# HRC 2016



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

This has been alluded to in another thread but given that the next political silly season is right about to start, and Hillary is going to be the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room, I thought it would merit it's own discussion. 

She'll probably run, but as for being nominated, I don't believe it's a given. A few points:

1) She's a lousy candidate....period! She has none of the personality, charm and geniality of her husband. She has none of the instincts of her husband.

2) She has absolutely no real accomplishments to her name. Her stint as SOS did not result in moving the US interests forward in any way and she's not really a foreign policy intellectual. The most memorable moments of her tenure were Benghazi followed closely by the "reset button" fiasco. If she tries to throw the current POTUS under the bus by claiming she warned of this and championed an alternate foreign policy, then she really wasn't all that persuasive. 

3) She's got way too much baggage. Twenty-four years in Washington she's racked up her fair share of questionable dealings not to mention the stuff from Arkansas. Trust me, all of that will come up again and it will turn people off. 

4) She has no articulated vision for what a Hillary presidency will look like. How will she be different from the current administration? How will she differ in terms of the current POTUS. She'll have to gently throw him under the bus and that will likely alienate some voters. She wants to be POTUS because that's what Clintons do.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Oh. she'll run alrighty. This is about her last chance before she fades from the public eye. I too doubt that the nomination is guaranteed and I would prefer the dems run someone else with more appeal outside of the dem party base.

1) Germany's Angela Merkel has "none of the personality, charm and geniality" of Bill Clinton either but she seems to do OK.

2) McCain and Palin had no real accomplishments of their own but the GOP ran them anyways. It seems that you're of the opinion that obama no real experience of his own but it appears that he won over the GOP candidates twice.

3) Who in Washington doesn't have baggage? They are all a bunch of self serving liars. Sure the GOPers hate HRC but what Dem would they like? The dems could run god and the GOP would cry about it on principle alone. 

4) Has there been anyone with a clear vision as to what their presidency would look like? In my 40 + years it seems that American presidential candidates just line up the lies during election season and do whatever they want once they're in office.

As with any U.S. election... 40% will vote for the dems no matter the dem candidate. 40% will vote for the repubs no matter the repub candidate. 20% will decide on various other factors. So the real question is not the "no" repubs or "yes" dems but the appeal to these ind.voters. While GOPers are still crying foul over ARK, do the ind. voters really care? Do these voters care about benghazi as much as the GOPers? 

I think your real worry is as to whether or not the GOP can run someone capable of challenging HRC (or whoever ends up being the dem nominee). Who do you have and what are their advantages compared to HRC? It's easy enough to be critical of someone 2 years out but who are you going to run against her that won't seem like an out of touch whacko preaching religious /social beliefs that most Americans no longer adhere to (esp ind. voters)?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

My sense is, the next president is now a governor. It remains to see who that is, but not Christie. Bridge-gate damaged him big time.

As for Hillary Clinton, I've spoken my piece on her. I still say the Hillary hate we hear is much more personality based than fact or policy based, it's pretty clear what she stands for if you've been paying attention and she has a more impressive resume than any other potential candidate. Anyone who says she hasn't done anything after being a first lady, a senator and a secretary of state isn't thinking this through. And while I don't think she'll win, she might be more of a player than we might think if she can make inroads into the woman vote.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I still say the Hillary hate we hear is much more personality based than fact or policy based,


Why not both??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

She's hot. Admit it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> My sense is, the next president is now a governor. It remains to see who that is, but not Christie. Bridge-gate damaged him big time.
> 
> As for Hillary Clinton, I've spoken my piece on her. I still say the Hillary hate we hear is much more personality based than fact or policy based, it's pretty clear what she stands for if you've been paying attention and she has a more impressive resume than any other potential candidate. Anyone who says she hasn't done anything after being a first lady, a senator and a secretary of state isn't thinking this through. And while I don't think she'll win, she might be more of a player than we might think if she can make inroads into the woman vote.


She had a chance to make an inroad with women and she blew it! And I'll stand by statement, she brings absolutely nothing to the table except her name.

Her resume is impressive on paper, but when we dig in, it's pretty hollow. Like Bud Fox being named President of Bluestar Airlines.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Like her or not, you have to admit that Kissinger's fawning over her is a big feather in her political cap. I respect Henry's judgment on such things pretty highly.

I suspect it's an outgrowth of the shared belief of the two in _Realpolitik._ Have to admit I share it as well.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> This has been alluded to in another thread but given that the next political silly season is right about to start, and Hillary is going to be the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room, I thought it would merit it's own discussion.
> 
> She'll probably run, but as for being nominated, I don't believe it's a given. A few points:
> 
> ...


Agreed on all points. As someone who votes Left on social issues I can tell you that there are a lot of Progressives who hate HRC. Part of the reason the Dems lost this mid-term election is they couldn't stick to any cohesive messages and rally their base. It was a complete and total clusterf*ck.

The thing that irks me the most is this idea that HRC will be the nominee in 2016. Complete and total BS. The Dems said the same thing in '08 and that didn't work out so well for her. I'm not buying into the 'if you don't support Our candidate then the Republicans win' argument anymore.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ It's just not going to be a Dem year in 2016. Eight years of Barry-O it's going to be difficult for any of them to claim how they're going to be different. HRC is chief among them. They had a couple of gubernatorial hopefuls who lost out last week. 

Cuomo? Doubtful. I recall a story where he recently shut down an ethics investigation that he had set up himself because they came sniffing around some of his dealings. Elizabeth Warren? She's the female version of Howard Dean; a boutique candidate who will play well in the northeast but nowhere else. They just don't have a deep bench.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ It's just not going to be a Dem year in 2016. Eight years of Barry-O it's going to be difficult for any of them to claim how they're going to be different. HRC is chief among them. They had a couple of gubernatorial hopefuls who lost out last week.
> 
> Cuomo? Doubtful. I recall a story where he recently shut down an ethics investigation that he had set up himself because they came sniffing around some of his dealings. Elizabeth Warren? She's the female version of Howard Dean; a boutique candidate who will play well in the northeast but nowhere else. They just don't have a deep bench.


I dunno. I like Warren mainly because she doesn't appear to be deeply entrenched in special interests that seem to permeate Washington. She also seems to be one of the few calling out Wall St and talking about student loan debt reform. What I don't want to see is another Bush vs Clinton presidential race in 2016.

2016 could still be a toss up, only because things appear to be a little better now than they were in '08 when the recession hit. Is the economy great? Far from it but this will be one of the things brought up that the Republicans will have a hard time defending. And the truth is, Obama has made a lot of decisions that Republicans would've made (ie. Pro war, pro Wall St, pro fracking, etc), so all of a sudden somebody like Warren starts to look better and better over HRC who is viewed on the Left as Republican lite

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I believe the current governor of Maryland, whose final term is coming to an end, will make a play for the Democrat nomination.

However, I suspect that the next president will be a Republican, as the wind now seems to be blowing that way.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ It's just not going to be a Dem year in 2016. Eight years of Barry-O it's going to be difficult for any of them to claim how they're going to be different. HRC is chief among them. They had a couple of gubernatorial hopefuls who lost out last week.
> 
> Cuomo? Doubtful. I recall a story where he recently shut down an ethics investigation that he had set up himself because they came sniffing around some of his dealings. Elizabeth Warren? She's the female version of Howard Dean; a boutique candidate who will play well in the northeast but nowhere else. They just don't have a deep bench.


Wise words.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

gaseousclay said:


> I dunno. I like Warren mainly because she doesn't appear to be deeply entrenched in special interests that seem to permeate Washington. She also seems to be one of the few calling out Wall St and talking about student loan debt reform.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What is she "calling" Wall Street out on? And what's "Wall Street"? The physical street? Are there particular firms that she has a problem with? She's basically channeling the occupy movement and though at she is at least more literate, the overall message is still incoherent.

And what student loan reform? The problem with student loans is....student loans! Cut student aid and you'll see tuition prices drop and hence the cost of education go down. As long as the government subsidizes it the cost will increase.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I will continue to hope that she swallows up tons of DNC cash.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> What is she "calling" Wall Street out on? And what's "Wall Street"? The physical street? Are there particular firms that she has a problem with? She's basically channeling the occupy movement and though at she is at least more literate, the overall message is still incoherent.
> 
> And what student loan reform? The problem with student loans is....student loans! Cut student aid and you'll see tuition prices drop and hence the cost of education go down. As long as the government subsidizes it the cost will increase.


I agree that the student loan crisis is overblown. Every so-called expose that I have read involves kids making dumb choices, going to private colleges instead of public universities and majoring in French theatre studies or the like. But the solution is not to cut aid, with the exception of loans to attend for-profit schools--that should have stopped yesterday. Student loans were critical for me when I went to college, and they remain critical today for a lot of students who could not otherwise afford college. There should be some changes, though. Those not in default should be allowed to refinance at lower interest rates. Right now, that's not allowed. Notably, Democrats have pushed for reforms that make sense, such as a ban on loans to attend for-profit schools and a mechanism to allow refinancing. We should be careful when we throw rocks in just one direction. There is plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The ban on for profit colleges sounds dandy until you realize that those are where many minorities end up. Do you want to be the one to be accused of economic discrimination or be accused of relegating certain communities to "ride the back of the higher ed bus"?

A kid attending a for profit college studying scalp care technologies is every bit as I'll equipped to deal with the real world as one with a degree in English lit or graphic design. Just cut it all out. Tuition will drop, schools will tighten their belts, dorm room will start to look like dorm rooms rather than a suite at the Mandarin Oriental and no more ridiculous "center for the study of academic excellence" and other nonsensical building projects on campuses.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> I believe the current governor of Maryland, whose final term is coming to an end, will make a play for the Democrat nomination.


If he couldn't get his own Black Lt. Governor elected to take his place, his hopes look grim!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You should consider applying this same logic to the health care industry.

If for-profits were so great, especially for minorities, then Democrats would not be leading the charge to eliminate student loans for them. The truth is, they do not prepare students for any jobs at all, rather, they leave them saddled with student loans that they cannot repay. They produce nothing of value save profits for the schools. They do not help minorities, they victimize minorities. And veterans. And lots of other people. Surely you must realize that.

English literature is actually a very useful degree. You see, there is still, really, great value in a liberal arts education. It teaches one to think and to communicate, whether your major is English or history or philosophy. It has much more value than a degree in graphic arts or communications. This is why universities have been delivering liberal arts educations for centuries. If a liberal arts education was not useful, then universities would not have provided same for centuries. Armed with a true liberal arts education from a decent school, one can still go out and get a job and have a chance in this world.

Finally, you do realize that by eliminating student loans, you are eliminating college for tens upon tens of thousands of kids who don't have the means to pay $60,000 or more for a college education. Because that's what it costs these days. You realize, I hope, how elitist that is, how much further the gap between the haves and have-nots would grow. You realize that is, essentially, telling anyone who isn't rich to go get a job at McDonalds and work their way up, no matter how smart they may be. Perhaps you prefer things this way. Perhaps you fear economic (and perhaps intellectual) competition, and so you would like to limit college only to those who are rich. I can't fathom another reason.



SG_67 said:


> The ban on for profit colleges sounds dandy until you realize that those are where many minorities end up. Do you want to be the one to be accused of economic discrimination or be accused of relegating certain communities to "ride the back of the higher ed bus"?
> 
> A kid attending a for profit college studying scalp care technologies is every bit as I'll equipped to deal with the real world as one with a degree in English lit or graphic design. Just cut it all out. Tuition will drop, schools will tighten their belts, dorm room will start to look like dorm rooms rather than a suite at the Mandarin Oriental and no more ridiculous "center for the study of academic excellence" and other nonsensical building projects on campuses.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Back to the topic - my issue with Hillary is that she has, as far as I can tell, not really ever done an even decent job by any metric at anything she has ever been involved in. And, even worse, when this is pointed out or she is called to task, she blames others and angrily attacks her critics (her first attempt at healthcare, Bill's marital issues, Benghazi, etc.) for having the temerity to point out her limitations/issues.

These are not traits that I really look for in a president.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Back to the topic - my issue with Hillary is that she has, as far as I can tell, not really ever done an even decent job by any metric at anything she has ever been involved in. And, even worse, when this is pointed out or she is called to task, she blames others and angrily attacks her critics (her first attempt at healthcare, Bill's marital issues, Benghazi, etc.) for having the temerity to point out her limitations/issues.
> 
> These are not traits that I really look for in a president.


I sense a double standard.

What did Lincoln ever do before he became president? He was, at best, a back bencher legislator who couldn't even win a Senate seat, for crying out loud. And Truman? Sheesh--all he ever did was run a haberdashery and go home to his wife every night.

I could continue, if you'd like, and the list would be a really, really, really long. Lots of presidents, good, bad and in between, have moved into the White House with no huge accomplishments to their name. So why are folks picking on HRC? We can talk about whether or not she has had notable accomplishments, but why are people saying she's not qualified because she hasn't done anything? Well, for one thing, she has never been the head of any organization in her entire career. She has been either a legislator or an appointed department head who answers to someone else. You can't claim credit for stuff when you're not top dog.

This seems to be the newest fad amongst knee-jerk Hillary haters: She hasn't accomplished anything. If you are going to keep saying that, then judge the other candidates by the same rubric. You can look at virtually every criticism of HRC and see a double standard. It's getting old.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I sense a double standard.
> 
> What did Lincoln ever do before he became president? He was, at best, a back bencher legislator who couldn't even win a Senate seat, for crying out loud. And Truman? Sheesh--all he ever did was run a haberdashery and go home to his wife every night.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote. No where did I say that she does not have experience.

What I said is that she has often done a craptacular job in the high profile jobs that she has had. And when the craptacularness is pointed out to her, she has a tendency to change the topic and then attack the critic.

Kind of like what you did.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote. No where did I say that she does not have experience.
> 
> What I said is that she has often done a craptacular job in the high profile jobs that she has had. And when the craptacularness is pointed out to her, she has a tendency to change the topic and then attack the critic.
> 
> Kind of like what you did.


Point taken, and fair enough. We disagree on whether or not she's done a lousy job. I don't think she's as bad as you perceive.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Point taken, and fair enough. We disagree on whether or not she's done a lousy job. I don't think she's as bad as you perceive.


It isn't perception - I am not big on that. It is facts and data.

I cannot think of one, single thing that she has accomplished other than getting elected to be a Senator from NY, which let's face it, with her name and party isn't exactly the most amazing thing on a resume. She disavowed just about everything she voted on as a senator when she ran for president as well.

She did not really have any accomplishments that I can recall as SoS, and failed miserably in her one crisis there. Then she blamed people for asking questions about having an ambassador killed on her watch.

She may well win the nomination and the presidency though. But the presidential slog against Obama already exposed some her flaws - so imagine how much more that will happen when the lights burn longer and hotter.

What do you think that she has accomplished?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ does braving a visit to the Balkans as First Lady, while under sniper fire, count for anything?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^

Wasn't her claim to have come under sniper fire later discredited as being way overblown? Just wondering. :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ it was. My post was meant in jest.


----------

