Hillary Clinton: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it's corporation (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

Higher profits at companies do not equal more jobs, therefore any justification of a tax policy that taxes a business less in the belief that business will in turn create jobs due to excess cash is wrong-headed and shows a surprising lack of knowledge of how business works?

So there's no relationship between tax policy, profitability, and jobs?

There is not a 1:1 relation between profit margins and job creation.

That wasn't the question, and no one said there was.

 

[Clifford]

Ok, yes, there is a relationship between tax policy and profitability. There is not as solid a connection between profitability and jobs.

 

[msommer]

There is not as solid a connection between profitability and jobs.

There might be a strong negative correlation.

Would think there is a strong correlation between profits in growth companies and jobs - it's like if you give money to a starving person, you can be sure that money is going back into the economy.

If we are talking large corporations there probably isn't any correllation (record profits at e.g. Exxon may not have a strong job effect)

 

[humpback]

Ok, yes, there is a relationship between tax policy and profitability. There is not as solid a connection between profitability and jobs.

You must be thinking about the public sector- in the private sector, companies generally have to be profitable in order to stay in business (and thus provide jobs).

 

[Widbil83]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Interesting you think Democrats will just crown an establishment candidate. Let me ask you this, who the hell in either party support establishment candidates these days? That is the problem Tim, nobody does. Of course you can put up a poll now that says Democrats like Hillary, but when other candidates come around that will change. Don't over think this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

IMO, the political climate will worsen between the likely GOP gains this November and the 2016 election, resulting in Warren embracing the liberal base's desire for her to run. I think Warren beats Clinton for the nomination as ordinary people become more and more displeased with the "elite", of which Clinton most certainly is a member. Plenty of time for Warren to screw something up between now and then and remove herself from the race, but she's very much following the Obama path to the nomination (even being the 'warm up guy' at the DNC).

Would love Warren to win but she lacks Obama's charisma. Hillary had the nomination wrapped up before Obama started stirring up crowds with his speeches. Warren had great ideas and I trust her far more than Hillary, but she's unlikely tow win.

At no point did Hillary ever have the nomination wrapped up. And Obama's speechifying began all the way back at the 2004 convention.

 

[Trey]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Interesting you think Democrats will just crown an establishment candidate. Let me ask you this, who the hell in either party support establishment candidates these days? That is the problem Tim, nobody does. Of course you can put up a poll now that says Democrats like Hillary, but when other candidates come around that will change. Don't over think this.

When Hilary and Bernie Sanders are the only two people on the Iowa debate stage and she wins by 60% please get back to us.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Ok, yes, there is a relationship between tax policy and profitability. There is not as solid a connection between profitability and jobs.

Nobody seriously disputes that there's a clear relationship between tax policy and jobs. "Tax cuts create jobs in the short run" is basic, old-fashioned Keynesian economics.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Interesting you think Democrats will just crown an establishment candidate. Let me ask you this, who the hell in either party support establishment candidates these days? That is the problem Tim, nobody does. Of course you can put up a poll now that says Democrats like Hillary, but when other candidates come around that will change. Don't over think this.

When Hilary and Bernie Sanders are the only two people on the Iowa debate stage and she wins by 60% please get back to us.

Congratulations on your candidate winning the nomination by default. We all know that she would lose if she faced a serious challenger. I choose to believe that most Democrats are secretly a little embarrassed that Clinton is the best person they can put up there right now.

 

[cstu]

Congratulations on your candidate winning the nomination by default. We all know that she would lose if she faced a serious challenger. I choose to believe that most Democrats are secretly a little embarrassed that Clinton is the best person they can put up there right now.

Exactly how Republicans were with Romney.

 

[cstu]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

IMO, the political climate will worsen between the likely GOP gains this November and the 2016 election, resulting in Warren embracing the liberal base's desire for her to run. I think Warren beats Clinton for the nomination as ordinary people become more and more displeased with the "elite", of which Clinton most certainly is a member. Plenty of time for Warren to screw something up between now and then and remove herself from the race, but she's very much following the Obama path to the nomination (even being the 'warm up guy' at the DNC).

Would love Warren to win but she lacks Obama's charisma. Hillary had the nomination wrapped up before Obama started stirring up crowds with his speeches. Warren had great ideas and I trust her far more than Hillary, but she's unlikely tow win.

At no point did Hillary ever have the nomination wrapped up. And Obama's speechifying began all the way back at the 2004 convention.

Nobody gave Obama a serious chance until Iowa:

Hillary led national poll by 18 points.

The Dec. 14-16, 2007, poll shows that Clinton continues to have a large lead over her competitors, with 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they support her for the nomination. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats support Obama and 15% support Edwards. Sen. Joe Biden (3%), Gov. Bill Richardson (2%), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2%) are well behind in what has pretty much been a three-person race the entire campaign.

 

[squistion]

When Hilary and Bernie Sanders are the only two people on the Iowa debate stage and she wins by 60% please get back to us.

Congratulations on your candidate winning the nomination by default. We all know that she would lose if she faced a serious challenger. I choose to believe that most Democrats are secretly a little embarrassed that Clinton is the best person they can put up there right now.

No and no. I love these threads where people who are not Democrats speak about how Democrats really feel and what they secretly think but have nothing to back it up with.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

IMO, the political climate will worsen between the likely GOP gains this November and the 2016 election, resulting in Warren embracing the liberal base's desire for her to run. I think Warren beats Clinton for the nomination as ordinary people become more and more displeased with the "elite", of which Clinton most certainly is a member. Plenty of time for Warren to screw something up between now and then and remove herself from the race, but she's very much following the Obama path to the nomination (even being the 'warm up guy' at the DNC).

Would love Warren to win but she lacks Obama's charisma. Hillary had the nomination wrapped up before Obama started stirring up crowds with his speeches. Warren had great ideas and I trust her far more than Hillary, but she's unlikely tow win.

At no point did Hillary ever have the nomination wrapped up. And Obama's speechifying began all the way back at the 2004 convention.

Nobody gave Obama a serious chance until Iowa:

Hillary led national poll by 18 points.

The Dec. 14-16, 2007, poll shows that Clinton continues to have a large lead over her competitors, with 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they support her for the nomination. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats support Obama and 15% support Edwards. Sen. Joe Biden (3%), Gov. Bill Richardson (2%), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2%) are well behind in what has pretty much been a three-person race the entire campaign.

This is just false. I thought Obama had an excellent chance of winning the nomination all the way back in 2006 and said so at the time. So did lots of other people here.

Everybody paints this picture of Obama as the underdog who overcame huge odds to upset the 1985 Bears. In fact, he was widely recognized as an extremely strong presidential candidate as early as 2004. If anything, he underperformed in the primaries by letting Hillary hang around for as long as she did. The guy was much better on the stump, and he's been a far better president than Hillary would be.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When Hilary and Bernie Sanders are the only two people on the Iowa debate stage and she wins by 60% please get back to us.

Congratulations on your candidate winning the nomination by default. We all know that she would lose if she faced a serious challenger. I choose to believe that most Democrats are secretly a little embarrassed that Clinton is the best person they can put up there right now.

No and no. I love these threads where people who are not Democrats speak about how Democrats really feel and what they secretly think but have nothing to back it up with.

And yet she did actually lose when she faced a serious challenger.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Congratulations on your candidate winning the nomination by default. We all know that she would lose if she faced a serious challenger. I choose to believe that most Democrats are secretly a little embarrassed that Clinton is the best person they can put up there right now.

Exactly how Republicans were with Romney.

Probably. The GOP field was atrocious that year.

 

[timschochet]

Most Democrats I know really like Hillary. The NC Commishs of the world are few and far between. No comparison between her and Romney.

 

[Stinger Ray]

No comparison between her and Romney.

They both like women.

 

[squistion]

When Hilary and Bernie Sanders are the only two people on the Iowa debate stage and she wins by 60% please get back to us.

Congratulations on your candidate winning the nomination by default. We all know that she would lose if she faced a serious challenger. I choose to believe that most Democrats are secretly a little embarrassed that Clinton is the best person they can put up there right now.

No and no. I love these threads where people who are not Democrats speak about how Democrats really feel and what they secretly think but have nothing to back it up with.

And yet she did actually lose when she faced a serious challenger.

2016 is not 2008 redux. I don't feel like again cutting and pasting the article from Kos back in February which details the reasons. Obviously you didn't read it then and won't bother to now so I will just provide the link.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/17/1278315/-The-real-primary-fight-of-2016-and-it-s-not-an-alternative-to-Hillary

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary (can't remember exact quote, but let's just say that you have never been a fan of hers) so you hardly have an unbiased view of her to the point that you can speak for Democrats.

And Tim is right, most Democrats I know are enthusiastic about a Hillary candidacy.

 

[cstu]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

IMO, the political climate will worsen between the likely GOP gains this November and the 2016 election, resulting in Warren embracing the liberal base's desire for her to run. I think Warren beats Clinton for the nomination as ordinary people become more and more displeased with the "elite", of which Clinton most certainly is a member. Plenty of time for Warren to screw something up between now and then and remove herself from the race, but she's very much following the Obama path to the nomination (even being the 'warm up guy' at the DNC).

Would love Warren to win but she lacks Obama's charisma. Hillary had the nomination wrapped up before Obama started stirring up crowds with his speeches. Warren had great ideas and I trust her far more than Hillary, but she's unlikely tow win.

At no point did Hillary ever have the nomination wrapped up. And Obama's speechifying began all the way back at the 2004 convention.

Nobody gave Obama a serious chance until Iowa:

Hillary led national poll by 18 points.

The Dec. 14-16, 2007, poll shows that Clinton continues to have a large lead over her competitors, with 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they support her for the nomination. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats support Obama and 15% support Edwards. Sen. Joe Biden (3%), Gov. Bill Richardson (2%), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2%) are well behind in what has pretty much been a three-person race the entire campaign.

This is just false. I thought Obama had an excellent chance of winning the nomination all the way back in 2006 and said so at the time. So did lots of other people here.

Everybody paints this picture of Obama as the underdog who overcame huge odds to upset the 1985 Bears. In fact, he was widely recognized as an extremely strong presidential candidate as early as 2004. If anything, he underperformed in the primaries by letting Hillary hang around for as long as she did. The guy was much better on the stump, and he's been a far better president than Hillary would be.

I was one of those that thought he should be President after the 2004 DNC speech. He had supporters but Hillary was very popular, especially with women, because people thought she could win. When Obama won Iowa there was a sea change where Hillary supporters thought "I like Obama and if a black guy can win Iowa, maybe he has a chance".

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When Hilary and Bernie Sanders are the only two people on the Iowa debate stage and she wins by 60% please get back to us.

Congratulations on your candidate winning the nomination by default. We all know that she would lose if she faced a serious challenger. I choose to believe that most Democrats are secretly a little embarrassed that Clinton is the best person they can put up there right now.

No and no. I love these threads where people who are not Democrats speak about how Democrats really feel and what they secretly think but have nothing to back it up with.

And yet she did actually lose when she faced a serious challenger.

2016 is not 2008 redux.

I didn't say it was. In fact, I said exactly the opposite of that. Hillary faced a very strong challenger in 2008. Not this time, at least so far.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

 

[Gopher State]

looking forward to Hillary being our new leader, the race will not even be close

 

[cubd8]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

Of course, with the money behind her, and a lack of front-runner from the GOP, not to mention a plan that's something other than Obama sucks, i may have eat my words.

 

[cubd8]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

What policies do you support of Hillary Clinton? just curious as you appear to be more Republican than not.

 

[humpback]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

Why is she the favorite to become President? Because she's most widely known? Maybe that's enough, but if she's running as a 3rd term of President Obama's policies, that's a tough battle to win. If you haven't noticed, Obama is in the low 40's in approval ratings, I just don't see defending his policies as particularly helpful in winning.

Of course, with the money behind her, and a lack of front-runner from the GOP, not to mention a plan that's something other than Obama sucks, i may have eat my words.

Probably the two most important things these days.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

looking forward to Hillary being our new leader, the race will not even be close

why in the hell are you looking forward to this?

 

[Jim11]

looking forward to Hillary being our new leader, the race will not even be close

why in the hell are you looking forward to this?

Coz he likes train wrecks?

 

[timschochet]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

I'm curious what it is about her that you find so disgraceful? A lot of the stuff that she's been accused of in the past has turned out not to be true, and most of the rest I dismissed as partisan attacks. So what has she actually done that makes you think she is a terrible human being?

 

[squistion]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

You must be a lot of fun at parties when people ask your opinion of Hillary or of those who support her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The problem with Hillary is she is the Matt Asiata of campaigners. She may have the lead by a good margin, maybe even anointed, but she doesn't have the special talent. She is milquetoast on the stump and on screen. She leaves people feeling desperate for something different. Maybe she waltzes into the WH but this problem is not leaving her.

 

[Boston]

The problem with Hillary is she is the Matt Asiata of campaigners. She may have the lead by a good margin, maybe even anointed, but she doesn't have the special talent. She is milquetoast on the stump and on screen. She leaves people feeling desperate for something different. Maybe she waltzes into the WH but this problem is not leaving her.

If you are the GOP you want her (or Warren)...all politics/scandals aside she is not a pleasant personality and has zero charisma...she also has a little temper...I see no way the general public warms up to her if they have to see her relentlessly for the amount of time current Presidential campaigns take...that is not a strength of hers...I see big potential for someone else to do what Obama did and win the dem nomination...the question is is there someone capable of it...if it is Warren she will end up like George McGovern...she is great in her current role but if she tries to push it further she will be exposed as a limousine liberal who would be playing over her head trying to be President...

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Wildbill, we've discussed this before, but there the main problem with your analysis is that there's no Barack Obama on the horizon this time out. I urge you and everyone else to read the book Game Change, which explains the 2008 nomination. Hillary didn't lose that nomination; Obama won it. He was a once in a lifetime, charismatic figure who beat out the establishment candidate, which almost never happens. (The last time it happened was Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

As a result of that election, there's seems to be this feeling that Hillary can't win the nomination. It's absolutely untrue. The chances of another non-establishment candidate bucking the odds and coming from nowhere to beat her is very low indeed. And this time around it would be even more difficult than before, since by November of 2006 Obama was already a famous face, pushing his book, and being spoken of as a possible opponent of Hillary and John Edwards. No one like that has risen.

If Hillary decides to run (and that is not for sure), she will win the nomination, and probably she will be our next President.

IMO, the political climate will worsen between the likely GOP gains this November and the 2016 election, resulting in Warren embracing the liberal base's desire for her to run. I think Warren beats Clinton for the nomination as ordinary people become more and more displeased with the "elite", of which Clinton most certainly is a member. Plenty of time for Warren to screw something up between now and then and remove herself from the race, but she's very much following the Obama path to the nomination (even being the 'warm up guy' at the DNC).

Would love Warren to win but she lacks Obama's charisma. Hillary had the nomination wrapped up before Obama started stirring up crowds with his speeches. Warren had great ideas and I trust her far more than Hillary, but she's unlikely tow win.

At no point did Hillary ever have the nomination wrapped up. And Obama's speechifying began all the way back at the 2004 convention.

Nobody gave Obama a serious chance until Iowa:

Hillary led national poll by 18 points.

The Dec. 14-16, 2007, poll shows that Clinton continues to have a large lead over her competitors, with 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they support her for the nomination. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats support Obama and 15% support Edwards. Sen. Joe Biden (3%), Gov. Bill Richardson (2%), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2%) are well behind in what has pretty much been a three-person race the entire campaign.

This is just false. I thought Obama had an excellent chance of winning the nomination all the way back in 2006 and said so at the time. So did lots of other people here.

Everybody paints this picture of Obama as the underdog who overcame huge odds to upset the 1985 Bears. In fact, he was widely recognized as an extremely strong presidential candidate as early as 2004. If anything, he underperformed in the primaries by letting Hillary hang around for as long as she did. The guy was much better on the stump, and he's been a far better president than Hillary would be.

Now there is an indictment.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

What policies do you support of Hillary Clinton? just curious as you appear to be more Republican than not.

It's not that Hillary's policies necessarily line up with my own preferences. It's more that she's much more centrist than somebody like an Elizabeth Warren. I would expect Hillary to govern like Bill did, which was basically moderate Republicanism. Hawkish foreign policy, higher taxes than what people on the right would like to see but nothing confiscatory, relatively socially liberal (although she's been a profile in cowardice on gay rights and marijuana), etc.

 

[rockaction]

The problem with Hillary is she is the Matt Asiata of campaigners. She may have the lead by a good margin, maybe even anointed, but she doesn't have the special talent. She is milquetoast on the stump and on screen. She leaves people feeling desperate for something different. Maybe she waltzes into the WH but this problem is not leaving her.

She is great in pass protection.

Benghazi.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The problem with Hillary is she is the Matt Asiata of campaigners. She may have the lead by a good margin, maybe even anointed, but she doesn't have the special talent. She is milquetoast on the stump and on screen. She leaves people feeling desperate for something different. Maybe she waltzes into the WH but this problem is not leaving her.

She is great in pass protection.

Benghazi.

Right, she's also good at protecting Bill while he makes passes at other women.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

I'm curious what it is about her that you find so disgraceful? A lot of the stuff that she's been accused of in the past has turned out not to be true, and most of the rest I dismissed as partisan attacks. So what has she actually done that makes you think she is a terrible human being?

"Vast right-wing conspiracy." At a time when she knew or should have known that the entire Lewinsky story was completely true, she was going around lying about it and personally attacking the people who were telling the truth. She was always perfectly happy to go along with the nuts-and-sluts defenses mounted on her husbands behalf throughout the years -- it's not like Lewinsky was just one isolated incident -- and then walks around like some kind of feminist icon. That's disgraceful.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

I'm curious what it is about her that you find so disgraceful? A lot of the stuff that she's been accused of in the past has turned out not to be true, and most of the rest I dismissed as partisan attacks. So what has she actually done that makes you think she is a terrible human being?

"Vast right-wing conspiracy." At a time when she knew or should have known that the entire Lewinsky story was completely true, she was going around lying about it and personally attacking the people who were telling the truth. She was always perfectly happy to go along with the nuts-and-sluts defenses mounted on her husbands behalf throughout the years -- it's not like Lewinsky was just one isolated incident -- and then walks around like some kind of feminist icon. That's disgraceful.

Really worth watching this again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwXE52e9JFg#t=136

Just take a look at Hillary here. She wants to be our president. - By the way listen to her accent. How awful is that? - At 3:18, 7:01, 9:00, 9:36 ("I'm not sittin' here like some lil' woman standin' by her man like Tammy Wynette ..."), 10:14.

Gennifer Flowers had a club down here in the French Quarter some time after he was president and she was pretty frank to people that talked to her that it was a long term, ongoing permanent relationship. Everything they said in this interview was a lie through and through.

 

[Riversco]

The problem with Hillary is she is the Matt Asiata of campaigners. She may have the lead by a good margin, maybe even anointed, but she doesn't have the special talent. She is milquetoast on the stump and on screen. She leaves people feeling desperate for something different. Maybe she waltzes into the WH but this problem is not leaving her.

If you are the GOP you want her (or Warren)...all politics/scandals aside she is not a pleasant personality and has zero charisma...she also has a little temper...I see no way the general public warms up to her if they have to see her relentlessly for the amount of time current Presidential campaigns take...that is not a strength of hers...I see big potential for someone else to do what Obama did and win the dem nomination...the question is is there someone capable of it...if it is Warren she will end up like George McGovern...she is great in her current role but if she tries to push it further she will be exposed as a limousine liberal who would be playing over her head trying to be President...

Candidates with zero charisma can win, especially if the other party nominate a weak candidate. Bush had no charisma and beat Dukakis. Hillary is the favorite to win but it would not be surprising if she actually turned out to be a one-term president because she lacks charisma. I have this image of things going wrong in the country, like a recession, and I don't think Hillary would handle those press conferences very well.

 

[rockaction]

And IIRC you are on record saying essentially that you despise Hillary

This part is exactly right. Based entirely on her politics, I should probably be supporting her. Likewise, I should have supported her over Obama. But unlike Obama and folks like Joe Biden, she is a disgraceful human being who has absolutely no business holding elected office. I don't agree with all of Obama's political decisions, and I still think he's probably quite a bit more liberal than the way he's governed, but I think he's basically a good guy overall. Hillary is both personally vile and professionally incompetent. I lose quite a bit of respect for people who actively pull for her, which is something I honestly don't think I can say about any other major political figure.

In a nutshell, if you supported Obama even in part because you thought it was time for somebody to bring a little integrity and honesty to government -- and don't tell me that that wasn't a big part of his appeal -- then shame on you if you support Hillary Clinton. Just be honest and say that you're voting for the Blue Team no matter what and making up your justification later.

I'm curious what it is about her that you find so disgraceful? A lot of the stuff that she's been accused of in the past has turned out not to be true, and most of the rest I dismissed as partisan attacks. So what has she actually done that makes you think she is a terrible human being?

"Vast right-wing conspiracy." At a time when she knew or should have known that the entire Lewinsky story was completely true, she was going around lying about it and personally attacking the people who were telling the truth. She was always perfectly happy to go along with the nuts-and-sluts defenses mounted on her husbands behalf throughout the years -- it's not like Lewinsky was just one isolated incident -- and then walks around like some kind of feminist icon. That's disgraceful.

Really worth watching this again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwXE52e9JFg#t=136

Just take a look at Hillary here. She wants to be our president. - By the way listen to her accent. How awful is that? - At 3:18

Gennifer Flowers had a club down here in the French Quarter some time after he was president and she was pretty frank to people that talked to her that it was a long term, ongoing permanent relationship. Everything they said in this interview was a lie through and through.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. What's also amazing about that video is that during a nationally televised segment about an infidelity allegation, he pounds the idea of a recession within that very segment. And not only that, he blames the recession for causing Flowers to come forward with the allegation. That's relentless campaigning, and striking hubris. Personally, I think she's a congenital liar, as is his her husband, and both are extraordinarily cynical people. Polls actually bear out that her least likable trait is how people feel about her honesty. People find her not only to be a liar, but disingenuous. Very few things are absurdly funnier in political theater than when Hillary runs as an idea and when she actually begins to fake cackle on the campaign trail.


Anyway, the link below is an article from the WaPo because I'm interested in her gender gap. I'm not sure this benefits her, but it's definitely going to fuel the media narrative of the upcoming election. I would imagine she'll be more than happy if it goes in this direction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/29/a-hillary-clinton-2016-campaign-could-turn-the-gender-gap-into-a-gender-gulf/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Post poll shows that women say they would support Clinton by a striking 61-33 percent. Men, though, say they would back her by a far smaller count of 49-46 percent -- within the margin of error. That's a 25-point gap between Clinton's margin among women and among men....

What's perhaps most striking among the new numbers is that the difference lies almost completely among white voters. Non-white men and women are pretty similar when it comes to the former secretary of state, but while 58 percent of white women back Clinton, 54 percent of white men oppose her.

Drilling down further, the difference is even more pronounced among whites without college degrees. In this case, women support Clinton by 22 points, but men oppose her by almost the same margin -- 21 points.

This is particularly striking, given non-college-educated white women tend to favor the GOP. And it suggests that Clinton's gender gap might be more about how strong she is with this particular class of women rather than how much she struggles among men.

...

But it's also clear that, were Clinton to run, the gender narrative wouldn't be restricted to Clinton's status as the potential first female president; it could also very well play out in a huge way when it comes to the votes cast.

And if the race is anything close to competitive, it's quite probable that Clinton would struggle significantly with male voters and rely heavily on women.

I will just add that Romney beat Obama among white women ~54-46 and among white men ~61-39.

 

[timschochet]

But Ivan, she was right about the vast right wing conspiracy in a sense. It wasn't exactly a conspiracy, but the right had been attacking her and her husband for years, not over policy, but over unproven stuff: Whitewater, the Travel Office, the FBI Files, drug smuggling into Mina, Arkansas, the death of Vince Foster, Bill raping one woman and molesting two more. They took Hillary's best friend and stuck her in jail for two years because she refused to testify that Hillary was a criminal. The Paula Jones lawsuit was paid for and promoted by conservative groups, and this lawsuit was used by Congress to finally catch Bill Clinton in a lie over a private affair- one which must have mortified Hillary because although she knew her husband was a womanizer, how embarrassing that it be revealed in public in that way.

So of course she lashed out finally and said what was only the truth- that the attacks upon her husband and herself (Hillary was accused of murder on nearly a daily basis) were unscrupulous and shameful, and at the time I thought she was right to do it, and sympathized with her, and still do. So if that is your main reason for finding her a despicable human being, then I really disagree.

 

[timschochet]

Also want to add that I think conservatives who have made comments in this thread about Hillary's lack of charisma may be allowing their dislike of her to color their perceptions. Hillary is actually a pretty charismatic public figure and always has been. She does not rise to the level of her husband or Obama, but few politicians do. I don't think this will be a problem for her.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But Ivan, she was right about the vast right wing conspiracy in a sense. It wasn't exactly a conspiracy, but the right had been attacking her and her husband for years, not over policy, but over unproven stuff: Whitewater, the Travel Office, the FBI Files, drug smuggling into Mina, Arkansas, the death of Vince Foster, Bill raping one woman and molesting two more. They took Hillary's best friend and stuck her in jail for two years because she refused to testify that Hillary was a criminal. The Paula Jones lawsuit was paid for and promoted by conservative groups, and this lawsuit was used by Congress to finally catch Bill Clinton in a lie over a private affair- one which must have mortified Hillary because although she knew her husband was a womanizer, how embarrassing that it be revealed in public in that way.

So of course she lashed out finally and said what was only the truth- that the attacks upon her husband and herself (Hillary was accused of murder on nearly a daily basis) were unscrupulous and shameful, and at the time I thought she was right to do it, and sympathized with her, and still do. So if that is your main reason for finding her a despicable human being, then I really disagree.

And yet she knew that the people she was attacking were telling the truth while she knew that she was lying.

 

[Clifford]

Ok, yes, there is a relationship between tax policy and profitability. There is not as solid a connection between profitability and jobs.

You must be thinking about the public sector- in the private sector, companies generally have to be profitable in order to stay in business (and thus provide jobs).

No not really. Yes in order to provide jobs a business must reach a certain level of profitability. However higher profit margins do not mean that companies go out and hire and thus "grow". It all depends on what stage the company is in.

 

[timschochet]

But Ivan, she was right about the vast right wing conspiracy in a sense. It wasn't exactly a conspiracy, but the right had been attacking her and her husband for years, not over policy, but over unproven stuff: Whitewater, the Travel Office, the FBI Files, drug smuggling into Mina, Arkansas, the death of Vince Foster, Bill raping one woman and molesting two more. They took Hillary's best friend and stuck her in jail for two years because she refused to testify that Hillary was a criminal. The Paula Jones lawsuit was paid for and promoted by conservative groups, and this lawsuit was used by Congress to finally catch Bill Clinton in a lie over a private affair- one which must have mortified Hillary because although she knew her husband was a womanizer, how embarrassing that it be revealed in public in that way.

So of course she lashed out finally and said what was only the truth- that the attacks upon her husband and herself (Hillary was accused of murder on nearly a daily basis) were unscrupulous and shameful, and at the time I thought she was right to do it, and sympathized with her, and still do. So if that is your main reason for finding her a despicable human being, then I really disagree.

And yet she knew that the people she was attacking were telling the truth while she knew that she was lying.

No just the opposite. She was talking about the overall accusations, not just the latest one, and most of them were bogus and she was right to say so. That this latest charge, whether true or not, was made in the context of a Congressional investigation was disgraceful, and she was right to say that as well. Finally, when she gave that interview, a few days after her husband publicly denied ever having sex with Lewinsky, Hillary might not have known that was false, none of his top aides did.

 

[Stinger Ray]

But Ivan, she was right about the vast right wing conspiracy in a sense. It wasn't exactly a conspiracy, but the right had been attacking her and her husband for years, not over policy, but over unproven stuff: Whitewater, the Travel Office, the FBI Files, drug smuggling into Mina, Arkansas, the death of Vince Foster, Bill raping one woman and molesting two more. They took Hillary's best friend and stuck her in jail for two years because she refused to testify that Hillary was a criminal. The Paula Jones lawsuit was paid for and promoted by conservative groups, and this lawsuit was used by Congress to finally catch Bill Clinton in a lie over a private affair- one which must have mortified Hillary because although she knew her husband was a womanizer, how embarrassing that it be revealed in public in that way.

So of course she lashed out finally and said what was only the truth- that the attacks upon her husband and herself (Hillary was accused of murder on nearly a daily basis) were unscrupulous and shameful, and at the time I thought she was right to do it, and sympathized with her, and still do. So if that is your main reason for finding her a despicable human being, then I really disagree.

 

[Boston]

The problem with Hillary is she is the Matt Asiata of campaigners. She may have the lead by a good margin, maybe even anointed, but she doesn't have the special talent. She is milquetoast on the stump and on screen. She leaves people feeling desperate for something different. Maybe she waltzes into the WH but this problem is not leaving her.

If you are the GOP you want her (or Warren)...all politics/scandals aside she is not a pleasant personality and has zero charisma...she also has a little temper...I see no way the general public warms up to her if they have to see her relentlessly for the amount of time current Presidential campaigns take...that is not a strength of hers...I see big potential for someone else to do what Obama did and win the dem nomination...the question is is there someone capable of it...if it is Warren she will end up like George McGovern...she is great in her current role but if she tries to push it further she will be exposed as a limousine liberal who would be playing over her head trying to be President...

Candidates with zero charisma can win, especially if the other party nominate a weak candidate. Bush had no charisma and beat Dukakis. Hillary is the favorite to win but it would not be surprising if she actually turned out to be a one-term president because she lacks charisma. I have this image of things going wrong in the country, like a recession, and I don't think Hillary would handle those press conferences very well.

To be more specific I think she is very unlikable the more you see her...she has a sense of entitlement and right now I do believe she will see campaigning as a mere formality to getting what is rightfully hers...I disagree with the Bush comp...first-of-all the Duke was one of the worst candidates of all time so who is opponent was didn't make too much of a difference...secondly, while Bush may not have had a lot of charisma he was very likable guy who made people feel comfortable...he was not a polarizing figure which I believe Hillary is...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But Ivan, she was right about the vast right wing conspiracy in a sense. It wasn't exactly a conspiracy, but the right had been attacking her and her husband for years, not over policy, but over unproven stuff: Whitewater, the Travel Office, the FBI Files, drug smuggling into Mina, Arkansas, the death of Vince Foster, Bill raping one woman and molesting two more. They took Hillary's best friend and stuck her in jail for two years because she refused to testify that Hillary was a criminal. The Paula Jones lawsuit was paid for and promoted by conservative groups, and this lawsuit was used by Congress to finally catch Bill Clinton in a lie over a private affair- one which must have mortified Hillary because although she knew her husband was a womanizer, how embarrassing that it be revealed in public in that way.

So of course she lashed out finally and said what was only the truth- that the attacks upon her husband and herself (Hillary was accused of murder on nearly a daily basis) were unscrupulous and shameful, and at the time I thought she was right to do it, and sympathized with her, and still do. So if that is your main reason for finding her a despicable human being, then I really disagree.

Tim, look at that video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwXE52e9JFg#t=136

At 3:18, 7:01, 9:00, 9:36 ("I'm not sittin' here like some lil' woman standin' by her man like Tammy Wynette ..."), 10:14.

Fake bs Southuhhn accent and all of it. NOBODY made her do any of that. Lie, lie, lie, and bad doing it. That's the real Hillary.

 

[jon_mx]

Is this where Tim begins the "I am not voting for Hillary Shtick" while defending her every step of the way?

 

[timschochet]

But Ivan, she was right about the vast right wing conspiracy in a sense. It wasn't exactly a conspiracy, but the right had been attacking her and her husband for years, not over policy, but over unproven stuff: Whitewater, the Travel Office, the FBI Files, drug smuggling into Mina, Arkansas, the death of Vince Foster, Bill raping one woman and molesting two more. They took Hillary's best friend and stuck her in jail for two years because she refused to testify that Hillary was a criminal. The Paula Jones lawsuit was paid for and promoted by conservative groups, and this lawsuit was used by Congress to finally catch Bill Clinton in a lie over a private affair- one which must have mortified Hillary because although she knew her husband was a womanizer, how embarrassing that it be revealed in public in that way.

So of course she lashed out finally and said what was only the truth- that the attacks upon her husband and herself (Hillary was accused of murder on nearly a daily basis) were unscrupulous and shameful, and at the time I thought she was right to do it, and sympathized with her, and still do. So if that is your main reason for finding her a despicable human being, then I really disagree.

Tim, look at that video.

Cant open videos right now. But the Wynette line was from the campaign in 1992 and has nothing to do with what I wrote. I sympathized with her in 1998, after she had been lied about and accused of terrible things for 6 years, none of it being at all true.