Could Hillary take the Democratic nominantion from Obama

[sportage]

I think she knows that challenging Mr Obama would lead to spliting the Democratic Party and the GOP winning the White House. Also it would torpedo any chance she would have in 2016.

Democrats will never split. But that was a good try...

If GW could be re elected, Obama has it in the bank.
And besides, everything coming from the right looks like some remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

Any real contender is smartly waiting out his/her turn until 2016. A no brainer.
Expect a whole new batch come 2016.
The real question is... can Palin, Newt, Romney, Huckabee and Trumps hair control their arrogance and not get in the way and screw things up for republicans in 2016?
And will the republicans finally break ties with the tea baggers?

 

[FallenHero]

Go watch "Media Malpractice" and you'll see why Hillary has ZERO shot at getting the nod in any form until Obama steps down.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

If she hasn't resigned yet she ain't gonna run.

 

[Siddhartha]

Democrats will never split. But that was a good try...

If GW could be re elected, Obama has it in the bank.
And besides, everything coming from the right looks like some remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

Any real contender is smartly waiting out his/her turn until 2016. A no brainer.
Expect a whole new batch come 2016.
The real question is... can Palin, Newt, Romney, Huckabee and Trumps hair control their arrogance and not get in the way and screw things up for republicans in 2016?
And will the republicans finally break ties with the tea baggers?

I heard some grumblings about fielding a primaries challenger after Mr Obama passed extending the Bush tax cuts. But I think the reality of the GOP controling Congress and the White House has sunk in. The Wisconsin governor* has done more for the Democratic party than anyone since Mr George W Bush.

*After thinking about it, the other GOP governors, Tea Partiers, the GOP attacks on the unemployed, Spanish speaking citizens, abortion rights, etc have helped the Democratic Party too.

 

[bamacre]

Um those boobs are real.

I suppose her "I need a meal" body just makes them look fake.

 

[Doppel]

I would rather her run the show at this time than Obama. She has Slick Willy in her back pocket who, objectively, could have been worse. Seems unlikely unless Obama decides full time to go back into motivational speaking, though. If she was running against him next year it would make working in her current capacity pretty difficult.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The obvious answer is no, of course she can't. Liberals hate powerful women. So much so they voted a half black man in before Hillary, of course since they are racists as well, they didn't vote a FULL black person.

And don't even THINK about being gay and a Democrat.. they'll let you be a bullet catcher in Obama's war on brown people.. but if you want to get married? FORGET IT! Thats too extreme for them.

 

[Thump553]

I would rather her run the show at this time than Obama. She has Slick Willy in her back pocket who, objectively, could have been worse. Seems unlikely unless Obama decides full time to go back into motivational speaking, though. If she was running against him next year it would make working in her current capacity pretty difficult.

Typical rightie rhetorical move-make up facts out of thin air to support your position (see, eg, FNE's gem directly below yours). President Obama never worked as a motivational speaker, much less full time as you explicitly claim. Though according to a quick google search all of the following are professional motivational speakers with agents:

-Mitt Romney
-Sarah Palin
-Mike Huckabee
-Newt Gingrich
-Rudy Guliani

The common denominator? All are probable GOP Presidential presidential candidates for 2012 (except perhaps Guliani, but motivational speaking is his fulltime job now).

Draw your own conclusions as to which party is led by professional hucksters.

 

[airdata]

Maybe in 2016. I don't think Hillary can convince anybody that she'd be better than Obama.

I'm voting for Ron Paul, or nobody.

 

[nageov3t]

ignoring the fact that Hillary has explicitly said that she's done with serving in the government after her tenure as SoS is up....


no.

if Obama faces a challenge in the 2012 primaries, it will be from the left. someone who can bring together the people who are dissatisfied over Obama's inability/unwillingness to pass universal health care, ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and pulling troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan (where we'll surely still be a year from now)

that leftist challenger certainly wouldn't be Hillary Clinton; she's already lost to Obama once before for not being liberal enough.

 

[bamacre]

and pulling troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan (where we'll surely still be a year from now)

That didn't get a lot of support yesterday, not even from Democrats.

 

[HendrixFan]

that leftist challenger certainly wouldn't be Hillary Clinton; she's already lost to Obama once before for not being liberal enough.

I don't think that was the problem. During their debates they pretty much agreed on every point, except healthcare. Obama got heavy support from younger, often first time, voters. She lost because she didn't sell "hope" and "change".

Sadly, not enough people stopped to think if the person they were electing actually knew how to run the Oval Office. Obama's first few months were filled with "this is hard", "change wont be easy" type of statements that hinted that he didn't know what he was getting into. His near 100% rate on reversing his campaign points combined with his general flaccid approach to anything only reinforces that he was not prepared for the position. He just doesn't know how to play the political game.

 

[jonks]

No.

Thread ended in the second post.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't think that was the problem. During their debates they pretty much agreed on every point, except healthcare. Obama got heavy support from younger, often first time, voters. She lost because she didn't sell "hope" and "change".

Sadly, not enough people stopped to think if the person they were electing actually knew how to run the Oval Office. Obama's first few months were filled with "this is hard", "change wont be easy" type of statements that hinted that he didn't know what he was getting into. His near 100% rate on reversing his campaign points combined with his general flaccid approach to anything only reinforces that he was not prepared for the position. He just doesn't know how to play the political game.

the fact that Hillary voted for the Iraq war and Obama didn't (even though he wasn't serving in a national office at the time) was big.

 

[airdata]

The obvious answer is no, of course she can't. Liberals hate powerful women. So much so they voted a half black man in before Hillary, of course since they are racists as well, they didn't vote a FULL black person.

And don't even THINK about being gay and a Democrat.. they'll let you be a bullet catcher in Obama's war on brown people.. but if you want to get married? FORGET IT! Thats too extreme for them.

I like your style. I've always considered Obama white to be honest. Why do people always have to be black instread of white if they're 50/50 ?

 

[jonks]

I like your style. I've always considered Obama white to be honest. Why do people always have to be black instread of white if they're 50/50 ?

Thanks for quoting FNE, I don't get to see his posts and occasionally miss them.

 

[nageov3t]

I like your style. I've always considered Obama white to be honest. Why do people always have to be black instread of white if they're 50/50 ?

I like it because it lets me make the argument that Obama is as black as he is muslim

 

[yllus]

I'm curious, why do people think Clinton would have run a more "professional" White House than Obama has done? The WH is staffed by Clintonites almost to a tee. So if it's just the person in the big chair that's different, what calls would she have made differently?

 

[trenchfoot]

I don't think that was the problem. During their debates they pretty much agreed on every point, except healthcare. Obama got heavy support from younger, often first time, voters. She lost because she didn't sell "hope" and "change".

Sadly, not enough people stopped to think if the person they were electing actually knew how to run the Oval Office. Obama's first few months were filled with "this is hard", "change wont be easy" type of statements that hinted that he didn't know what he was getting into. His near 100% rate on reversing his campaign points combined with his general flaccid approach to anything only reinforces that he was not prepared for the position. He just doesn't know how to play the political game.

IMHO, if you can get ahead as a politician in Illinois, that little tial by fire qualifies you for playing the game with the best.

It seems to me what's stifling Obama's goals is his debt to Big Business or, whatever concessions the Corp's have him hogtied with as Obama struggled with the economy going down the shitter during his first year in office and badly needed their cooperation then. They knew he was in a very vulnerable position and took full advantage of it by leveraging their power and influence for future favorable treatment.

He got dealt a lousy losing hand to start with (thank you Bush, thank you Cheney), and in that sense, he got majorly sidetracked with the dire condition of the economy and couldn't fully concentrate on his campaign promises, which pretty much took him out of his game.

Considering what he's had to deal with up to this point, I'd say he's done fairly well, as the economy hasn't gone completely bust while he's been at the helm.

But just as I hold Bush and Cheney responsible for the disasters they are in part complicit to, so too do I hold Obama in the same light.

We'll see just how far and deep he had to compromise himself in his efforts to get the economy back on track if and when he gets to serve another term.

Hillary is a victim of circumstances, pure and simple. If Obama hadn't had his moment of miracles at the Dem Convention, well, who knows.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...He got dealt a lousy losing hand to start with (thank you Bush, thank you Cheney), and in that sense, he got majorly sidetracked with the dire condition of the economy and couldn't fully concentrate on his campaign promises, which pretty much took him out of his game...

IMHO, President Obama's problems stem from his letting himself be sidetracked by his campaign promises rather than dealing more directly with the Bush/Cheney economic legacy. Had he concentrated more on jobs right out of the gate (and shown the American electorate that focus) he might have maintained some semblance of control of the political agenda, and might have been in a position to deliver on some of those promises. Who knows, he might even have managed to craft an effective health care reform program rather than the abomination cobbled together by the Democratic legislative "leadership" and so ironically labeled "ObamaCare".

...Hillary is a victim of circumstances, pure and simple. If Obama hadn't had his moment of miracles at the Dem Convention, well, who knows.

Senator Clinton was victim not of circumstance but of her campaign's astonishing mismanagement of the caucus states. IIRC, she actually received more primary votes than did Senator Obama, but lost the nomination by virtue of the caucus state delegates who were overwhelmingly in the Obama camp.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The obvious answer is no, of course she can't. Liberals hate powerful women. So much so they voted a half black man in before Hillary, of course since they are racists as well, they didn't vote a FULL black person...

Refer to my preceding post for a reminder of why you are so indisputably full of shit.

Senator Clinton was victim not of circumstance but of her campaign's astonishing mismanagement of the caucus states. IIRC, she actually received more primary votes than did Senator Obama, but lost the nomination by virtue of the caucus state delegates who were overwhelmingly in the Obama camp.

 

[werepossum]

IMHO, President Obama's problems stem from his letting himself be sidetracked by his campaign promises rather than dealing more directly with the Bush/Cheney economic legacy. Had he concentrated more on jobs right out of the gate (and shown the American electorate that focus) he might have maintained some semblance of control of the political agenda, and might have been in a position to deliver on some of those promises. Who knows, he might even have managed to craft an effective health care reform program rather than the abomination cobbled together by the Democratic legislative "leadership" and so ironically labeled "ObamaCare".

Senator Clinton was victim not of circumstance but of her campaign's astonishing mismanagement of the caucus states. IIRC, she actually received more primary votes than did Senator Obama, but lost the nomination by virtue of the caucus state delegates who were overwhelmingly in the Obama camp.

Obama hasn't dealt with the economic crisis because he hasn't a freakin' clue how to start. As a community organizer, his job was to demand things from people. As a state Senator, his major accomplishment was a bill extending a Republican program providing health care for poor children. As a federal Senator, his job was to run for President. None of that in any way prepared him for any fiscal matters, and he surrounded himself with academics and politicos who likewise are totally unversed in real world economic theory. So he spent a bunch of money and hoped for the best. When you get right down to it, how many people REALLY understand our economy and how it works, versus how they WANT it to work?

You're spot-on with Clinton, although you forgot that the Democrat Party reserved for itself about a fourth (IIRC) of all the electoral primary votes. She could have survived the debacle with the caucus states, but the party decided it could afford to offend women (who mostly also like Obama) more than it could afford to offend blacks (who mostly don't care for Hillary), or else just plain liked Obama better. Had Clinton won or broke even on caucus states, likely the Party votes would have gone to her and Obama would be veep. Honestly, I don't see how that would be much better. Had she won with Obama's majority, we might actually have Hillarycare, where the state could actually send you to prison for the crime of using your own money to obtain your own health care. I can't see Clinton as being to the right of Obama, except on those "positive rights" he talks about.

 

[jonks]

he surrounded himself with academics and politicos who likewise are totally unversed in real world economic theory

what real world economic theories are the heads of the fed, bank ceos and treasury secretaries (people who have spent decades studying the economy and almost nothing but) unaware of? and who should obama be turning to for economic suggestions? and if as you suggest there's only a handful of people who 'really' understand the economy, do you not think Obama would want to speak to one of them, if only out of self interest? after all, fixing the economy is good for you if you're the president. it's when you're the challenger that you want shit in the gutter.

 

[boomerang]

what real world economic theories are the heads of the fed, bank ceos and treasury secretaries (people who have spent decades studying the economy and almost nothing but) unaware of? and who should obama be turning to for economic suggestions? and if as you suggest there's only a handful of people who 'really' understand the economy, do you not think Obama would want to speak to one of them, if only out of self interest? after all, fixing the economy is good for you if you're the president. it's when you're the challenger that you want shit in the gutter.

Obama told the nation and the world that he wanted to "fundamentally transform the United States of America". What do you think he meant by that? Would fixing the economy be a part of that fundamental transformation?

Personally, I don't see restoring the economy of our nation as the kind of thing that would warrant words like fundamental transformation.

 

[jonks]

Obama told the nation and the world that he wanted to "fundamentally transform the United States of America". What do you think he meant by that?

What did Glenn Beck mean when he said it?

(ed: I did not realize how that phrase is a fucking dog whistle for the right. you want to see 40 odd pages of seriously paranoid shit just google it)

I'll answer your question by the way. Here's the quote, although he's had different riffs on it:

"After decades of broken politics in Washington and eight years of failed policies of George Bush and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

So what do I think he meant? I don't think it's mysterious. I think he meant that the popular perception of Washington is that it's a cesspool of corruption and waste, partisanship and personal attacks, nasty rhetoric and any particularly worthy accomplishments are very few and far between. He meant that nearly all politicians are viewed as lying opportunistic shits who only look out for number one. He meant that political campaigns are about backstabbing cheapshots and spun numbers.

And he meant that it was his intention to change this. Recall, hope and change. Turn the page on the old politics. Turn the other cheek. While Hillary was attacking him incessantly, for months he was being called weak and idiotic for not hitting back in the same way. He spoke of bi-partisanship, transparency, accomplishing compromise, disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Now you can believe he was sincere, or you can believe, as I do, that it was simply not going to be possible to accomplish much change given exactly how fucked the situation actually is and is perceived to be. Maybe he bought into his own hype a little too much. Either way, what I believe he meant is that he wasn't going to play the game as it's been played, and he was going to try to improve the way the discourse works. He said it would not happen overnight, that change was hard and would take a very long time, but that he was going to give it a start.

You can believe he was full of shit, and you can believe he failed even if he was sincere. But what doesn't make a whole lot of sense is taking that one little phrase and assigning to it his intention to turn the US into the USSR. His positions were almost identical with Hillary's. The main reason he gets this paranoid shit is the whole "black, other, muslim, hussein" thing. The paranoia on this is monstrously huge.

What exactly has he done that you would consider more transformative to our political system than SCOTUS' decision in Citizens United?