should vote for me.
Such a disappointment to be staring down the face of a Bush-Clinton election after the freshness of the Barack Obama campaign. Neither Jeb or Hillary would be within sniffing distance of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue were it not for their last names.
Such a disappointment to be staring down the face of a Bush-Clinton election after the freshness of the Barack Obama campaign. Neither Jeb or Hillary would be within sniffing distance of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue were it not for their last names.
19
Is your comment serious? Hilary Clinton was former secretary of state and successful state senator and Yale law graduate.
I don't even like her but I recognize the facts of her career.
I don't even like her but I recognize the facts of her career.
1
She is also qualified because she served as a US Senator, US Secretary of State; worked in her early career for the Children's Defense Fund and as advisor to the congressional Watergate investigation. When you find a male candidate with those qualifications and start asking HIM about his "rationale" for running, let me know.
What? Do you know anything about hillarys career?
She is extremely intelligent, has many strengths and is arguably the most prepared candidate in many decades. But she will not become president and the reason can be distilled down into a single word: inauthentic.
28
I agree completely with the "inauthentic" part. The rest, no.
1
Are we to believe that the GOP candidates, specifically your darling Jeb Bush, are authentic when they kiss up to the populace while taking checks and making legislation to protect the 1%, and taking away the protections for the poor and middle class? Talk about inauthentic!
Brilliantly put.
Did we dwell on why all the other guys wanted or want to be President? The sexism should play out in an interesting way. She probably has more experience than anyone I can think of since Eisenhower. Apparently, the shock of entering the White House and living in a fish bowl is brutal, and she has already experience that. Forge ahead, HRC. You have earned this.
65
Eisenhower had had two jobs: the army and president of Columbia University. I'm not sure how either of them qualified him to be president.
I've derided her for the Servergate silliness and picked at her persona. But I'm on the wagon again, and no one on the Republican side doesn't scare me. A town in Missouri repealed an anti-discrimination law last week. Who goes out in the fog to vote for that? We can't give them the reins.
Be prepared to avert your eyes: she may have to go quail hunting to get the job.
Be prepared to avert your eyes: she may have to go quail hunting to get the job.
13
Make It Fly has the strategy already printed out: "You gotta vote for Hillary 'cause otherwise an EVIL REPUBLICAN can win!" Demonizing from the get-go, if you have nothing else than that then you have nothing.
Oh, and "she's more qualified than anyone", let's not forget that. The media allies have been pushing that for a long time now. No, she is NOT more qualified than people who fought the establishment she serves.
Oh, and "she's more qualified than anyone", let's not forget that. The media allies have been pushing that for a long time now. No, she is NOT more qualified than people who fought the establishment she serves.
Just so she doesn't go hunting with Dick Cheney...
1
Yea it's better if she guts our country even more than Bill did. That law can get fixed, what Bill did, and what Hillary will do, can't be.
When I think middle-class, I think HRC. Her privileged upbringing, position as a political insider and being uber-rich are the bona-fides that all us working-class people relate to. How can I help her help me? Maybe a multi-million dollar donation to her, Bill and Chelsea's slush fun...I mean foundation?
34
She doesn't have to be middle class to help the middle class.
It might come down to a choice for you: A Democratic candidate who is not middle class but who will help the middle class, or a Republican candidate who is not middle class but who will stand on the throat of the middle class.
It might come down to a choice for you: A Democratic candidate who is not middle class but who will help the middle class, or a Republican candidate who is not middle class but who will stand on the throat of the middle class.
Yes but don't all politicians say they will help the working class, and promise us the moon when in actuality they help themselves instead? Our Senators leave office far richer than when they first got in. Why is that? And now she wants to be President? I am torn, I can't vote republican.
That infomercial looked like one of those BP ads featuring actors pretending to be ordinary people after the Deepwater oil spill. It was absurd. It had no content whatever. She still has a decent shot, since the Republicans are about to out-crazy each other, but if she'd wanted to prove she stands for nothing she could not have done a better job.
21
The damage the Republicans have done to their own Party, but far worse their self-destructive behavior to our Country is going to take awhile to repair. A bipartisanship effort is going to be required to rebuild our Nation and restore our confidence after their antics, I plan to vote for Mrs. Clinton because of her accrued political experience over the years, her knowledge of foreign affairs and her strength of character.
It is her courage in the face of adversity that is a source of inspiration to this American, and her strong presence laced with substance that draw my attention. I shall be honored to give her my support and encouragement during the long and hard political race ahead, and I join a few others in knowing that a lot depends on us now for the future of America: our Children.
It is her courage in the face of adversity that is a source of inspiration to this American, and her strong presence laced with substance that draw my attention. I shall be honored to give her my support and encouragement during the long and hard political race ahead, and I join a few others in knowing that a lot depends on us now for the future of America: our Children.
34
Your supposed damage done to the Republican Party resulted in the voters electing them in historical numbers and giving them large majorities in the Senate, the House, and Governorships. Try looking past the Hudson to understand what's going on in America.
I guess you and I have different definitions of courage.
1
Hozeking
Having spent two decades greeting Republicans and Democrats on the East River, who were seeking the advice of an American economist who saved a State Capitol City from bankruptcy in the mid-70s, it is indeed the first time that I am wondering what has happened to America.
I only wish that my late uncle, a military man, a prominent lawyer and historian were here to give one of his democratic lessons, and I remember when he wished to vote for Mr. Ross Perot, but I was not at liberty to tell him that this intelligent man and politician was going to be blocked.
Looking at his dress cuffs which he left in my care and wore at the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. One of the greatest highlights of his professional life, while he went on to write about the Connecticut River and about family core values.
After seeing the eerie, self-defeating behavior of some of these Republicans these last years, this American is going to be very careful about casting my vote, and it is for Mrs. Clinton, whom I recognize and not one of these latest weak suits.
Having spent two decades greeting Republicans and Democrats on the East River, who were seeking the advice of an American economist who saved a State Capitol City from bankruptcy in the mid-70s, it is indeed the first time that I am wondering what has happened to America.
I only wish that my late uncle, a military man, a prominent lawyer and historian were here to give one of his democratic lessons, and I remember when he wished to vote for Mr. Ross Perot, but I was not at liberty to tell him that this intelligent man and politician was going to be blocked.
Looking at his dress cuffs which he left in my care and wore at the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. One of the greatest highlights of his professional life, while he went on to write about the Connecticut River and about family core values.
After seeing the eerie, self-defeating behavior of some of these Republicans these last years, this American is going to be very careful about casting my vote, and it is for Mrs. Clinton, whom I recognize and not one of these latest weak suits.
Rationale? She's Hillary, she's fels entitled to her throne. That the other main royal vying for the same throne is Jeb Bush just proves we average American people have no choice and no one representing us in Washington. Hil and Jeb are the flip side of the same coin: supporters of big money (aka the 1%), big government, a gargantuan military, perpetual warfare and during their terms (if elected?) hundreds if not thousands of unarmed American citizens like Walter Scott shot dead by municipalities for petty infractions like running away from scary people with guns. Our present president promised hope and change and even he pretty much brought the same old same old. To paraphrase Pete Townshend who said it well here's the new boss the same as the old boss regardless if Hil or Jeb gets the throne.
14
Obviously Hil feels (not fels in the typo above) entitled to the throne as does Jeb.
Another "big" that doesn't serve the average public interest at large is big media, they are cheerleaders for the Washington status quo. I second a commenters proposal below, Sanders or Warren versus Rand Paul in 2016 would be a lot more interesting race.
Another "big" that doesn't serve the average public interest at large is big media, they are cheerleaders for the Washington status quo. I second a commenters proposal below, Sanders or Warren versus Rand Paul in 2016 would be a lot more interesting race.
We must factor in saving the right of a woman to choose and the current right-wing Supreme Court justices before voting for president in 2016. Stick another Scalia, Thomas, or Alito on the Supreme Court and Citizens United will prove to be just the tip of an iceberg. Voting for a Republican in 2016 is like leaving a loaded gun in a house with a 3-year-old.
Jeb was born a Bush. Hillary was not born a Clinton. And there wasn't a Clinton before or after the last one.
1
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” [Mrs. Clinton] says.
Uh, well sure, isn't the deck "stacked" in favor of those who earn $300,000 per speaking engagement, and demand exclusive flight service on Gulfstream jets and other privileges? Of course, Mrs. Clinton does fly over the poor, struggling, middle class, elderly, and barely employed and unemployed in her G450, so she has that level of understanding of their problems.
“Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.”
Mrs. Clinton has had a quarter century to champion the cause of the middle class, and what exactly, has she ever done? While Bill was President, and then she was a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she had frequent opportunities to champion "everyday Americans." Can anyone tell me what legislation she has proposed, or what causes she has championed in all these years? Why now, just because she needs a horse to ride in the primary race?
I don't think Mrs. Clinton really wants to be president, for the simple reason that another stint in the White House doesn't do anything more for the Clintons. "Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you" might be the Clinton mantra. The country has already done all it can for the Clintons. What more can they possibly ask for?
Uh, well sure, isn't the deck "stacked" in favor of those who earn $300,000 per speaking engagement, and demand exclusive flight service on Gulfstream jets and other privileges? Of course, Mrs. Clinton does fly over the poor, struggling, middle class, elderly, and barely employed and unemployed in her G450, so she has that level of understanding of their problems.
“Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.”
Mrs. Clinton has had a quarter century to champion the cause of the middle class, and what exactly, has she ever done? While Bill was President, and then she was a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she had frequent opportunities to champion "everyday Americans." Can anyone tell me what legislation she has proposed, or what causes she has championed in all these years? Why now, just because she needs a horse to ride in the primary race?
I don't think Mrs. Clinton really wants to be president, for the simple reason that another stint in the White House doesn't do anything more for the Clintons. "Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you" might be the Clinton mantra. The country has already done all it can for the Clintons. What more can they possibly ask for?
32
It's possible that she looked at the likely outcomes if she didn't run, and decided that the alternatives all deserved a giant NOPE.
10
You keep telling yourself that. It has nothing to do with her being a narcissist.
1
She has staffed herself with experts trained on spin and her image. They coach her on every possible pitfall that may occur in the campaign. She may spend close to a billion dollars. It's been reported that she has not driven a car in 18 years. Why can't we come up with a new face with fresh ideas and the guts to tell it like it is to the American people. We need to implore the press to ask the direct hard questions about her plans and solutions to stop the erosion of the middle class. I wish Elizabeth Warren would mount a challenge.
43
What does enlisting consultants, spending a large amount of money, and not driving (of all things!) have to do with being an effective president? And why aren't you expressing this same outrage over the (male) Republicans who are doing exactly the same?
2
What does driving her car have to do with anything? Really?
2
Elizabeth Warren would not win a national election. That saddens me, but it's true.
There is also the fact that she apparently DOES NOT WANT TO RUN, something she repeats pretty much every time a microphone is put in front of her.
Hillary should not be coronated. She must earn the nomination. But, please, let's stop pining for someone who does not want either the job of candidate or President.
There is also the fact that she apparently DOES NOT WANT TO RUN, something she repeats pretty much every time a microphone is put in front of her.
Hillary should not be coronated. She must earn the nomination. But, please, let's stop pining for someone who does not want either the job of candidate or President.
2
What we know for sure, she's a woman who is not afraid of the opposition, and intelligent enough to lead. As a seasoned politician she won't show her hand on day one and is prepared for the insults and innuendoes that will come her way on day two. We also know that the opposition's expertise is smear campaigning and they are good at it; but their base (the people that keep the stories going) is mainly the lunatic fringe and big business. In the end the choice will be clear. Turn the country over to corporate interests or take a chance on a women whose party stands for supporting the middle class. Even with all the fear mongering, rumors and hyped scandals that have amounted to nothing more than "swift boating" and campaign rhetoric for the opposition, I'd trust the woman with all her baggage before I would trust a Republican.
46
"Long before any ballots are cast, however, she faces enormous pressure to explain, in compelling terms, why she wants the job and is best suited to hold it."
This is a perplexing statement. Don't all of the Republicans have to answer the same question?
This is a perplexing statement. Don't all of the Republicans have to answer the same question?
92
I know what Ted Cruz would do as president. I know what Rand Paul would do as president. I don't know what Hillary would do as president. The only qualifications her supports give her is that she is a woman and a Democrat. That may be good enough for them, but I need to see more substance before I can consider voting for her.
Hillary Clinton is now a candidate for the most difficult and demanding job in the nation, that of President of all the people. Everyone will be asking themselves; what are her qualifications and experience, and whether or not she is up to the 24/7/365 job. Does she have the stamina and ability to perform?
Mrs. Clinton is a College graduate, well educated, who married a Rhode Scholar who progressed from Governor of Arkansas to President. Hillary Clinton was privy to extraordinary experience as the President's wife, perhaps most involved in the rigors next to the President. As the first Lady, she participated in important matters of State. Following the White House, she became New York State Senator Clinton and enjoyed more experience learning the Democratic underpinnings of Congress and the all important responsibility of representing "The Will of The People". After running for President herself in 2008, she unselfishly assumed the post of Secretary of State under President Obama and learned the vital importance of statesmanship and diplomacy.
All this experience is rather unique and rare in a single individual. Hillary Clinton is fully qualified to assume the duties of President.
To me, the most important trait is her steely determination to proceed through the ravenous and sadistic guantlet of political denegration and her years of tolerance of attacks give me confidence that she will be a steadfast, thoroughly rational, and in control leader of our nation in any crisis.
Mrs. Clinton is a College graduate, well educated, who married a Rhode Scholar who progressed from Governor of Arkansas to President. Hillary Clinton was privy to extraordinary experience as the President's wife, perhaps most involved in the rigors next to the President. As the first Lady, she participated in important matters of State. Following the White House, she became New York State Senator Clinton and enjoyed more experience learning the Democratic underpinnings of Congress and the all important responsibility of representing "The Will of The People". After running for President herself in 2008, she unselfishly assumed the post of Secretary of State under President Obama and learned the vital importance of statesmanship and diplomacy.
All this experience is rather unique and rare in a single individual. Hillary Clinton is fully qualified to assume the duties of President.
To me, the most important trait is her steely determination to proceed through the ravenous and sadistic guantlet of political denegration and her years of tolerance of attacks give me confidence that she will be a steadfast, thoroughly rational, and in control leader of our nation in any crisis.
73
1. Please name her accomplishments in the Senate.
2. Please name her accomplishments as SOS.
2. Please name her accomplishments as SOS.
11
Nice recommendation Huma. Too bad it's as inauthentic as HC.
2
Best post here Patrick !
1
PLEASE, PLEASE find a better term for "middle class" than "everyday Americans." Precisely who is an "everyday American" and what exactly are politicians trying to communicate when using this ridiculous term?
14
This is craziness! HRC is probably smarter than most of the men who've served as President of the US. She's super hard working; she's more than earned the party's nomination already. AND it's clear to anyone who's watched carefully over the decades that --in spite of the hatefulness of the right and the weirdness of our media that turns our elections into horse races--she's a wonderful human being who really cares about the our country and our historic ideals of equality of opportunity and freedom to reach for the stars. WHY does the NYT feel so threatened by the crazies on the right that they work to tear her down? IF your journalists are doing their job they will do some objective reporting on the significant issues that face our country today and baldly state the positions of all candidates. We need solutions to help all of us normal people and not give everything over to the wealthy. Hillary can do it! She's enormously capable. (and I'm just a citizen watching from the sidelines)
123
Whatever her merits, HRC spells gridlock from day one.
Yes, sad to say, the right has stopped her. If we're lucky, she'll let go.
Yes, sad to say, the right has stopped her. If we're lucky, she'll let go.
2
How do you know she cares about America? I don't see anything caring in her personality. Everything she does is calculated. Caring is never calculated. A caring person works from the divine center. This woman's core is blackened by deceit, lies and self-righteous arrogance. Caring cannot come from a base like that. If some of the things she does seem to be caring she has calculated them beforehand for a specific self serving end. Remember Satan is defined as the Great Deceiver and Liar.
Morey of CA central coast asks, "WHY does the NYT feel so threatened by the crazies on the right that they work to tear her down?"
Why indeed. Perhaps it's not the crazies so much as the corporate owners?
Clinton is eminently qualified to be President, with the intelligence, knowledge, and experience required for the most important position in the world. James Webb and Joseph Biden are right up there as well; Elizabeth Warren is highly respected but lacks foreign policy chops. The very office of President is diminished by implying that any of the folks running on the other team are remotely competent. Every candidate on both sides has "baggage"; that issue should be moot. What are their qualifications, what is their vision for the country, and exactly how do they propose to implement that vision? Those are the questions.
My question for the Times is, why the distinctly unflattering photograph of Clinton? Hardly "fair and balanced" to use a shot that makes her look coquettish at best or sly at worst. A poor photograph in general, bad composition with some unidentified guy prominently in the foreground.
Why indeed. Perhaps it's not the crazies so much as the corporate owners?
Clinton is eminently qualified to be President, with the intelligence, knowledge, and experience required for the most important position in the world. James Webb and Joseph Biden are right up there as well; Elizabeth Warren is highly respected but lacks foreign policy chops. The very office of President is diminished by implying that any of the folks running on the other team are remotely competent. Every candidate on both sides has "baggage"; that issue should be moot. What are their qualifications, what is their vision for the country, and exactly how do they propose to implement that vision? Those are the questions.
My question for the Times is, why the distinctly unflattering photograph of Clinton? Hardly "fair and balanced" to use a shot that makes her look coquettish at best or sly at worst. A poor photograph in general, bad composition with some unidentified guy prominently in the foreground.
1
'I want this job because I deserve it.' There. Now consider yourselves lucky that I'm your champion.
19
Do tell us where she suggested that she deserved the nomination. Try watching her announcement video and get back to us.
5
I'm with c. Watch the video and get back to us. You are buying the opposition's press line without making any effort to find out if it is true.
Critical thinking. It is the mark of intelligence.
Critical thinking. It is the mark of intelligence.
3
So much for all the experts who expected Mrs. Clinton to explain why she is running again. How could so many folks have been so wrong?
20
I don't understand the need for the question - has anyone asked Cruz or the multitude of Republican candidates-in-waiting why they want to be President? Did they ask McCain when he ran more than once? Why is this even on the table?
1
Read Ms. Christine's McMorrow's comment and get the scoop...it's not a secret what Ms. Clinton wants to do with higher office.
I don't hear Jeb Bush being asked why he wants to be President, or any of the Republican candidates. Why is this such a critical question for Mrs. Clinton more than the others?
Every candidate has to explain why they're running, what their vision is for America, and how they will accomplish their goals. There seems to be a higher bar for Clinton that isn't explained by the article.
Here's as good a reason as any. Because she wants to save America from the destructive policies of a Republican controlled government.
Every candidate has to explain why they're running, what their vision is for America, and how they will accomplish their goals. There seems to be a higher bar for Clinton that isn't explained by the article.
Here's as good a reason as any. Because she wants to save America from the destructive policies of a Republican controlled government.
257
Because she ran and lost. Because she is a corrupt snake. Because she is not qualified in any way shape or form.
2
Know one asked Jeb Bush that question, and I suspect his real answer is to protect their family investments in Big Oil.Let's stop the double standard and ask the male candidates the same questions. No one calls them "grandfathers" even when they are elderly, so why is she being singled out and presented as an old woman, which she is not. Reagan was the old, MCain is old yet no one ever made comments. Personally I will do all I can to help Hillary Clinton become our next President and our first female President.
2
It is a more "critical question" (a) because even more than the others (who are also generally vague) she seems to stand for nothing in particular, and (b) she is probably front-runner.
1
Watching Hillary Clinton campaign won't be nearly as entertaining as watching the party progressives putting their convictions in storage. After all, if the Republicans nominate a centrist, progressives won't be able to criticize that candidate without simultaneously throwing friendly fire at Mrs. Clinton.
10
There are no Republican centrist candidates. Bush will be busy hiding his anti-choice, etc positions after he gets the R nomination. Christie is toast.
4
There are no Democratic centrist candidates. Today they're all right of Eisenhower and Nixon except perhaps on hot topics that deal with sexuality and religion. We should have totally open borders, Hil won't back that, Jeb is probably more liberal than Hil on keeping our borders open both north and south.
1
There are no Republican centrists. The few who weren't Tea-Partied or set adrift on a burning raft have left politics in disgust.
And please don't start with the twaddle that Jeb or Chris Christie or Scott Walker are centrists. They are not even close to the centre.
Gerald Ford was a centrist Republican. George H W Bush, maybe (before he sold his soul to be St Ronnie's Veep.)
But no current GOP Presidential candidate or potential candidate can see the centre short of borrowing the Hubble telescope.
And please don't start with the twaddle that Jeb or Chris Christie or Scott Walker are centrists. They are not even close to the centre.
Gerald Ford was a centrist Republican. George H W Bush, maybe (before he sold his soul to be St Ronnie's Veep.)
But no current GOP Presidential candidate or potential candidate can see the centre short of borrowing the Hubble telescope.
3
Hilliary stands for absolutely nothing beyond, what she is, part of the ruling corporate elite. Same goes for Jeb Bush. Hillary vs Jeb would be beyond depressing. If the election is to be between those two, I'd rather they not have one all, I'd rather they just pile up each candidate's bribe money, I mean campaign contributions, the one with the higher pile being declared president. I'd prefer ANYONE to Hillary.
In the general election I'd like a match up of Sanders or Warren, vs Rand. For all Rands faults, at least he is against the government spying on us. Unlike Hillary and Obama.
In the general election I'd like a match up of Sanders or Warren, vs Rand. For all Rands faults, at least he is against the government spying on us. Unlike Hillary and Obama.
25
Rand won't make it past the primary; the libertarian-ish wing is smaller than the establishment business wings and the evangelicals, and few enough non-GOPers would support him that he wouldn't be able to point to electability, either; if it were Clinton vs. Paul, even the more civil libertarian-minded Democrats would probably overwhelmingly stick with Clinton.
Huntsman would have been interesting, but he's already declared that he won't run because it'd be completely pointless (no chance of victory, either).
Huntsman would have been interesting, but he's already declared that he won't run because it'd be completely pointless (no chance of victory, either).
3
Hillary would be a great president and a game changer for women; I also like Elizabeth Warren. The country does need another Democrat no matter who it is and I back whoever gets the nomination. Our process demands we go through all the publicity and dialogue but let's not forget what a great country this is and how lucky we are to be living in this great nation. The Clinton's are beautiful people with flaws like the rest of us and they keep moving forward and that is a true sign of greatness and strength, humanity and caring. The world will be a better place for her leadership and intelligence and sensitivity. The next four years are going to be incredible! We are living in unbelievable times! Let's keep it going!
27
Why does the country 'need' a democrat? And why would you vote for a woman just because she is a woman. That's shortsighted and immature.
3
Doc, I will tell you why I would vote for a woman "just because she is a woman." When I asked my six-year-old niece if she wanted to be President of the United States, she just laughed and told me that girls can't be president.
We are fortunate if the case of Mrs. Clinton because she also happens to be a very well qualified woman.
We are fortunate if the case of Mrs. Clinton because she also happens to be a very well qualified woman.
3
I disagree - I'm sure there are better ways to encourage and teach a 6 year old girl about her potential than voting for a corrupt snake like Hillary Clinton. You say she is qualified - what exactly makes her qualified? She was a failure as a senator and SOS. She authored three bills for NY - two of which were to change the names of roads/buildings and one was to attain historic status for a site. She did nothing as a senator and frankly less as SoS. She is a disgrace.
1
The "announcement" was in the form of a slick, corporate ad. ... Made my skin crawl.
I am a progressive.
Between an I excited, and unconvinced base, and the howling hatred on the loony right, I figure H is unelectable.
I am a progressive.
Between an I excited, and unconvinced base, and the howling hatred on the loony right, I figure H is unelectable.
27
When Marco Rubio announces his campaign tomorrow, let's see if he gives a cogent explanation as to why he, with a brief political CV, would preempt his friend Jeb Bush and run for the nation's highest office. The question of why one is running elicits soundbite responses, so there's no reason why Hillary Clinton's response should have to be deeper than the next person's talking points.
131
I think there are many people who are repulsed by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and have no intention of voting for them and would hope that someone whom they would consider voting for would give them a reason for doing so other than that she isn't those guys.
3
Were you as concerned about Barack Obama's "brief political CV"?
1
Marco Rubio wants to be Bush's vice president. That's why he's "getting in". He knows that his chances on a national ticket position are improved by the electorate getting a dose of him in all the primaries. It may even be a plan by party types.
1
Ego aside, what drives anyone to seek the presidency? A sense that they can help something that needs changing in government or for Americans. Well, she's pretty much spelled out an overarching theme in that video through the photos of the people. It says: I want to support your ability to start a business, get a job, get married, go to college, start a family, retire successfully...all confident you can through programs and policies initiated by democrats.
Is anyone forcing Republicans to spell out their rationales? "I want to take back our country" is the only rationale I've heard! Mitt Romney rationale was to "get the country moving again"... as if it hadn't already been recovering under Obama and who ground it to a halt in the first place?
I think the video offers a first look that I'm sure she'll spell out more and more. It will have to focus on how she wants to ensure the goals and dreams of ordinary Americans--gay marriage, college, jobs, entrepreneurship, retirement--remain feasible and affordable.
And since the GOP agenda aims to roll back, destroy, or simply chip away at those goals, that seems to me to be a pretty full rationale for 2016.
Is anyone forcing Republicans to spell out their rationales? "I want to take back our country" is the only rationale I've heard! Mitt Romney rationale was to "get the country moving again"... as if it hadn't already been recovering under Obama and who ground it to a halt in the first place?
I think the video offers a first look that I'm sure she'll spell out more and more. It will have to focus on how she wants to ensure the goals and dreams of ordinary Americans--gay marriage, college, jobs, entrepreneurship, retirement--remain feasible and affordable.
And since the GOP agenda aims to roll back, destroy, or simply chip away at those goals, that seems to me to be a pretty full rationale for 2016.
258
Ms. McMorrow,
I read your posts with pleasure. They are some of the more thoughtful posts on the internet. You very succinctly demonstrate why Hillary's roll-out video was a good one and why democrats must win in 2016. Bravo.
I read your posts with pleasure. They are some of the more thoughtful posts on the internet. You very succinctly demonstrate why Hillary's roll-out video was a good one and why democrats must win in 2016. Bravo.
2
Just today, a lot of people are asking about Marco Rubio's rationale.
May we now stop calling it "gay" marriage. It's too charged a word. Same-sex marriage is more correct.
Four democratic administrations are important to drag the Supreme Court back from the reactionary weeds to the centrist bench it's been for most of its history. Corporations are people, indeed.
105
We made need six, but point taken is a good one.
GOP deserves to be locked out of the White house for 32 years for having hoisted upon us Bush and his trashing of the country.
GOP deserves to be locked out of the White house for 32 years for having hoisted upon us Bush and his trashing of the country.
1
Say something specific and you risk alienating the vast majority who will disagree. Stick to vague bromides and you are an empty suit who just wants the power and glory of higher office. I don't think Clinton really has any specific ideas she wants to sell the public. So I'm betting she'll stick to the vague bromides. She wants to be my "champion." Who doesn't? Tell me something I don't already know and I might change my mind.
58
Our Country now has a Democratic candidate who is taking up the banner to champion our cause to mend the bridge between many of us who have been divided these last few years since the Great Recession, and Mrs. Clinton shows in a few words, that she is willing to pick up the gauntlet for one of America's greatest challenges ever, a will to bring us closer together while we look to the future with hope and honor.
7
I can be critical of Hillary Clinton, but I liked today's video. It kept the needs of ordinary Americans as the focus. Agreed, however, that the ads will need to be fleshed out by good policy and program ideas.
8
Agree with Richard: I don't think Clinton really has any specific ideas she wants to sell the public.
She reminds me of Newt Gingrich when he campaigned for president. Another Washington insider saying, "It's my turn now 'cause I've been here for so long, and I've served the establishment dutifully". Like the Onion writes, Hillary's campain slogan is "I deserve this". Her supporters will keep repeating "she is so experienced" but will fail to mention any accomplishments either in the senate or as SoS. Except for Benghazi - refusing to equip the embassy for weeks, despite their insistence, and then ignoring them when they needed urgent help - and except for arming Mubarak's police against the demonstrators, shipping riot gear and the newest kind of extra strong tear gas, while publicly claiming to support the Egyptians who wanted democracy. Oh yes, and after attacking a Republican for using private email, she set up a secret server in her basement in order to keep her official correspondence hidden from media/prosecutors. Gotta be prepared for whatever.
She reminds me of Newt Gingrich when he campaigned for president. Another Washington insider saying, "It's my turn now 'cause I've been here for so long, and I've served the establishment dutifully". Like the Onion writes, Hillary's campain slogan is "I deserve this". Her supporters will keep repeating "she is so experienced" but will fail to mention any accomplishments either in the senate or as SoS. Except for Benghazi - refusing to equip the embassy for weeks, despite their insistence, and then ignoring them when they needed urgent help - and except for arming Mubarak's police against the demonstrators, shipping riot gear and the newest kind of extra strong tear gas, while publicly claiming to support the Egyptians who wanted democracy. Oh yes, and after attacking a Republican for using private email, she set up a secret server in her basement in order to keep her official correspondence hidden from media/prosecutors. Gotta be prepared for whatever.
1
This is ridiculous--what can she bring to help the country and the wold in the rocky days ahead seems to me a better question that trying to psychoanalyze her motives. I guess the NYT anti-Hillary bias is showing itself again.
26
So you want us to believe that the NY Times is part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"? Really?
1
The lead says, "She will have to explain why she wants the job."
Okay, but no more so than all the less-qualified Republican men.
I suspect she believes that, of the people who share her vision of a wiser, more peaceful, more equal America, she is most likely to be elected.
I am sure her experience -- Senator, cabinet member, close witness to state government and the White House, representing us to the world -- has prepared her far better than that of all the clown car inhabitants put together.
Okay, but no more so than all the less-qualified Republican men.
I suspect she believes that, of the people who share her vision of a wiser, more peaceful, more equal America, she is most likely to be elected.
I am sure her experience -- Senator, cabinet member, close witness to state government and the White House, representing us to the world -- has prepared her far better than that of all the clown car inhabitants put together.
42
Hillary's video production to announce her running was really weird, too produced, too much of a commercial. The sooner she counters that polished, contrived, produced image the better. I am getting excited about her campaign, but don't want her to make silly mistakes that open the door for the right-wing machine to undermine her experience. Her message should be that she is the one to continue the good work Obama has started. We should not go back to Bush leadership, or any neocon. She should align herself with the best of Obama's work, while at the same time shining a spotlight on GOP ineptitude.
103
I consider the grotesque Republican opposition to anything and everything the Obama administration has initiated and pursued just a warmup to how they would respond to a Hillary Clinton presidency. There is nothing that she has done to counter the hatred towards her that shows the same even-temperedness and attempt at compromise that Obama tried to implement in his first term. In his second term he has taken a different tact, but with the same Republican response and pretty much the same batting average. I think Obama has done a fine job as president but I don't see Hillary in the presidency as being able to accomplish any of her goals given her approach to dealing with opposing forces, either domestically or internationally.
It was unorthodox, or original if you prefer, but I saw nothing weird about it. I was impressed at the amity and fellowship that shone through the stories. I was reminded (after a long absence with all the Republican hatefulness) of the public space as an area where we could all get along as Americans, as neighbors, as a community. If that is what she is purveying, a presidency that will bring back pride in America, kindness to everyone without demonizing anybody, and restore our faith in our faltering but noble Democratic experiment, I'm sold.
1
Not surprising at all. Everything she has ever done is calculated to serve self-interest. The commercial produced image is just more of the same.
2
Hillary said, “Why do I have to keep proving to people that I
am not a liar?!"
(From the book "The Survivor")
Hillary Congenital Clinton Lies:
She “removed” a boatload of stuff from the White House and called
it a clerical error, returning everything
She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel staff.
She lied about her missing billing records which “showed up” on
their own.
She was “always” a Yankees Ball team fan when she was running for
NY senator.
She lied as a member of the house judiciary committee.
She lied about flying into Bosnia under sniper fire but admitted
the falsehood later.
She misrepresented her record opposing the Iraq war—she actually
voted for it.
She lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
She lied about her role in passing Family and Medical Leave Act.
She lied about the “uninsured” woman who died after childbirth.
Like we asked of Nixon;
“Would you buy a used car from this woman?".
am not a liar?!"
(From the book "The Survivor")
Hillary Congenital Clinton Lies:
She “removed” a boatload of stuff from the White House and called
it a clerical error, returning everything
She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel staff.
She lied about her missing billing records which “showed up” on
their own.
She was “always” a Yankees Ball team fan when she was running for
NY senator.
She lied as a member of the house judiciary committee.
She lied about flying into Bosnia under sniper fire but admitted
the falsehood later.
She misrepresented her record opposing the Iraq war—she actually
voted for it.
She lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
She lied about her role in passing Family and Medical Leave Act.
She lied about the “uninsured” woman who died after childbirth.
Like we asked of Nixon;
“Would you buy a used car from this woman?".
33
There is a difference between telling lies and being discrete for the safety of those one represents. This American does not know how to drive and would feel quite safe as a passenger with Mrs. Clinton in the driver's seat. Her attention is well veered on matters of import, her reflexes are faster and instincts far sharper than these average Republican candidates that look like a line of weak suits at a discount.
8
Yep, I'd rather buy a used car from Hillary than Jeb, Rick s. or P., Cruze, Rubio, Paul of no Boards fame, witless Walker, or, alas, any GOPer since Ike. After all, "Would You Buy a Used Car from This Man?" first surfaced when Tricky Dickie Nixon ran for Prez. What you call "lies" pale behind the anti-data, anti-science, anti-peace blather from today's heirs to agnew and Nixon, Cheney and Dubya. Rummie and Wolfie. Bachman and Palin. Go, Hillary, clean their busted clocks.
12
Your point is well-taken, but I'd buy a used car from the late Jerry Ford and from Bush 41.
2
The adult Republicans with deep vested interests truly understand beating a unified Democratic party is a long-shot.
The Republican base has drifted so far from the nation in demographics and far right wing agenda that is increasingly unlikely that a Republican candidate will win national office for the foreseeable future.
If one looks at the past four presidential elections, Democrats start with an electoral advantage of 242 votes, just 28 shy of electoral victory. Republicans, meanwhile, have swept states that tally barely 179 electoral votes.
The margin favoring Democrats have grown with every 4 year election cycle.
So while the Republican clown car will unload a host of candidates each aiming at the most likely Democratic nominee, the Vested Interests understand the true objective is not the unlikely win of the White House.
Their true objective is to weaken the institution of the Presidency and of government. They don't mind spending a billion or so to do that if it saves them some key tax loopholes worth multiples of that, either.
Republicans have tried to tear down one of the greatest US President in our history, Barrack Obama, who rescued the country from the disaster they left.
Candidate Clinton must understand this, not repeat the fiasco of 2014, pull President Obama and our Democratic ideals close, and resist the Republican effort to weaken the foundation of the Presidency and government itself.
The Republican base has drifted so far from the nation in demographics and far right wing agenda that is increasingly unlikely that a Republican candidate will win national office for the foreseeable future.
If one looks at the past four presidential elections, Democrats start with an electoral advantage of 242 votes, just 28 shy of electoral victory. Republicans, meanwhile, have swept states that tally barely 179 electoral votes.
The margin favoring Democrats have grown with every 4 year election cycle.
So while the Republican clown car will unload a host of candidates each aiming at the most likely Democratic nominee, the Vested Interests understand the true objective is not the unlikely win of the White House.
Their true objective is to weaken the institution of the Presidency and of government. They don't mind spending a billion or so to do that if it saves them some key tax loopholes worth multiples of that, either.
Republicans have tried to tear down one of the greatest US President in our history, Barrack Obama, who rescued the country from the disaster they left.
Candidate Clinton must understand this, not repeat the fiasco of 2014, pull President Obama and our Democratic ideals close, and resist the Republican effort to weaken the foundation of the Presidency and government itself.
84
"the Republican clown car "
Its funny how this phrase is being used over and over, including on other websites. And you people say Republicans are the mean-spirited bunch.
Its funny how this phrase is being used over and over, including on other websites. And you people say Republicans are the mean-spirited bunch.
7
The Republicans know they can't win a national election so they started with local school boards, then the state legislatures and governorshps. This allows a gerrymanded NC wherein a collective majority voted for democratic congressional candidates yielding exactly 2 democratic congressmen out of NC total of 11. Here's where the action is.
4
I believe it cost about $175 million to get Bush elected President in 2000.
On Frontline, George Schultz retold the story as head of the GOP, they (Rove & co) recommended Bush to Schultz. Schultz remembering what an irresponsible boozing wreck Bush used to be was skeptical. So Bush was presented, he literally had to interview for the job of President with Schultz. Schultz saw that he'd dried up, could chew gum, walk & talk at the same time. His Bush name would get the BigMoney set and his born-again religion curing him from booze getting him ReligiousFundie set.
Initially he was awarded with a $65 million war chest. But after losing New Hampshire primary to McCain Rove was forced to pull out all of the stops to win the next round in Michigan and S.Carolina. I mean all stops: in S.Carolina Rove ran a rumor campaign that McCain's adopted Bengali daughter was the result of an out-of-wedlock inter-racial affair. Bush then won that round but his war chest was depleted down to $3 million. Yet about 2 weeks later it was back up in the $60 million range.
How does that happen?
I think we all know.
Over the course of the decade, the combined effect of all of Bush policies moved over a staggering $12 trillion (with a "T") of society's resources from the demand side (99%) of our society to the supply-side 1% (causing demand/economy to implode).
$175 million bagged a return of $12 trillion.
They knew what they were doing the entire time that they were trashing the country.
On Frontline, George Schultz retold the story as head of the GOP, they (Rove & co) recommended Bush to Schultz. Schultz remembering what an irresponsible boozing wreck Bush used to be was skeptical. So Bush was presented, he literally had to interview for the job of President with Schultz. Schultz saw that he'd dried up, could chew gum, walk & talk at the same time. His Bush name would get the BigMoney set and his born-again religion curing him from booze getting him ReligiousFundie set.
Initially he was awarded with a $65 million war chest. But after losing New Hampshire primary to McCain Rove was forced to pull out all of the stops to win the next round in Michigan and S.Carolina. I mean all stops: in S.Carolina Rove ran a rumor campaign that McCain's adopted Bengali daughter was the result of an out-of-wedlock inter-racial affair. Bush then won that round but his war chest was depleted down to $3 million. Yet about 2 weeks later it was back up in the $60 million range.
How does that happen?
I think we all know.
Over the course of the decade, the combined effect of all of Bush policies moved over a staggering $12 trillion (with a "T") of society's resources from the demand side (99%) of our society to the supply-side 1% (causing demand/economy to implode).
$175 million bagged a return of $12 trillion.
They knew what they were doing the entire time that they were trashing the country.
8
For someone who wants to be president so bad that she can practically taste it, the proposition that she is building her campaign around a populist image is absurd.
Here is a woman who until very recently was garnering $300K a pop for speaking engagements along with all of the accoutriments of a provided gulf stream jet and presidential suite accommodations on the road.
Perhaps dialing it back just a bit might have been somewhat helpful in allaying the image of an elitist which she exudes in every word & every deed. Does she really believe that all of the people can be that stupid all of the time?
Here is a woman who until very recently was garnering $300K a pop for speaking engagements along with all of the accoutriments of a provided gulf stream jet and presidential suite accommodations on the road.
Perhaps dialing it back just a bit might have been somewhat helpful in allaying the image of an elitist which she exudes in every word & every deed. Does she really believe that all of the people can be that stupid all of the time?
49
There isn;t an authentic pore in her being. I wonder if she even knows what she "believes" after so many years of tooling her message, to match what her advisors believe will "sell"--to the point it lacks comprehension and certainly heart.
Like 2014, the voters are going to get a mudslide from the repellent republicans and banalities from HC. Dreadful--I'm already tuned out.
Like 2014, the voters are going to get a mudslide from the repellent republicans and banalities from HC. Dreadful--I'm already tuned out.
11
Dear rjd:
They all fly on private planes and make lots of money giving speeches. At least she started out in the middle class, unlike many others who have run or who say they will run. The woman is smart, high energy and highly experienced in government and international affairs. The fact that some people don't like her (aka, resent her) is par for the course. I found the Romney's and the Bushes far more elitist and not nearly as smart. At least Hillary (and Bill) earned their way into top schools versus having legacy status.
They all fly on private planes and make lots of money giving speeches. At least she started out in the middle class, unlike many others who have run or who say they will run. The woman is smart, high energy and highly experienced in government and international affairs. The fact that some people don't like her (aka, resent her) is par for the course. I found the Romney's and the Bushes far more elitist and not nearly as smart. At least Hillary (and Bill) earned their way into top schools versus having legacy status.
19
rjd
We have been remarkably stupid and self-defeating for the last few years, but hope springs eternal, and Mrs. Clinton who is not interested in fast cars and champagne, is a power-horse to be reckoned with. Comments such as yours are most revealing.
We have been remarkably stupid and self-defeating for the last few years, but hope springs eternal, and Mrs. Clinton who is not interested in fast cars and champagne, is a power-horse to be reckoned with. Comments such as yours are most revealing.
6
I saw that Rand Paul and Jeb Bush already released anti-Hillary messages. How revealing, that at this incipient campaign stage, they are more worried about her than about their immediate Republican Primary opponents.
26
What does this reveal other than attacking the only Democrat running for President is good politics in a Republican primary?
4
Hi TPierre Changstein,
I was trying to say, sarcastically, that the Republican candidates don't take each other seriously as competition. Hillary is the only person who seems plausible. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Good night.
I was trying to say, sarcastically, that the Republican candidates don't take each other seriously as competition. Hillary is the only person who seems plausible. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Good night.
6
Why does Hillary Clinton want to be President? Well, between being First Lady and then Secretary of State, she's spent a good deal of her professional life in the White House. It seems pretty natural she would want to return, albeit with a promotion.
36
HRC will have the Dem nomination, but lose the general. After a two-term Dem President, it won't be "her turn now" but the GOP's turn. That's been the usual pattern in US politics.
12
Can't wait for another Clinton president. I'm with you all the way!
25
She's a brave woman to jump into the political briar patch that is America now. Today I've been reading the most disgusting posts about Hillary. Of course this has been going on for some time, but now it will be ramped up full force. I can only hope that right-wing spite will backfire and drive any decent people out of the Republican fold.
110
They're already long gone.
2
I don't understand why NYT keeps dwelling on "why she wants to be president." This line of questioning seems strange and irrelevant and practically sexist. What she can do for the country, and the world, that conservatives cannot, is what matters.
281
I couldn't agree more: the media is being sexist. Why are they not asking the male candidates this question???
150
I follow this nonsense and have no idea what she proposes for the US, although I can surmise that regardless, we are in for perpetual imperial war.
18
I also want to know this. Did they ask rand paul or ted cruz? What about Jeb whose so busy dialing for dollars he hasn't even had time to declare?
Hillary's spent her life in public service with her key issues being women's rights, education, and preservation of key Democratic social programs specifically aimed at children (CHIP) and the poor. Her interests and track record are well known. Demanding she present her rationale on Day 1, when the question hasn't been asked of Rand, Ted, or Jeb seems pretty sexiste to me.
Hillary's spent her life in public service with her key issues being women's rights, education, and preservation of key Democratic social programs specifically aimed at children (CHIP) and the poor. Her interests and track record are well known. Demanding she present her rationale on Day 1, when the question hasn't been asked of Rand, Ted, or Jeb seems pretty sexiste to me.
145
Hillary, You've assured your nomination but without ideas and programs that match your rhetoric, you may never be President. Please, please show us why you should be our President sooner than later because even your base has its concerns.
16
Hillary always wanted to be president. I seriously doubt she will win the nomination, given Elizabeth Warren is in the wings. Hillary's track record at State was poor, but she did stand by her womanizing husband. Since she is white, the GOP will need to find more creative attacks in spewing hate. Hillary's running will reveal the true nature of the GOP, a bunch of pathetic losers who oppose everything except money. I hope evangelicals don't give Jesus a bad name by playing out their twisted agenda.
10
At this stage anything is possible, and be prepared to have a spread over the country that Mrs. Clinton does not like to cook. This is a candidate who does not dish out poisonous fare to American voters.
2