Is *that *what I said? :dubious:
Then it was merely a factual correction you need to get over.
He’s the Marilyn Munster of the GOP. He’s the most normal looking, but he doesn’t think his family is fucking weird.
No, it is not that no others have what it takes, it is simply an accident of history that they are positioned to have more a serious shot at it than most pols. The existence of a very small caste of presumptive political royalty is a trivial and benign matter compared to the existence and predominance of the much larger hereditary caste that makes up the plutocracy.
She won some significant states in the 2008 primaries against a pretty good candidate. She didn’t exactly wilt then, she was fighting long after the nomination was essentially settled.
She made a contest of it long after it looked like it would be over. I think she’ll do fine.
There’s even a Venn diagram!
As I said, there’s always new stuff with this couple:
I’m not sure that this is a huge deal, but it does serve to remind voters, especially in the Democratic primary, that she’s a creature of Wall Street and apparently also the Sauds. And not exactly a paragon of transparency and integrity either.
The Clintons never really cross the line. Smart cookies, those two. But contrast them with someone cleaner and more authentic and more populist, either in the primary or the general election, and she won’t win.
This is such an obvious statement that it doesn’t need to be said. The disagreement is about whether a clown like Walker is actually “cleaner and more authentic and more populist”. We shall see.
Walker is more authentic and populist, but not cleaner. He’s got just as many ethical clouds as Clinton.
Still gotta go with Jindal, at least in terms of the best contrast to Clinton, although I’m developing doubts about him on substance. Of course, that assumes she will win the nomination. Jim Webb also contrasts perfectly with her, but he’s never raised money or campaigned well. His victory over George Allen was all George Allen’s doing.
All of Hillary’s “ethical clouds” have been inflated like Macy’s balloons for 24 years and she still whoops all the potential GOP candidates in the early polls and Bill is still the most popular politician in the nation.
Whatever Walker’s skeletons are, we’ve only just begun to dig into the closet. Not to worry, Jeb Bush has the nomination in his hands. And Jindal? Don’t worry about him, he fails the “brown grocery sack” test.
They are inflated, but they do exist. It’s mostly all baked in already, people know what they are getting in that regard. But it never looks good to have things come up during a campaign, even if we’ve grown used to it. One of the reasons her popularity went up so much as SecState is that nothing happened. Obama might get some credit for that, as my cite points out, it was him that ordered Clinton to stop taking foreign donations so there would be no conflict of interest.
If the old Clinton returns, so does her old approval ratings I’d bet.
He might be more “authentic and populist” with the know nothing anti-evolution nuts, but I see no reason to believe this goes for the entire population. I guess we’ll see.
I really, really hope you’re right about Jindal. I very much hope an idiot governor who’s unpopular in his own state and looks like a 12 year old in his dad’s suit will be the Democratic nominee’s opponent.
You realize that that’s a pretty low bar, right? And he still didn’t get it right. He just recently railed against Iran for a bit before realizing that he should have been talking about Iraq.
Freudian slip, perhaps? If he’s thinking about Iran, that’s something the voters should take into account.
Maybe “railed” is too strong a word. Here’s a link to an article about it.
Psssst! Some of us are discussing the candidacies of Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, etc. over here. Feel free to join us! 
O’Malley takes a jab at Clinton: Martin O’Malley, in Veiled Jab at Hillary Clinton, Derides Politics of ‘Triangulation’ - The New York Times
This hits directly on why I couldn’t fully support Hillary in 2008, and why I’m not fully supporting for 2016. She could have been president, but once she voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002 it sealed her fate for the 2008 primary. It was a pass/fail test of political courage, and she (much like the invasion itself) failed.
And her pandering on the flag burning issue was troubling as well. That said, if she’s the nominee, I’ll vote for her.