The GOP is losing its collective shit over Hillary because they have a MAJOR "problem":

[RBInMaine]

They have SHITTY candidates. Every single one of them.

We keep hearing, of course, a lot of blather about Hillary; that she has this "problem" and that "problem." Bla bla fucking bla.

(And Obama had a rural white voter "problem," and the fact he is black "problem," and that he didn't have enough experience "problem," and the Bill Ayers "problem," and his birth certificate "problem," and this "problem" and that "problem" bla bla bla, and he won the election TWICE even with all his "problems.&quot

(And so did Bill Clinton despite all his "problems" such as his lack of military service, affairs, being too conservative, bla bla bla and then WON.)

So I don't want to hear anymore manufactured crap about Hillary's "problems." She is BRILLIANT, ULTRA QUALIFIED, has a cracker jack team, and easily makes every TURD the GOP has spewed up as a candidate look like the fetid and festering piece of dogshit he is. And this is why they are scared fucking shitless, and SHOULD be.

How about Jeb and his "BUSH" "problem"? How about Walker and his lack of experience "problem" and all his MANY "problems" in WI? And Christie and his MANY "problems" in NJ? And Rand Paul and all his MANY "problems" such as his plagiarism "problem" and civil rights comments "problem" and on and on? And the how about the GOP's COLLECTIVE INSANITY PROBLEM??? and their TRICKLE DOWN PROBLEM???

So ok, if we want to talk about "problems" let's talk about the GOP's Mount Everest of "problems."

[Scarsdale]

1. Very true

Roll all the sub-par candidates together, and the entire group could make one person equal to Hillary or President Obama. Not intelligent enough, patient enough, respectful enough. The only good candidate they have had in the last few years was John Huntsman. They drove him away because he was too NORMAL and smart. Now look at the group of losers they have representing them. As bad as their "representatives" in office. Do nothing gop/tp. Sadly, there will be people who vote for them. Also, Rove is still around to "fix" the voting machines.

[RBInMaine]

19. Agree with most everything you say. Thanks.

[NewJeffCT]

2. While I agree

will the media treat many of the Republican problems as IOKIYAR?

Jeb has been sold as the "smart" Bush for many years now - even when W was president. Heck, a few weeks back, I had even commented on how Joe Scarborough and Nicole Wallace were almost orgasming on TV over how smart Jeb was

[leftofcool]

3. True

[Novara]

4. You know they would lose their shit over any Democratic running for president. But....

....the fact that she's a highly qualified WOMAN really makes their heads explode. THEN, the fact that she is Hillary Clinton, the woman who was an outspoken First Lady, competent professional, no shrinking violet, and successful Secretary of State, makes their rage palpable. They know they have no candidate that she won't wipe the floor with in a debate. They know they can't come close to her sharp intelligence.


She's a Democrat and a woman and a Clinton. They can't handle it.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. The GOP doesn't NEED good candidates, when all the DEM candidates are afraid of the GOP base.

[Scuba]

6. This Republican "problem" is very real, and opens the door for a perfect solution:

Hillary should run as a Republican!

The we can have a real progressive run as a Democrat.

[Cryptoad]

11. Is this Satire?

[Cosmocat]

7. Mostly agree

I think Hill is OK.

Not super great like a warren or sanders might be, but she absolutely would be a good president.

And, you hit the nail on the head about how the Rs will throw a nutty over ANY democrat.

From Clinton, to Gore, to Dean, to Kerry, to Obama ...

Part of why I supported BO was, I knew they would be assholes, but he is such a really nice guy overall and had so little history, I thought they would be a LITTLE less vitriolic toward him than Hill.

I rarely am naive about these things, but on that one, I was.

If it wasn't Hill, they would go full jackass on whoever else it might be.

I am open to seeing if anyone else runs in the primary and letting that play out.

But, I tend to think she is the best shot to keep the white house away from these lunatics and more than willing to get behind her.

[annabanana]

12. "they would go full jackass". .It's the only speed they have anymore. . .n/t

[safeinOhio]

8. I live in a very red area.

I started doing this about a year ago and always got the same reaction. Fear.

When a local started to go on and on about how terrible Obama is, I would agree and say I know, he has really messed things up. But then I'd tell them not to worry. HRC will fix everything. They would always hang their heads and walk away.

[samsingh]

9. kick

[workinclasszero]

10. The clown car is full of idiots

for sure.

They only exist to service their puppet masters the koch bros.

Hillary is the only person in the entire race worthy of the office and she definitely has my vote.

And the entire hate radio/teahaddist theocratic republican party are shitting their pants and throwing a hissyfit over her because they fear her.

She is tough as nails and those yellow draft dodging chickenhawk eunuchs are scared to death of her!

[TRoN33]

13. Mount Everst problem? Nah. It's more of Olympus Mons of problem;

The biggest, tallest, and supermassive mass of mountain in the solar system, in Mars. Republicans are white and old warmongering men who worship Ares for constant wars and blood spills.

[Shamash]

14. So this is today's Democratic Party?

"Vote for us, we have the second-worst candidate!"

Personally, I think most of the problems with the RNC could be solved with a lot of straitjackets and an army of beefy orderlies, but is it really too much to ask for to have a good Democratic candidate and not just one who is not batshit crazy or just has the biggest name recognition or campaign war chest. If you voted for the candidate whose slogan was "vote for me, you've heard of me and I have a huge advertising budget!", we'd be looking to prevent a Romney second term in 2016. So, if that's not why you vote for someone, don't apply it to the potential Democratic slate, either.

If the Republicans ran someone who was a strong candidate with positions on key issues that attracted (or did not repel) moderates or fence-sitters, would Hilary be the best possible candidate to run against that? (not saying Republicans have anyone like that, it's purely hypothetical). If Hilary would still be the best choice, then great! If not, then criticism of Hilary for merely being "better than awful" is somewhat warranted.

Remember, we're the ones who ultimately make the difference. If you want a candidate to affirm certain principles or positions in a way that is difficult for them to walk back at a later time, then your support is the only influence you have to get this. If you blindly support a Democrat simply because they're "the anointed Democrat" you have given up any influence you have in that respect.

Failing that, we all know that as an individual, your political influence is miniscule. But you do have issues that are important to you, and those issues have advocacy groups that carry a little more weight. Let these groups know your position and which candidate you think will best represent and support that issue.

I don't think we need to talk about the GOP's Mount Everest of problems (okay, occasional mockery is amusing). Mount Everest is big, obvious, draws plenty of attention to itself without our help and none of us is going to scale it and plant a vote for the Republican candidate on top. And unlike the real Mount Everest, I suspect the GOP version will only get bigger with time. So let it sit and cast its shadow on the political landscape and let's deal with getting the best candidate we can.

[Cosmocat]

16. Barrack Obama was a good candidate

and in fact has been a darn fine president.

Congressional democrats have left him out on his own his entire presidency, and while the party got whipped up enough to reelect him in opposition of Mitt Romney, the rank and file democrat tends to be ambivalent or muted in their support, and the "far left" somewhat unsupportive.

He isn't perfect, but sorry, anyone more "perfect" from a liberal standpoint either is not running or isn't getting elected president.

This whole thing is full of extremes.

But, again, end of the day, Barrack Obama has been a darn fine president whose party has left him to get his ass chewed off and not support OR PUT FORWARD good progressive policy.

They limped a republican health care reform over the finish line and got some financial reform done, then spent the next 5 years cowering in a corner.

Hill is OK, not great, but OK.

But, people want to act like this a dictatorship.

There is only so much POTUS can do.

There is this thing called CONGRESS.

Get her in 1600 PA, and give her a FOR REAL democratic congress and we might get some good work done.

She gets a limp arse "majority" that bent over to the republican's "super minority" or a republican controlled congress and sorry, it isn't going to be a liberal nirvana.

[cascadiance]

23. A "darn fine president" pushing the TPP and not prosecuting any bankster crimes?

Americans didn't elect him expecting that out of him! Reagan did a better job of prosecuting bankster crime than Obama's administration has.

But then again, he didn't campaign on that, or he might have lost too.

It's been a long time since Americans have had a president working to help build a strong middle class as president. Many of the newer generations probably wonder if it is even possible any more.

[Cosmocat]

29. THIS IS MY POINT

And, what you think that JFK or FDR didn't disappoint, make mistakes or enable things in some way?

I have a beef with the points you made, too.

A few other things.

But, on average he has been a darn good president.

He has faced the most united and vile opposition party in our history while having the most worthless and spineless party behind him that I have seen.

HE ISN'T A DICTATOR.

There is only so much he can do.

What good legislation has congress brought to him or worked with him on?

Hell, they barely got a republican version of health care reform to his desk.

He has been the only guy in DC for 6 years now doing anything other than trying to destroy the country in a deranged obsession to destroy him.

He has done a lot of good, disappointed in some ways.

Which makes him a good president, cause ain't any of them been perfect.

[geek tragedy]

33. Yes, he's terrible if you only care about the bad parts and don't look at the good parts. nt

[cascadiance]

34. I didn't say he was terrible, just not "darn fine" as he was described here...

I do agree that those on the right that try to throw every criticism possible (and many of them irrational to boot) at him to make him sound like the worst president ever are just plain WRONG too.

I don't like getting lumped in with them, which is implied when I'm being told I say he is "terrible".

But I do have a lot of big concerns over things like TPP, domestic spying, and prosecution of corporate crime, that hit on issues that he's on the wrong side of that also are issues that affect the core system that is underlying the rest of our system that perhaps at some point will make even some of the "good things" like Keystone Oil pipeline veto irrelevant (if a corporate tribunal TPP board can in effect help get Keystone built anyway). In my book, he's shown himself to be compromised on many of the important issues, and it's at the point I don't really trust him in many cases, and I don't trust many of the rest of the Democrats that ascribe to "Third Way" philosophy in a similar fashion, which will also affect public support for Hillary Clinton this time around too.

[Martin Eden]

15. Hillary's IWR problem

Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Those of us who were here at DU in 2002 knew the "grave and gathering threat" posed by Iraqi nukes and alliance with al Qaeda was a steaming pile of propaganda. We knew about PNAC and the neocon agenda. We knew Cheney/Bush were lying through their teeth.

Were John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and other Dems (slightly less than half of the total House & Senate) who voted in October 2002 to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq less informed than we were?

If so, they were unfit to hold their elected office and certainly not qualified to be POTUS.

No. Much more likely they were on board with the agenda to invade Iraq regardless of the "threat" posed by that battered country.

Either that, or they stuck their fingers in the political winds of the moment and decided it was better to appear "strong on national security" regardless of the consequences of launching a "preemptive" war based on hype and falsehoods.

Someone who was truly qualified to be president would have a better understanding of Iraq and the costly fiasco that would ensue after the Bush administration got their hands on it. Beyond the costs in blood and treasure, this foray into molding Iraq by force has transformed a fairly modern secular country (ruled by a brutal tyrant, but we're OK with dictators as long as they're our dictators) into the world's hotbed of radical Islamist militant power.

Hillary Clinton forever lost my vote when she voted for the IWR in October 2002. It was inexcusable and unforgivable. Period.

She most definitely is not "ULTRA QUALIFIED" to be POTUS, at least not in terms of the policies DUers ostensibly support.

But, I actually have to agree with the OP on the "problem" issue. The vast majority of voters (especially the hawks on the right) do not have a problem with Hillary's vote for the IWR. And THAT is a terrible crying shame. Our country desperately needs to learn some critically important lessons from the systematic campaign of deceit that took us to war in Iraq and the horrible fiasco that ensued and is still unfolding into a much greater threat than the bogus one we were told to fear.

Voting for and/or support for launching the war in Iraq should be, and absolutely needs to be, the death knell of a political career. This doesn't just apply to slightly less than half the Dems in office in October 2002. This applies to almost every Republican in the House and Senate.

But, apparently, it's not much of a "problem" for Hillary or for any of her likely opponents across the aisle.

It is, however, an enormous problem for all the people who were killed & maimed and for all the people who will be killed & maimed until the Military Industrial Complex is reigned in and the United States of America stops being the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.


In November 2016 I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party because any Republican will be an unmitigated disaster on many levels including military atrocity.

I hope with every fiber of my political being our nominee is not Hillary Clinton.

[RBInMaine]

18. You are not "all" DUers, and she most definitely IS ultra-qualified.

Here's her qualifications: Degrees from Wellsley and Yale Law, attorney in major firm, first lady for 8 years, US Senator, Sec. of State, middle class upbringing, father was a small businessman.

Please don't give me this what I consider to be crap.

Who do you want? Warren isn't running and couldn't win a national election.

Bernie is a stated "socialist" and doesn't stand a piss hole in the snow's chance.

O'Mailley is dry as toast. Nice guy, but no spunk.

Linc Chaffee is a nice guuy too, but also dry as toast.

Hillary is PROGRESSIVE on most issues. No, she isn't a TeaLeft purist, but no TeaLeft purist
will EVER be President of the U.S.

Welcome to reality and have a nice day. PS: The overwhelming majority of the party supports her. Yes, we do want a primary, and we want her to earn it, but, in EITHER party, SHE IS THE BALLGAME !

[Martin Eden]

20. Why did you put "all" in quotes?

The title of your post implies I claimed I represent "all" DUers. The only thing I wrote that could possibly be construed as such is my first paragraph in which I stated those of us who were here in 2002 knew about the PNAC agenda and that the case for war was a steaming pile of propaganda. If you were here in 2002 and didn't know that, then you lack credibility and should not be taken seriously.

I didn't mention Warren, Sanders, O'Malley, or Chaffee.

What I did was present an argument why a vote for the IWR in October 2002 was inexcusable, and why we desperately need to learn that lesson to avoid more costly military blunders.

What did you offer to rebut my argument about the IWR?

Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

You did not even make an effort to justify Hillary's vote to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq, probably because you can't. It is indefensible.

Instead, you post an angry reply with the most odious piece of rightwing-inspired crap I've seen flung by one Democrat to label another Democrat: TeaLeft purist. Did you come up with that bullshit slander yourself, or is that now a common tactic for Hillary supporters who are unable to formulate a coherent defense of her vote for the war in Iraq?

Looks like my post struck a nerve. Hopefully when your butthurt settles down a little you'll start engaging in some critical thought instead of bullshit slander.

[Enthusiast]

25. +1 You nailed it.

[Shamash]

21. Does not compute

Your comment effectively reads "we want Hilary to ‘earn’ the nomination by taking candy away from a baby". If the only potential challengers either are not running or do not stand a chance (in your opinion), then there is not much ‘earning’ being done. Sounds more like ‘coasting’.

But you're right about a few things. First, her unambiguous progressive stances on the Iraq War, Wall Street, TPP, NSA surveillance, mountaintop removal mining and other issues certainly have energized a lot of people!

Second, she is the strongest candidate at the moment and will probably stay that way. But forgive me for stating that she might not be the best candidate.

[KingCharlemagne]

24. The blood of one milion dead Iraqi civilians is dripping from her hands. - nt

[freshwest]

17. Wondering if they'll refuse to debate her? In governor races, they've refused to debate.

They just let the big money media propaganda and whisper campaigns do the job for them. This is what is going on now, everywhere.

[cascadiance]

22. And Hillary then is the only one that can beat them?

Begs the question...

Why do we need to sacrifice our traditional values, if they have such a problem in fielding a competitive candidate?

Implies to me that our party is too big and grabbing too much of what their party had been campaigning on in the past.

[cantbeserious]

26. HRC - Hope And Change Redux - America Never Seems To Learn

eom

[cascadiance]

30. HRC = Hope Repeated... Change?

Don't think so...

[Scootaloo]

27. Agreed, there are no viable republican candidates.

Unless the Democrat shows up to debates gnawing on a grilled infant, we're winning 2016. Essentially, the Republican presidential candidate is a non-factor in this election. I think we all recognize this. I think even the republicans realize this, it doesn't look like they're trying too hard to fix it.

The problem then, is getting Democrats to the polls. 'Cause why the republicans can't actually win, Democrats can still lose - and if we do it'll be due to turnout.

And I can tell you right now, cautiously playing the middle, taking the democratic base for granted while trying to kiss up to the republican base, does not enthuse democratic voters to go to the polls. Nor is it particularly appealing to those semi-mythical "undecided" and "independent" voters, who mostly want a candidate whose positions they can be sure of.

We do not need to tiptoe down the "middle." Not this time.

[customerserviceguy]

28. I watched Meet the Press yesterday

and I no longer fear Scott Walker. I fear John Kasich.

If he takes on Rubio as his VP nominee, they stand a chance of picking up a greater proportion of the Latino vote than GOP'ers usually get.

[rock]

31. Yep, and the GOP

is over there licking every one of those turds in the hope of polishing them up. Of course, we're smart enough to realize that licking a turd will ultimately make it disappear!

[LeFleur1]

32. Love your post RBI

Thanks for the laugh, and the truth.