For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is my favorite Hilary Clinton photo and the reason why I'm voting for her.

I know we're supposed to be looking at Natalie, but God does Hill ever have the crazy eyes in that picture.

Yeah for good reason.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now... imagine if it was Joe Biden in that shot.... or Bill...

 

[dhockster]

Pretty sure Hillary was a lock in 2008 as well. Then this black guy from Kenya beat her and the wealthy,powerful Clinton machine.

Are you really expecting that to happen again? I mean I know you'd love it to happen, but are you really expecting it?

Who expected it last time? Long way to election day and Hillary has already proven vulnerable. The Clinton's want it so bad they tend to go too far. Wait until Hillary starts acting like Hillary thin skinned and entitled.

The only thing that beat Hillary in 08 was being a Woman. The Country was just not quite ready for a Woman President. One more decade had to pass to let another generation move in place. You see that now with Gay rights. 10 years ago there was no movement at all. Now another generation that cares little about traditional values and religion has moved into the electorate while a vast group of conservatives has passed away and moved out. Hillary's timing was just off by the voter group now in their 30's that have families now instead of frat brothers and sisters. This is a strange time in America. Republicans are finding it much harder to control even their own party.

Hillary isn't very likable and that's why she lost. I mean really you think the country was more ready for a black man as president than a white woman?

Absolutely, Obama was a very smart and likable Man. A very powerful Man. The edge was her being a Woman and at the time Men felt like only a Man could be tough on foreign policy. However, now Hillary has proven she can play with the big boys. She needed the Sec of State position to prove that.She also lost because of the lack of social media and tech leverage.

It always comes down the likability. Hillary isn't likable. She is cold and calculating. She is thin skinned and has a temper. That bursts through the facade whenever she is challenged. We'll see if she gets a serious challenge or not. If she does get a challenge the dirty tricks will start and at some point the Clinton's fingerprints will be found all over them. Again. Then we'll see how things go.

I totally agree with this. I have said before and will say again, she is a terrible campaigner. I think her people know this and will try to minimize interviews and policy platforms as much as possible. When she gets challenged, she just doesn't respond well. Just look at her e-mail press conference. Her body language and facial expressions showed (at least to me) how beneath her she thought the questions were. Not a good look for a candidate.

I think Obama has been a terrible president. But as a campaigner, he handled himself pretty well. Hillary doesn't seem to have this trait.

 

[NREC34]

Hillary is more of the same. She will hire the same people as Obama, his admin is full of Clinton retreads. She will have the same policies more or less. Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

If the retreads are the folks who helped get health reform passed, helped the pull out in he ME, helped the Iran deal, helped pass Dodd Frank, advised on the Kagan and Sotomayor appointments, crafted economic policies that turned the economy around and ushered in the best years of job growth in decades - bring on the retreads.

This is a strange post on a number of levels, but especially the bolded part. You like health care reform and want to reward the people who got it passed -- that's fine and makes total sense. Then why the support for Hillary? She's the person most directly responsible for screwing it up in 1993. HCR seemed like a slam-dunk when Clinton was elected, and it was mainly due to Hillary's atrocious mismanagement that it ended up dying until Obama came along to clean up her mess. It seems to me that Hillary would be the last person I would support if HCR were a priority of mine. I understand rewarding the people who succeeded in getting it done, but why reward Hillary when her incompetence killed it off in the first place?

I don't think your analysis is correct. Health care in 1993 didn't happen because there wasn't enough of a political coalition to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's competence level had very little bearing on that.

Exactly.And I love the memes emerging so far: Hillary is responsible for the war in Iraq and it is her fault we didn't get health reform 20 years earlier. Plus she announced by video, which means she is afraid to face reporters and crowds, except for the pesky fact that she announced the exact same way in her 2008 campaign, in which she faced numerous crowds and gave multiple interviews.

Lol...they are so afraid of her. It's funny to watch.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is more of the same. She will hire the same people as Obama, his admin is full of Clinton retreads. She will have the same policies more or less. Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

If the retreads are the folks who helped get health reform passed, helped the pull out in he ME, helped the Iran deal, helped pass Dodd Frank, advised on the Kagan and Sotomayor appointments, crafted economic policies that turned the economy around and ushered in the best years of job growth in decades - bring on the retreads.

This is a strange post on a number of levels, but especially the bolded part. You like health care reform and want to reward the people who got it passed -- that's fine and makes total sense. Then why the support for Hillary? She's the person most directly responsible for screwing it up in 1993. HCR seemed like a slam-dunk when Clinton was elected, and it was mainly due to Hillary's atrocious mismanagement that it ended up dying until Obama came along to clean up her mess. It seems to me that Hillary would be the last person I would support if HCR were a priority of mine. I understand rewarding the people who succeeded in getting it done, but why reward Hillary when her incompetence killed it off in the first place?

I don't think your analysis is correct. Health care in 1993 didn't happen because there wasn't enough of a political coalition to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's competence level had very little bearing on that.

Exactly.And I love the memes emerging so far: Hillary is responsible for the war in Iraq and it is her fault we didn't get health reform 20 years earlier. Plus she announced by video, which means she is afraid to face reporters and crowds, except for the pesky fact that she announced the exact same way in her 2008 campaign, in which she faced numerous crowds and gave multiple interviews.

Lol...they are so afraid of her. It's funny to watch.

Those are three things:

• Hillary is responsible for the war in Iraq - this would be a concern for liberals/progs/Demos, not goppers/conservatives
• it is her fault we didn't get health reform 20 years earlier - this would be a concern for liberals/progs/Demos, not goppers/conservatives
• she is afraid to face reporters and crowds - no, that's not exactly right, the point is that her handlers in this campaign have kept her away from crowds and live interviews this go-round because they are different handlers than last time and because this group don't think she does well in those situations or they believe those things are risky for her, big difference

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

She's like a head coach getting a third gig, can you really be that excited? She's like the John Fox of candidates.

 

[DrrDetroit]

Seems as if the RNC will cancel each other out, thus landing Hillary in the White House.

 

[squistion]

Lol...they are so afraid of her. It's funny to watch.

Those are three things:

• Hillary is responsible for the war in Iraq - this would be a concern for liberals/progs/Demos, not goppers/conservatives
• it is her fault we didn't get health reform 20 years earlier - this would be a concern for liberals/progs/Demos, not goppers/conservatives
• she is afraid to face reporters and crowds - no, that's not exactly right, the point is that her handlers in this campaign have kept her away from crowds and live interviews this go-round because they are different handlers than last time and because this group don't think she does well in those situations or they believe those things are risky for her, big difference

That is all very nice, except the first two are currently of no concern to liberals/progressives/Democrats, because we know they aren't true. The only people raising these issues are conservatives and have gotten no traction to date. If the right wants to keep talking about it, fine, it will be met with same collective yawn that we have seen so far.

And, as to the last point, you have no idea what her handlers really think or believe. She had no difficulty facing crowds or reporters in 2008 and it laughable to suggest she won't again this time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Lol...they are so afraid of her. It's funny to watch.

Those are three things:

• Hillary is responsible for the war in Iraq - this would be a concern for liberals/progs/Demos, not goppers/conservatives
• it is her fault we didn't get health reform 20 years earlier - this would be a concern for liberals/progs/Demos, not goppers/conservatives
• she is afraid to face reporters and crowds - no, that's not exactly right, the point is that her handlers in this campaign have kept her away from crowds and live interviews this go-round because they are different handlers than last time and because this group don't think she does well in those situations or they believe those things are risky for her, big difference

That is all very nice, except the first two are currently of no concern to liberals/progressives/Democrats, because we know they aren't true. The only people raising these issues are conservatives and have gotten no traction to date. If the right wants to keep talking about it, fine, it will be met with same collective yawn that we have seen so far.

And, as to the last point, you have no idea what her handlers really think or believe. She had no difficulty facing crowds or reporters in 2008 and it laughable to suggest she won't again this time.

Yeah, I think the argument there is that true believer libs/progs will care, so her support on that front will be tepid. I agree, not sure if that's valid or not, it remains to be seen how much enthusiasm she generates. - But let's face it 'she supported the Iraq War!' and 'she almost killed health care!' aren't exactly threatening liens to conservatives.

Last one is rank speculation on my part, of course she will get out there in front of large crowds eventually. - The live interviews and exposing herself to reporter pools, not so sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I do think it's odd that Hillary's greatest strength should be towards the middle, that's what the GOP should/would be afraid of, and she actually has the rare luxury of not having to play to her base - she's going to win the Demo nomination no matter what, even if she just rolled out of bed - so I wonder what she's doing with the populist line. - First of all will anyone buy it, secondly, she should just be running for president right now and by that she should be running towards the middle not the left.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I do think it's odd that Hillary's greatest strength should be towards the middle, that's what the GOP should/would be afraid of, and she actually has the rare luxury of not having to play to her base - she's going to win the Demo nomination no matter what, even if she just rolled out of bed - so I wonder what she's doing with the populist line. - First of all will anyone buy it, secondly, she should just be running for president right now and by that she should be running towards the middle not the left.

I think her campaign is spooked by 2008. Yeah, she's a lot more dominant now than she was then, but taking the Democratic nomination for granted is just bad mojo. But even more so, candidates need people to work on their campaigns, and people in the middle aren't generally the ones that do it. Sure, liberals will generally begrudgingly vote for whomever gets the nomination, but she needs the base to be excited so she has people that will put up signs and knock on doors and do phone banks and stuff.

 

[The Commish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

 

[Sammy3469]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

Actual liberals want Warren to run to bust up the banks. However, they aren't going to stay home if Hillary is the nominee.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

My perception is that a lot of folks are unenthusiastic about her being the nominee. With each passing day it seems less likely that someone better is going to jump in.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

 

[The Commish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

Actual liberals want Warren to run to bust up the banks. However, they aren't going to stay home if Hillary is the nominee.

Do liberals actually believe she could get Congress to "bust up the banks" (whatever that means)? Genuine question....I know several who consider themselves "ultra" liberal and they can't answer part two of my initial post.

 

[roadkill1292]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

A little bit but this is par for the course for people a little outside the mainstream center. But, as has been noted elsewhere (including by MT just above), the country as a whole almost always moves leftward. At glacier-like speed sometimes but leftward nonetheless.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

You don't have to go that far back, in 2000 Bush was talking about unwinding SS benefits into 401k's and Gore was talking about how to continue Clinton's legacy of ending "big government".

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

You're cherry-picking some social issues to make your argument. No doubt you're right about those, but with respect to economic issues it seems like FDR was probably to the left of where most Democratic politicians are today.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

Actual liberals want Warren to run to bust up the banks. However, they aren't going to stay home if Hillary is the nominee.

Do liberals actually believe she could get Congress to "bust up the banks" (whatever that means)? Genuine question....I know several who consider themselves "ultra" liberal and they can't answer part two of my initial post.

The President doesn't need Congress for everything. I suspect somebody like Warren would appoint people to agencies like the SEC that share her views and could do more under the existing laws.

 

[roadkill1292]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

but Beej is gonna be crushed when he realizes this.

The marijuana issue and public opinion is kind of interesting in that in demonstrates that presidents do indeed matter. The graph of public approval takes a decided dip during the Reagan years before rising steadily since. What happens, however, if a Republican wins back the White House (and, no, I don't think this impossible) and in March of 2017 tells the DEA to shut down the dispensaries in Colorado, etc.? Can a candidate who promises to do this even get elected in the first place?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

but Beej is gonna be crushed when he realizes this.

The marijuana issue and public opinion is kind of interesting in that in demonstrates that presidents do indeed matter. The graph of public approval takes a decided dip during the Reagan years before rising steadily since. What happens, however, if a Republican wins back the White House (and, no, I don't think this impossible) and in March of 2017 tells the DEA to shut down the dispensaries in Colorado, etc.? Can a candidate who promises to do this even get elected in the first place?

I think the left has their own questions to answer on this front, if the most popular initiatives have been pot and marriage, then it has to be conceded that in both instances the popularity is in getting government out of commerce and personal affairs, not intruding upon them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

You're cherry-picking some social issues to make your argument. No doubt you're right about those, but with respect to economic issues it seems like FDR was probably to the left of where most Democratic politicians are today.

FDR was before my time and I'm no timscochet when it comes to history. But my impression is that FDR was pretty far to the left for his own time as well. The whole New Deal thing was pretty radical back then, but is mostly taken for granted by people in both major parties today.

 

[roadkill1292]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

but Beej is gonna be crushed when he realizes this.

The marijuana issue and public opinion is kind of interesting in that in demonstrates that presidents do indeed matter. The graph of public approval takes a decided dip during the Reagan years before rising steadily since. What happens, however, if a Republican wins back the White House (and, no, I don't think this impossible) and in March of 2017 tells the DEA to shut down the dispensaries in Colorado, etc.? Can a candidate who promises to do this even get elected in the first place?

I think the left has their own questions to answer on this front, if the most popular initiatives have been pot and marriage, then it has to be conceded that in both instances the popularity is in getting government out of commerce and personal affairs, not intruding upon them.

I'm not getting what I'm supposed to be getting from your post. Help me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

but Beej is gonna be crushed when he realizes this.

The marijuana issue and public opinion is kind of interesting in that in demonstrates that presidents do indeed matter. The graph of public approval takes a decided dip during the Reagan years before rising steadily since. What happens, however, if a Republican wins back the White House (and, no, I don't think this impossible) and in March of 2017 tells the DEA to shut down the dispensaries in Colorado, etc.? Can a candidate who promises to do this even get elected in the first place?

I think the left has their own questions to answer on this front, if the most popular initiatives have been pot and marriage, then it has to be conceded that in both instances the popularity is in getting government out of commerce and personal affairs, not intruding upon them.

I'm not getting what I'm supposed to be getting from your post. Help me.

I'm agreeing with you, but I'm asking if there is a larger picture where the move to the left is actually more on the libertarian front, so yes the GOP has trouble every time it would try to push back boundaries, say with pot, but then the Democrats are riding a wave against government involvement in several facets. If government shouldn't regulate pot why should it regulate insurance, for instance?

Open question, not making a point.

 

[TPW]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

 

[General Malaise]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

you sound butt hurt

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

You're cherry-picking some social issues to make your argument. No doubt you're right about those, but with respect to economic issues it seems like FDR was probably to the left of where most Democratic politicians are today.

Agreed. Johnson and Nixon (!) were also much more liberal than most modern Democrats on economic issues.

 

[TPW]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

you sound butt hurt

If Hillary keeps eating at Chipotle she'll experience even more butt hurt than the recipients of her foreign policy "expertise."

 

[roadkill1292]

Obama is not a liberal and neither is Hillary. They would have been moderate GOPers 30 years ago. So if you are a Democrat and you love being just a little less right leaning than the Republican party elect Hillary. She can get that done.

Obama and Hillary may not be liberals by today's standards, but they would have been extreme liberals 30 years ago. The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the left in the last thirty years, so anyone who is a centrist by today's standards would have been liberal in the mid-1980s.

Can you imagine a candidate in the mid-eighties who would consider non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws, who would support gay marriage, and who would support nationalized health care? Such a candidate would not be a moderate GOPer.

simey is absolutely right that Obama is one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever had. After all, just to pick one issue, the the huge majority of past Presidents supported racial segregation (or worse).

but Beej is gonna be crushed when he realizes this.

The marijuana issue and public opinion is kind of interesting in that in demonstrates that presidents do indeed matter. The graph of public approval takes a decided dip during the Reagan years before rising steadily since. What happens, however, if a Republican wins back the White House (and, no, I don't think this impossible) and in March of 2017 tells the DEA to shut down the dispensaries in Colorado, etc.? Can a candidate who promises to do this even get elected in the first place?

I think the left has their own questions to answer on this front, if the most popular initiatives have been pot and marriage, then it has to be conceded that in both instances the popularity is in getting government out of commerce and personal affairs, not intruding upon them.

I'm not getting what I'm supposed to be getting from your post. Help me.

I'm agreeing with you, but I'm asking if there is a larger picture where the move to the left is actually more on the libertarian front, so yes the GOP has trouble every time it would try to push back boundaries, say with pot, but then the Democrats are riding a wave against government involvement in several facets. If government shouldn't regulate pot why should it regulate insurance, for instance?

Open question, not making a point.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think most people can pick and choose in their own minds about those things government should be involved in and to what extent and those things it needs to back off on. But I admit that I'm not particularly sensitive to those sort of feelings in others and could be miles off base with that opinion.

But it's pretty clear that even the incoming millennial Republicans are asking the party to back off the management of social issues. I doubt if that translates into support for single payer, however.

 

[squistion]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

 

[tommyboy]

Hillary just orgasmed right before that pic was snapped

 

[roadkill1292]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

you sound butt hurt

"Liberal media" food fight? In.

 

[Jayrod]

Seems as if the RNC will cancel each other out, thus landing Hillary in the White House.

Yes, because they all run against Hillary at once.

 

[Jayrod]

The only reason this dirty, slimeball, career politician wins is if there is no better option.

And God help us, that looks to be the case.

 

[Jackstraw]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

My perception is that a lot of folks are unenthusiastic about her being the nominee. With each passing day it seems less likely that someone better is going to jump in.

I'm a warren guy all the way. But Hillary's main strength is she is going to be the nominee of the only party that isn't run by complete lunatics. And that's going to have to do.

 

[squistion]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

You are aware that was meant as humorous piece not to be taken seriously? It was in the section entitled "Less essential analysis" The below should have been a tip:

Heres what The Upshot can contribute: Is Mrs. Clintons order like the normal Chipotle meals of everyday Americans, or is it polarizing?

 

[General Malaise]

The only reason this dirty, slimeball, career politician wins is if there is no better option.

And God help us, that looks to be the case.

So....God can't help us?

 

[General Malaise]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

You are aware that was meant as humorous piece not to be taken seriously? It was in the section entitled "Less essential analysis" The below should have been a tip:

Heres what The Upshot can contribute: Is Mrs. Clintons order like the normal Chipotle meals of everyday Americans, or is it polarizing?

Republicans don't do humor.

 

[Scoresman]

The first candidate to say "#### Chipotle, I'm going to the local taqueria next door for better food with no line" will get my vote.

 

[rockaction]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

You are aware that was meant as humorous piece not to be taken seriously? It was in the section entitled "Less essential analysis" The below should have been a tip:

Heres what The Upshot can contribute: Is Mrs. Clintons order like the normal Chipotle meals of everyday Americans, or is it polarizing?

I think that's wildly incorrect. There was nothing humorous about that piece. The Upshot and "Less Essential Analysis" is a way of covering things that NYT doesn't deem fit for the front page. It's still non-humourous news, though, judging from tone and all the diet stuff about her meal.

As for Republicans not doing humor, I think both parties get a big, fat "F".

eta* Oh my God, that may have been humor. Wow. Maybe the NYT or I get an "F". Holy crikey.

 

[NCCommish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I will not vote for her. I know she has all the advantages and is doing her level best to scare any real challengers off. And getting to Hilary's left isn't that hard. I hope she gets a legit challenge but the Third Way dooshes hold the party keys for the most part.

 

[timschochet]

So is Jimmy Webb running or not?

 

[NCCommish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

I would get out the vote for Warren. I won't do **** for Hillary but then I'm a liberal not a progressive.

 

[NREC34]

Anybody know if Hillary was born in America for sure?

 

[squistion]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

You are aware that was meant as humorous piece not to be taken seriously? It was in the section entitled "Less essential analysis" The below should have been a tip:

Heres what The Upshot can contribute: Is Mrs. Clintons order like the normal Chipotle meals of everyday Americans, or is it polarizing?

Republicans don't do humor.

Judging by the subsequent comments here, you were right.

 

[Jayrod]

The only reason this dirty, slimeball, career politician wins is if there is no better option.

And God help us, that looks to be the case.

So....God can't help us?

I don't think we deserve it, but that's really up to Him.

 

[The Commish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

Actual liberals want Warren to run to bust up the banks. However, they aren't going to stay home if Hillary is the nominee.

Do liberals actually believe she could get Congress to "bust up the banks" (whatever that means)? Genuine question....I know several who consider themselves "ultra" liberal and they can't answer part two of my initial post.

The President doesn't need Congress for everything. I suspect somebody like Warren would appoint people to agencies like the SEC that share her views and could do more under the existing laws.

Guess my question prior to this should have been what was meant by "bust up the banks"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anybody know if Hillary was born in America for sure?

She hasn't produced her birth certificate.

However I guess officially she would be listed as being from New York, as opposed to IL or AR?

 

[The Commish]

Are actual liberals bummed that Hillary looks to be the next representative of their party or are you holding on to hope that someone from the left surfaces to challenge her? Who would that person be?

I think I qualify as an actual liberal around here. No, from talking to other progressives we have no problem at all with Hillary as our nominee (and that is confirmed by polls). Warren was the only possible legitimate challenger, but she never seriously considered it and wouldn't have stood a chance anyway (as evidence by the fact she has never had more than about 10% support in any polls of Democrats I have seen).

Are you liberal or progressive or a combo? I'm after the opinions of the NCCommish type of liberal (no offense GB). Liberal <> progressive in the terminology I understand.