The whole Hillary campaign feels like a blockbuster movies. New scandals every day, hot media discussions. So dramatic. I'm afraid people may get tired of her soon since she gets too much attention. At the same time Bush Cruz and Trump slowly gain popularity. It may end bad for Hill.
2
"...She did not just co-star in a national soap opera during her husband’s eight-year presidency: She reinvented herself as a senator from the nation’s biggest media market, New York; reintroduced herself again, this time to the nation, as a presidential candidate in 2008; and then remade herself into the country’s chief diplomat..."
___
Seen as being the oft beguiled 1st Lady, Mrs. Clinton actually rode in to politics on the coattails of President Clinton from Arkansas to the White House.
Bursting onto the national stage in a '08 run, albeit unsuccessful, landed her at State. As the nation's top diplomat, her time, least her successes, were woefully underwhelming. And, given the way she has been ducking the media, come the primary debates, when questions are asked would a "No comment" response be out of character?
___
Seen as being the oft beguiled 1st Lady, Mrs. Clinton actually rode in to politics on the coattails of President Clinton from Arkansas to the White House.
Bursting onto the national stage in a '08 run, albeit unsuccessful, landed her at State. As the nation's top diplomat, her time, least her successes, were woefully underwhelming. And, given the way she has been ducking the media, come the primary debates, when questions are asked would a "No comment" response be out of character?
3
Name a Sec of State with overwhelming successes, and name those successes. Like all politicians, the success of Sec of State is judged purely subjectively.
Most Republicans agreed after Obama's election that we would all be dead by 2012; so by those metrics, Clinton saved the US from certain oblivion.
And this is the thanks she gets ?
Most Republicans agreed after Obama's election that we would all be dead by 2012; so by those metrics, Clinton saved the US from certain oblivion.
And this is the thanks she gets ?
She "reinvented" herself as a senator from NY State? Get real, she campaigned hard in one of the most difficult states in the country...and WON. "Remade herself into the country's top diplomat". Absolute nonsense...she was the successful candidate for the job and worked hard at it. Sec of State is not a simple "Just go along for the ride" job. Try to dismiss her hard work, but ultimately, the proof that Hillary Clinton has worked harder for this country than any other candidate is overwhelming. Her policies are based on sound experience and she has a realistic vision for the future of the United States...and that's why she has my support.
2
The Clinton-Nixon ticket: We Give 100% to the 1%! Open the Whitewatergate of change! Vote November 8, 2016
1
The real question for voters in 2016 is this:
Who do you want to nominate the next batch of Supreme Court Justices?
Everything else is window dressing.
Who do you want to nominate the next batch of Supreme Court Justices?
Everything else is window dressing.
13
True. And that's why I won't be voting for her this time.
The first impression, second impression, and 88th impression all point to the same conclusion: No coronation displacing open primaries, no more Clintons, no more Bushes.
6
I admire her for eschewing the press. I'd vote for the candidate who promised to evict the press from the West Wing.
There is no more pernicious, self-absorbed and frivolous and institution than the national press.
Truth should again have a role in American law and regulation of mass media outlets. Rupert Murdoch is the worst living American since Richard Russell died.
There is no more pernicious, self-absorbed and frivolous and institution than the national press.
Truth should again have a role in American law and regulation of mass media outlets. Rupert Murdoch is the worst living American since Richard Russell died.
2
As an American who wants the Best for this Nation I will not vote for her.
4
So you obviously don't want the best for this nation. Explain yourself. You actually think one of the clown car occupants will be better for America? Really!?
3
It seems the Clinton haters are out today. You know what I remember about the Clinton presidency? Peace and prosperity. You know what Republicans like Bush, Nixon, and Reagan gave me? Declining income, and wars and death beyond counting. This isn't a hard choice.
7
But, but, e-mails ...
3
She doesn't get a free pass just because she's a Democrat. In a party with true liberals she's the mediocre choice at best.
She's got my vote. I don't care how many fake scandals the right wing throws at her, as they did to Bill, so far there's been nothing there. If there was something, they wouldn't still be looking into Benghazi.
6
Perhaps there might be something in the secret hard-drive she keeps in her basement? Or in the emails she destroyed?
3
Ah, the "Great Right-Wing Conspiracy." So vote for her, blame the GOP if she flops and be bappy
The hard drive and server kept in her home is not secret. And, despite the best efforts of republicans, prove she destroyed emails other than personal emails that you or I have not right to read.
"Hillary Clinton May Not Need a Second Chance to Make a First Impression"
We all would be better off if we could un-ring that bell permanently.
We all would be better off if we could un-ring that bell permanently.
1
Should Hillary be judged by the same rules as let's say Brian Williams of NBC News or any CEO of any corporation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
IMO Rand Paul is the right person for America right now. He's someone who can bring the country together.
Hillary is polarizing, not a leader and should not be trusted.
IMO Rand Paul is the right person for America right now. He's someone who can bring the country together.
Hillary is polarizing, not a leader and should not be trusted.
3
So you think we need a president that as a doctor just isn't quite sure if vaccinations against disease is a good idea? Ah, no.
2
Not sure about rand paul, but hillary is a proven lier. How can the dems hang their hats on her?
Hillary and Bill do not tell us the truth. All they want is power and more money.....we cannot have them in the white house again...........who are the voters still supporting her? Are they all stupid or naïve?
7
It's over, repeat, over for HRC. Her scandals and intrigues have doomed whatever promise she may have had to lead this country. She is like Hemmingway's bull, dead but not yet aware.
9
And still NO indictments for any wrong doing! Republicans/Tea partiers are horrified of her as all the accused "scandals" have not been "indictable!"
5
John: Are you serious? Is an "indictment" now the standard for judging integrity in politicians? The Obama administration is just as corrupt, if not more so, than the Clinton cartel. This rules out an indictment for the present. Nonetheless, as was once said during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, "facts are stubborn things." The wrongs and lies of the Clintons are not justified by the antics of the Republicans or Tea Party folks. Evil is evil, regardless.
3
No other person would have gotten this far. #teflonclinton
1
Ugh. We tried the whole "historic" thing to terrible effect. What a shallow reason to choose the leader of the free world.
It is encouraging, though, to see that even in this leftist redoubt such a large number of people who can't bear the thought of four-to-eight years of this scheming, charmless, grasping harridan.
It is encouraging, though, to see that even in this leftist redoubt such a large number of people who can't bear the thought of four-to-eight years of this scheming, charmless, grasping harridan.
7
We also tried, "how bad could he be?" in 2000, and it was fifty times worse.
5
My first and continued impression oh Clinton has not changed. Cold,dishonest, power hungry, calculating. Her experience as state head is abysmal ...Russia, Egypt,,Syria, Libya....all disasters and all on her watch. So far, the list of candidates are not promising for our country. But the game is not over and Clinton has only reached first base. Doubt she'll make a home run .
8
The first time I voted was for Eisenhower. The first time Hillary voted was for Goldwater. I never voted for a Republican since, because I really believe in the promises of the progressives, whether realizable or not. Hillary, on the other hand, has retained her neocon positions wearing sheep's clothing. She's still a tough Goldwater girl, but at least Goldwater told you where he stood.
I don't believe in genital politics, men and women are supposed to equally share the fruits of Democracy.
Her time as Secretary was a disaster. She was a sightseer in a world where she lit the fuse of the Arab Spring bomb, because neither she nor Obama nor Leon Panetta even started to grasp the importance of what would follow. So she went to Moslem countries, meeting lots of photo op women, and talking about women's rights like driver's licenses while the entire Middle East was set on fire.
She has all the world experience of a tourist taking pictures. There is no diplomacy or understanding of it in her. She will wear whatever garb her handlers say will get the most votes. Hillary is a machine designed to make money through power.
She has accomplished that
America is desperate for an honest, equipped, intelligent government from the President down through the entire decision making levels. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats seem particularly interested in that.
I don't believe in genital politics, men and women are supposed to equally share the fruits of Democracy.
Her time as Secretary was a disaster. She was a sightseer in a world where she lit the fuse of the Arab Spring bomb, because neither she nor Obama nor Leon Panetta even started to grasp the importance of what would follow. So she went to Moslem countries, meeting lots of photo op women, and talking about women's rights like driver's licenses while the entire Middle East was set on fire.
She has all the world experience of a tourist taking pictures. There is no diplomacy or understanding of it in her. She will wear whatever garb her handlers say will get the most votes. Hillary is a machine designed to make money through power.
She has accomplished that
America is desperate for an honest, equipped, intelligent government from the President down through the entire decision making levels. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats seem particularly interested in that.
13
Amen and Amen!
1
"... lit the fuse of the Arab Spring bomb ..."
What hyper-fictionalized flowery nonsense.
I'm sure if there was no Arab Spring, you would have written some equally inane gibberish like "... she closed the coffin on those who cried for freedom from Gaddafi and Mubarak ..."
What hyper-fictionalized flowery nonsense.
I'm sure if there was no Arab Spring, you would have written some equally inane gibberish like "... she closed the coffin on those who cried for freedom from Gaddafi and Mubarak ..."
I love the idea of a woman becoming President. However, I have been frustrated by Ms. Clinton's unwillingness to speak up about the issues. It is as if her campaign needs to take a poll to determine what people want to hear before she says anything. This makes me feel a great deal more comfortable about Bernie Sanders who has a 24 year track record in Congress of supporting the issues which most concern me: creating jobs, crebuilding the infrastructure, pay equity for women and raising the minimum wage, addressing climate change, opposing the current trade agreement to protect American workers, making college affordable for all, taking on the Big Banks on Wall Street. 24 years of true, documented support for the Middle Class and the most vulnerable in society. Bernie Sanders may not have the name recognition of Hillary Clinton but once citizens listen to him they will find it impossible to forget him or write him off.
10
Have my fellow Democrats lost the ability to think for themselves? Mrs. Clinton is on this ridiculous tour, behaving as if she will be the 2016 party choice, and, it seems no one doubts her. It is long past time for fresh faces, and fresh new ideas in our party. The past two Republican presidential candidates, well honestly speaking, any empty cereal box could have defeated those two. Mr. Obama's election, was by no means, a mandate for change, rather, the better of two evils. Let us put behind us the stagnation that is Washington today, and choose a candidate not mired down in the bad old days.
Tom Franzson. Brevard NC
Tom Franzson. Brevard NC
13
The best that could be said about her is that thankfully she is better than all the available Republican candidate. She is rightwing, voted for Iraq war, has links to lobbyists and big business, is blind to the suffering of the Palestinians. In other words, she is a typical US politicians with high ambitions, but in her case at least she has a great deal of experience and is less dangerous than the extreme rightwing hawks who have so far put themselves forward as Republican candidates. In the absence of any better candidate, which is unlikely, she would be my choice.
3
As for her vote to allow Bush some flexibility to deal with Iraq in a responsible manner:
- It doesn't seem like such a bad idea, unless you believe that Bush was really that awful.
- I can see why someone who witnessed first hand the wrong way to run the country, and then the right way, would think that she has a good handle on what to do and not to do.
The proliferation of "scandals" merely means that there isn't much else to criticize. There's not a politician out there who couldn't be subject to a 24/7 cycle of scandals, real or imagined.
- It doesn't seem like such a bad idea, unless you believe that Bush was really that awful.
- I can see why someone who witnessed first hand the wrong way to run the country, and then the right way, would think that she has a good handle on what to do and not to do.
The proliferation of "scandals" merely means that there isn't much else to criticize. There's not a politician out there who couldn't be subject to a 24/7 cycle of scandals, real or imagined.
4
She has experience; unfortunately, most of it has been a sham.
Hopefully the American people know this time around that Hope and Change is a card that has been played. I am not sure America is willing to gamble on someone who doesn't know the world...not even America but the world the way Hillary Clinton does. Mrs. Clinton had more experience in 2008 and now even more. There is no one on either side that has the world experience of Sec.Clinton...this according to Robert Gates. He even went so far as to say she was the tougher of the two on a number of key international issues. So given all her knowledge of the way things run in Washington, run in the White House...re-introduction only..and her 4 years as Secretary of State positions her to be the one to beat and for me...I don't think she is beatable. FYI it has nothing to do with her being a woman...but the most prepared and well rounded of anyone in politics today. That she will be the first female president is a bonus but not why people should or will vote for her on that alone.
9
The Right Wing seems to have unlimited money, and much of it now is being used to slander Hillary Clinton. Before you condemn her, think about how well the U.S. would do under the likes of Jeb, Rand, Ted or Rick. I'd be very surprised if Republican money wasn't behind Ralph Nader. Mrs. Clinton looks to me like our best option.
15
And to slander themselves.
It's clear to me that the Bush people are conspiring against Christie for one. Whenever you see someone who appears to be getting a particularly hard time in the press - unusually hard - the Bush team is usually behind it.
It's clear to me that the Bush people are conspiring against Christie for one. Whenever you see someone who appears to be getting a particularly hard time in the press - unusually hard - the Bush team is usually behind it.
1
Since when is the TRUTH considered slander? If she was being slandered, don't you think she'd be in court to sue?
3
I have read that it was in fact GOP operatives that were the main contributors to Nader's campaign in 2000. If he hadn't run in Florida, we would be living in a different world today. So, supporting Nader's campaign - siphoning off votes that would most likely have gone to Gore - was simply brilliant. Whether it was good for the country is a matter of opinion.
"The unknown 'wild card' is whether Mrs. Clinton’s chance to make history as the first female president will motivate voters who may be less inclined to support her, Mr. Keeter said."
It could work against Mrs. Clinton, too. There might be more people who think she shouldn't be the one to make history as the first female president.
I wish some political writers would think about this "presidential dynasty" phenomenon and how it came about. Maybe it was never true but we used think it was a nice thought that "Anyone can grow up and become president." If you're a Republican, there might be some Bush who feels like its his turn now. Chelsea Clinton hasn't ruled out running for office and she'd start out with a big warchest.
It could work against Mrs. Clinton, too. There might be more people who think she shouldn't be the one to make history as the first female president.
I wish some political writers would think about this "presidential dynasty" phenomenon and how it came about. Maybe it was never true but we used think it was a nice thought that "Anyone can grow up and become president." If you're a Republican, there might be some Bush who feels like its his turn now. Chelsea Clinton hasn't ruled out running for office and she'd start out with a big warchest.
1
I'm a woman. And not stupid either. Vote for her because she's a woman? NO!
"The connection Stephanopoulos has with Bill has to be worth shots of ten million each."
My recollection of Stephanopoulos' last few months at the White House is that Hillary had stopped liking him, had persuaded Bill to fire him, and that Bill did (though it may have been cast as a voluntary resignation). That was widely reported, and acknowledged even by Stephanopoulos himself.
My recollection of Stephanopoulos' last few months at the White House is that Hillary had stopped liking him, had persuaded Bill to fire him, and that Bill did (though it may have been cast as a voluntary resignation). That was widely reported, and acknowledged even by Stephanopoulos himself.
2
This commenter utterly misses the point:
"The Clintons are a time-tested part of America's political landscape. The majority of the party is happy to have her running. They've heard all the non-sensical hating and sniping before and they do not agree with it."
If Hillary can win the election with the votes of "the majority of the [Democratic] party," she's home free. But she'll need a lot more votes than that. I just don't see where those votes will come from.
"The Clintons are a time-tested part of America's political landscape. The majority of the party is happy to have her running. They've heard all the non-sensical hating and sniping before and they do not agree with it."
If Hillary can win the election with the votes of "the majority of the [Democratic] party," she's home free. But she'll need a lot more votes than that. I just don't see where those votes will come from.
5
While she was in the senate the republicans had very nice things to say about her, and worked well with her. They may not admit it, but I suspect she'll get some of those votes.
1
Hopefully, not from the Independents who tend to be free thinksers and do not vote along partisan lines.
2
I don't think much of Hillary -- but mostly because I consider her a mediocrity, not because I attach much if any weight to the many accusations made against her over the years. In particular, Whitewater never struck me as a fair charge (nor does the one I just learned today: that she failed the D.C. bar exam; one of the very brightest lawyers I've ever known, a judge today, failed his CA bar exam twice).
Two exceptions, though -- these do bother me:
1. Her claim that she was fired upon as she landed in Bosnia on a good-will trip when she was First Lady. Later she conceded that this hadn't happened, that she'd "misremembered." In my entire life, I've never had anyone shoot at me (or at least I've never know about it, if someone has). I can't imagine how someone could misremember this. That being so, it's hard not to conclude that she lied.
2. Her commodities trading. The trades described were highly risky. She didn't put down much capital, but it was highly leveraged. If it had gone against her (as I recall, it didn't), she could have lost many times what she'd put down. Unless, of course, someone (e.g. a warm-hearted Arkansas brokerage firm) was prepared to protect her against loss. Either she was exposed to a huge loss (whether it materialized or not -- that's not the issue), in which case she was taking entirely inappropriate risks for someone in her circumstances at the time, or she was not exposed to loss, and knew that, which naturally raises eyebrows.
Two exceptions, though -- these do bother me:
1. Her claim that she was fired upon as she landed in Bosnia on a good-will trip when she was First Lady. Later she conceded that this hadn't happened, that she'd "misremembered." In my entire life, I've never had anyone shoot at me (or at least I've never know about it, if someone has). I can't imagine how someone could misremember this. That being so, it's hard not to conclude that she lied.
2. Her commodities trading. The trades described were highly risky. She didn't put down much capital, but it was highly leveraged. If it had gone against her (as I recall, it didn't), she could have lost many times what she'd put down. Unless, of course, someone (e.g. a warm-hearted Arkansas brokerage firm) was prepared to protect her against loss. Either she was exposed to a huge loss (whether it materialized or not -- that's not the issue), in which case she was taking entirely inappropriate risks for someone in her circumstances at the time, or she was not exposed to loss, and knew that, which naturally raises eyebrows.
9
Whitewater was fishy because the Clintons put up far less than the MacDougals. It was a sweetheart deal, in other words, and that's the way politicians get rich. I remember when Lamar Alexander was running for president there was some reporting on the sweetheart deals he'd benefited from and one was a $1 investment in a newspaper that resulted in a $620,000 profit.
The Clintons eventually lost money on Whitewater and it became a big headache but that wasn't the intention.
The Clintons eventually lost money on Whitewater and it became a big headache but that wasn't the intention.
2
Knowing my fellow citizens, just because they have heard her name doesn't mean they don't think she was a nurse in the Civil War or an opera singer.
3
Hillary Clinton has a lot of negatives, starting with her arrogant and obnoxious firing of the entire White House Travel Office, continuing through her high handed and illegal attempt at a "co-presidency" and trying to cram through her own health care reform package, then her carpet bagging takeover of New York's Senate seat and her less-than-appealing 2008 campaign against Obama, then on to her performance as Secretary of State.
She is arrogant, cold, and has an extraordinary conviction of her own entitlement. She does not deal well with compromise, nor does she listen to others' opinions very well.
I weigh all of those thoughts against the past Supreme Court picks of recent Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats brought us Sotomayor and Kagan, while the Republicans inflicted Thomas, Alito and Roberts (and tried to push the astonishingly incapable Harriet Meirs).
No contest. Clinton 2016.
She is arrogant, cold, and has an extraordinary conviction of her own entitlement. She does not deal well with compromise, nor does she listen to others' opinions very well.
I weigh all of those thoughts against the past Supreme Court picks of recent Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats brought us Sotomayor and Kagan, while the Republicans inflicted Thomas, Alito and Roberts (and tried to push the astonishingly incapable Harriet Meirs).
No contest. Clinton 2016.
13
And with the judgement issues you've noted, you still think she could present us with better Supremes? I don't share your confidence.
7
At the California Democratic Party Convention Hillary didn't exist. There was Bernie Sanders swag and Elizabeth Warren was the keynote speaker. No one was "Ready for Hillary" - no buttons, no t-shirts, no stickers, nothing.
14
Aside from being "for" motherhood and "against" hunger, I still have no idea where Hillary stands on the issues. Articles like this do nothing to further the cause. Ask some substantive questions NYT, or are you afraid you might lose access?
14
How can she have no opinion on TPP after serving in the administration and it being porous to the "right people" --like the Clintons? It's beyond comprehension if not outright medacity. She thinks that she can roll to the presidency without making a single substantive commitment. The arrogance of these people is jaw-dropping.
17
Just look at Amy Chozick's article re Clinton's discussion with small business owners Clinton met with today, just posted. Chozick acts as if the questions asked by the business owners pale in comparison to the "important" topics asked by the political reporters (re email etc)-- so if you are having trouble figuring out what Clinton stands for, ask the reporters to cover her discussion of the issues, rather than keep trying to get a new email quote. In the meantime, and with minimum enthusiasm by Chozick, there is a brief description of the one-hour discussion of issues of concern to small business owners, which had to split the article with the reporters email etc questions.
5
More horse race coverage. How about forcing Hillary to talk to reporters by covering her record, including all the disgusting parts of it, and evaluating her credibility as a representative of the public, with or without her campaign's engagement?
5
A commenter has had three brief comments to this article, each one insisting that it's Hillary's policies that sway her, not Hillary's gender. But it's hard not to notice that the commenter mentions Hillary's gender in each of those three very brief comments. For example:
"We don't like her purely for her gender...I prefer her policies to GOP policies."
"We don't like her purely for her gender...I prefer her policies to GOP policies."
5
If the race comes down to name recognition and faded memories, it will be very hard for Jeb to pull ahead of Hillary. Independents and swing voters, even moderates who still carry a GOP card in their wallet, know that the Clinton years came with high prosperity, low deficit and measured rational use of US power abroad. Kind of the opposite of any of the Bush years.
5
This Clinton is a neo-con. Most of the so-called Clinton prosperity was just part of the wild cyclical swings of capitalism. I'm tired of him taking credit it--one needs to look at what happened after--when his policies took hold--just think Nafta.
6
Not to mention that Clinton took credit for the economic upswing that was well on its way before he even got elected.
Popular campaign wisdom may presume Ms. Clinton's "name recognition" among various demographic groups equates to votes many elections debunk that assumption.
Ms. Clinton's and Mr. Bush's political positions and campaign strategies must disguise their common backgrounds as political legacies and economic elites. Ms. Clinton has the political legacy of her husband's presidency. Events earlier this week highlighted, despite Mr. Bush's announced intentions to run as his "own man", he too is a beholden to political legacies.
Ms. Clinton's meteoric rise from "virtually bankruptcy" at the end of her husband's presidency to trusteeship of a billion dollar international private foundation, estimated family net worth of over $100 million and earning speaking fees topping $30 million during the past 18 months alone place her unquestionably in the 1% along with Mr Bush. Our Republic is crippled because politicians mistakenly believe they can be servants of two masters; billionaire donors and voters.
Ms.Clinton and Mr. Bush are following the classic strategy of the Trojan Horse appearing as tribute to the aspirations of their political bases. Ms. Clinton is carefully crafting a persona of heroine of ordinary Americans on the outside while on the interior is a mercenary for the 1%.
Ms. Clinton's comments today on the TPP ending her self imposed cone of silence are classic examples of fogging; statements upon analysis fill the discussion with words containing little or no substance.
Ms. Clinton's and Mr. Bush's political positions and campaign strategies must disguise their common backgrounds as political legacies and economic elites. Ms. Clinton has the political legacy of her husband's presidency. Events earlier this week highlighted, despite Mr. Bush's announced intentions to run as his "own man", he too is a beholden to political legacies.
Ms. Clinton's meteoric rise from "virtually bankruptcy" at the end of her husband's presidency to trusteeship of a billion dollar international private foundation, estimated family net worth of over $100 million and earning speaking fees topping $30 million during the past 18 months alone place her unquestionably in the 1% along with Mr Bush. Our Republic is crippled because politicians mistakenly believe they can be servants of two masters; billionaire donors and voters.
Ms.Clinton and Mr. Bush are following the classic strategy of the Trojan Horse appearing as tribute to the aspirations of their political bases. Ms. Clinton is carefully crafting a persona of heroine of ordinary Americans on the outside while on the interior is a mercenary for the 1%.
Ms. Clinton's comments today on the TPP ending her self imposed cone of silence are classic examples of fogging; statements upon analysis fill the discussion with words containing little or no substance.
9
Kim Kardashian is well-known, too.
15
Tripe. Give us some news about what she would do as POTUS, please.
11
Mrs. Clinton will fight for better salaries, better education, help for the poor and the needy. She will fight to improve women and to keep her rights, she will help immigrants. I am sure we'll soon hear her positions about war, the Middle East, the environment, taxes to the rich and Wall Street reform, and they will be good and sound. Most important, she will choose the next Supreme Court Justice{s}.
She is going to make mistakes. She will be opposed by people on the right and on the left. She may have to compromise.
Maybe she is ambitious, entitled, phony, even old and ugly. But right now she is our best hope for the future. And I think is a good one.
She is going to make mistakes. She will be opposed by people on the right and on the left. She may have to compromise.
Maybe she is ambitious, entitled, phony, even old and ugly. But right now she is our best hope for the future. And I think is a good one.
8
Or you could take a look at Bernie Sanders voting record. He's always backed his word with his vote.
9
A campaign bot no doubt. None of what you say is part of this avaricious 1%.
3
I don't know why you would think that Hilary would fight for better salaries, better education, help for poor and needy... how could she accomplish that? Surely she knows the amount of effort needed to make even a small effect for even one of those. Seriously, how do you know these things? Campaign promises are not binding.
my theory is that the most important quality for a candidate is likeability
if you watch TV of reagan or bush II with the *sound off* you see that they are always smiling and looking friendly
people who, for whatever reason, don't come across as nice don't get elected
an alternate theory is that somewhere in the GOP there is an active effort to swamp media sites with negative blog posts
if you watch TV of reagan or bush II with the *sound off* you see that they are always smiling and looking friendly
people who, for whatever reason, don't come across as nice don't get elected
an alternate theory is that somewhere in the GOP there is an active effort to swamp media sites with negative blog posts
Romney was destroyed by the stupidity of making his 47% remark in the modern era when most sentient humans are aware of the possibility of a tape recording.
Hillary in unlikely to make a mistake of that caliber.
Hillary in unlikely to make a mistake of that caliber.
4
Romney never seemed interested in running for president, much less being preesident. His cavalier attitude towards campaigning did him in.
No question -- Romney's 47% remark was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard a presidential candidate say. I think they retired the trophy after that one. Hillary will never say something that stupid, but that's hardly a high bar to clear.
2
Name recognition is a problem. Her last name is Clinton.
11
Mr. Nathan expresses exactly how my wife and many of our friends feel about the current state of the Democratic Party. How is it possible that the Dems have no new faces in the pipeline and are placing all of their bets on a deeply flawed candidate. Mrs. Clinton is a War Hawk, a Wall Street darling and has no real accomplishment as Senator or Sec of State and when given the opportunity to reform health care in the 1990s- she botched it. It was no accident that she lost to Obama in '08. She is simply an unappealing candidate with too much negative baggage. She will lose the '16 election.
23
JL,
Well put. I can't imagine Hillary winning. She got her hat handed to her in 2008, her State Department stint was undistinguished (not negative, just undistinguished), she's 8 years older (many young voters were in diapers, or not even born, when she arrived on the scene), she's had more than a few brushes with scandal (nearly all of which I think have been trumped up, but a few do bother me), and she's had some health issues (notably, her collapse at home shortly after leaving her Secretary of State job). If elected, she'd be far older than any previous president except Ronald Reagan -- who, frankly, seemed a bit senile toward the end), and wouldn't bring much to the table even if she remained healthy and non-senile.
My hunch is that she'll have another health issue -- another collapse, perhaps, this time during some campaign event -- that she'll promptly withdraw (or the party will "withdraw" her), some replacement Democratic candidate will get dusted off and put in front of the TV cameras, and the Republican candidate will win by a very large margin.
Well put. I can't imagine Hillary winning. She got her hat handed to her in 2008, her State Department stint was undistinguished (not negative, just undistinguished), she's 8 years older (many young voters were in diapers, or not even born, when she arrived on the scene), she's had more than a few brushes with scandal (nearly all of which I think have been trumped up, but a few do bother me), and she's had some health issues (notably, her collapse at home shortly after leaving her Secretary of State job). If elected, she'd be far older than any previous president except Ronald Reagan -- who, frankly, seemed a bit senile toward the end), and wouldn't bring much to the table even if she remained healthy and non-senile.
My hunch is that she'll have another health issue -- another collapse, perhaps, this time during some campaign event -- that she'll promptly withdraw (or the party will "withdraw" her), some replacement Democratic candidate will get dusted off and put in front of the TV cameras, and the Republican candidate will win by a very large margin.
1
Ms. Chozick's judgment that "Mrs .Clinton merely needs to rekindle interest" reflects a perspective a bit less that less the universal. Hillary has a long list of needs to be met in perfecting her image, which include explaining away:
1. her decision to exempt herself from federal law by destroying e-mails generated and received in her role as Secretary of State.
2. the questionable contributions to the Clinton Foundation, such as the one made by Mark RIch soon before he received his presidential pardon.
3. the 100 per cent refund of her losses on commodity transactions, presumably given by the broker out of the goodness of his heart.
4. a tenure in the State Department during which she failed to resolve a single major international crisis.
5. her lying in stating that she had been subjected to live fire in Bosnia.
If the image to be projected is the one we see in the photograph - a wholesome candidate just talking to regular folks. we are going to need a supertanker full of whitewash.
1. her decision to exempt herself from federal law by destroying e-mails generated and received in her role as Secretary of State.
2. the questionable contributions to the Clinton Foundation, such as the one made by Mark RIch soon before he received his presidential pardon.
3. the 100 per cent refund of her losses on commodity transactions, presumably given by the broker out of the goodness of his heart.
4. a tenure in the State Department during which she failed to resolve a single major international crisis.
5. her lying in stating that she had been subjected to live fire in Bosnia.
If the image to be projected is the one we see in the photograph - a wholesome candidate just talking to regular folks. we are going to need a supertanker full of whitewash.
21
Everyone recognizes Hillary. That's not necessarily good news, since the better people know her, the more people distrust her.
14
Boy is that the truth. Before her 2008 primary campaign I was quite ready - although not insistent - to accept her as the candidate. Then I watched fairly closely and changed my mind completely after her mean, incompetent performance. It is __so__ clear that if she weren't connected to Bill no one would ever have heard of her. She would be just another mediocre Wellesley commencement speaker (Can anybody name another?)
14
This highlights the single best business investment of the post-WWII era, influence at the TOP.
Why did people get together to hand Barack Obama a billion to win the white house? Just the $90 billion we ''invested'' in green energy paid some of those guys back ten or fifty times what they contributed. We have blown though eight trillion just in new debt paying off Obama supporters. and he's the amateur here.
If you EVER have the chance to go with the next president to some mineral-rich place where influence calls ALL the shots, you can't PAY enough to be on that trip! I'd try to be the first company to pay Bill an even Mill for a speech - that's an investment that could come back a thousand or ten-thousand-fold.
The connection Stephanopoulos has with Bill has to be worth shots of ten million each. Imagine an army general in Pakistan being told by this cute guy coming off Hillary's plane that XYZ is THE connected radio or jeep company - you can't MAKE enough phone calls to be worth that!
Now you understand why there was NO WAY Hillary was EVER going to use a government email system. People in 3 or 4 capitals have probably read daily summaries of stuff hackers got those servers every night for years.
Why did people get together to hand Barack Obama a billion to win the white house? Just the $90 billion we ''invested'' in green energy paid some of those guys back ten or fifty times what they contributed. We have blown though eight trillion just in new debt paying off Obama supporters. and he's the amateur here.
If you EVER have the chance to go with the next president to some mineral-rich place where influence calls ALL the shots, you can't PAY enough to be on that trip! I'd try to be the first company to pay Bill an even Mill for a speech - that's an investment that could come back a thousand or ten-thousand-fold.
The connection Stephanopoulos has with Bill has to be worth shots of ten million each. Imagine an army general in Pakistan being told by this cute guy coming off Hillary's plane that XYZ is THE connected radio or jeep company - you can't MAKE enough phone calls to be worth that!
Now you understand why there was NO WAY Hillary was EVER going to use a government email system. People in 3 or 4 capitals have probably read daily summaries of stuff hackers got those servers every night for years.
5
It's a pox on the media when the only real tough questions of republican candidates are asked by FOX news. I must say that I was very impressed when FOX's Meagan Kelly asked some probing questions of governor Christie recently. I was also more than impressed when Chris Wallace asked Geb Bush about supporting the war on Iraq. This really showed Bush for what he is....not ready for prime time. On the other hand I watched morning Joe this morning with Mika Brzenszinsky, the so call liberal co host to Joe Scarborough. After conducting a totally soft interview with John McCain in which he was as usual spreading his lies about our foreign policy, this wonderful so called liberal reporter finished the interview by telling him how wonderful he is. If Hillary is taken down it will be by these so called liberal reporters who are in reality corporatist in sheeps clothing.
6
Hillary may be well known to the population but it is not because she is known for constructive accomplishments, she is known for covering up Bill Clinton's escapades with womanizing, including the young intern, for renting out the White House bedrooms to Wall Street moguls, for White Water shenanigans, for voting to get us into the worst catastrophe the country has ever experienced, and a host of other shortcomings that cannot be disposed of by a column on her reputed sense of humor along with a couple of pictures of a forced smile painted on as she poses with supporters. If she is such a wonder (failed her legal exam) why is she apparently the favorite of the party hangers on and the Wall Street connivers?
22
Wasn't she supposed to testify all day today? Scheduled 2 weeks ago, no appearance...again. Like putting toothpaste back into a tube.
9
The article is spot on in noting the similarity between Hillary and Nixon, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Just as Obama is the newer Democratic version of Reagan -- smooth, polished, a speaker people relate to -- so Hillary is the Democratic version of Nixon. Like Nixon, she is tough, dishonest and corrupt. And both, from early in their careers, could be seen for just how untrustworthy they were.
So the campaign, once again facilitated by the media, will be about image, not substance. It is about packaging Hillary to look sweet (but those who have worked with her know she swears like a sailor) and sympathetic to the poor (while becoming extremely rich).
Until the media dedicates itself to showing us the real people inside the deceptive packaging, the nation has little chance of finding good leadership. As it stands at this moment, we will get another Bush blockhead or another Clinton crook.
So the campaign, once again facilitated by the media, will be about image, not substance. It is about packaging Hillary to look sweet (but those who have worked with her know she swears like a sailor) and sympathetic to the poor (while becoming extremely rich).
Until the media dedicates itself to showing us the real people inside the deceptive packaging, the nation has little chance of finding good leadership. As it stands at this moment, we will get another Bush blockhead or another Clinton crook.
11
The thing I dislike most about her is that she believes she deserves the Presidency, and that we are all in her way.
The public will be nauseated with her by winter, from the relentless campaigning, to the pandering, to the idea that she is forced upon us. So this winter would be the perfect time for a strong, respected and ethical Democrat to enter the fray. Curiosity as to another option for Democratic voters may drive interest in their favor.
The public will be nauseated with her by winter, from the relentless campaigning, to the pandering, to the idea that she is forced upon us. So this winter would be the perfect time for a strong, respected and ethical Democrat to enter the fray. Curiosity as to another option for Democratic voters may drive interest in their favor.
25
Bernie Sanders.
5
Aaron,
The huge majority of Dems are behind Hillary and excited about her chances and her potential. It is wishful thinking to say that they will tire of her by christmas, that is like saying that Americans will tire of football or tire of pizza.
The Clintons are a time-tested part of America's political landscape. The majority of the party is happy to have her running. They've heard all the non-sensical hating and sniping before and they do not agree with it.
It doesn't mean you have to like her or respect her or like that she is running. But it might help you if you begin to look at the reality of her solid support. It isn't her name or her husband or her access to power: it is her they/we like.
Some of us learned this lesson in the Bush era: his charms and appeal were lost to me but at some point I had to recognize that his appeal was wide and strong and that Kerry and Gore were not strong enough to win in any convincing way. And no matter how much I thought Letterman was better than Jay Leno, other Americans much preferred Leno.
America just doesn't agree with your cynicism or doubts about her.
The huge majority of Dems are behind Hillary and excited about her chances and her potential. It is wishful thinking to say that they will tire of her by christmas, that is like saying that Americans will tire of football or tire of pizza.
The Clintons are a time-tested part of America's political landscape. The majority of the party is happy to have her running. They've heard all the non-sensical hating and sniping before and they do not agree with it.
It doesn't mean you have to like her or respect her or like that she is running. But it might help you if you begin to look at the reality of her solid support. It isn't her name or her husband or her access to power: it is her they/we like.
Some of us learned this lesson in the Bush era: his charms and appeal were lost to me but at some point I had to recognize that his appeal was wide and strong and that Kerry and Gore were not strong enough to win in any convincing way. And no matter how much I thought Letterman was better than Jay Leno, other Americans much preferred Leno.
America just doesn't agree with your cynicism or doubts about her.
2
Hillary Clinton is the strongest GOP candidate on the ballot. I'm wondering when the Democratic Party is going to introduce their real candidates to the country, or are they going to give this winnable election up for grabs to a couple dozen extreme town-hall coservatives and the ambitious Wallmart school-principal lady?
11
What planet are you on? Have you been paying attention? Bernie Sanders is the real Democrat here and he is running!
For the vast majority of Americans, concerned about low wages, skimpy benefits, the difficulty finding a good paying job, the threat of criminal capitalist Wall St banks, the never ending Middle East war on 'terror', the too high cost of college and loans, the fact that private health insurers are still making a profit off your premium payments, the lack of government response to climate change and much more, the best choice is Bernie Sanders. But there seems to be a media blackout of 'the people's candidate'.
19
This is not a Political Campaign we are commenting on. If it was we would be wanting to know more about policy and resolution of issues than who lied about what. It's the Hunger Games where we are looking for blood and where those in the game are looking for favors. At the end of each news cast, the anchors should be saying: "And may the odds be ever in your favor!"
2
Tell me something I don't know, please!
The fact that the vast majority of Democrats are going to Vote Clinton come the election is a given.
The press really hasn't much material for their horse race baseball game approach. And what's up with all the old hat bla, bla, bla about Clinton when there are a dozen Republicans out there begging for attention?
The fact that the vast majority of Democrats are going to Vote Clinton come the election is a given.
The press really hasn't much material for their horse race baseball game approach. And what's up with all the old hat bla, bla, bla about Clinton when there are a dozen Republicans out there begging for attention?
4
They are plastering this issue with coverage so that when The Enemy of All Mankind is nominated in August 2016, they can totally ignore everything about her and put the rubber bullets away to destroy her opposition.
If it is taking a team of people at the State Department many months to go through the emails and decide which ones can be released and which can't, I wonder how long it took Hillary to go through the archives and decide which ones to delete (my god, she didn't even move them to a separate folder, for use by her future biographers!) and which to retain and turn over to State.
7
And now she demands! that the survivors be released! How disingenuous, how Clinton. Like Nixon but without his accomplishments in foreign affairs (e.g., China) and domestic (EPA).
As one commentator said, without the husband in the WH, no one would have heard of HC.
As one commentator said, without the husband in the WH, no one would have heard of HC.
Unaccomplished, arrogant and unqualified are not exactly the great qualities for her in the name recognition category. She's no Eleanor Roosevelt, who would have made a fantastic President. She's not even a Richard Nixon, who, for all of his faults was accomplished in international affairs. Her weak performance as Secretary of State stands in the shadow of Ms. Roosevelt's record at home and abroad. Our expectations should be set higher.
27
Bill is the deal, though. He HAS to be there to go into power with her.
75% of Dems are already locked in with her with the moderates still in play.
75% of Dems are already locked in with her with the moderates still in play.
The highly choreographed and calibrated nature of Hillary and her campaign have already become tiresome. It's impossible to know what she stands for beyond her personal ambition to be the president. Her website has almost no information beyond a biography and links to donate $$. The saccharine smile, claiming to be "dead broke" saying "what difference does it make" at the Benghazi hearings, feeling entitled to her own email server for state department business etc. None of these are actual deal breakers necessarily, but it make you wonder about her arrogance and poor judgment, both of which helped her to lose the nomination last time around and which could cause her to lose the presidency this time.
22
Why hasn't anyone ever pointed out that one device can easily access more than one email account? Even if she doesn't know how, as candidate for Chief Executive she should be able to find someone to set it up for her.
It's time to change. That beautiful and wise country has other persons to rule our country.
6
That is true but we have to choose among those who are candidates. There is not a single Republican candidate, announced or waiting to announce while they pick up more dark money for their PACs, who does not make me shudder. Hillary is an awkward candidate but a smart and capable woman who advocates for the causes I am interested in. Other democratic candidates either are unelectable (a Socialist anyone?), unexciting (as a Maryland resident, I voted twice for Martin O'Malley, but he couldn't even get his lieutenant governor elected to succeed him) or way too far right, like former republican Jim Webb. So that is why Hillary will win the nomination easily and probably will win the election.
1
re the companion article on the website, 5 things you may not know about H Clinton...
Hey, N Y Times, some nice hard hitting investigative journalism there;
"..She has been known to enjoy a drink or two .."
glad to know that the N Y Times has the resources and time to inform us about trivial gossip; I mean, things like where Sen Clinton stands on TPP, why she voted to go to war with Iraq, all those trivial things, I can understand why you tell us about her attitude toward alcohol
Hey, N Y Times, some nice hard hitting investigative journalism there;
"..She has been known to enjoy a drink or two .."
glad to know that the N Y Times has the resources and time to inform us about trivial gossip; I mean, things like where Sen Clinton stands on TPP, why she voted to go to war with Iraq, all those trivial things, I can understand why you tell us about her attitude toward alcohol
12
As for Hillary's avoidance of the media, when the press is biased, questions become live attack adds, and she know it. Why subject yourself to that so early in the campaign. There will be plenty of time for media contact the closer we get to the election.
6
Please...if the press is biased, it has been biased in her favor. But even then there are questions that in good conscience a reporter must ask. And Hillary doesn't like that or want to answer them.
8
Hillary and her handlers just don't get it. The vast majority of people don't care how "personable" they seem, or whether they would like to have a beer with them, they want someone to represent and fight for their interests and not constantly blow with the wind.
20
The comparison to Nixon is spot on. Both Hillary and Nixon felt rules were for other people.
17
When 25 or so GOP hopefuls and much of the media reflexively accuse the Clintons of serial "scandals" -- the word is "accusations" -- it is little wonder Mrs. Clinton is trying to soften her image.
But, when faced with any of her political opponents, her supporters expect her to make chopped liver of them. Many of us don't want soft.
But, when faced with any of her political opponents, her supporters expect her to make chopped liver of them. Many of us don't want soft.
5
Be patient my man, be patient.
Changing peoples views is harder now than ever before mainly due to the fact that news is no longer news, but is confused commentary that repeats the talking points of the party. All you have to do is tune into your favorite channel and will hear what you want to hear. To change peoples views you have to be exposed to different views and that is no longer the case in this age of instant media. So Hillary should forget about swing voters and focus on new voters and the disenfranchised if she wants to win.
9
Drip, drip, drip.
All part of the relentless campaign by this paper's editors to rehabilitate this candidate. Doesn't matter that she lies (Benghazi), steals (Foundation) or mismanages (State Department).
Hillary is still this paper's candidate of choice.
All part of the relentless campaign by this paper's editors to rehabilitate this candidate. Doesn't matter that she lies (Benghazi), steals (Foundation) or mismanages (State Department).
Hillary is still this paper's candidate of choice.
24
The Republican Party is good at accusations, but not good with facts. The name of the game is to put your opponent on the defensive, then twist it as a talking point. She is not dumb enough to fall for that trick. Keep quiet Hillary till you are ready to serve up those chopped liver sandwiches.
1
Bring out all the dirty laundry NOW so that it becomes last-year's issue when it COUNTS. She learned all this the hard way with Bill's creepy sex escapades leading to the bimbo eruption war room.
I'd like to know why they haven't printed one word about Bernie S. since shortly after his announcement. Surely they could churn out a puff piece or two if nothing else. Does anyone else suspect a conspiracy here?
3
Voting for the "Devil you know, versus the Devil(s) you don't" is hardly a way to elect a President. The Decline and Fall continues on schedule.
25
To me it's more like the Crumbling, symbolic on many fronts but literal when it comes to infrastructure.
1
How they do run on, these Armani-clad, rug-topped Republicans, about a strong and viable contender for the prize the great mob of them is clamoring for. Keep well in your arduous path to the White House, Hillary. We need somebody who can put some gray cells into the heads of Congress and to justify the Justices of the Supreme Court. Actually, the conservatives have been pretty brave trying to belittle the Clinton Foundation. Let us all find out how many of these pseudo-religious, tirade-prone pretenders have travelled to the Third World, offering help and making a big difference in the plight of the impoverished and diseased? Give us a break, Republicans. Introduce a little dignity in your pursuits.
7
And keep those checks coming!! No, no, no need for cash. Just make it payable to the Clinton Foundation. Thanks Sheik Abdul Rahhman!!
5
Name recognition. Of course that's a reason to govern a country. The article says a lot about the average American voter.
13
Democrats don't care about email servers. Republicans, who are a lost cause, are the only ones driving and salivating over that phony scandal - the MSM just parrots whatever causes them noisy outrage. Voters care about candidates' positions on issues that directly effect them.
The media utterly fails us, election after election, by providing a candidate's fixed opposition material to cackle over while relegating careful review of actual platform positions or real accomplishments to side-notes.
Also, that the primary task of a politician is to create a theatrical experience and a crafted image seems to be taken for granted by the media. It's gotten to the point where a candidate is rated on image-building skill rather than actual merits. Politicians must develop and polish a charismatic persona in order to be heard at all, but it's the job of good journalism to address real, and really important issues, not fixate upon the success/failure of mere appearance.
The media utterly fails us, election after election, by providing a candidate's fixed opposition material to cackle over while relegating careful review of actual platform positions or real accomplishments to side-notes.
Also, that the primary task of a politician is to create a theatrical experience and a crafted image seems to be taken for granted by the media. It's gotten to the point where a candidate is rated on image-building skill rather than actual merits. Politicians must develop and polish a charismatic persona in order to be heard at all, but it's the job of good journalism to address real, and really important issues, not fixate upon the success/failure of mere appearance.
12
C., how did a ''lost cause'' beat your side so badly that both houses of the Congress are now majority Constitution-lovers? I though ''lost cause'' was more like the Iraqi government or the NY Knicks?
Half the Democrat redistributionists who voted in the Senate to pass the PPACA are now out of office. Should they feel like lost causes, too?
Half the Democrat redistributionists who voted in the Senate to pass the PPACA are now out of office. Should they feel like lost causes, too?
With the media's insatiable coverage of her campaign since at least 2012, the public may well go into "Hillary Clinton fatigue", if they haven't already. On the other hand, Jeb Bush doesn't exactly appear to energize conservative voters. Super PAC dark money can buy many things, but it can not buy charisma, or grassroots energy.
Voters will make history, electing the first woman president with a shrug.
Voters will make history, electing the first woman president with a shrug.
14
Her lack public appearances have nothing to do with the press. The media have thrown her softballs and are essentially the voice of the 1%, that would be happy to see her in office. The real reason for intimate gatherings is quite simply that many a heckler and protester will be in a crowd to ruin her carefully crafted and canned image that she wants to present. Hillary has had a shoe thrown at her before running for president and I am guessing she is a security nightmare for the secret service. She does not want to appear in public with a huge security entourage.
10
I'd love to know who those 1% are.
1
New immigrants living in English-free ethnic enclaves who work 16 hour days and don't even pay attention to the news in the their own language? People with serious memory problems due to brain damage? It's hard to imagine how anyone could not have heard of her. Maybe they refused to acknowledge her existence as a protest response.
This election will turn on honesty and trustworthyness. People will tun out to vote for the candidate they trust most. If Jeb Bush becomes the nominee then he has a fair chance at becoming President. If Dr. Carson becomes the nominee or Even Marco Rubio, it is all over for Hillary Clinton. She has become a political prostitute. The wrong kind of experience for the white house.
7
Dr. Carson or Marco Rubio = Landslide for Hillary!
2
Dr Ben Carson - isn't he the guy shilling for worthless dietary supplements ?
Ezra - if Carson gets TOO close to winning support, will the woman Axelrod puts out his hat to destroy him be a nurse, a patient, or a patient's wife? It'll have to be one of the three.
I'm guessing it'll be during Ky Derby week next year if she has to be made the issue.
I'm guessing it'll be during Ky Derby week next year if she has to be made the issue.
1
Ultimately, it is name recognition that will be her downfall.
10
No, name recognition will be Jeb's, not Hillary's downfall. The Bill Clinton years were prosperous, mainly peaceful, years. Dubya's years were a disaster on almost every score.
1
During the Bush administration, I saw Hillary Clinton in a lecture hall in a Q&A type interview taking questions from the moderator and members of the audience. Unlike everything I have ever read about her in the NYT, she was quite personable, at ease, articulate and well informed on a wide variety of topics and issues. Despite what I might think about some of her policy decisions, particularly her role in the Iraq invasion, I was favorably impressed by her.
20
Most candidates of both parties are dependent (beholden?) to big-money donors. And those donors, of course, will want influence over their chosen candidates.
So, the question is: Which group of those wealthy influence seekers do you want exerting their power in the next administration? I'd opt for the Clinton crowd any day of the week.
So, the question is: Which group of those wealthy influence seekers do you want exerting their power in the next administration? I'd opt for the Clinton crowd any day of the week.
13
The clown car Republicans led by Darth Vader clones will stop at nothing to malign Mrs. Clinton. A clown car is the perfect metaphor for the entire Republican Party. Imagine a national election in the U.S. where important issues were debated and not matters relating personality and gender.
10
The clown car metaphor is pretty funny. Until you realize that in the 2014 mid-terms, the Dems got run over by a clown car.
3
Right on the money!
Howie, go back and search the Times' opinion writers in the Romney election. There was Not One Word about his policies or about what he would do.
ALL there WAS was his pets, the binders joke, the 47% joke, the attacks on his religion, praises for Sen. Reid's lies about him - of which Reid said he is still proud.
You won't see any important issues debated about the opponent to the Dem Party nominee in 2016, either - not here. Maybe on cable. (Assuming the NYT hasn't changed hands in the meantime.)
ALL there WAS was his pets, the binders joke, the 47% joke, the attacks on his religion, praises for Sen. Reid's lies about him - of which Reid said he is still proud.
You won't see any important issues debated about the opponent to the Dem Party nominee in 2016, either - not here. Maybe on cable. (Assuming the NYT hasn't changed hands in the meantime.)
The corporate plocrate media as already anointed their chosen one for president. It's obvious that nothing will change but only get worse for the average American.
11
2008: What was Barack Obama's name-recognition ranking by the New York Times?
5
Which is just another way of saying that celebrity plays the biggest role in American's selection of presidential candidates. That selection process often leaves out better candidates.
16
It did in 2008 for sure.
That's how Obama got into the WH.
We needed a President in 2008, instead we got a Prom Queen.
That's how Obama got into the WH.
We needed a President in 2008, instead we got a Prom Queen.
3
And before that we got a cheer leader. Politics is sad, isn't it?
1
Oh no... we got the greatest President of my lifetime. And I go back to Eisenhower. History will adore President Obama as much as I do.
2
I guess I don't understand the point of this piece. I get the continual sense that the NY Times has isolated HRC as a candidate and are subjecting her to a degree of scrutiny not applied to the other candidates. Why?
You talk about the women in her corner and assume so many of us support her because she is a woman. To that, may I just say? So is Carly Florina, Elizabeth Warren and Sarah Palin. So what?
You want to know why Hillary has my vote? Where do I start?
First off---as a woman who has observed the plight of women in my generation, I do have a suspicion that Hillary has been the Clinton with the real talent from the start. So there's that.
But beyond that, she has consistently been on the right side of the issues that matter to me. She approaches things in a manner that make sense to me.
She is also smart enough not to get caught in the Republican nets that other Dems seem to be unable to get out of.... For example--you know what I think about email-gate? Good for her. We all know if her emails were made public the Republicans would have a field day taking potshots at her with out of context items. Her good sense not to get caught into that trap shows the same level of pragmatism that I have grown to appreciate about her.
I am REALLY concerned about the plight of women in this world. HRC has been fighting for women GLOBALLY long before it was fashionable. Imagine the impact on the women of the world to have her at the helm? On our Supreme Court? She give me hope.
You talk about the women in her corner and assume so many of us support her because she is a woman. To that, may I just say? So is Carly Florina, Elizabeth Warren and Sarah Palin. So what?
You want to know why Hillary has my vote? Where do I start?
First off---as a woman who has observed the plight of women in my generation, I do have a suspicion that Hillary has been the Clinton with the real talent from the start. So there's that.
But beyond that, she has consistently been on the right side of the issues that matter to me. She approaches things in a manner that make sense to me.
She is also smart enough not to get caught in the Republican nets that other Dems seem to be unable to get out of.... For example--you know what I think about email-gate? Good for her. We all know if her emails were made public the Republicans would have a field day taking potshots at her with out of context items. Her good sense not to get caught into that trap shows the same level of pragmatism that I have grown to appreciate about her.
I am REALLY concerned about the plight of women in this world. HRC has been fighting for women GLOBALLY long before it was fashionable. Imagine the impact on the women of the world to have her at the helm? On our Supreme Court? She give me hope.
7
H. Clinton, along with her husband, has been taking lots of money
globally for herself. She has taken measures against woman's rights
internationally. She has accepted donations from countries where
women are treated as second class citizens. She refuses to take a
clear stand on any issue. She is waiting to be branded by her vast
team before revealing her so-called beliefs. She will do anything she
needs to do to win including selling off the interests of women.
A 70 year old Democratic woman and long time activist,
I am deeply disappointed in her and wish she would step down.
globally for herself. She has taken measures against woman's rights
internationally. She has accepted donations from countries where
women are treated as second class citizens. She refuses to take a
clear stand on any issue. She is waiting to be branded by her vast
team before revealing her so-called beliefs. She will do anything she
needs to do to win including selling off the interests of women.
A 70 year old Democratic woman and long time activist,
I am deeply disappointed in her and wish she would step down.
6
Amy Chozick, Your companion piece of "Five Things You Might Not Know About Hillary Clinton" is a bit much, "slime' etc...'below the belt'
The newest meme running through many comments is something along the lines of "I'm voting for the Supreme Court", i.e. about whom Hillary might appoint were she to be elected. There is some validity to that I guess, but it assumes certain obvious biases as truths, primarily that only she would appoint the "right" justices who could be confirmed, while no one else could/would. (On a side note, I still find it fascinating to read people criticize a Justice "X" about being an ideologue while in the next breath they want a different type of sure vote - another ideologue - instead. One is bad, one is okay. Uh huh.) While not as shallow as voting for her entirely because she's a woman, it's still pretty thin reasoning.
What people are forgetting is that appointment of justices is but one small part of a President's job. It may happen only once or never in a term. To ignore all else, in this case all the swirl of shadiness, arrogant entitlement, thin real world accomplishments (not just checking off boxes), the to be continued shenanigans of her husband...and all the cumulative damage that can cause...is very, very shortsighted.
What people are forgetting is that appointment of justices is but one small part of a President's job. It may happen only once or never in a term. To ignore all else, in this case all the swirl of shadiness, arrogant entitlement, thin real world accomplishments (not just checking off boxes), the to be continued shenanigans of her husband...and all the cumulative damage that can cause...is very, very shortsighted.
6
As a big Hillary/Obama supporter, when I run into Hillary haters or Obama haters who claim to be dems but hate one or the other of these fine leaders, I pull out the rational Supreme Court argument. But this is only when I hear the craziness come out, the closet racism of an Obama hater or the irrational dis-like some folks voice for Hillary or both the Clintons.
What can one say when they hear someone claim she breaks the law every day or that she lies every time she opens her mouth? These are troubled people to whom real facts don't matter.
When someone trots out that argument with you -about the court- just know they've realized there is no real logic to your argument and they've given up on you.
What can one say when they hear someone claim she breaks the law every day or that she lies every time she opens her mouth? These are troubled people to whom real facts don't matter.
When someone trots out that argument with you -about the court- just know they've realized there is no real logic to your argument and they've given up on you.
3
I find it interesting, and sadly all too common, that one cannot be a Hillary or Obama dissenter or disagree-er. No. Any such heresy immediately gets one labeled a "hater". If a bit more icing is needed on that tiresome cake, then "closet racist" or sexist is trotted out. No need to consider a different point of view or recognize that other Americans may have legitimate differences. No, just ad hominem and schoolyard "assessments" are all that are needed to dismiss others.
That hardly makes for a vibrant democracy.
That hardly makes for a vibrant democracy.
2
This woman is an empty pant suit. She accomplished absolutely nothing as a carpet bagging Senator from New York. Then she spent her time as Secretary of State flying around the world to promote contributions to the Clinton Foundation which has been proven to spend only 10% of the money collected on actual charitable work. When she failed our diplomats and soldiers in Benghazi resulting in several deaths she denied any responsibility and tried to blame the incident on a video. She has broken federal law by destroying many of her e-mails as Secretary of State, and then lied about that too. A shameful record as a public servant whiles hundreds of millions of dollars rolled into her bank account.
36
Now there is another story of her and another secret e-mail address. She had no accomplishments to speak of as SOS and as NYS Senator...shocking, yet there are those that think she is the second coming. And her foundation? What a joke that is? Tell us Hillary what are you doing with all of those funds?
10
Out of curiosity, has there ever been a Presidential candidate that while campaigning, refuses to take questions from the press?
20
I'm not sure, but we do have a press that refuses to ask President Obama real questions. So there's that.
10
She is campaigning doing her listening tour. she did the same thing when she ran for senator. It makes sense.
The reason everyone is taking questions but she is not taking them at this stage is because they need airtime and higher recognition and she does not. Rubio and Bush are not taking questions because they believe in transparency or the goodness of the free press: it is their strategy to get airtime, to get heard. She is leading the pack and has 100 percent name recognition.
She is in a class all her self and has no reason to mix it up right now.
You'll see tons of Q and A from her when it serves her interests.
Her thing is to remain poised and presidential and so like a president, she limits her availability to questions. smart.
The reason everyone is taking questions but she is not taking them at this stage is because they need airtime and higher recognition and she does not. Rubio and Bush are not taking questions because they believe in transparency or the goodness of the free press: it is their strategy to get airtime, to get heard. She is leading the pack and has 100 percent name recognition.
She is in a class all her self and has no reason to mix it up right now.
You'll see tons of Q and A from her when it serves her interests.
Her thing is to remain poised and presidential and so like a president, she limits her availability to questions. smart.
3
Since he came upon the scene and into ALL of the debates they've thrown him nothing but softballs and never called him on his inconsistancies. So much for an unbiased press.
I'm fascinated by those fascinated with Hillary. Easily the least trustworthy candidate in memory - seriously, the email server situation is outrageous to any objective voter - but apparently, dammit, we need to elect a female. And she's a female.
12
It is interesting that Republicans assume Hillary is the least trustworthy candidate in history but cannot pin point where she lied. This is all part of the Republican strategy, repeat it enough, and people believe it even though there is no proof.
DSS - it was caused by a video, remember?
1
1 percent has never heard of her, because as you say, they must live in caves, and another 1 percent owns her, and they live in mansions. According to my math skills, that leaves 98 percent that don't matter.
9
Right. Essential character. People can't hide it indefinitely. And we all have both negative and positive qualities. Hillary's shortcomings are well known as well as her better angels. Why are commenters focusing so much on the negatives? Every candidate who ever ran for office in history has had shortcomings. I would hope that when we go to the polls, we will keep in mind Hillary's considerable talents, experience and intelligence. I like Bernie Sanders too and would welcome him as our candidate. I also welcome Hillary. As always, our choices are without doubt better than Republicans have. And I would also hope that people would remember to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. Everybody who was ever been on the national scene as long as Hillary has had their shortcomings exposed. The question is, does she strive to do better, to be better? Apparently so. What more could we ask of our candidates? Of ourselves?
17
So much blather - please everyone, give it a rest for 12 months, and tune back in next May, when she'll be the presumptive nominee. And that goes for you, too, Amy Chozick: Stop grasping desperately for ink to fill your columns. So Hilary isn't taking questions from you or the rest of the media right now, that's just too darn bad. Let her finish her "listening tour," write about those Qs and As, and then she'll start answering the media's questions. Right now, voters' questions are much more important to answer, starting with: why should you be president, and what will you do? The rest is just inconsequential window-dressing that doesn't matter at all.
6
The problem with this article is what it assumes about reporters. It assumes reporters ask hard, pertinent questions. That hasn't been my experience watching press conferences. Take for example the press conference Ms. Clinton recently held at the United Nations. Most of the questions were inane inside baseball queries about an artificial controversy whipped up by this newspaper. Was there one hard question about the TPP? Or about global warming? Or inequality? Anything about police brutality?
There is a reason Jon Stewart made a career and a fortune out of lampooning the idiocy of the national media. And there is a reason the national media are held in such contempt by the people: The media are jealous players in national politics, working overtime to protect their minor role as ostensible guardians of the national discourse, a discourse that has gotten increasingly inane.
Press conferences would be more helpful and more interesting if the national media would just get over itself.
There is a reason Jon Stewart made a career and a fortune out of lampooning the idiocy of the national media. And there is a reason the national media are held in such contempt by the people: The media are jealous players in national politics, working overtime to protect their minor role as ostensible guardians of the national discourse, a discourse that has gotten increasingly inane.
Press conferences would be more helpful and more interesting if the national media would just get over itself.
19
One need only read the fund raising letter that the Clinton campaign sent to Democrats (like me) recently to know what decisions have been made about packaging her image this time around. It is three-and-a-half pages long and in the first half page some variation of the word FIGHT appears 7 times and the word FAMILIES makes 4 appearances.
Here are a few examples from the letter, one from each page (CAPS are added - not original).
From pg. 1
"...I've spent my whole life FIGHTING for CHILDREN and FAMILIES and standing up for America."
From pg. 2
"...I have FOUGHT for CHILDREN and FAMILIES, equality, and fairness for all my public life, and ... I want to continue this FIGHT for you."
From pg. 3
"...I will FIGHT for REAL FAMILY VALUES - access to health care, education, equal rights, an economy that works for FAMILIES."
From pg. 4
"I've been FIGHTING for FAMILIES for more than 40 years, but this election will be the toughest FIGHT I've ever faced."
Clearly the political pros have identified what worked for her in 2008, albeit too little & too late, and have crafted a 2016 campaign to focus on those perceived strengths. While I am not swayed by such appeals (and may vote for Sanders or Webb or some other Dem in the primaries), I expect to be voting for Mrs. Clinton in a year-and-a-half.
That vote is as close as we come to voting for the Supreme Court and we are perilously close to abandoning the great American experiment in favor of religious intolerance and wealth.
Here are a few examples from the letter, one from each page (CAPS are added - not original).
From pg. 1
"...I've spent my whole life FIGHTING for CHILDREN and FAMILIES and standing up for America."
From pg. 2
"...I have FOUGHT for CHILDREN and FAMILIES, equality, and fairness for all my public life, and ... I want to continue this FIGHT for you."
From pg. 3
"...I will FIGHT for REAL FAMILY VALUES - access to health care, education, equal rights, an economy that works for FAMILIES."
From pg. 4
"I've been FIGHTING for FAMILIES for more than 40 years, but this election will be the toughest FIGHT I've ever faced."
Clearly the political pros have identified what worked for her in 2008, albeit too little & too late, and have crafted a 2016 campaign to focus on those perceived strengths. While I am not swayed by such appeals (and may vote for Sanders or Webb or some other Dem in the primaries), I expect to be voting for Mrs. Clinton in a year-and-a-half.
That vote is as close as we come to voting for the Supreme Court and we are perilously close to abandoning the great American experiment in favor of religious intolerance and wealth.
8
In two years you expect her to be fighting for families.....of the 1 percent, right?
4
Now if only that little pamphlet of hers listed her ACTAUL ACCOMPLISHMENTS as SOS and Senator from NY State. Words mean nothing Mrs. Clinton if you have nothing to back them up with.
3
Laura, for most Dems. - not all - words are everything. Follow up deeds are not important.
Remember the Newtown shooting. In the near aftermath VP Biden GUARANTEED that the federal government would take meaningful action. His supporters oohed and aahed.
But nothing was done. Not a thing.
Remember the Newtown shooting. In the near aftermath VP Biden GUARANTEED that the federal government would take meaningful action. His supporters oohed and aahed.
But nothing was done. Not a thing.
5
Name recognition is a problem for one of the better potential candidates, Amy Klobuchar. ... http://lstrn.us/1CKv50I
2
“Mrs. Clinton merely needs to rekindle interest in her as a candidate after a short hiatus from politics and a four-year tenure as President Obama’s emissary on the world stage.”
She needs to overcome a lot more than that. She needs to overcome the fact that she is like her husband a Democrat In Name Only (DINO). The economic boom during her husbands tenure had nothing to do with his being POTUS & he kept all of the laws rules and regs that let Tech companies become laws unto themselves today. Sure the reagan and first Bush admin set up the environment in which regulation was a dirty word but Clinton chose to falsely credit the discovery of technical possibilities that were the real drivers of the economy in the 90’s to reagan’s destruction of the Governments (read that The People’s) regulatory control over the nations affairs.
She has to come out & not just act as if, that she is not at all a DINO and in fact a real nonpartisan thinking politician whose intent is to work for The People’s best interests. Those interests lay in increasing taxes to support rebuilding the neglected for 35 years infrastructure (new transmission lines for wind power in the PNW) and rules and regs that keep corporations small enough they do not have to be bailed out. The real test will be if she steps up and admits we need to break up Comcast, Google, Apple. Microsoft, and a long list of other corporations whose size and influence is far to great to be in The People’s best interest.
She needs to overcome a lot more than that. She needs to overcome the fact that she is like her husband a Democrat In Name Only (DINO). The economic boom during her husbands tenure had nothing to do with his being POTUS & he kept all of the laws rules and regs that let Tech companies become laws unto themselves today. Sure the reagan and first Bush admin set up the environment in which regulation was a dirty word but Clinton chose to falsely credit the discovery of technical possibilities that were the real drivers of the economy in the 90’s to reagan’s destruction of the Governments (read that The People’s) regulatory control over the nations affairs.
She has to come out & not just act as if, that she is not at all a DINO and in fact a real nonpartisan thinking politician whose intent is to work for The People’s best interests. Those interests lay in increasing taxes to support rebuilding the neglected for 35 years infrastructure (new transmission lines for wind power in the PNW) and rules and regs that keep corporations small enough they do not have to be bailed out. The real test will be if she steps up and admits we need to break up Comcast, Google, Apple. Microsoft, and a long list of other corporations whose size and influence is far to great to be in The People’s best interest.
3
1
The new transmission lines are necessary because wind power generation has to shut down during the spring melt because the existing transmission lines cannot cope with the extra power from the dams and wind generated power at the same time.
Wind is all year long in the Columbia Gorge and the plains above it. It's one of those places that you notice when the wind has stopped rather than when it has started, it blows so continuously.
Wind is all year long in the Columbia Gorge and the plains above it. It's one of those places that you notice when the wind has stopped rather than when it has started, it blows so continuously.
Everyday at least 2 or three pictures/pieces on the Times front page about madam neo-con.The Times mission now is to have Hilarious Clinton in our face 24/7..non stop
Have anyone noticed how the Times ALWAYS picked pictures of madam neo-con in very positive, smiling, thoughtful, elegant frame? I guess when you collect 30 mil/year giving speeches and peddling access to anyone with cash, you can grin from ear to ear.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is running for POUS as well. But, in NY Times wisdom, he is doomed, not worthy of even once/week column.
Disgraceful
Have anyone noticed how the Times ALWAYS picked pictures of madam neo-con in very positive, smiling, thoughtful, elegant frame? I guess when you collect 30 mil/year giving speeches and peddling access to anyone with cash, you can grin from ear to ear.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is running for POUS as well. But, in NY Times wisdom, he is doomed, not worthy of even once/week column.
Disgraceful
33
Based on hearing Bernie Sanders every Friday on the Thom Hartmann radio show for years, I think he will kick you know what in the debates. I cringed when I heard Obama in the debates years back, as he, like most candidates just kept repeating his 3 talking points and never answered the questions. I don't expect Hillary to do any different. But this time, Bernie will actually answer the questions (and intelligently), something none of us have seen since Ross Perot ran (and got 18-20% of the vote). I think Democrats are going to be quite surprised at the turnout for Sanders in their primaries. Bernie Sanders has more credibility and integrity in his little finger than ALL the candidates from both parties put together. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
1
None of the stuff the NYTimes comes up with -- almost daily -- will derail the Hillary juggernaut to The White House. You could have her on tape selling guns to ISIS. (Indirectly and ironically, Mrs. Clinton may have had something to do with Russia's supply of uranium to Iran.)
Yet, like Mr. Obama, she has a significant core minority that just doesn't give a darn. The idea of a woman President is more important than ethics, moral consistency or the excellent and proven judgment & leadership that is required for the job.
Identity politics and social justice are taking us down. It was a great ride though.
Yet, like Mr. Obama, she has a significant core minority that just doesn't give a darn. The idea of a woman President is more important than ethics, moral consistency or the excellent and proven judgment & leadership that is required for the job.
Identity politics and social justice are taking us down. It was a great ride though.
15
A core minority? You must have noticed that Obam won by a majority in both his runs, and that Hillary was approved to be Secretary of State by a 94 -6 vote in the Senate, or that both have good favorability ratings, and that Clinton's administrations were good for America and its economy.
The problem with people who embrace the extremes of politics is that facts slip by the wayside, and the real numbers that tell the story of the American electorate seem impossible to them.
Hillary is popular. people agree with her. The world does not see eye to eye with extreme positions like these.
The problem with people who embrace the extremes of politics is that facts slip by the wayside, and the real numbers that tell the story of the American electorate seem impossible to them.
Hillary is popular. people agree with her. The world does not see eye to eye with extreme positions like these.
Yes a core minority. His support never slips below the high 30s/low 40s percent. Never has. Never will.
Of course Mr. Obama won the Presidency by majorities, as you point out. But, the delta that voted for him are not part of the core minority. The same swing (independent) voters abandoned his party in the recent mid terms. Big time.
The vote on Hillary's SOS confirmation is irrelevant to my point. I wasn't referring to Congressional votes. Moreover, there are reasons that drive such confirmations , especially for an important position as SOS, apart from actual support.
Of course Mr. Obama won the Presidency by majorities, as you point out. But, the delta that voted for him are not part of the core minority. The same swing (independent) voters abandoned his party in the recent mid terms. Big time.
The vote on Hillary's SOS confirmation is irrelevant to my point. I wasn't referring to Congressional votes. Moreover, there are reasons that drive such confirmations , especially for an important position as SOS, apart from actual support.
1
Hillary Clinton: "It's the same old wine, in a brand new bottle." Go, Bernie!
39
I believe the HRC brand name is more than familiar, a household name, perhaps not to everyone's taste but still some there are those loyal to the brand.
... However, the issue of 'best used by' is very much there and very close to the expiration date.
Clinton's unwillingness to field questions yet, is not helping with her rebranding, even with newer labels, and attempts at niche marketing.
Bill Clinton's strategy of frowning slightly and drawling "I feel your pain" perhaps not authentic but yes that was something most Americans could relate to.
... However, the issue of 'best used by' is very much there and very close to the expiration date.
Clinton's unwillingness to field questions yet, is not helping with her rebranding, even with newer labels, and attempts at niche marketing.
Bill Clinton's strategy of frowning slightly and drawling "I feel your pain" perhaps not authentic but yes that was something most Americans could relate to.
4
This is May 2015 and I, a lifelong Democrat am already, tired, weary, and fed up that all my party has to offer its voters is Hillary Clinton, remodeled, reformed, refigured, finger in the wind, Hillary Clinton, where is my party? where are the leaders? where are the creative thinkers? where is the future of my party. This is sad, not so much for me, but for the future of my country. The time is here to implement campaign finance reform, change the way we hold elections and allow more than a two party system to rule the land. The two party system will no longer stand the test of time. We the people deserve more we deserve better
59
Bob, Thanks you said it all for me!
2
Two words: Bernie Sanders.
15
Your party is also offering up Bernie Sanders, who outside of running as a Democrat, is a force outside of the two party system. He checks off pretty much every box you've laid out here.
7
The entire process has become such a farce thanks to the inexplicable campaign financing rules in place that I feel no reason to vote anything but "None of the Above." My fellow lefties will gasp in horror and demand I vote for Hillary because at least then the Republicans won't take the White House. While that sounds good, I can't honestly say anymore that there's enough of a difference between the corporate-bought Democrats and corporate-owned Republicans. Elizabeth Warren's not walking through that door.
11
You cannot run for office without money. It is not an insurmountable problem. Even Senator Warren would need to raise money. There is a big difference in the political parties, read their platforms & it will be obvious. The platforms define the parties , more people should read them . Place them side by side ,it will guide you.
1
Sen. Warren was a republican until she registered as a dem in 1998. She is not the savior that lefties want to believe she is. She was a republican throughout the Reagan years, throughout the rowe v Wade years, through Vietnam and Watergate, and the Bush 41 years. She became a dem when she moved to Harvard. She really has trouble working in coalition with people who have not sipped the same Kool-Aid as her and she's abandoned Obama at key moments.
She is not someone I could support for president.
She is not someone I could support for president.
1
Hillary looks old and tired. Her posture, uninterested. Her speech indicts the people to coronate her.
And those are her better attributes.
And those are her better attributes.
23
Oh she's interested alright...in herself and attaining power. The rest...the "experience", the newest "as a grandmother" schtick...is all just window dressing.
7
You prefer young and inexperienced, perhaps? That worked so well for us in W's administration. The day will come, if you are lucky, when you too will look old and tired. By then, you may discover that outward appearances are a poor indicator of ability. Of course, young people may not give you a chance to demonstrate your wealth of experience.
4
That was indeed the problem with Kerry's bird hunting thing. Deer hunting, bear hunting, that is what pick up trucks drivers do mostly. One does not change the mind of a Western hunter with birds. This was a typically Eastern establishment misread of the West, and South. I hope Ms Clinton. not exactly born and raised in New England avoids that error. Whatever that may be we need to not, NOT have a Republican POTUS- it would be a complete disaster.
1
Name recognition is the last quality I care about in the next president. Nor do I care their gender, their ethnicity, their sexual preference, their skin color, their religion - I want competency, I want truthfulness - two things the name Clinton ISN'T recognized with!
26
Competency & truthfulness? Then Hillary Rodham should do well!
Brilliantly well said, Rose.
Anyone who would contemplate voting for Clinton must have very low standards when it comes to honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. It is difficult to imagine how one as corrupt and dishonest as Clinton can effectively lead a nation.
26
Yes , yes, let us elect a Cristie or Jeb. Then we will have a clear compass.
1
I was pleased over the weekend to see Maureen Dowd's column that indicated why Hillary, if not Bernie Sanders, must win. Jeb Bush may be the most "reasonable" candidate the Repubs have, though he is titling into insane bigoted positions. But more and more, a Democratic victory is necessary to save the country from the Republican intentions to loot the country, reinstall bigotry and do nothing that will not benefit their baronial sponsors. Does anyone want a repeat of the disasters of 2001-2208? That's what we will get with any of the Repubs.
8
It's going to be particularly difficult to dispel the impression that there's just no compelling reason for her candidacy--and that's before worrying about the impression that the connections between the Clintons' political, business and charitable activities are, at best, circumstantially toxic.
32
Why anyone would want this money-grubbing liar to be president is beyond me.
47
Yeah, you're right. We should prefer one of those white, male, wholly owned lap-dogs each with his own personal billionaire holding leash the leash and dishing out the treats when he does as told and speaks appropriately. Good boy, good good dog.
10
Why anyone would look to the other side is beyond me. If you want wars, recessions, and attacks on women's rights, by all means, do not vote for Hillary?
6
Dean is voting for Bernie Sanders. Because there is not a single Republican running whose hands are even remotely clean. They see the presidency as a road to riches bestood by smiling oligrachs whose water they carry.
1
So we're treated once again to the sad state of modern Ametucan politics. Hillary trying to assume yet another carefully scripted image to fool people long enough to attain the power she so open craves. Nixon, for all his warts and issues, remained Nixon and didn't try to focus group himself into a new persona.
Please don't try to convince me that this current, entitled, nasty 1%-er is anything different than she really is.
Please don't try to convince me that this current, entitled, nasty 1%-er is anything different than she really is.
25
You know little about Mr. Nixon, he never supported an issue without looking at the benefit to his political life.
Hillary Clinton's problem is that the US electorate would elect a black man before they would a white woman to be president.
3
huh? that makes no sense. Obama's anti-war vote and brilliant campaigning put him over the top in 2008.
1
Yes, Hillary is a known quantity. And yes, Hillary will tack left in the primaries and try to convince us she 'cares' about 'the 99%' while in bed with the same Corporatists such as Wal-Mart, whose board she previously sat on. She will govern as a neo-liberal and will be beholden to the same Wall St. demagogues that she and Bill so eagerly courted after they left the White House.
I though Margaret Thatcher already proved that being a woman does not necessarily lead to economic justice and policies that favor the working class.
I though Margaret Thatcher already proved that being a woman does not necessarily lead to economic justice and policies that favor the working class.
19
16 months. Please Democratic leadership. Come up with a more viable candidate.
36
Don't hold your breath--there is no Democratic leadership. To be fair, there isn't any Republican leadership either.
3
Bernie Sanders-If nothing else he will be speaking about reality with reason not to some dogma or imaginary "what if?" mendacious ideal.
3
A lot of 'young people' as we are called as if we are all the same naive inexperienced 'slate to be written upon', became infatuated with Obama in '08 after the warmongering Bush Administration and turned out in droves for him. Ultimately, his presidency proved competent but not great, not resulting in much of the promised hope and change for us, and in some ways continuing to policies that sacrificed our present for past profit.
A bigger problem for Hillary might be her age ... she strikes me as a wealthy Westchester grandmother who grew up in a different era, concerned for young people but having nothing in common with us. Maybe she should use some of her $100 million net worth to build a time machine back to her power-mom '90s days.
A bigger problem for Hillary might be her age ... she strikes me as a wealthy Westchester grandmother who grew up in a different era, concerned for young people but having nothing in common with us. Maybe she should use some of her $100 million net worth to build a time machine back to her power-mom '90s days.
25
Power mom? Having nannies raise your kid makes you a power mom?
5
That is a bit naive to think President Obama has not achieved or placed full force of his office to do what he campaigned on in 2008. His bucket list has many check marks. As to Hillary & her wealth ,her husband & her husbands foundation, when has it been at odds with their Christian ideals of helping others , or people interested enough in what they have to say to pay for it. It is not as if the the Koch Bros. Inc. buys their books or pays their speaking fees like they do for Marco Rubio.
Bernie Sanders is older than Hillary is, but that doesn't seem to stop him from advocating for the youth of this nation. Hillary's age isn't her problem, her views and voting record are.
8
With all due respect to Mr. Khachigian, Richard Nixon didn't remake himself, only sell the facade of remaking himself. And the artifice dissolved relatively quickly, which is why he became the first president to resign.
Mrs. Clinton's highly controlled scripting, choreography and insularity have a limited shelf life, as well, and once the veneer wears off, the bubble will inevitability burst. People can't hide their essential character indefinitely, regardless of the packaging du jour.
It's no accident that persistent scandals have been the trademark of both of these politicians and that their default setting has always been damage control. The term "Nixonian" meant the same thing to the last generation as "Clintonian" does to this one.
Anyone who remembers 1973-74, in particular, can attest to the wrenching consequences of having a president who's obsessively secretive and has an attitude of being above the law. It's hard to believe that the country will invite a similar situation again.
Mrs. Clinton's highly controlled scripting, choreography and insularity have a limited shelf life, as well, and once the veneer wears off, the bubble will inevitability burst. People can't hide their essential character indefinitely, regardless of the packaging du jour.
It's no accident that persistent scandals have been the trademark of both of these politicians and that their default setting has always been damage control. The term "Nixonian" meant the same thing to the last generation as "Clintonian" does to this one.
Anyone who remembers 1973-74, in particular, can attest to the wrenching consequences of having a president who's obsessively secretive and has an attitude of being above the law. It's hard to believe that the country will invite a similar situation again.
19
Doesn't look like they'll be much choice. I guess as you see it, it is either the frying pan or the fire. We'd better take the frying pan. 2000 to 2008 was the fire (hell).
1
"inevitably," that is
In response to poster JoeB:
Yes, Clinton will probably be president.
No, the "left" (a silly designation, considering the state of our politics and electorate) does not primarily wish for her to take less money from corporate interests. What it wishes for is meaningful campaign finance reform, which would obviate the need for the first wish. But this would necessitate a longer view - something our citizenry (not the left or the right) seems disinterested in.
Obama's "lack of experience" has never been his problem. His policy decisions have been his problem. And on that score, we can expect very similar policy decisions from Clinton. See: TPP, perpetual drone warfare, serving big energy and big pharma, etc. etc.
Clinton's record on Women's and LGBT issues advocacy has been outstanding, but the rest is boilerplate neoliberal.
I'll vote Sanders no matter what.
Yes, Clinton will probably be president.
No, the "left" (a silly designation, considering the state of our politics and electorate) does not primarily wish for her to take less money from corporate interests. What it wishes for is meaningful campaign finance reform, which would obviate the need for the first wish. But this would necessitate a longer view - something our citizenry (not the left or the right) seems disinterested in.
Obama's "lack of experience" has never been his problem. His policy decisions have been his problem. And on that score, we can expect very similar policy decisions from Clinton. See: TPP, perpetual drone warfare, serving big energy and big pharma, etc. etc.
Clinton's record on Women's and LGBT issues advocacy has been outstanding, but the rest is boilerplate neoliberal.
I'll vote Sanders no matter what.
15
Hillary is brilliant and was an integral part of the presidential team that gave America its best 8 years in recent history. Moreover, I disagree that she somehow has to reinvent herself as personable. When Hillary was Secretary of State, my memories of her include constant genuine laughter on an Australian comedy talk show, and warmly hugging the President of Chile when there the world was watching highly complex and tense efforts to save trapped Chilean miners.
What I see as more of a problem for Hillary is the mainstream media (run by just a few corporations) joining with her opponents to focus on "scandals." This is not an election about Hillary personally, but rather an election about compassion for the mass of the American People. I sincerely hope the American People do not vote away their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, consumer and environmental protections, and what is left of unions merely because of something as trivial, for example, as the server used for emails.
What I see as more of a problem for Hillary is the mainstream media (run by just a few corporations) joining with her opponents to focus on "scandals." This is not an election about Hillary personally, but rather an election about compassion for the mass of the American People. I sincerely hope the American People do not vote away their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, consumer and environmental protections, and what is left of unions merely because of something as trivial, for example, as the server used for emails.
7
I completely agree. Exactly how I see it. She was a great NY Senator and Sec. of State. c'mon. Why dislike someone because they make money? One reason to do so is how they made it. i.e. Romney. I see Clinton making her money admirably and decently.
The more the Republicans, media and some Democrats keep repeating these tired negative talking points the more it reinforces things that are simply untrue. I don't get it. She will make her case, stake policy positions and then voters (please vote) will choose.
Right now she seems the most experienced for the job to me.
The more the Republicans, media and some Democrats keep repeating these tired negative talking points the more it reinforces things that are simply untrue. I don't get it. She will make her case, stake policy positions and then voters (please vote) will choose.
Right now she seems the most experienced for the job to me.
As a lifelong democrat and liberal--Where does she stand on the issues--really stand. Not a scripted, tightly leashed person reading off of a teleprompter.
What are her values--her real values?
Whom does she represent? really represent?
My take is that it is not working people, the middle class, women, children, or the environment.
HRC is all about HRC. She is too closely tied to the banking industry, companies like Monsanto and too many lobbyists.
My second impression of her is the same as my first--she does not nor will she ever represent me. She didn't when she was senator here.
The only reason I would hold my nose and vote for her is she will nominate Supreme court Justices.
What are her values--her real values?
Whom does she represent? really represent?
My take is that it is not working people, the middle class, women, children, or the environment.
HRC is all about HRC. She is too closely tied to the banking industry, companies like Monsanto and too many lobbyists.
My second impression of her is the same as my first--she does not nor will she ever represent me. She didn't when she was senator here.
The only reason I would hold my nose and vote for her is she will nominate Supreme court Justices.
9
My other question concerns the media--why aren't you pushing all the candidates to take a stand on the issues? Why the softball questions? why no follow-up questions?
Let's make this race about the issues and then we will see about the candidates' personalities (or lack thereof).
Let's make this race about the issues and then we will see about the candidates' personalities (or lack thereof).
4
... and who will approve her nominations?
Do you really think she would nominate justices who are NOT like her? Please think again.
1
“Changing people’s deeply held views,” he added, “is the hardest thing to do in politics and in life.”
I think this is the reason that Hillary Clinton could become a truly great president. Being the first woman president could be huge. That energizes fifty percent of the population.
Second, there is Hillary Clinton's great diplomatic approach. Diplomacy is needed to break the polarization in society, to move forward, not backward. Diplomacy is about humility and yielding and compromise. Politics is the "art of compromise."
Third, I would suggest a sense of excitement about the future. Everyone will be wondering what could happen with a woman president, day by day...
Hillary Clinton reminds me of JFK: "The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans...Let us begin!"
>>> Forward not Backward >>>
I think this is the reason that Hillary Clinton could become a truly great president. Being the first woman president could be huge. That energizes fifty percent of the population.
Second, there is Hillary Clinton's great diplomatic approach. Diplomacy is needed to break the polarization in society, to move forward, not backward. Diplomacy is about humility and yielding and compromise. Politics is the "art of compromise."
Third, I would suggest a sense of excitement about the future. Everyone will be wondering what could happen with a woman president, day by day...
Hillary Clinton reminds me of JFK: "The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans...Let us begin!"
>>> Forward not Backward >>>
7
"That energizes fifty percent of the population."
"Third, I would suggest a sense of excitement about the future. Everyone will be wondering what could happen with a woman president, day by day... "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How totally patronizing and offensive.
I'm female, and i'm supposed to be energized by a hawk of a corporate candidate because we share the accident of similar plumbing? Never mind the empty record.
If i'm even remotely energized, it's by the old white guy who actually walks the walk as opposed to spouting the lip service du jour, and has for nearly his entire political career. Genuine advocate for the working classes, voted against the Iraq War, opposes TPP, longtime record in support of women's rights and same sex marriage, and of privacy and civil liberties across the spectrum. Is he going to get single-payer healthcare passed, his $12 bill for infrastructure - no, of course not. But at least he'll fight for it, and i wouldn't have to worry about having Goldman-approved SCOTUS noms.
Sorry to disappoint, but America Rising has nothing to do with that, but go ahead believe whatever gets you through the day. Nope, he's not going to win. That won't influence my vote though. And if (when) he loses the primary, i still have a third party candidate to vote for in Gary Johnson.
"Third, I would suggest a sense of excitement about the future. Everyone will be wondering what could happen with a woman president, day by day... "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How totally patronizing and offensive.
I'm female, and i'm supposed to be energized by a hawk of a corporate candidate because we share the accident of similar plumbing? Never mind the empty record.
If i'm even remotely energized, it's by the old white guy who actually walks the walk as opposed to spouting the lip service du jour, and has for nearly his entire political career. Genuine advocate for the working classes, voted against the Iraq War, opposes TPP, longtime record in support of women's rights and same sex marriage, and of privacy and civil liberties across the spectrum. Is he going to get single-payer healthcare passed, his $12 bill for infrastructure - no, of course not. But at least he'll fight for it, and i wouldn't have to worry about having Goldman-approved SCOTUS noms.
Sorry to disappoint, but America Rising has nothing to do with that, but go ahead believe whatever gets you through the day. Nope, he's not going to win. That won't influence my vote though. And if (when) he loses the primary, i still have a third party candidate to vote for in Gary Johnson.
4
A good many people were very "excited" about Obama as well.
Few of us could survive the intense (and sometimes semi-paranoid) scrutiny that surrounds Hillary Clinton. It is only a matter of time before someone in the Republican party or right wing journalism brings up (again) the name of Vince Foster and tries to tie his suicide death to Ms. Clinton.
I prefer to concentrate not on her personality but on her character, her capabilities, her stand on the issues affecting the average American, and her commitment to country. She is strong, smart, capable, experienced, and committed to America and improving the life of ordinary Americans. And she is eminently electable.
I am voting for Hillary.
Is she perfect? No, but neither are you or I or any other American.
I prefer to concentrate not on her personality but on her character, her capabilities, her stand on the issues affecting the average American, and her commitment to country. She is strong, smart, capable, experienced, and committed to America and improving the life of ordinary Americans. And she is eminently electable.
I am voting for Hillary.
Is she perfect? No, but neither are you or I or any other American.
9
"No one is perfect" is just a meaningless, hollow cliche. Let's hope our next president is someone who is not.
5
"She is strong, smart, capable, experienced, and committed to America and improving the life of ordinary Americans."
!
Let me try to point out some facts here, maybe you can rethink your position.
1) Name ONE accomplishment/effort in her alleged "long career" that benefited working folks. Just one.
Fact: She sat on WalMart board for 6 years. A patronage gig as wife of governor of ARK collecting $350000/year
Fact: She NEVER even proposed to WalMart management to consider paying living wages and basic benefits to thousands of store workers.
2) She served in the Senate for 7 years. Her claim to fame is: siding with The Decider and voting enthusiastically for Iraq invasion.
3) She was SoS for 4 years.
Fact: She did not address or work on any world crisis or foreign policy challenges. All her claim for million miles trips was pure window-dressing and photo-ops. No world leader ever come forward and praise her negotiating skills or masterful diplomacy.
She, however, succeeded greatly collecting “donations” from foreign countries to the so-called “Clinton Foundations”.We all know that foundation is nothing but a sophisticated scheme-racket- to enrich the Clintons.
!
Let me try to point out some facts here, maybe you can rethink your position.
1) Name ONE accomplishment/effort in her alleged "long career" that benefited working folks. Just one.
Fact: She sat on WalMart board for 6 years. A patronage gig as wife of governor of ARK collecting $350000/year
Fact: She NEVER even proposed to WalMart management to consider paying living wages and basic benefits to thousands of store workers.
2) She served in the Senate for 7 years. Her claim to fame is: siding with The Decider and voting enthusiastically for Iraq invasion.
3) She was SoS for 4 years.
Fact: She did not address or work on any world crisis or foreign policy challenges. All her claim for million miles trips was pure window-dressing and photo-ops. No world leader ever come forward and praise her negotiating skills or masterful diplomacy.
She, however, succeeded greatly collecting “donations” from foreign countries to the so-called “Clinton Foundations”.We all know that foundation is nothing but a sophisticated scheme-racket- to enrich the Clintons.
1
1% have never heard of Hilary Clinton?...
...thats a first.
...thats a first.
4
Yes we all know Hillary Clinton in spite of the media attempts to keep repainting her portrait. Even though I am a Bernie Sanders supporter I would vote for Hillary in a flash over any of the Republican miscreants. We already have suffered enough mismanagement, bad behavior, poor judgement, obfuscation and fear mongering from the entire Republican clown car.
7
Who are these people who haven't heard about Hillary Clinton? (The same I suppose as "The Man Who Never Heard of Frank Sinatra"? http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/man-who-never-heard-frank-sinatra). But anyway, I look forward to Hillary Clinton's presidential run. She was a great senator for New York and I think that she'll make a great president.
3
Really? What did she do for New York exactly?
12
Can you share with us anything she did as a "great Senator" that merits these accolades? She never sponsored anything significant, voted for the Iraq war, moved to New York for the sole purpose of getting herself on power...she achieved nothin of significance, lasting or otherwise. Simply warming a seat in the Senate chamber hardly makes one "great". By that standard we currently have 100 great Senators.
8
In that vein what were her accomplishments as SOS?
2
It is obviously not the issue, Hillary Clinton is a household name probably throughout the world, but is it enough to be the President of these United States that is the question.
Recycled goods and a lot of Baggage is another issue. During her quest for the Presidency she has accumulated huge wealth and became the 1 percentile; some of the donations from questionable individuals and groups which does speak volumes of her judgement. Is it alright to have no legal ramification for ones action or should ones action be so above board that there is even no perception of wrong doing.
Recycled goods and a lot of Baggage is another issue. During her quest for the Presidency she has accumulated huge wealth and became the 1 percentile; some of the donations from questionable individuals and groups which does speak volumes of her judgement. Is it alright to have no legal ramification for ones action or should ones action be so above board that there is even no perception of wrong doing.
15
There's a good reason why the press is talking about the sources of her money, but the Republican candidates aren't -- they don't want a close examination of their wealth any more than she does.
Unfortunately, in modern American politics, the old saw that says those capable of doing what it takes to be President should not be allowed anywhere near the job is altogether true.
And I'm talking abut the lot of them, not just her. I'll vote for her, because the thought of the SCOTUS nominees from any of these Republicans is terrifying enough to motivate me, despite my many reservations.
Unfortunately, in modern American politics, the old saw that says those capable of doing what it takes to be President should not be allowed anywhere near the job is altogether true.
And I'm talking abut the lot of them, not just her. I'll vote for her, because the thought of the SCOTUS nominees from any of these Republicans is terrifying enough to motivate me, despite my many reservations.
13
She isn't the only choice for the Democratic nomination. Take a look at Bernie Sanders' net worth and rethink your choices. The worst case scenario is you voting for Sanders who goes on to lose to Hillary for the nomination.
3
Good Lord!!! Who is she kidding? She is going through all this "trouble" to ask for more money for telling more lies.
17
It's who she is... and what she does.
1
The point is that the NYT is trying to appease the Clintonistas - who accuse the Times of being anti-Clinton - with pap stories like this one and the "5 Things You Didn't Know" "story". Even as they run the story about the newly discovered personal email account and the delayed production of emails right next to them!
15
Honesty and integrity are her problem.
33
Its every politician' problem so she has my vote. Looking forward to a woman with brains over the men for president. Yea Hillary!!
Just as they were her husband's.
Hillary's handling of Health Reform in Bill Clinton's first term is what swept in the mean spirited Gingrich Moral Majority republicans. Those republicans metastasized into today's republican lot. I'm for a woman. I'm for anyone, but not Hillary.
18
"She hopes to portray herself as personable". How about portraying herself as a person with implementable ideas to improve American education and infrastructure, fund scientific research, end our dependence on fossil fuels, promote prosperity and bring peace to a war torn world.
24
'Shannon Mallozzi, a Long Island mother said in one video. “She sat with me, and she was just phenomenal. That day, it was two moms sitting in a car.”' That's right. Two suburban Moms, hanging out, in an armored vehicle,with a dozen Secret Service Agents. four handlers, and a "rapid response" team hanging on every word allowed out. Yep. She's regular folks alright.
53
Honestly, I don't want to elect a "mom" to the presidency, I want to elect a strong leader with ideas they are proud enough of to share, and positions they are willing to defend. Sunshine, puppies, and relate-ability won't lead this country.
5
A Long Island mother evidently likes Hillary Clinton and enjoyed talking with her in "an armored vehicle". If they had been seated on a Greyhound bus or in the subway would you have liked them both more? You do not have to like Hillary Clinton. I like her because she can beat any of the people running on the Republican ticket! And I am sick to death of Republicans!
She is fake as New Coke. America is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
40
Of course America is scraping the bottom of the barrel! Only the most narcissistic, acquisitive, power-hungry individuals with delusions of grandeur would subject themselves to the shameless, grueling and demeaning process of running for president in the USA. Forced to pander for cash, suck up to the powerful, reveal every personal detail, placate the media and endure the mental and physical tortures of an endless campaign....why would any sane person want to go through that? And what's more, the character. traits and stamina required to win an election are not the same qualities we need in a leader. No wonder we're faced with a Republican clown show on the right and the ambitious, narcissistic, power-hungry Hillary in the middle. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are hopeful alternatives but very long shots.
Hard to erase 25 years of impressions of Hillary Clinton. Impossible to redo.
33
Hillary Clinton has a terrible personality, but the media, e.g. NYTimes, will try to make her seem human.
In addition to being nasty, she's dishonest, underhanded, and corrupt.
Apart from these few foibles, as long as she tells her constituents "I will grow social programs. I will give you more food stamps, HUD housing, Obamcare, Obamaphones. You can't get ahead because of the evil (men, whites, corporations, Republicans, etc.) so I will help you."
Mommy has come to help you sonny.
In addition to being nasty, she's dishonest, underhanded, and corrupt.
Apart from these few foibles, as long as she tells her constituents "I will grow social programs. I will give you more food stamps, HUD housing, Obamcare, Obamaphones. You can't get ahead because of the evil (men, whites, corporations, Republicans, etc.) so I will help you."
Mommy has come to help you sonny.
18
What is the point of this article, really?
If Clinton is so well known, why add more soap to the bubble bath?
Why not, instead, talk about the ISSUES: Clinton portrays herself as a hawk to compensate for the fact that she is a woman. So she IS a hawk: she voted for the invasion of Iraq. She is being supported by billionaires in and out of Wall Street. She is waffling about financial regulations and ways to address climate change. She is vague about helping out "everyday Americans"...
Will she offer change once in office? I doubt it.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is quite clear on the issues and if he is not as well known, it's because he is treated as a non-story by the media.
If Clinton is so well known, why add more soap to the bubble bath?
Why not, instead, talk about the ISSUES: Clinton portrays herself as a hawk to compensate for the fact that she is a woman. So she IS a hawk: she voted for the invasion of Iraq. She is being supported by billionaires in and out of Wall Street. She is waffling about financial regulations and ways to address climate change. She is vague about helping out "everyday Americans"...
Will she offer change once in office? I doubt it.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is quite clear on the issues and if he is not as well known, it's because he is treated as a non-story by the media.
88
jW,
Plz look closely at the pic in this piece?
See madam neo-con wide grin,touchy feely?
I just wonder where this- all of a sudden-caring is coming from?
Where was it when she sat on WalMart board for 6 long years? Didn't she know, or even cared to know-how WalMart was treating store workers? Minimum wages pay, zero benefits...all while WalMart stock was hitting all times high. Back then, Hilarious Clinton was very happy collecting her $350k/year check.
Now she needs votes…so she is putting the charm, caring face on!!!
Did she think we Dem voters that gullible?
Plz look closely at the pic in this piece?
See madam neo-con wide grin,touchy feely?
I just wonder where this- all of a sudden-caring is coming from?
Where was it when she sat on WalMart board for 6 long years? Didn't she know, or even cared to know-how WalMart was treating store workers? Minimum wages pay, zero benefits...all while WalMart stock was hitting all times high. Back then, Hilarious Clinton was very happy collecting her $350k/year check.
Now she needs votes…so she is putting the charm, caring face on!!!
Did she think we Dem voters that gullible?
5
Perhaps you did not read the piece in today's Times which discusses Hillary's desire to overturn Citizen's United. If she did just this (plus, of course, preserving Social Security) she would be worth her weight in gold.
1
Why avoid stating the obvious? Hillary Clinton is a lobbyist who wants to be President.
61
As opposed to her Tea Party-GOP challengers who are lobbyists for the rich. At least Hillary is a liberal progressive lobbyist for all the people.
2
The claim that "she ain't as bad as them" provides comfort only to partisans.
And to those she will help.
3
Already sick of the press pursuing Clinton and the rest of the self-marketing mob who crave to be the big kahuna. Let one of them win a single primary or garner a single delegate and I'll take notice. It's still 18 months until the actual quadrennial voter flagellation event, kids.
9
Dave
You're from Wisconsin and you're complaining about Hillary Clinton?
Our own back yard isn't doing so well with the new found foreign policy expert just returning from a week in Israel.....
He makes Hillary Clinton look like a saint, come on.
You're from Wisconsin and you're complaining about Hillary Clinton?
Our own back yard isn't doing so well with the new found foreign policy expert just returning from a week in Israel.....
He makes Hillary Clinton look like a saint, come on.
3
"Changing people's deeply held views" is part of the problem of politics today.
If people don't know about the candidate, which a lot don't because they have no interest in politics in the first place, a candidate's convincing will indeed come across as phony. Then they lose votes anyhow. Ever try convincing a Republican neighbor or friend or family member that your Democratic candidate was the better choice? It's useless and they just get irritated. Then they wait until you're gone and start saying bad stuff about "Your Choice" and probably you, too......
A phony man might make it in politics - but a phony woman? Not on your life. She needs to be herself, forget about "convincing" as it is a waste of time, energy, and money that could be spent on genuine issues.
If people don't know about the candidate, which a lot don't because they have no interest in politics in the first place, a candidate's convincing will indeed come across as phony. Then they lose votes anyhow. Ever try convincing a Republican neighbor or friend or family member that your Democratic candidate was the better choice? It's useless and they just get irritated. Then they wait until you're gone and start saying bad stuff about "Your Choice" and probably you, too......
A phony man might make it in politics - but a phony woman? Not on your life. She needs to be herself, forget about "convincing" as it is a waste of time, energy, and money that could be spent on genuine issues.
5
She is like New Improved Tide. The new improved and personable non scaming incorruptible Hillary...Forget the missteps, the cackling giggle, the too close to the line Clinton Foundation activities. The millions from corporations for her many speeches. It is all about packaging, Here she is America.. The newly designed and improved Hillary. It sickens me. New Tide did not clean any better and neither will Hillary.
35
I don't care what impression she's trying to make. I don't like her. I will not vote for her. Breaking news! All of them are the same regardless of the party. They will say anything to get elected.
31
Are you including Lincoln and FDR?
3
The current approach seems unlikely to change either the opinions of either the fans or skeptics. And it seems a bit low on wattage to grasp the attention of young voters.
Those inclined to like her will see what they want to see in these amber-hued, stage managed little get-togethers. Obviously, this will create little but derision from the 40-odd percent who view her negatively, but that doesn't surprise (or matter) much. The big question is if the van-pooling tour of small, preselected groups convinces the youth and/or hispanic vote. That seems less than sure.
Those inclined to like her will see what they want to see in these amber-hued, stage managed little get-togethers. Obviously, this will create little but derision from the 40-odd percent who view her negatively, but that doesn't surprise (or matter) much. The big question is if the van-pooling tour of small, preselected groups convinces the youth and/or hispanic vote. That seems less than sure.
2
She may have name recognition, but the middle class suburban women my wife and I know are gravitating towards Bernie Sanders (at least in the primary). The mere fact that she won't condemn the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) UNFAIR trade deal speaks volumes to us.
60
Nothing is funnier than hearing that people think Bernie can win the nomination.
This is the punchline of the year.
He is 73 years old and pretending to run for the nomination in a party he won't even join! He is pro-gun (to be electable in Vermont) but pretends he doesn't compromise and criticizes others who stake out a more reasonable center politically. He can't win.
He is not really even running. He is not putting in the miles, hiring the staff, or doing the work he must do to be a real contender.
People practically move to Iowa and NH when they are really running for the nomination (see Edwards or Romney or Chris Dodd in 2008) and he will probably not even miss a vote in the Senate to run.
This is the punchline of the year.
He is 73 years old and pretending to run for the nomination in a party he won't even join! He is pro-gun (to be electable in Vermont) but pretends he doesn't compromise and criticizes others who stake out a more reasonable center politically. He can't win.
He is not really even running. He is not putting in the miles, hiring the staff, or doing the work he must do to be a real contender.
People practically move to Iowa and NH when they are really running for the nomination (see Edwards or Romney or Chris Dodd in 2008) and he will probably not even miss a vote in the Senate to run.
1
michael, really? Nothing funnier? Not Louis CK? Not the Marx Brothers? Not Don Rickles? Not Jerry Seinfeld? Not...I could go on.
I support Bernie and I don't think he can win the nomination. In fact, I don't know anyone who supports Bernie who thinks he can win. But sometimes you have to support a candidate who speaks to your concerns and your ideals.
Just because he isn't running a campaign that looks exactly like all the others doesn't mean he isn't running. He is running. And if he doesn't miss a Senate vote during his campaign then, goodness! Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that the kind of commitment we want in a senator and a president? Presenting it as a negative just makes no sense.
I support Bernie and I don't think he can win the nomination. In fact, I don't know anyone who supports Bernie who thinks he can win. But sometimes you have to support a candidate who speaks to your concerns and your ideals.
Just because he isn't running a campaign that looks exactly like all the others doesn't mean he isn't running. He is running. And if he doesn't miss a Senate vote during his campaign then, goodness! Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that the kind of commitment we want in a senator and a president? Presenting it as a negative just makes no sense.
7
Consider just how unlikely Gene McCarthy was to thwart Hubert Humphrey. That's where Sanders is now. Also recall that his showing in the primaries spurred RFK to run. I wonder if the same dynamic will bring Elizabeth Warren to the forefront?
We would get a woman and a clear agenda without the clutter of Hilary's past.
We would get a woman and a clear agenda without the clutter of Hilary's past.
2
Clinton is not the only candidate for the Democratic nomination, but her opponent gets no news coverage here? Why is that? Infomed Americans generally favor a populist, a candidate for the people, not the Wall St banks and transnational corporations. But not a peep in the 'news'.
16
"If anyone vote[s for] Clinton and thinks she will fight to level the gap between middle class and the upper class, they are dead wrong."
Hillary Clinton raised Republican (and, sadly, American) hackles when in the first year of her husband's Presidency she worked for a single-payer healthcare system that would have brought the United States in line with other civilized nations that facilitate medical care to their citizenry.
Of course, in those countries taxes, higher than ours, cover those expenses.
But surely you don't expect any of the Republican candidates to care about working Americans? They're far too busy denying basic science, kowtowing to religious fundamentalists, and sucking up to the Koch brothers.
Not my favorites in any event, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could never win against a Republican. Mrs. Clinton will have my vote, if only by default.
Hillary Clinton raised Republican (and, sadly, American) hackles when in the first year of her husband's Presidency she worked for a single-payer healthcare system that would have brought the United States in line with other civilized nations that facilitate medical care to their citizenry.
Of course, in those countries taxes, higher than ours, cover those expenses.
But surely you don't expect any of the Republican candidates to care about working Americans? They're far too busy denying basic science, kowtowing to religious fundamentalists, and sucking up to the Koch brothers.
Not my favorites in any event, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could never win against a Republican. Mrs. Clinton will have my vote, if only by default.
4
Hillary Clinton will be the next President. The left would prefer someone with fewer ties to the big money banking world, but then how would a candidate afford to campaign against the avalanche of mud that is being thrown at her. In the end, the left will vote for her because we know we cannot afford to go back to the economic strategy that bankrupted the country.
The country will support her because she is the candidate that has the least in common with President Obama's biggest fault, lack of experience. We need a candidate with international and Washington experience to guide us during the next eight years and no one comes close to her competency in this arena.
When it comes down to choosing a candidate many of us will be considering the Supreme Court and how the Republican appointees have turned over national elections to the rich. We will vote for and hope for a change in that court. That is something the Republican's can not offer any of us.
The country will support her because she is the candidate that has the least in common with President Obama's biggest fault, lack of experience. We need a candidate with international and Washington experience to guide us during the next eight years and no one comes close to her competency in this arena.
When it comes down to choosing a candidate many of us will be considering the Supreme Court and how the Republican appointees have turned over national elections to the rich. We will vote for and hope for a change in that court. That is something the Republican's can not offer any of us.
72
....that and I think she's one of the hardest working people in government. Always.
1
Yup she racked up those miles while SOS but in all that travel time WHAT DID SHE ACTUALLY ACCOMMPLISH? No one seems to have an answer for that.
1
Joe. I'm in complete agreement with you. Some people don't understand some of the more salient points of her platform; the Right will completely ignore anything of her substance and keep barking at the moon. But your point about the SCUS is tantamount to a lot of voters for this next election. The US needs to realize how important this next president will be for the Bench. A right-leaning bench is dangerous for personal liberty. Especially when the GOP frontrunner - Jeb Bush -- is advocating for legal discrimination based on religious preference. He said that today. And, in all honesty, that alone should kill his candidacy. That was simply the most absurd thing I've ever heard a presidential candidate announce.
2
Isn't the NYT a supposedly respectable newspaper? Is so, why this non-stop parade of articles regurgitating stale opinions about Ms Clintons personality traits? It's boring and not helpful for creating an informed electorate. This also tend to give too much copy to the 'political drama' and nothing deep about the positions of lesser known candidates.
75
"the positions of lesser known candidates."
They are so lesser known that you did not name even one of them.
They are so lesser known that you did not name even one of them.
The idea Hillary stands for war and Wall Street rather than diplomacy and the working classes is a lunatic, fact-free talking point. Her whole career has been marked by advocacy for social justice.
Hillary brokered the Israel-Hamas ceasefire that prevented a 2nd Gaza War and saw peace between the two during her tenure. She was responsible for making women's and gay rights official US international humanitarian policy. She created the State Dept initiatives to 1) include energy independence in the US national security portfolio and to 2) combat digital terrorism, recognizing Bush admin neglect.
As a private lawyer, Hillary chaired the American Bar Association group that instituted gender bias reforms in the profession. As First Lady of the US, she was the force behind worldwide women's rights efforts, expansion of poor children's health insurance, and adoption reform to give unwanted kids homes.
As a Senator, she fought the Bush tax cuts for the rich. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary made it the first state to embrace early childhood education. She got Congress to triple the budget of Legal Services to aid the poor when she ran the program, successfully fighting Reagan's attempts to cut it.
Very few have worked harder for the vulnerable. Does she have flaws? Yes, she's human. She is also the best viable candidate progressives have had, but maybe you have to be a real progressive to notice.
Hillary brokered the Israel-Hamas ceasefire that prevented a 2nd Gaza War and saw peace between the two during her tenure. She was responsible for making women's and gay rights official US international humanitarian policy. She created the State Dept initiatives to 1) include energy independence in the US national security portfolio and to 2) combat digital terrorism, recognizing Bush admin neglect.
As a private lawyer, Hillary chaired the American Bar Association group that instituted gender bias reforms in the profession. As First Lady of the US, she was the force behind worldwide women's rights efforts, expansion of poor children's health insurance, and adoption reform to give unwanted kids homes.
As a Senator, she fought the Bush tax cuts for the rich. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary made it the first state to embrace early childhood education. She got Congress to triple the budget of Legal Services to aid the poor when she ran the program, successfully fighting Reagan's attempts to cut it.
Very few have worked harder for the vulnerable. Does she have flaws? Yes, she's human. She is also the best viable candidate progressives have had, but maybe you have to be a real progressive to notice.
40
Bravo. I agree with every word. She has my full support. Gosh, more than that, I think I'd go work for her..... I just REALLY admire her.
.....You know who else has my admiration in the same way?
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She's another rising star. I hope she gets considered for VEEP.
.....You know who else has my admiration in the same way?
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She's another rising star. I hope she gets considered for VEEP.
1
At lease Gillibrand has a record to stand on, she is up and coming and deserves the accolades given her. She truly is bucking the system while Hillary just talks the talk while accommplish little.
It certainly looks like IKE was wrong about an economy based on war. It works just fine. Think of the trillions to be made by invading Iraq and Syria again, especially if russia or China pitches in and sends their armies to fight for one of the many sides fighting over there. I love that there's not just two sides! Now we're talking quadrillions of dollars for the elite one percent. The elite will become so rich, that war is going to be added as a new amendment to our constitution. War as law of the land. No war? That's inconstitutional! Arrest all of congress! I'm shocked...SHOCKED!! Shocked to find out that a truce has been arranged. Cease fires are felonies!! We'll lose millions. What wrong with the peacenik cowards and traitors? Hunt them down. Hang them all, (after a fair trial, of course).
Aw, things are gonna be great folks.
Aw, things are gonna be great folks.
4
For me, her problem is taking somebody like a Monsanto lobbyist such as Mr. Crawford to run her campaign. Us democrats and liberals don't like the whole GMO, poison, fast food culture that has been wrecking this country.
Having lobbyists, who are the natural enemy of the people, right on staff, is just not the liberal, democratic thing to do.
Having lobbyists, who are the natural enemy of the people, right on staff, is just not the liberal, democratic thing to do.
67
Clinton is not personable.
That is why her current campaign is so carefully scripted and tightly managed, like a stage production.
That is why her current campaign is so carefully scripted and tightly managed, like a stage production.
75
No but she is extremely experienced, talented and competent. I will take those traits over her being my pretend bestie.
22
Name me one politician, just one, whose campaign isn't carefully scripted and tightly managed, like a stage production. Just one.
Maybe Bernie Sanders. Otherwise, every single one of them. To write as if Clinton is the only one who does this is disingenuous.
Maybe Bernie Sanders. Otherwise, every single one of them. To write as if Clinton is the only one who does this is disingenuous.
38
Campaigns are organized efforts to spread an organized message to inform voters of choices. Why be cynical about that?
Some one like Hillary is criticized if she is not organized and disciplined and criticized when she is organized and disciplined.
She is organized and disciplined and these are the traits of a good leader and president.
She is someone many of us adore and look forward to.
And she is winning!
Our Eleanor.
Some one like Hillary is criticized if she is not organized and disciplined and criticized when she is organized and disciplined.
She is organized and disciplined and these are the traits of a good leader and president.
She is someone many of us adore and look forward to.
And she is winning!
Our Eleanor.
6
Chozick keeps complaining that Hillary Clinton is spending time talking to voters instead of diverting time to talk to political reporters, as if the political reporters are the ones who ask the important questions.
Actually, voters ask good questions, while political reporters tend to ask about polls, personalities, campaign strategy and gaffes and the "scandal" du jour.
I loved the way Bernie Sanders kept turning around a reporter on CNN's SOTU (Sunday) questions re whether he was prepared to "take on" Clinton, by asking whether the reporter was prepared to cover substantive issues.
Both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns will have strong, often overlapping, policy proposals. (In dramatic contrast, It is unlikely that the Republican candidates will -- except in private to donors-- honestly outline their policy proposals, which tend to include eliminating environmental regulations, protecting tax breaks for multimillionaires instead of reducing interest on student loans, turning Medicare into a voucher system then cutting the size of the vouchers, raising the SS retirement age etc).
Judging from past campaigns ( and this campaign so far) we are likely to learn more about policy by listening to answers to questions posed by voters than by answers to questions posed by, and the commentary of, political reporters.
Actually, voters ask good questions, while political reporters tend to ask about polls, personalities, campaign strategy and gaffes and the "scandal" du jour.
I loved the way Bernie Sanders kept turning around a reporter on CNN's SOTU (Sunday) questions re whether he was prepared to "take on" Clinton, by asking whether the reporter was prepared to cover substantive issues.
Both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns will have strong, often overlapping, policy proposals. (In dramatic contrast, It is unlikely that the Republican candidates will -- except in private to donors-- honestly outline their policy proposals, which tend to include eliminating environmental regulations, protecting tax breaks for multimillionaires instead of reducing interest on student loans, turning Medicare into a voucher system then cutting the size of the vouchers, raising the SS retirement age etc).
Judging from past campaigns ( and this campaign so far) we are likely to learn more about policy by listening to answers to questions posed by voters than by answers to questions posed by, and the commentary of, political reporters.
99
What do you mean, voters? Any time Hillary claims to sit down with a group of voters, they turn out to be hand-picked Democratic Party operatives posing as voters.
Real voters might start asking the same questions the reporters want to ask.
Real voters might start asking the same questions the reporters want to ask.
30
To Jonathan: what do you mean " hand picked Democratic operatives". Registered Democrats?
10
Those people sitting at those tightly staged round tables with Hillary are just props pretending to be ordinary voters.
6
“Changing people’s deeply held views ... is the hardest thing to do in politics and in life.” That is why the right spends so much effort to slander Mrs. Clinton, and the reason hate radio and Fox News has been painting her as a scheming, money grabbing monster. Hillary enters the race pre-slandered with scandals that never were, like White Water and Benghazi.
39
A more current and accurate quote, directly from Hillary is, "And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Religious beliefs have to be changed. Ouch. Hard to get around that one.
Look elsewhere at the coverage of the recent NYPD shooting of a man with a hammer. One "eyewitness" stated that the man, armed with a hammer swinging at the female officer, was "fleeing" from the pair. The other witness stated definitively that the suspect was shot while handcuffed on the ground. And as she described it, "“In my mind I assumed he was just standing there passively, and now is on the ground in handcuffs.”
“With all of the accounts in the news of police officers in shootings, I assumed that police were taking advantage of someone who was easily discriminated against,” she added. “Based on what I saw, I assumed the worst. Even though I had looked away.”
Let's all not assume the worst, right wing or left.
Look elsewhere at the coverage of the recent NYPD shooting of a man with a hammer. One "eyewitness" stated that the man, armed with a hammer swinging at the female officer, was "fleeing" from the pair. The other witness stated definitively that the suspect was shot while handcuffed on the ground. And as she described it, "“In my mind I assumed he was just standing there passively, and now is on the ground in handcuffs.”
“With all of the accounts in the news of police officers in shootings, I assumed that police were taking advantage of someone who was easily discriminated against,” she added. “Based on what I saw, I assumed the worst. Even though I had looked away.”
Let's all not assume the worst, right wing or left.
1
What, there are a full 1% of Americans who haven't heard of Hillary Clinton? In which universe have they been living in the last two decades? And if they truly don't care, should they really be cajoled to vote?
14
If anyone vote Clinton and thinks she will fight to level the gap between middle class and the upper class, they are dead wrong. She will line her purse, side with big money and leave US in the lurch claiming it is for the good of the country. Our monetary system in large part is propped up by our military might. Case in point, look at Russia's failed attempt at imperialism and the exchange rate for their currency at this moment in time. No such sanctions can be leveled against the US due to our OVER POWERING might. That is why the BIG MONEY wants to fight instead of talk. It is after all, all about the bottom line.
Warren is being a BIG CHICKEN by not stepping into the arena. That being said, what a chicken to have as the head of the free world.
Warren is being a BIG CHICKEN by not stepping into the arena. That being said, what a chicken to have as the head of the free world.
3
Are you telling us Hillary has become a Tpublican?
Enough about Warren, she talks a good game but look to see who backs her. She HAS taken money from Goldman Sachs, she has taken money from big name Law and Accounting Firms, she has been bought and paid for as well. How can you tell a politician is lying? Simple their lips are moving. Warren has been touted as the next big thing since sliced bread, wake up people she has her special interest groups that expect favors from her in return for those campaign checks she cashed. We don't need another law proffessor in office, that's the last thing this country needs.
7
I find these unsubstantiated allegations that Hilary Clinton is running for president to simply line her pockets with more money to be absurd. They now have enough money to spend millions for their remaining years of life. They don't need the money. If they didn't care about the nation, they could have retired years ago. The facts are that she is an experienced, intelligent candidate, who is likely to put the country on a better track than it is now. The absence of a Y chromosome is also probably a good thing, given the foreign policy challenges with which we are confronted. It should give her a great advantage over the GOP, i.e., the Grand Old Patriarchs.
3