Top Menu

Hillary’s No

“I think that there will be an election that will elect a woman.” – Secretary Clinton

"Texts from Hillary," via Tumblr

GEORGE WASHINGTON didn’t exactly jump at the chance to lead our nation after being asked either. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that women like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as people like myself, aren’t taking Hillary’s no for an answer.

I’m not comparing America’s first president to Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the times and the need for a fearless leader are as dire.  The times also call for America to break the female president barrier, which is long overdue. Consider Hillary a baseline for the Democratic party to change the history of our country on that score.  We already know where Republicans don’t want to tread again, and I wrote where Republicans could start this year.  The rest of that conversation we can pick up another time.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s remarks made a couple of weeks ago at a town hall at La Martiniere School for Girls in Kolkata, India were no different than previous preemptive withdrawal statements regarding a second presidential run come 2016.

No one should take them as definitive. We simply cannot afford to.

As the guest of honor in a conversation moderated by NDTV’s Group Editor Barkha Dutt, Secretary Hillary Clinton once again proved why, according to Gallup, she now enjoys the highest approval rating of her twenty year public career. The questions from the audience proves the Hillary Effect continues to resound.

Clinton was introduced by Barkha Dutt in a sterling tribute that mentioned her over 777,000 miles traveled, followed by a pictorial look back at Secretary Clinton’s travels to India that comes in a good-bye tour as she winds down her duties for President Obama. We are witnessing the final days of a partnership that has defied critics and delighted supporters on all sides of what was once a divide. It also proved President Obama’s strong commitment to women in leadership that has been seen through Hillary Clinton’s passion and purpose at the State Department.

There is no one in American politics who is more prepared for the presidency than Hillary Rodham Clinton. That women here and across the globe need her to continue what she started in 1995, when she declared “women’s rights are human rights” in China as first lady, should go without saying, especially with the backdrop of the Republican war on women, which is very real.

Clinton has widened the diplomatic territory through her tenure, which began by galvanizing a demoralized foreign service after the Bush administration’s disrespect for what diplomacy can do, then through her historic expansion of women being central to U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century. The partnership of Obama and Clinton put into action what studies have shown, which is that a developing nation is only as strong as the role women play in it.

The collaborative partnership of President Obama and Secretary Clinton has changed the playing field for women here and around the world.

It’s just one reason whenever Secretary Clinton is taking questions in a relaxed forum, the topic of another run for the presidency invariably comes up. After watching her apolitical diplomatic leadership rise and her prestige and prowess expand, as we simultaneously take in the American political circus, the American public, especially women, would be derelict in our citizenry to simply accept Clinton’s premature pass on 2016 at face value.

Everyone from Buzzfeed to Politico to CBS News, as well as Irish Central, jumped on the the Associated Press report from India.

“I would like to come back to India and just wander around without the streets being closed,” she said. “I just want to get back to taking some deep breaths, feeling that there are other ways I can continue to serve.”

One of those ways is an international foundation focused on women modeled after her husband’s wildly successful Clinton Global Initiative. It’s a natural decision and extension of what Hillary’s already begun that would take her work beyond political constraints and offer a hedge against austerity budgeting that would curtail aid to places where women are most affected when the U.S. steps back, which certainly will happen under Republican leadership.

Finding other ways to serve is perfectly understandable, a natural choice for Clinton. However, as I see the political landscape looking forward, nothing is more important than what Hillary Rodham Clinton could do for America.

Our current economic challenges and the austerity craze in the elite political class begs for what I call “Fighting Hillary,” a central theme in my book, to step forward again. A fighter for the middle class, teachers and unions, women’s economic equality, which Republicans have fought against, seen through their opposition to the Lily Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. She’s a politician who understands health care, but who also proved in the Senate that she can work with Republicans while steadfastly holding firm to her principles, without ceding territory to the right, which threatens the middle class.

I write this as someone who has researched and written extensively on Hillary Rodham Clinton, but who also disagrees with her on issues, as well as the need for women to reinvent the conversation on U.S. power and the language we use to discuss it. Our differences are as small as when the State Department responded to Iran’s Green Revolution with complete silence from Dipnote, State’s blog, to large issues like Secretary Clinton’s initial comments giving support to Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s government out of loyalty to a friend.

Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.” – Secretary Hillary Clinton, January 25, 2011

These words are a result of U.S. foreign policy doctrine that has pervaded both political parties for close to a century, which Clinton certainly represents in this particular statement, but yet as she walks the bridge to the 21st century she’s also risen above these positions to face openly the challenges that confound our best leaders.

When you look at Clinton’s speech on January 13, 2011 in Doha, Qatar, it’s even more surprising that someone of Hillary’s knowledge and foreign policy stature would decide to bolster an old friend like Mubarak and the status quo, instead of adhering to what she warned about in these remarks just a little over one week earlier. An excerpt from her remarks:

… a growing majority of this region is under the age of 30. In fact, it is predicted that in just one country, Yemen, the population will double in 30 years. These young people have a hard time finding work. In many places, there are simply not enough jobs. Across the region, one in five young people is unemployed. And in some places, the percentage is far more. While some countries have made great strides in governance, in many others people have grown tired of corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order. They are demanding reform to make their governments more effective, more responsive, and more open. And all this is taking place against a backdrop of depleting resources: water tables are dropping, oil reserves are running out, and too few countries have adopted long-term plans for addressing these problems.

Those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of their countries’ problems for a little while, but not forever. If leaders don’t offer a positive vision and give young people meaningful ways to contribute, others will fill the vacuum. Extremist elements, terrorist groups, and others who would prey on desperation and poverty are already out there, appealing for allegiance and competing for influence. So this is a critical moment, and this is a test of leadership for all of us.

Secretary Clinton was instrumental in the U.S. backed NATO mission to bomb Libya, which I opposed, and was able to get the ear and gain the trust of the Arab League to convince them to back President Obama’s move, which led to a tactical victory. Her power to persuade the Arab League is part of a legacy that began by bolstering the State Department team that included dragging diplomacy into the social media age, no small task.

I am also opposed to Afghanistan support to 2024 without the world community giving requisite financing, with Clinton one of the strongest advocates for continued financial aid for the mission in Afghanistan.

Our differences don’t take away from the fact that she’s the only woman today who could handle the job and gather the world behind her, becoming the first female president, which would broaden the Hillary Effect to include women having a more significant higher profile in foreign policy and national security, especially where our military intervention is concerned. The language Clinton uses is broader than most politicians today, women taking a primary focus, but as we saw with even Samantha Power on Libya, as well as Ambassador Susan Rice, the language of women remains similar to that of the men who have been in power, which is that of war.

Secretary Clinton remains the symbol of smart power and diplomatic muscle, her ties to the defense industry and U.S. military tight, with these two aspects of political power the only route for a woman to break through to becoming a respected commander in chief. The respect she’s gained over years inside the defense industry, but also at the Pentagon, rivals that of any person who could challenge her, with a small, select few equaling her prowess. Power that sets Clinton up perfectly to be the one to continue the restructuring of the military to a more flexible and agile force.

Being the first female president, someone who is keenly in tune with the ravages of war on women and children, Clinton can’t help but bring a wider lens to conflicts than her male opponents.

We’ve elected many an imperfect man to the presidency, so disagreements aren’t a disqualifier for the first woman president, because it’s impossible to agree with any politician today across all issues. What’s important is getting a qualified woman running this country from the office of the presidency, something that is in all of our best interests, including making sure that female respects, supports and stands up for our demand for full freedoms and opportunities, economic and individual. Hillary’s voice on these subjects alone could change the dynamic in profound ways.

There is no one who understands the multifaceted and layered challenges we now face or how to navigate better them than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Politico’s Mackenzie Weinger highlighted one quote from Clinton’s India conversation. When the talk turned to her possible 2016 candidacy, Clinton stated, “I’m very flattered, but I feel like it’s time for me to kind of step off the high wire. I’ve been involved at the highest level of American politics for 20 years now.”

It’s sort of a cruel thing to be Hillary Clinton. She first had to endure the political and personal torture of the right’s fury over her feminism, then the world’s shock at her declaration that “women’s rights are human rights,” to finally having something she won on her own, the title of Senator Clinton of New York, which put her on the rise to the presidency, only to run smack into a change election that meant a brilliant newcomer was presented with the perfect moment he wasn’t about to waste. Now, after years of globetrotting in a position she never dreamed of taking when her national rise first began, it’s finally over and her life is about to be her own. But yet Democratic supporters of her Fighting Hillary persona, with all its ferociousness and passion for economic justice for the middle class, as well as women, are still not convinced Hillary should be allowed to leave the political stage.

Last year, in a comment Clinton made to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, she said “I am doing what I want to do right now, and I have no intention or any idea even of running again.”

Fair enough, so take those “deep breaths,” which have been well earned. Kick back, take the private trips as a celebrity civilian, have cocktails with your friends, while relaxing and enjoying yourself. Then prepare to take one last leap into the history, because your country needs you. Nothing less would allow us to prod you back into the presidential arena, because we all know what the last race cost.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has already volunteered to get the game on when the time is right. In March 2012, the Washington Post reported her remarks, Gillibrand volunteering for the important job saying “I’m going to be one of the first to ask Hillary to run in 2016… I think she would be incredibly well-poised to be our next Democratic president.”

America is indeed ready for our first female president.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not just the most prepared female in the United States to run for president, she’s the most qualified person.

We’ll let her rest, relax and run around the globe on her own for a couple of years, then it’s time to revisit the question she’s been asked innumerable times over the months.

“Well, we hope you change your mind.” – NDTV’s Group Editor Barkha Dutt

Hillary Rodham Clinton has dedicated her life to public service, including stepping aside for her husband at a time when our country wasn’t ready for her. Now it is, so we simply can’t afford to take her preemptive no for an answer.



This column has been edited, with the second paragraph added after the original was posted on May 27.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

52 Responses to Hillary’s No

  1. jjamele May 27, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    If Obama wins re-election, Hillary’s political career is essentially over. She’s not going to run in 2016 as the defender of what Barack Obama did or (mainly) didn’t do with his eight years.

    If Obama loses, I think that the Hillary For President Campaign is in full gear by February 2015.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter May 27, 2012 at 9:03 am #

      “If Obama wins re-election, Hillary’s political career is essentially over. She’s not going to run in 2016 as the defender of what Barack Obama did or (mainly) didn’t do with his eight years.”

      Yeah, what political type in their right mind would want to follow a successful two term President they were the second in command to? She would stand no chance what so ever right?

      “If Obama loses, I think that the Hillary For President Campaign is in full gear by February 2015.”

      I would say if President Obama is re-elected the Hillary For President Campaign is in full gear by February 2015.

      • jjamele May 27, 2012 at 10:53 am #

        Four years ago, the only real argument for Barack Obama was “he’s not George W Bush and his running mate is not Sarah Palin.” This year, it’s “he’s not Mitt Romney.” Unless something amazing happens in his second term (and second terms are almost always failures) this President will be remembered as the first African American President, and not for anything he actually accomplished. Because so far, it’s not very much.

        Sorry, but truth hurts. Unless you really think that saving a car company and ordering the murder of a foreign national without trial really constitutes a “successful” two-term Presidency.

        • secularhumanizinevoluter May 27, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

          1.”Sorry, but truth hurts.:”
          Then you must be in agony.

          2.” Unless you really think that saving a car company and ordering the murder of a foreign national without trial really constitutes a “successful” two-term Presidency.”

          Well I would say saving GM is pretty successful. As for “murdering” a foreign national without trial….you have GOT to be kidding right?!!

          You don’t “murder” people who have attacked you and killed 3000+ Americans. You KILL them. You find them and you KILL them. President Obama, unlike Bush, presided over the finding of and KILLING of an avowed enemy of the American people, are you SERIOUSLY going to defend OBL here?!!!!
          Then there is ending DADT, late but gone.
          A start on healthcare reform…not enough but a first step
          Ending enforcement of DOMA
          Coming out(haha) in support of marriage equity.
          Am I happy with him? Not really, but I am not an Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferer and am willing, considering the alternative even eager to re-elect him.

          • jjamele May 27, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

            Might makes Right. Got it.

            You do understand that if the Iranians had hired a hit squad to invade Texas, kill GW Bush, and dump his body in the Gulf of Mexico that would have been perfectly justified using your warped logic, don’t you?

            Oh, I forgot . American Exceptionalism. Carry on.

            Health Care Reform? Oh, you mean the Health Insurance Enrichment Bill which does nothing to control costs? Yeah, let’s throw a parade for that one.

            But please, feel free to wave your pom poms for this President. Your prerogative.

          • secularhumanizinevoluter May 27, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

            1″Might makes Right. Got it.”
            No, no you clearly do not got it.

            2.You do understand that if the Iranians had hired a hit squad to invade Texas, kill GW Bush, and dump his body in the Gulf of Mexico that would have been perfectly justified using your warped logic, don’t you?”
            Iranians?!! MY warped logic?! What the hell are you talking about?!!

            “Oh, I forgot . American Exceptionalism. Carry on.”
            Nonsense end to incoherent, no contact with reality point.

            3.”Health Care Reform? Oh, you mean the Health Insurance Enrichment Bill which does nothing to control costs? Yeah, let’s throw a parade for that one.”
            Like I said, it sure ain’t perfect but it is a step in the right direction. Hundreds of thousands of people can no longer be refused health care insurance. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to get checks from the insurance companies for over charging. but it wasn’t perfect so OH, IT’S the SAME as nothing to you right?

            4.”But please, feel free to wave your pom poms for this President. Your prerogative.”
            Oh GOSH thanks for the permission!!! That just means the WORLD to me coming from the end all be all fount of wisdom here in the Marsh!!

          • jjamele May 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

            1.”Sorry, but truth hurts.:”
            Then you must be in agony.

            So you concede that I’m speaking from truth?

            You know, it’s pretty sad when you can’t even used a played-to-death cliche properly.

        • jinbaltimore May 28, 2012 at 7:19 am #

          jjamele so wins this round!

          • jjamele May 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

            As near as I can figure, this is Secular’s “logic:”

            Masterminding an attack which kills 3500 innocent Americans: Act of Terror, so any response is perfectly appropriate.

            Masterminding a thousand attacks which kill 500,000 innocent Iraqis over twenty years, not to mention those killed by sanctions: Act of a true Leader of the Free World.

            Not to mention ordering the deaths of thousands of Afghanis by Predator Drone- that’s perfectly ok, too. Blowing yourself up at a checkpoint manned by your occupiers? TERRORISM!

            I’m not even going to try to understand what’s going on in a “brain” like that.

  2. Joyce Arnold May 27, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    Very well written, Taylor :)

  3. jjamele May 27, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    disagreements aren’t a disqualifier for the first woman president, because it’s impossible to agree with any politician today across all issues.

    Tell that second part to a lot of Obama supporters, who believe that any disagreement with this President, on any level, makes the critic a Birther, a Racist, a Troll, or all of the above.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter May 27, 2012 at 9:05 am #

      No, not any one who disagrees based on logical, fact based reasons. Just the critics who ARE a Birther, a Racist, a Troll, or all of the above.

      • jjamele May 27, 2012 at 10:49 am #

        Check out Media Matters for America sometime. Any hint of criticism of the President there gets you labeled as any or all of the things I mentioned. I finally gave up posting there because it was impossible to have a reasonable discussion which included the very possibility that the President might not be 100 percent right, 100 percent all of the time.

        • Lake Lady May 27, 2012 at 10:59 am #

          Critics on the left are starting to get real. Check the discussion on c-span 2 book channel’s website by Noam Scheiber of his new book,” The Escape Artists: How Obama’s team Fumbled the Recovery”.

        • secularhumanizinevoluter May 27, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

          Maybe it was the one about this dictatorial President that did it?

      • jinbaltimore May 28, 2012 at 7:18 am #

        LOL

  4. StrideHyde May 27, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    When Hillary was first running for US senator from NY I was unenthusiastic. She completely exceeded my expectations by being a very hard worker, a team player and accomplishing a lot for NYers and not getting a lot of credit for it. She has continued to exceed my expectations, much to my delight. I think the chance to have Hillary as president has passed us by. The next president will likely be someone we haven’t thought of yet. How aware of Bill Clinton was the nation in 1988? However, if anyone can come back and once again exceed my expectations, it’s Hillary. And whatever she does in the coming years, I look forward to delight in having my expectations thus exceeded.

    • Ga6thDem May 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

      Actually quite a lot of people had heard of Bill Clinton in 1988 due to that speech he gave that was roundly criticized at the convention for being too long winded. But, yeah, you’re right in the sense that he was not as well known back then as Hillary is now. I kind of see her as the equivalent of Ronald Reagan back in the 70′s.

  5. Lake Lady May 27, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    Love your piece Taylor~

    Of course I thought her country needed her four years ago. Now after reading much about Obama’s style of leadership and problem solving I am grateful that one outcome of his rational intellectual style is that he reconized that fact then and puttng ego aside gave her a huge portfolio.

    Apart from all that Taylor has detailed in this piece I have a very selfish reason for wanting Hillary to run in 2016. I believe she is the last hope of the boomer generation to redeem itself before it shuffles off into history.

    She has always enbodied to me the values I took from our upbringing: she has used her superior intelligence,grit and focus to serve our country and to advance it’s progress to make it a more perfect union. She had a solid middleclass upbring that offered her many opportunities in education and advancement, her choice was to lead a life of purpose.

    Many of us in our generation did the same thing in own minor way.We took the JFK challenge to heart and used our gifts to advance our chosen corner of society. We worked in the trenches trying to fill socieies needs. We did not take the narcissistic road of “tuning in and dropping out”, we did not cop out and chase big bucks. We did our work with committment. Now we are vilified from the right for our retirements and medical benefits and the unions that made them possible.

    Hillary knows the score.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter May 27, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

      Ditto

  6. lynnette May 27, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    What a great post! I couldn’t agree with you more, Taylor. I don’t think there is anyone smarter, more hard working, and more qualified to be President in 2016. Hillary would be a substantial and I think steady, insightful leader; the excitement she would generate in 2016 would be just as great as when President Obama ran, IMO. Can you imagine it ?! Thank you so much for this post.

  7. Lake Lady May 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    Hey lynnette~ I consider you one of the people I was talking about above.

    • lynnette May 27, 2012 at 9:18 pm #

      Hey Lake Lady,
      Thank you. Loved your comment. :)

  8. ladywalker68 May 27, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Taylor-Terrific post. One of your very best.

    The follow up remarks by StrideHyde, Lake Lady and lynnette are wonderful as well. I have nothing to add. All of you have put into words my thoughts and feelings better than I ever could have imagined.

    THANK YOU ALL!

  9. fangio May 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    Hillary Clinton has accomplished absolutely nothing in four years as Secretary of State. Preaching about women’s rights is very nice but is not the job of the Secretary of State. I am sure the people of Syria very much appreciate her hard work as they are being slaughtered. As for her expertise, we can look to Iraq as one of her great milestones and remember her excuse of not having all the information. Mr. Obama has held her on a short leash throughout his dictatorial four years in power. The State department is for all intents and purposes run from the oval office and she has been nothing but a mouthpiece. Compare Clinton to some of the great Secretary’s of State in this countries history and she is nothing but a joke.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter May 27, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

      “Mr. Obama has held her on a short leash throughout his dictatorial four years in power. ”

      OMGAWD what ain’t even there…you are as feverishly delusional as limpwithnoballs, handjobity or Blech you know that?

  10. c chicago May 27, 2012 at 4:21 pm #

    “Hillary Rodham Clinton is not just the most prepared female in the United States to run for president, she’s the most qualified person.”

    Amen.

    • Lake Lady May 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

      Amen~

      • ladywalker68 May 27, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

        Amen!

        • lynnette May 27, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

          Amen!

  11. Ga6thDem May 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    I’m with you Taylor on the fact that I don’t see anybody else on the horizon right now. Maybe a leader will come forward but especially if Obama is reelected I don’t see any leadership coming out of the party because like the saying goes a fish rots from the head down. A president with no leadership skills gets the party nothing but more people with no leadership skills has been what I have seen. You would think that since Obama doesn’t have any leadership skills that someone would have risen up to take the mantle but no one has and I wouldn’t expect it to be any different in an Obama second term.

    I do agree with the poster above that if Obama gets reelected the chances of Hillary running are pretty much nil. I don’t see Obama’s second term being any better than his first and probably will be worse considering that second terms usually are. Also I think it would be difficult for any Dem to follow Obama due to the fact that it’s a rarity these days for a party to hold the presidency for more than 8 years.

    • jjamele May 27, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

      Pretty much what I was saying. It’s extremely rare for a party to win three Presidential elections in a row; the Democrats really did it in 2000 but got robbed; the Republicans did it in 1988 after running one of the most vile, dirty campaigns in history, but generally after eight years of the same party in power, that party is at a big disadvantage.

      Then again, challengers are usually at a big disadvantage too, with Carter and Bush I the only incumbents to lose re-election since the Great Depression. I give Obama an edge against Romney based on the fact that the economy does seem to be heading in the right direction and when that’s happening, people tend to stick to what they know. That, and I can’t see Romney ever matching Obama in the “likeability” factor.

      • Ga6thDem May 27, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

        I think it depends more on the fact as to whether Romney is acceptable to replace Obama with. I think that they want to fire him due to the fact that his numbers are in the 40′s for reelection but that they can’t or won’t commit to Romney because they are either unsure or the fact that the voters can’t stand the GOP in general is what is holding them back on Romney. If Romney loses he can thank the Tea Party. In the end I don’t see it mattering a whole lot as far as the economy goes because Obama has shown that he doesn’t have a clue as to how to fix the economy and Romney is offering nothing more than a return to the failed supply side economics of the past. A lot of people are hurting though and that might be the sole reason they would be willing to take a chance on him regardless of the likability factor.

  12. StrideHyde May 27, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Ga6thDem: I mostly agree that both Romney and Obama are unlikely to effect big change; that probably depends more on which way the House and Senate go. But I worry about Supreme Court appointments, and hope that people are thinking about that as well.

  13. fairmindedindependent May 27, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    I am not going to be thrilled to see either Obama or Romney win. In 2008, I was actually excited for once to go and vote. The first person I voted for in a election was in 2004 and it was John Kerry and John Edwards, I didn’t put out a yard sign or anything or donate to their campaign. Now in the democratic 2008 primary, I was actually active, I put out a yard sign for Hillary Clinton, I donated to her campaign and I went to vote for her. When Obama won, I was not happy about but decided to vote for him in the general election. Now, even though I am thrilled about him coming out for gay marriage, even though I have been reading he was for gay marriage in the Illinois senate, I am not happy about him caving to the Republicans every chance he gets. I still cannot believe about the Supak Amendment that he along with the FIRST FEMALE HOUSE SPEAKER, put womens rights up for grabs, and they wonder why they lost so many seats and so much influence. I hope Hillary Runs for President again, I will be active in helping her get elected. I will donate and do whatever I could to help her win. This year, I am staying out of it. Let Wall Street fund the two Big Bussiness parties and their candidates.

  14. RAJensen May 28, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    What an enoromous resume padding is going on with Hillary-bots. Need anyone be reminded that she voted to invade Iraq and defended her vote throughout the 2008 primary campaign. Bill CLintoon made her the manager of Clinton’s universal health care intitiative in 1993 that so spectacturarly botched it never came up again for 15 years.Have you all forgotten the ‘I came ubnder atack in Bosnia’. Hillary supported her husband and thge Congress that passed the d

    • RAJensen May 28, 2012 at 12:07 am #

      defense of marriage act.

      Hillary supported the repeal of the Glass-Seagal in 1999 act that brought about the Global Financial meltdown and her 2008 campaign was supported by the same Wall Street operators you all complain that are contributing to Obama’s campaign.

      The same complaints you have have about Obama and his supporters are the same complaints you deem to overlook when it comes to the anointed one.

      • jinbaltimore May 28, 2012 at 7:13 am #

        The same complaints you have have about Obama and his supporters are the same complaints you deem to overlook when it comes to the anointed one.

        Not at all. Obama is at best an empty suit, but more likely a Trojan Horse for republican policies.

        You seem quite happy cheerleading for republican policies. You might as well vote for Romney!

    • jjamele May 28, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

      Hillary voted for authorization to use force in Iraq. Obama has ordered the use of hundreds of Predator Drones to kill countless thousands of innocent Aghanis. Yet somehow, it’s HILLARY who is the war monger whose vote in 2002 we must never, ever forget.

      The health care plan that Bill and Hillary fought for would have ACTUALLY FIXED THE PROBLEM OF HEALTH CARE COSTS. If they wanted a giant giveaway to the insurance industry like the joke of a “reform” passed in 2009, they could have gotten it. But they actually wanted to make things better, not just manufacture a “mission accomplished, lets move on” bumper sticker.

    • jinbaltimore May 29, 2012 at 3:18 am #

      Also I don’t think Hillary-bots is catching. Doesn’t have the same easy flow from the tongue as obamabots, hence the need for the hyphen. But I guess you might be able to get some republicans to use it.

      • newdealdem1 May 29, 2012 at 10:55 am #

        I’m late to the party but I just wanted to express my heartfelt thanks for this superbly written, astute and comprehensive analysis of SOS Clinton and will she or won’t she run in 2016. I wanted to be counted among those who want to see her run and win, it’s as non-complicated as that. She’s the only one that I can see up to doing the job. She has the stamina, courage and scary smarts to lead our country and if she decides to run, I will give whatever I can, make those telephone calls and knock on doors to do my part.

        To Lakelady, you’re comments were/are right on and wonderfully expressed. Lots of us feel as you and Taylor.

        Also, I did see that Book TV program you noted “Noam Scheiber of his new book,” The Escape Artists: How Obama’s team Fumbled the Recovery”. It’s an important document of how Obama’s stubbornness and commitment to bi-partisanship with the GOP (against advice from a few staffers) screwed up health care by letting Max Baccus, the Finance Committee Chair go on and on and on and on and on into August 2009 in his road to nowhere that would do us regular Americans no good “negotiations” with then-ranking member Chuck Grassley. All of this giving an opening to the cacophony of teaparty “refuseniks” to worm their way into the discussion, hijacking it and distorting the contents of the bill turning it into what it in no way resembled or was: a “socialist” onslaught instead of what Obama’s health plan was: a revisit of the GOP health plan put forth by Bob Dole as a counter proposal to the Clinton health care plan. Some of Obama’s advisers begged him to switch gears and work on a jobs program and he refused to listen and forged on with his own Titanic voyage. One reason was that he wanted to trump the Clintons in passing any health care bill as they were unsuccessful in passing theirs.

        Here is that presentation http://tinyurl.com/83pvttp

      • newdealdem1 May 29, 2012 at 10:56 am #

        :smile:

  15. StrideHyde May 28, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    The 1993 health care initiative was botched by the Democratic congress. All they did was criticize it, only Jim McDermit and Lincoln Chaffee came up with alternative plans. Not gonna defend the other positions, I’ll only say that the only Northeastern senator to vote against the Iraq invasion was Ted Kennedy. The thing is, Hillary never claimed to be a promoter of “new”
    politics. That was Obama. And it’s come back to bite him.

    • jjamele May 28, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

      If Obama wanted real health care reform, MAYBE he should have offered his OWN BILL to Congress instead of telling them “see what you can come up with, no matter how crappy it is, I’ll sign it and we’ll call it a victory.”

      Leading from behind. Way, way behind. Like, from another continent.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter May 28, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

        Hate to break it to you and real sorry you cut the civics and government classes but the President does NOT offer bills…that is CONGRESSES job. This explains allot about your apparent basic misunderstanding or ignorance about how our government works!!!

        • jjamele May 28, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

          Jesus, the stupid! It burns!

          I hardly know where to start. I’ve been teaching AP Government for 12 years. You sound like someone who thinks he remembered hearing something in civics class between naps.

          The President presents legislation for consideration by the House ALL THE TIME. Oh, but you probably didn’t know that because White House-created and driven legislation is generally not very significant. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, the creation of NASA….not surprising you missed these.

          Seriously, you are an idiot. Quit while you are behind. WAY behind.

    • newdealdem1 May 29, 2012 at 10:59 am #

      That :smile: emo was for jinbaltimore’s comment with which I agree.

      • jinbaltimore May 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

        Thanks!

  16. StrideHyde May 28, 2012 at 12:34 am #

    Perhaps her position on DOMA was a little more nuanced: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/Hillary_repudiates_DOMA.html

  17. Cujo359 May 28, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    Hillary Clinton is an impressive person, but what does she aim to do as President? If her goals haven’t changed from 2008, she’s about nothing more than maintaining the status quo. If that’s true, she’s not what America needs, no matter how impressive she is.

  18. jinbaltimore May 28, 2012 at 7:16 am #

    Maybe if HRC ran as an independent. The “democratic” brand is too damaged at this point.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter May 28, 2012 at 11:17 am #

      Oh BALLS.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong