I'm probably going to be flamed for this...

[Archae]

But I hope Hillary Clinton doesn't run in 2016.

Not because she's a woman.

Because I detest political legacies, and the Presidency is not something handed down from Father to son, or husband to wife.

Who will I support in 2016 for President?
I think I'll wait until then, when the primaries begin.

I mean, in 2006, would any of you even GUESS that the guy Barack Obama would win 2 terms as President?

[2naSalit]

1. Just to be devil's advocate here...

It's not like HRC hasn't earned any office she would run for. She has been, after being First Lady of Arkansas and the whole US of A, an elected Senator and SOS, and only after losing the presidency...

She has been a public servant for about 30 years now, it isn't like anything is being handed to her. She has put in the time and actually served.

Wishing she wouldn't run because you think there should be other contenders is one thing but you can't get away with claiming that any elected office would be or has been handed to her. Now W's was handed to him, well, bought and paid for at least. He never did a bit of actual work in his entire privileged, miserable (for everyone else) existence.

[Archae]

3. I do agree, Hillary did work for her offices, and Bush younger never did.

I do think there will be good candidates in the primaries in 2016, besides Hillary.

I still remember the all-out brawls we had here in 2008 between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters.

But is that what the Presidential elections will be from now on?

A Bush will run and win.

A Clinton will run and win.

Lather, rinse, repeat...

[2naSalit]

6. On that much, I agree

with you. Heaven help us if that becomes a recurring pattern. Fresh faces and fresh ideas are good for the country.

[roguevalley]

15. I agree, Archae

[yeoman6987]

28. Bush younger was Governor for 8 years

I can't stand him but he did have experience although bad experience.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. Well if I had to weigh the disadvantage of contributing to legacy politics vs...

...the advantages of electing the first female President, I think the latter outweighs the former in this case. Note that I too am not arguing about whether Hillary is the best person for us to try to elect President. You raised a different valid issue that is not related to her qualifications to be President, or her positions on the issues, and I am doing the same.

Hillary is well qualified to become President, more so than most major Party candidates tend to be in fact, in terms of experience and her proven ability to hold up well under pressure for example. It can certainly be argued that Bush the Elder was "well qualified" also in that regard. Again, that's not taking into account ideology etc.

Whether or not we like politics Hillary has is one thing, whether or not we are bothered by the continued rise of political dynasties in America is another. I share your distaste for dynasties in general. I think it has a corrosive influence on politics in a Democracy. But that is only one of several factors to consider (clearly her personal politics is a biggie). Centuries of unbroken male dominance of the American Presidency has a corrosive effect on American democracy also. It is a highly visible manifestation of sexism, there is no other way to describe it. It's not like all the best potential presidents all have the same male gender, but only men have been truly viable Presidential candidates until now.

Hillary is a very viable female Presidential candidate, and the public recognizes her personal abilities to lead in a way no other first lady has ever been perceived with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. In our sexist society the first women who shatter glass ceilings,especially in politics, have often been closely related to powerful men. That too is a symptom of sexism, but shattering those ceilings, one way or another, ultimately has a liberating effect for all women who then follow. Especially if the person who shatters them is greatly respected in her own right, though she may first have come to public attention through her association with a powerful male .

Regrettably there are many political dynasties in politics. Vice President Al Gore came from one. Vice President Biden now has a son following the trail he blazed also. But we have already waited centuries for a woman to become President. Going all the way back, America has been through having a President John Addams followed by a President John Quincy Addams. It's nothing new, but a female President would be completely new in a very profound way. If I only had to only balance the choice of having legacy politics reenforced by another Clinton Presidency vs America electing a woman as President for the first time in our history - I think more good would come from the latter than bad from the former.

[merrily]

7. Whether Hillary is qualified is a different issue from whether the oval office

should be a family business.

350 million Americans (give or take a few million). Surely, there have to be more than two or three families out there.

[2naSalit]

10. That's what I was saying.

[merrily]

21. Yes. I added my two cents to your two cents.

[DeSwiss]

11. ''It's not like HRC hasn't earned any office she would run for.''

- It's not a prize. It can't be earned, only bestowed by 'we the people.'

Because if it can be earned then we have to count everything, don't we?

[2naSalit]

12. Hmmmm...

point taken. Could have chosen a different word for it... but it's late and I have run out of "other" words for the night.

[DeSwiss]

13. Nighty-nite.

[joshcryer]

25. Because a woman had so many options back then.

Clinton picked and chose where she could rise, it is not her fault that she had to choose less than savory methods to get there. The DLC is another place she could only find a position. What would we have her do? Shun the DLC and go be a hippie?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. While women like Elizabeth Warren baked cookies at home. nt

[joshcryer]

34. Warren's track is not the presidency.

Nor can it be.

[Romulox]

38. That's a ridiculous statement. nt

[joshcryer]

43. If she cared about the bankers she'd run for president.

She won't. And they will go unprosecuted.

[Romulox]

37. She's had more options--at EVERY STEP OF HER LIFE--than I or anyone from my neighborhood ever had.

Poor, poor Hillary.

[joshcryer]

42. Oh, yes, she could just rise politically.

She could have road on on a yellow unicorn into office.

[WinkyDink]

58. So?

[X_Digger]

39. As if she didn't embrace the DLC and all the republican-lite shit it stands for wholeheartedly?!?

Umm, no.

[joshcryer]

41. Again, what were her options?

[Phlem]

68. To do the right thing by the people?!

That sounds like an option.

-p

[joshcryer]

69. In that era to rise politically you had to maneuver.

Especially as a woman.

[sabrina 1]

45. Just because someone has worked for 30 years doesn't mean they earned a higher position. She has

made some terrible decisions making her, imo, not qualified for the job of President. She VOTED FOR BUSH'S WAR and then continued to vote to FUND IT. She KNOWS as we all do now, that they LIED, yet she has never regretted that vote.

I support people who get these critically important decisions RIGHT.

Nothing to do with her gender, family name, or anything else. She had one vote to cast at a crucial time in our history, and she was on the wrong side of that history.

We have 300 million people in this country. I'm for finding someone who would never have cast such a vote that has helped cause the deaths of so many innocent human beings.

She waffled on torture also. That ended it for me, giving the Right Wing fairy tale about a 'ticking time bomb scenario', mainly because they watch too much TV.

I hope we get some candidates who are wiser regarding these important decisions. The Republicans sure aren't going to supply anyone making it all the more vital that Dems start FIGHTING these policies rather than joining the Repubs on issues like this.

[woo me with science]

47. Hear, hear.

[Cleita]

48. Gotta agree with your reasons. She never has been at the top of my list

of candidates to be enthusiastic about. However, the things she is being bullied about aren't relevant to her unsuitability for the Presidency and are mostly untrue. I guess the cuckoo caucus can't criticize her real record because they are guilty of the same bad decisions and policies that she has been guilty of. But if she's a hold your nose vote, I guess I will hold my nose and vote especially if it means keeping another Bush out of the White House.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Let me be the first to agree with you

And if you want I can flame you too!!!!

[JI7]

4. if she runs and wins it wont be because it's handed down to her

[Skip Intro]

5. Too much of an opportunity for Hillary to pass up.

She will run.

And I think she will win the nomination.

Of course, I thought the same thing in 2007.

Still, I say no way she passes it up.

And I don't see anyone who can challenge her.

[merrily]

8. She will run. That's been obvious for years.

[Scootaloo]

9. I don't care if she runs or not

I just hope a liberal beats her in the primaries.

Yes, Clinton is a liberal, when you compare her to Republicans. But then pretty much everyone is. And I'm so sick of settling for "to the left of teahadism"

[joshcryer]

24. That ship has sailed.

If she runs she wins the primary, easily. I have been calling for a challenger for Clinton for a year now. No one has stepped up.

[NCTraveler]

36. I'm pretty sure that the only time she ran for President....

a challenger stepped up and beat her. Not sure why it is written in stone to some that she cannot be beat when reality states something completely different.

[joshcryer]

44. Who can beat her?

Name someone.

[NCTraveler]

49. Why in the world do I need to name someone?

History and facts make the whole inevitable thought process fall completely flat. I am not even sure how one would arrive at that mindset. Reality be damned I guess.

Question: What happened the only time Hillary ran for President?

[joshcryer]

57. I'm curious, I don't see a viable challenger.

One capable of raising $2 billion.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. Who would have named Barack Obama until after he got in the race?

And certainly, there were an awful lot of shocked folks when he beat her in the primary.

We'll find out who might do it when they start actually throwing their hats in the ring.

[joshcryer]

60. DU was overwhelmingly for Obama.

Obama had a super delegate lead from the start.

That he didn't rout Clinton was more surprising than anything. Clinton had zero ground game for the caucuses, she thought she had it shore up. That won't happen again.

Nevermind Clinton got more votes.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

62. I wasn't here then.

I was hanging around Daily Kos, where the early favourite was Edwards. After it quickly became apparent he was going nowhere, the place split into an Obama vs Hillary fight that was as bitter as they came, with accusations of sexism and racism flying.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. ...

[davidpdx]

16. Joe cool

Love the picture

[AngryAmish]

33. Love Joes Camaro.

[davidpdx]

17. I am also hoping for someone else and am waiting a bit to see who throws their hat into the ring

At the same time, I am very interested in Warren (though not thoroughly convinced). Biden would be the other person I'd like to see run. See the picture posted of Biden. Very cool...........

[defacto7]

18. But that's the next logical step...

Democracy has failed...

Now we are an Oligarchy...

Next is Ancestral Oligarchy.

We're just plowing right through to Imperial Deistic Oligarchy in no time flat.

[nikto]

19. She's too corporate, and way too subservient to Wall St

'Nuff said.

[Enthusiast]

20. I don't mind the legacies so much. I see her sex as a positive.

It is her true position on the issues that I am opposed to, not her stated position. If we don't like the direction of the nation, electing Hillary will not improve things. IMHO.

[TeamPooka]

22. Th only practical bar/qualification for becoming President is being a Governor or Senator. That's it

Once you've become one of those the public is fine with it even if you're Ronald Reagan or GW Bush.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, just how it works in the real world.

[joshcryer]

23. I predicted an Obama sweep fairly early.

Even when people were using the Clinton as inevitable meme.

The US was not ready for a woman President, simple as that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. I think you were in a minority, then, in terms of predictions

I don't think even most of us who voted for him expected him to take the primary, much less the general.

[joshcryer]

56. Strange, I vividly recall '08 being the democrats to lose.

It was more of a matter of picking the candidate.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. I would sort of agree with that.

After 8 years of Bush, it was going to take a miracle for another Republican to win. But I still didn't know if the country as a whole was ready to elect a PoC, so it was a pleasant surprise when he started racking up the electoral votes.

[joshcryer]

63. Should have been at Mile High Stadium.

Tens of thousands of people. To be frank I was taken aback by how close it was.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. Until most people start actually paying attention to what politicians do

year round, it's going to always be 'closer' than it should. Republicans are constantly pulling majorly idiotic stunts a year or two in advance, and by the time the election rolls around, the same people who were complaining turn around and re-elect the idiots. You'd think they could at least choose somebody new in a primary, but no, we get the same old retreads year after year, no matter how many boneheaded things they do that hurt the very people who vote for them.

[orpupilofnature57]

26. You hate MSM, not Legacies .

[Shankapotomus]

29. No disrespect to Hillary

But since she is no Bobby Kennedy, I tend to agree with you.

But had I been old enough at the time, I would have voted for Bobby Kennedy. There are always exceptions.

[Archae]

64. On this "First Family" comedy album...

Made during JFK's administration, an announcer says "Get out and vote! Vote for the Kennedy of your choice, but vote!"

[madokie]

31. Your last question is why I have to laugh at those who say Sanders can't win

or Warren can't. F that noise

[woo me with science]

46. :)

[NCTraveler]

32. Huge Hillary supporter and you will get no flames from me.

I have had many thoughts about if the party will be better if she doesn't run. Where I stand now I am also pretty positive I will not be voting for her in the primary. For me it isn't about family legacy or anything like that. It is about direction of our party. I am fully aware that a Hillary Presidency will simply be a continuation of the Obama Presidency with a little more fight. I don't think that is good for the party. I also think that after Bush and Obama our foreign policy needs a massive shift. Hillary will not deliver that shift.

Please don't get me wrong. If Hillary wins the primary my mother and I will be crying tears of joy as we go to the polls together to vote for her. That is the truth. I just think we need change and Hillary will simply be Obamas third term.

[orpupilofnature57]

35. +1000 !!!!

[Still Sensible]

51. About sums up my view! n/t

[Mr Dixon]

40. HOLD ON

Okay I hear you; however weren’t we supposed to Vote for Hillary this time around? I remember something about a compromise form 2008? I seem to remember a coalition of Hillary supporter that fought tooth and nail to the very end, am I wrong.

[Rex]

50. Why would you assume people would think you are misogynistic?

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I really don't see why the second sentence is necessary.

[Swede Atlanta]

52. I agree with one caveat......

I think she has served the nation well. She has survived as "Big Dog's" wife for all these years and while I admire him and respect him he cannot be an easy person to live with. He went out on her multiple times and humiliated her in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

I'm not sure she has the stomach for it. She has a grandchild on the way. Would she be happier at home? Would it not be more fitting for her to focus on her family and her interests?

I hate dynasties. They are leftovers of the era of the monarchs.

My only question is whether we have a sufficiently robust choice of electable Democrats if she doesn't run. We can absolutely not put up someone who is almost sure to lose.

[valerief]

53. I don't care about legacies. She's too old school Republican for my tastes. nt

[Gothmog]

59. No flames, I am basing my vote on wanting to put Texas in play

Hilary Clinton is the only candidate that I have seen who could put Texas into play. I may not agree with all of her issues but I really want to see my state become blue

[pnwmom]

66. Should a highly qualified former Senator and Secretary of state be barred from running

because she was married to a former President?

Doesn't that discriminate against accomplished women?

[BigDemVoter]

67. Somebody has already written this BUT. . . .

Hillary would NOT be a legacy, and this wouldn't be "handed down" to her. She has earned the right to run for the presidency under her OWN merits. . . . .

US Senator (elected by the voters of NY)
prior presidential candidate
US Secretary of State (for her OWN intelligence & merit)
graduate of an IVY league law school and also a BRILLIANT scholar. . . .

Sorry. . . . I don't see any kind of nepotism here at all. She's done it ALL for herself. Bill actually hurts her more than helps her.

[KittyWampus]

70. So you despised Ted Kennedy?