BBC: Hillary Clinton under enormous pressure to run in 2020.

[triron]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50399230

'The former secretary of state, New York senator and US first lady replied: "I think all the time about what kind of president I would have been and what I would have done differently and what I think it would have meant to our country and the world.

"So of course I think about it, I think about it all the time. Being able to do that, and look, whoever wins next time is going to have a big task trying to fix everything that's been broken."

Pressed on whether she would throw her hat into the ring at the last minute, Mrs Clinton said: "I, as I say, never, never, never say never.

"I will certainly tell you, I'm under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.'

[mshasta]

1. distraction --away from dotard

they want a Hillary name just to start their conspiracy shit all over

[triron]

5. I don't understand what you mean? Who is 'they'?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Huh??

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[mr_lebowski]

2. That would please me greatly actually ... (nt)

[triron]

9. Me too. But if I were her, I would be very hesitant as well.

Look at all the shit she had to put up with in 2016. The media was disgusting.

[Eyeball_Kid]

58. Please, no.

Let's move on. Why would we want a candidate with all of that ill-deserved baggage. Yeah, ill-deserved, alright. But she's got it, and if she enters and campaigns, a lot of old wounds would again become infected, justified or not.

But like most of us, we're along for the ride. Yeah, we vote and maybe we do some volunteer work. HRC's decisions will not relate to what we think or do. So what I think means next to nothing.

Although I was born in the 1940s, and I have a lot of respect for seniors who maintain a high level of mental functionality, I nonetheless think it's a bad idea for those in their 70s and 80s to be running a major nation. It's the kind of job that only a very small fraction of the population can handle at any age. And given the high level of capacity and energy that a president must have, it's nearly a guarantee that a younger president (50s-60s) can function under enormous stress better than an older one. It's just that we're mortal, and we all go through developmental stages.

So I tend to lean away from the candidacies of the older age brackets, even though I'd vote for any Democratic candidate over a Republican. Any day.

[Hortensis]

61. Do some never learn? It's not HER baggage, it's yours, Eyeball.

Realize that a solid majority voted for Hillary Clinton for president. Despite a deluge of lies like nothing our nation has ever seen before.

Yes, fake baggage was implanted in the minds of too many by those determined to defeat us. But, over 65 million people said, "No thanks. I'll take mine without the lies." Calling them "ill-deserved" while schlepping them into this post doesn't distance you from them. Quite the contrary.

Until you're able to offload that baggage, though, be reassured she's NOT going to run. It's not in her nature to slam doors. But articles like this are mainly anti-Biden and clickbait noise.

As for age, around 60 or so you will realize that 20-30 years at pasture for not just yourself but many our most proven, dynamic and experienced people would be amazingly stupid -- shockingly, wastefully deleterious to our nation, right up there with sending skilled minorities to work in the fields.

It's not going to happen.

So why not put your mind to it to NOT spend decades without that insight? We're in a transition period when we're rather suddenly able to stay healthy and vigorous much longer. A glorious new reality for humanity.

But of course, younger generations are also facing the new reality that they're going to be in competition with some very redoubtable people for much longer, not just inherit in middle age when older folk conveniently drop dead. Instead of angst and resentment, they'd do better to up their competitive games and also to look forward to the people they will be and the lives they'll lead after decades of personal growth. Those who do grow, of course.

Btw, I would really like to see Hillary in important office in future so all that wonkish fix-it passion and all those plans she worked on so earnestly don't go to waste.

[enough]

3. From whom? NT

[TheRealNorth]

4. That's what I am wondering

Who are these people that you speak of?

[Imperialism Inc.]

6. BREAKING

People who would earn large salaries running campaign, urge Clinton to enter 2020 race.

[grumpyduck]

7. I'd like to know who the "many many people" are.

Nothing against Hilary, just curious.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. There are many many many of them apparently... no doubt Biden is not among them!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[DFW]

8. I'm sure plenty of people are talking to her about it

I am also fairly sure she won't do it.

Yes, she got cheated out of it, and yes, maybe some are now running who privately gloated over the 2016 outcome. But like John Kerry in 2004, she has come to terms with the outcome, and is not interested in going through it all again.

Like Kerry, she has made her mark on history--not in the capacity that would have done the country and the world the most good, but for women and the ideals of the Democratic Party, she is a figure history will look upon kindly. Everyone except Trump and Sean Hannity know full well that history will look upon the Trump presidency much as Spain looks upon the Inquisition.

[EndlessWire]

19. A sexist remark...

not at all worthy of you.

"...not in the capacity that would have done the country and the world the most good..." etc.

And, how do you know that she is not interested in being President? IF WE DON'T GET RID OF TRUMP, WE WILL LOSE THE COUNTRY. This has become more and more apparent as time passes, almost daily. We. are. in. trouble. She is a long way from the loss, and patriots bounce back. It would behoove us all to run someone that we can all vote for (and leave our sexual biases behind) who already knows what she/he is doing, and can stand up to Putin. This she can do.

I don't mind a fresh candidate, and I understand all that. But, these are not normal times. Not normal. We have to get the best possible candidate, stand behind him/her, and fight like bloody hell to elect him/her. If we don't win, you can look forward to Trump going berserk. He is hell bent on becoming the baddest of the bad. He does not model himself after anyone good. He likes bullies, despots, and dictators. That's what he wants to be. Think it through.

[coti]

41. I care only about putting the strongest candidate up against Trump, and that would NOT

be the person who lost to him in 2016 (even wrongly).

I'm not open to fuck ups or corruptions occurring in 2020. Our candidate needs to figuratively beat the living crap out of Trump.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. So true... but, not to worry, Bernie's got this!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[DFW]

43. I do realize...

There are some people who do nothing but sit in front of a computer screen with knives poised to strike, but man, that was unexpected nonetheless.

I happen to know, through a mutual acquaintance, that she is plenty interested in being president. What she is NOT interested in is going through (again) the whole process necessary to get there.

We don't go hiking together every second weekend (I live in Germany, after all), but we are not total strangers, either.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Boomerproud]

60. I trust your perpective more than the other posters.

The proof is in the photo sir.

[ffr]

25. If she did run, I would hope she'd revamp her marketing and political strategy campaign to include

men.

She was almost 99% focused on winning over women with almost no mention of bread and butter issues for men. Or at least, don't focus on gender so much, just campaign.

I'd support her in a #2 roll too.

[Blue_Tires]

10. If she was going to run she'd already be in the race

And she knows a fucking trap when she sees one...

The horseshoe left and right are absolutely jizzing themselves in anticipation of Hillary getting back in because not only would Trump and Sanders have their favorite polarizing punching bag to bulk up against, the conspiracy agitprop ratfuckers on facebook and youtube would love nothing more than to take all the heat off Trump and make this election about "What did Hillary know about Epstein, and when did she know it??"

[triron]

11. What 'trap' are you refering to? I certainly am not aware of this.

[Blue_Tires]

12. All these people supposedly begging her to run again...

Because it stinks to high heaven...

[triron]

13. You think these people are trying to 'trap' her?

Why do you think she even mentioned it to the BBC reporter?

[Blue_Tires]

15. Because the BBC asked her the question?

No, the people in Clinton's inner circle aren't part of the trap; it's the people trying to whip up some kind of popular groundswell and get the snowball rolling downhill...

[triron]

17. BBC asked the question, yes, but she provided that information unsolicited.

[EndlessWire]

18. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

Any candidate who opposes Trump can look forward to being beaten up and smeared. That's what he was trying to do to Biden, who he thinks is the top Dem candidate. He must have creamed his jeans when they discovered that Hunter Biden was involved in the scenario.

Hillary is uniquely qualified to run the country, her patriotism is not an issue, and she is smart as a whip. She is head and shoulders above any other candidate, although there are several candidates this time who appear to be of quality and electable and acceptable.

The reason I say this is because she has the experience we will need in order to fix the crazy crap that Trump is busy doing to our country. She will have to win back the countries that we have broken with and shore up our standing in the world community. She is friends with former Presidents (real ones) and has access to people whose opinions can be evaluated on the stage of good advice. The other heads of state know her.

I understand that there are plenty of people who don't like her, but the forgoing objections just smack of previous 2016 hatreds. If anything, what Trump has continued to do makes it even more urgent to get an adult in there. If she picked a popular VP, she'd have an even better chance at winning.

I know this will not be a popular opinion here, but she is the real President anyway, because Putin interfered with the election. Trump really didn't win fairly. The only thing I would advise is remain civil, but no more PC. He isn't going to be, no matter who is running against him.

If she ran for the office, I'd be proud to call her my candidate.

[trueblue2007]

23. I WOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY ALSO

[Horizens]

29. As Would I

for sure.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. I would too. Any other person who got 2.9 million

More votes than Dipshit WITH Russian interference, got put through the ridiculous email charade, and who lived through undeserving ridicule like no other living candidate would receive our support. Plus she is infinitely qualified. Before anyone says no one automatically deserves the nomination - she does!!!!!

[coti]

42. Her candidacy, even if she was wronged, got us into this position.

Now you want to do it again?

[triron]

44. WTF!

[triron]

14. knr

[BuffaloJackalope]

16. ok, boomer

[Ms. Toad]

20. No. Same objections I've always had to her -

and she has recently added a troublesome posture with respect to transwomen.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/14/hillary-clinton-chelsea-trans-issues-legitimate-concern-cis-women-self-identification/

“This is all relatively new. People are still trying to find the language for it.”

Aside from anything else she said - this is a BS excuse. She's a hair older than I am, but Renee Richards would have been around when she was a young adult in the 70s. I remember her from my high school days, and I'm pretty darn close to retirement.

[triron]

21. Geesh. This is a pretty silly objection it seems to me with all of Hillary's fantastic

experience and knowledge. I honestly just don't get it.

[Ms. Toad]

22. I'm glad you think the lives of my friends and family are silly.

that was one small comment, used to excuse a generally negative attitude toward trans individuals because it was "new," despite it being something she should have been familiar with for at least 5 decades.

My biggest objection is that she blows with the political winds. This is likely more of the same - she is sensing that there is enough discomfort with trans individuals that displaying visible discomfort will make her less scary to people who might otherwise not vote for her.

Another example was her support of Clinton's DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't tell policies. Both of which were designed to keep gay people in their place because to truly support LGBT rights would have been politically toxic.

I would be thrilled to have her on the Supreme Court, where she is removed from politics. I just don't want her in any position in which her decisions will be influenced by what she believes she needs to to say or do in order to win the next election.

[StevieM]

24. You do realize that Clinton/Gore tried to end the ban on gays in the military, don't you?

He wanted to do away with it. The GOP instantly fought back, threatening to attach an amendment to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Sam Nunn was on the GOP's side, and it had the votes to pass.

Hillary's main role was to talk to lawmakers about how important Family and Medical Leave was, and to convince them to agree to a committee that would study the issue of gays in the military, while keeping the FML bill separate.

DADT was the compromise that was reached. It was the best that Clinton/Gore could do, given the conservatism of the era. Even Barnie Frank, who was quite upset, said at the time that he didn't blame the president.

As for DOMA, it had the votes--easily--to override the president's veto. The public was overwhelmingly for it. And there was a lot of support for a constitutional amendment. If Clinton had vetoed it the GOP would have held it up as proof that there was a massive effort under way to implement gay marriage, over the will of the voters. Surely the courts would soon do what the president, and leader of the Democrats, had just made it clear he wanted. This likely would have led to a constitutional amendment, which would have prevented us from having gay marriage today.

Finally, if you have a problem with Bill then that is your problem with him. Hillary is her own person. And it is no more fair to blame her than most other Democrats in Congress at the time, like George Mitchel, Tom Foley, Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt or Joe Biden.

[Ms. Toad]

30. You're not even bothering to read what I wrote.

The connection with DOMA and DADT were to her support of her husband's policies. As is clear from the Conways, couples do always speak with one voice. Her voice in support of those policies was her own.

Further, I clearly identiied these as examples of a broad concern I have about Clinton in any elected office.

And - please, it is insulting for you to try rationalize away politician's support of and advocacy for laws that that directly impacted my life, as if the opinion of those made into/kept as second class citizens are unimportant. (And, in case you don't know it, Barnie Frank - a privileged white male who happens to be gay - does not speak for all LGBT individuals).

[StevieM]

32. I read what you wrote about "her support" and weighed my words carefully while taking into account

that part of what you wrote.

That is why I mentioned all those other Democrats from that era, like the ones that I listed. Using your rationale for disqualifying Clinton from "any" elected office most Democrats from that era would also be disqualified.

Hillary was not a loud voice in support of these policies during that era, and probably spoke less about them, if at all, than most Democrats in Congress at the time.

I think it is unfair to say Hillary blows with the political wind, as you wrote in your previous post. She almost ended her political career before it began with her bold effort to pass universal health care at a time when our country was just coming out of the Reagan Revolution and all its conservatism.

I reject your assertion that I was in any way insulting in stating my position. I explained why it was understandable, from my point of view, that most Democrats supported DOMA. And I believe it is worth noting that IMO the way Democrats handled it back then has gay rights in a better place today than they otherwise would be.

I agree that Barnie Frank does not speak for all LGBT individuals. But neither do the critics of the Clintons. And I believe that HRC won the LGBT vote in both the 2008 and 2016 primaries.

[Ms. Toad]

33. I've been politically active for nearly 6 decades

and in advocacy for LGBT rights for 4 decades.

I know someone blowing in the wind when I see them. She would be a brilliant supreme court justice - but I don't want her in any position where her next act depends on voter support.

You may not have intended your rationailzation of COMA and DADT to be insulting, but it was. I can't even begin to count the number of times it has been uttered by people trying to keep LGBT folks quiet because our speaking out would keep a Democratic president from being elected. Your rarionalization was more of the stand-in-line-we'll-support-your-rights-when-it-is-politically-expedient-to-do-so nonsense that democrats have been spouting for decades.

The rights we have were won, by and large, by individuals like Edie Windsor, Jim Obergefell, John Arthur, and me (via an appellate adoption case, and an 8 year struggle for recognition of our marriage in our faith community). We put our lives, our families, and our finances on teh line for the incremental gains that ultimately matured into perhaps 1.5 class citizens. Once it became politically expedient to support us - Democratic politicians slowly dipped their toes in the water. (Yes - faster, on average, than Repblicans), but nearer the end of hte paraded than the beginning)

So yes, it is insulting to suggest that DADT adn DOMA were good things.

[StevieM]

38. I never said that DADT and DOMA were good things.

I said that Bill Clinton wanted to allow LGBT people to serve in the military. He did not govern alone, and DADT was the best he could get done. And, yes, I do believe that it was an intermediate step that allowed for open service. Either way, he didn't implement the ban, or prolong it.

I said that DOMA was going to pass, whatever Bill Clinton did or didn't do. What was good at the time was the we did not have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Finally, I certainly never told you that you or others should have kept quiet about your positions at the time.

[Ms. Toad]

45. Rationalizations for politicians who find our time and money, but not our voices, convenient. n/t

[Kurt V.]

27. Enormous pressure means different things to different ppl. i'd love to see her get a 2nd shot

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. There was an article a couple weeks ago, NYT

I think that said the Dem leaders and donors - ptb were worried that they still didn't have the right one to beat trump. She did once!!

That would be so cool to have the entire party behind her! She would get the FULL support she didn't have last time and she won anyway.

[Beacool]

28. I doubt that she'll ever run again for public office.

Why should she? She's got a good life. There's no need to put herself through that hell again.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of our current candidates catching the imagination of the population at large like Obama and Hillary did in their time. I hate saying this, but unless something truly big hits the fan and breaks the Trump cult fever, we may be stuck with the POS for another term.

[SMC22307]

31. Jesus, no. Does she think she'll win PA, MI and WI?

Without those states, we lose.

[triron]

47. WTF!

[crazytown]

34. That's nuts.

no no no no no

[SKKY]

35. WHO?!?! WHO IS PRESSURING HER TO RUN!?!?

I hear zero people clamoring for her to run. And if you ARE pressuring her to run, JUST STOP.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Why would Hillary make that up? No doubt, certain people would be thrilled to see Hillary

run again. Perhaps, they will soon come out publicly and identify themselves and then you'll see.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Joe941]

39. I doubt it. She is just talking to stay relevant.

[Kid Berwyn]

40. Many people are asking for Al Gore, too.

More the merrier. Along with the crowd now in the race, they might make for a brokered convention, meaning a consensus candidate would emerge who represents a unified Democratic Party.

That’d be a good thing.

[Sogo]

46. Progressives would never

unify around Hillary.

[triron]

48. Geesh, I cannot believe this shit!

[Sogo]

53. What shit?

[spin]

54. What about John Kerry? ...

Perhaps Hillary could run for president and Gore or Kerry could be her VP.

[Kid Berwyn]

62. John Kerry would make an outstanding president.

Not certain if our top candidates would want to be second on the ticket, but I will vote for them and whoever else we nominate.

[oasis]

49. ImWithHer

[DURHAM D]

50. Every time she is asked about running again she should

laugh and say "But my emails..."

[Sogo]

51. When I first saw this headline,

I felt a deep sense of dread.

Sorry, Hillary, but your jumping into the race would be very bad for the country.

[Arazi]

52. Yeah, no fucking way. Jfc, make way for the next gen