I’m guessing it doesn’t poll very well, so maybe she’ll figure she can be populist and distance herself from Obama. Two birds with one stone!! Not bad for a days work…
Yeah, but who will believe that she will be against it as President? I don’t think anyone is actually that gullible, and those that are won’t know what TPP is.
I have liked her since a friend’s wife chased her down on her bicycle to report nursing home violations, but even more since a CNN reported interviewed her and Obama together during the Democratic Primary.
“Some say that there has already been a Black President, and that was Bill Clinton.”
Obama replied, “We will have to see how well Bill dances.”
If Hillary Clinton had said that, she would have been crucified.
I said this in another thread but it’s relevant here: I feel that the analysis done by Harry Enten at fivethirtyeight.com is on the mark:
That’s all well and good for the campaign, but I find it hard to believe that it will change the way HRC governs even one iota, should she win the election.
I have to agree with Richard Parker on this. There is a vast difference between what a real free market is willing to pay a freelancer for a particular service, like a well-known speaker or an established actor for a role in a movie, and the unethical self-serving manipulations of the incestuously inter-linked community of boards of directors and senior executives to enrich themselves. You seem to believe that the average Joe is just antagonized by the idea of anyone making a lot of money for any reason. I doubt that the average Joe is that stupid or naive, and even if he is, Bernie Sanders certainly isn’t, and is not likely to equate executive larceny with other kinds of large incomes and try to make that an election issue. It’s also worth noting that exorbitant CEO salaries are a distinct and specific policy issue, because they’re the direct result of major reductions in the top marginal tax rate.
ETA: But I appreciate your acknowledging that Sanders is very much a man of principle. I agree, and I think he’s going to change the conversation in this election, which is undoubtedly why he’s running.
This is likely wishful thinking but my #1 prediction is that HRC fails to gain the nomination but Sanders isn’t necessarily the candidate to receive nomination. She is an awful campaigner and should be defeated. This is the same person who ran for Senate from New York state as a carpetbagging tourist. I will not be shocked if she could mask per phoniness enough to win nomination because she came close in '08, but I don’t predict this to happen. There needs to be more ‘competition’ beyond Sanders, however. I fear that voters too easily forget the baggage that should doom a candidate like Clinton.
My #2 prediction is that Sanders carries zero states.
My #3 prediction is that Sanders does not exceed 20% of the vote in any state.
However, I do hope that Sanders gets the nomination and the Dems lose the race for president. If the Dems could alienate the centrists a bit more, then that would be desirable IMO. The party needs to rip off the mask and reveal the true colors of socialism unabated rather than this tiptoeing socialism-lite that follows polls rather than ideology.
Supposed to be merely an anointment??? Maybe from the Clintons’ perspective.
If we take the spoken views of Sanders and HRC at face value, then Sanders is running to the left of the Clintons. Whether or not HRC is actually closer to the middle than Sanders is debatable IMO. Sanders is an avowed socialist and is not coy about like the Clintons.
Assuming that the Sanders campaign is legitimately attempting to seek nomination, then he is a huge longshot. I think that his entry changes some perceptions of the nomination race but likely changes little else about the race.
To clarify, I don’t wish to sound disagreeable in my prose. Really, your speculation could be correct. That said, I nearly spit out my soda when reading “…I think, on the other hand, that Clinton will be best served by using Sanders as a foil, showing that she is centrist…” I speculate that the Clintons asked Sanders to run as a favor to them. I haven’t yet speculated if they promised him a cabinet post or ambassadorship or some other favor in return. I read “…best served…” and think that’s the whole point of the campaign. I have a very cynical view of the Clintons so my opinions and speculations are tainted with that bias.
Hillary Clinton almost beat Barack Obama – something the Republicans couldn’t even come close to doing. I don’t think she’s an awful campaigner… she just wasn’t as good as Obama.
This almost exactly mirrors my hope for the Republicans – if they could just keep up the anti-immigrant stuff, the religious and anti-gay wingnuttery, the anti-Islam fear-mongering and warmongering, and the general birther-type and ‘Obama is a psychopath’ nutbar stuff, then they’ll consign themselves to national losses for a generation. And if they don’t – if they cast off the nonsense, then my hope is that the wingnut rump splits off to form their own wingnut party, dooming conservatives to ticket splitting, and possibly leaving room for the Democrats to split off into a centrist party (e.g. the Democratic Party) and a real progressive/liberal party.
O’Bama’s interview response, “We’ll have to see how well Bill dances.” illustrates the difficult Hillary Clinton had running against him.
That was hilarious. BHO has the quickest wit of any president since JFK. I think, however, that had Hillary not voted for the Iraq war she would have cruised to the nomination.
We shall see. They are, of course, not exactly the same thing but there are real ethical concerns about politicians raking in huge amounts of cash from organizations. “Incestuous” is a perfectly good way of describing the way monied interests get access to high ranking pols in ways that Average Joe cannot. And while Average Joe might not mind so much that his favorite ball player makes millions, he does see rich politicians and rich business people as being in the same club. Hillary is in the same club with the folks she is supposedly going to go after. Yeah, right.
And what, specifically is she going to propose? She can easily go after hedge fund managers and the “earned interest” tax fiasco, but that isn’t the same as CEO pay.
Enlightening Meditation, which is it? Is Clinton a raving socialist even further to the left than Sanders, and is just hiding it, or is she “socialism lite” that just does what the people want her to do (and what’s wrong with that, anyway?)?
Besides which, we’ve already seen “the true colors of Socialism”, pretty much everywhere else in the entire First World. It doesn’t look too bad.
Had Hillary made that response, or objected to his, she would have been crucified. 
Well, I think Bernie as VP might finally put an end to the bullshit Impeachment crap.
Bill actually governed for eight years as a center-right DLC DINO. That goes way beyond “coy,” it is solid real-world proof that he never had any socialist leanings at all. And what reason do you have to think Hillary would govern any further to the left than Bill did? Please give me a reason, please do, because that is a thing I am desperately eager to believe; at present, I have little hope that there is any point to voting for her beyond keeping the Pubs out of the WH – which is more than sufficient reason.
Actually, her “carpetbagging” run for Senate from New York is clear evidence that she isn’t (or at least wasn’t then) an awful campaigner. She came in from Washington, vilified by the right wing, with no clear connection with New York, in what was expected to be a match against Rudolph Giuliani.
Politically, New York is split, in a general way, between New York City, which is dominated by Democrats, and upstate, where Republicans prevail. Unlike many Democratic politicians (and many downstate Republicans), Clinton focused her early campaign on the upstate areas, engaging in a “listening tour” which spanned all of New York’s counties (many of which have miniscule populations) and concentrated on local issues. Her very active efforts to become engaged in the issues of New York State helped diffuse the accusation of being a “carpetbagger.”
More generally, the early polling showed her to be closely matched with Giuliani, who eventually left the race because of a personal and political implosion (with his reputation remaining in tatters until his strong response in the wake of the 9/11/2001 attacks). The Republicans selected little-known Rep. Rick Lazio, from downstate, suburban Suffolk county as their candidate in the general election. Although many analysts concluded that the upstate vote would be critical in the election, Lazio campaigned little in upstate areas.
In the end, Clinton trounced Lazio, with unexpectedly high levels of support in the upstate counties. Had Giuliani retained his reputation and remained in the race, it would undoubtedly have been closer. However, the consensus was that Clinton’s campaign was extremely effective, particularly in dealing with the “carpetbagger” issue, which would have been fatal if handled lest deftly.
Now, now. Who can expect a post so frothing with venom to not contain glaring contradictions and maybe not make much sense?
[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear]
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Enlightening Meditation, which is it? Is Clinton a raving socialist even further to the left than Sanders, and is just hiding it, or is she “socialism lite” that just does what the people want her to do (and what’s wrong with that, anyway?)?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Billdo]
Actually, her “carpetbagging” run for Senate from New York is clear evidence that she isn’t (or at least wasn’t then) an awful campaigner.
[/QUOTE]
Now, now. Who can expect a post so frothing with venom to not contain glaring contradictions and maybe not make much sense?
[/QUOTE]
Frothing with venom?? I do not want “dead broke” Clinton to win, but that doesn’t mean that I’m a kook that believes in every Vince Fosteresque conspiracy theory about the Clintons. I can overlook the Whitewater scandal and Bill’s skirt chasing, i.e. their open marriage, because that stuff is not important IMHO. I dislike HRC as a candidate because she’s a moron to an extent at least as much as her husband. Did you believe her when she spoke of dodging bullets in Bosnia? To clarify, I am a moderate who dislikes both parties. **What is the glaring contradiction? ** It is my opinion that she’s a socialist wearing a more moderate mask. She’s an idiot regardless of political stances, however. My hope is that this country does not insult itself by electing her. There are many women in the USA who would be better suited to break that glass ceiling if they would make the run. Unfortunately, name recognition and fundraising networks can really carry a lousy candidate… Anyone remember Dubya Bush?
Did you pay any attention to the 2014 book tour of “dead broke” Hillary Clinton? That was a disaster IMHO. After the NPR Terry Gross interview, I cannot believe HRC is not too embarrassed to show her face in public much less run for President. I’d be glad that she’s running (just for the pure entertainment value) if I didn’t think she had a chance to win. She does have a chance and that is alarming, but I do not predict that she wins nomination. O’Malley or Webb has a better chance at defeating the Clintons compared to Bernie Sanders, IMO, even assuming he’s serious and not just running to help out HRC. As much as I disagree with Sanders on some issues, I’d rather see him as prez than either of the Clintons.
This almost exactly mirrors my hope for the Republicans – if they could just keep up the anti-immigrant stuff, the religious and anti-gay wingnuttery, the anti-Islam fear-mongering and warmongering, and the general birther-type and ‘Obama is a psychopath’ nutbar stuff, then they’ll consign themselves to national losses for a generation. And if they don’t – if they cast off the nonsense, then my hope is that the wingnut rump splits off to form their own wingnut party, dooming conservatives to ticket splitting, and possibly leaving room for the Democrats to split off into a centrist party (e.g. the Democratic Party) and a real progressive/liberal party.
[/QUOTE]
Your wish has already been granted for some campaigns especially some of the US Senate seats that the Dems are still holding. Both parties are embracing extreme views too much IMO and the GOP is worse. Both major parties are really pathetic.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Enlightening Meditation, which is it? Is Clinton a raving socialist even further to the left than Sanders, and is just hiding it, or is she “socialism lite” that just does what the people want her to do (and what’s wrong with that, anyway?)?
[/QUOTE]
Clinton is probably a raving socialist parading as socialism lite IMHO. It’s an opinion and doesn’t bother me if anyone disagrees. I admire that Bernie is genuine doesn’t try to hide it. “Dead broke” Hillary Clinton is a phony so it’s difficult to discern what she is for certain. It’s stunning that anyone of any political affiliation takes her seriously.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Besides which, we’ve already seen “the true colors of Socialism”, pretty much everywhere else in the entire First World. It doesn’t look too bad.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. It’s bad but not too bad. The system of interwoven nanny governments in Europe has been a failed experiment in some aspects IMHO, but this complicated topic is really for a different thread. With the history of war on that continent, it could be far worse and some things are going well relatively speaking.
[QUOTE=Billdo]
[QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation]
This is likely wishful thinking but my #1 prediction is that HRC fails to gain the nomination but Sanders isn’t necessarily the candidate to receive nomination. She is an awful campaigner and should be defeated. This is the same person who ran for Senate from New York state as a carpetbagging tourist. I will not be shocked if she could mask per phoniness enough to win nomination because she came close in '08, but I don’t predict this to happen. There needs to be more ‘competition’ beyond Sanders, however. I fear that voters too easily forget the baggage that should doom a candidate like Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, her “carpetbagging” run for Senate from New York is clear evidence that she isn’t (or at least wasn’t then) an awful campaigner. She came in from Washington, vilified by the right wing, with no clear connection with New York, in what was expected to be a match against Rudolph Giuliani.
Politically, New York is split, in a general way, between New York City, which is dominated by Democrats, and upstate, where Republicans prevail. Unlike many Democratic politicians (and many downstate Republicans), Clinton focused her early campaign on the upstate areas, engaging in a “listening tour” which spanned all of New York’s counties (many of which have miniscule populations) and concentrated on local issues. Her very active efforts to become engaged in the issues of New York State helped diffuse the accusation of being a “carpetbagger.”
More generally, the early polling showed her to be closely matched with Giuliani, who eventually left the race because of a personal and political implosion (with his reputation remaining in tatters until his strong response in the wake of the 9/11/2001 attacks). The Republicans selected little-known Rep. Rick Lazio, from downstate, suburban Suffolk county as their candidate in the general election. Although many analysts concluded that the upstate vote would be critical in the election, Lazio campaigned little in upstate areas.
In the end, Clinton trounced Lazio, with unexpectedly high levels of support in the upstate counties. Had Giuliani retained his reputation and remained in the race, it would undoubtedly have been closer. However, the consensus was that Clinton’s campaign was extremely effective, particularly in dealing with the “carpetbagger” issue, which would have been fatal if handled lest deftly.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a matter of perspective and opinion. NOT “Actually” as you say. Guiliani and Lazio were not viable candidates for US Senate especially given the timing for Guiliani. “Dead broke” Clinton had no real competition. Guiliani is an even worse campaigner than HRC; his run for president in 2007-2008 was hilariously bad. For HRC, this Senate race was pure political opportunism. She put on that Yankees baseball cap and slithered to victory with bags full of carpet in both hands.
Historical nitpick: You seem to be unclear on the origin of the term “carpetbagger”. The original carpetbaggers did not have bags full of carpet. They had bags made from old carpet.