Instinctually, I’d prefer someone significantly younger… but as I think about it, it’s not really about the age of the candidate so much as the power being in the hands of the baby boomer generation. As a 29 year old who graduated right into the Great Recession job market, I’m quite cynical about what the economic policies of the last 20-30 years have done and will continue to do for my generation. And I’m one of the lucky ones - for me, it’s the adverse affect on my career earnings, while for many of my peers it’s been the lack of jobs entirely, crippling student debt, or an inability to even think about purchasing a house or have children.
Objectively, it should be more about the candidate’s policies than their age: Elizabeth Warren, after all, is in that same age range and would be absolutely ideal, as far as I’m concerned. At a gut level, though, I’m just not thrilled that if we elect Hillary we’re going to have at least 28 consecutive years of baby boomer presidencies, 32 with a second term, and with voting demographics what they are I wouldn’t be shocked at all if we elected another late boomer in 2024 to push it towards 40.
… but of course I’m going to vote for Clinton if they nominate her.
If Obama is a boomer, it’s just barely (he was born in 1961). And the problem there is that even if the next president isn’t Clinton, you’d get some other 50-ish or 60-ish president, which means it’s still someone from the same general demographic. And the average age of everybody in Congress is around 60, too. Obama has actually said some of the right things about making changes on student debt, at least, but Congress isn’t interested in the issue.
OTOH, “I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
I like Hillary because she really, really, REALLY pisses off so many Republicans, and I long for the day when she gets really dirty with them. We know how to play dirty in Chicago.
I kind of want a Democratic president who’ll kick the Republicans in the ass with both feet on a daily basis for eight years. Hillary’s probably the closest to that for now.
He already rebutted you quite easily. You are the only one in this thread thinks about Fascism when they hear the word “corporatist.” We all know it means “pro-big business.” There is no association of the Clintons with Fascism except in your own head.
There isn’t a reasoned debate on the issue when you insist on interpreting the use of a word by a liberal on this board as calling the Clintons fascists.
I mean, you knew he wasn’t saying that, or else your post giving the “true” definition of the word wouldn’t make sense. You know what was meant, so you are now just engaging in a semantic argument. And that does, indeed, deserve a :rolleyes:.
Do you mean the Fresh Air interview? I heard the whole thing - Clinton clearly misunderstood Terry Gross’ question. When Gross, perhaps our best interviewer, forced Clinton to understand what the question really was, she more or less answered exactly what you wanted her to.
Clinton, as the second place finisher in 2008, is the obvious first choice for 2016, just as McCain was in 2000 and Romney was in 2004. Was their an obsession about them? The only obsession I see is that Fox News and the usual gang of Republican cretins are frothing at the mouth, just as they were during the Clinton administration.
Maybe the dislike of female Republican potential candidates came from Palin being as dumb as a moose turd and Bachmann being insane. I didn’t notice a lot of disdain for Elizabeth Dole who would have been a reasonable candidate.
And the same went with Jackson was in 1992, Lieberman in 2004, and Edwards in 2008. At best this theory (usually applied to Republicans only) relies on a selective reading of the evidence.