News Hillary Clinton Running for President

[StevieTNZ]

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11431624

Hillary Clinton has officially announced her presidential bid for the White House.

The initial announcement came in emails from Mrs Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta to long-time supporters, ending two years of speculation, the New York Times reported.

Mrs Clinton then tweeted her announcement, and uploaded a video to YouTube.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Really? She's running for President? Who knew!

 

[Doug Huffman]

LOL Twitter is the closest she's ever gotten to astroturf, either cyber-astroturf or hubby's.

 

[Evo]

LOL Twitter is the closest she's ever gotten to astroturf, either cyber-astroturf or hubby's.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Doug Huffman]

A meaning of astroturf is a claque posing as a grassroots movement or clique. Another is artificial grass used on American football grounds and that her hubby bragged was in the bed of his El Camino 'pick-up' truck.

 

[Evo]

A meaning of astroturf is a claque posing as a grassroots movement or clique. Another is artificial grass used on American football grounds and that her hubby bragged was in the bed of his El Camino 'pick-up' truck.

So, that she is not associated with astroturf is a positive for her. Ok, I agree, I like her and hope she wins, I can't think of anyone that is as qualified as she is.

 

[Doug Huffman]

You mistake me. Her use of Twitter instead of the mainstream media is an attempt to avoid media scrutiny. There's not much in 140 characters to scrutinize.

Her past performance in elected positions, appointed positions and unappointed positions precludes my approval.

 

[lisab]

I think the race is hers to lose. Perhaps Jeb will give her a race...we'll see.

My prediction: I'm going to be sick and tired of hearing about Benghazie. Although it's slightly amusing to watch right-wingers get apoplectic about it .

 

[Doug Huffman]

It's unlikely Hillary is behind the wheel: She said last year that she hadn't driven a car since 1996
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ey-rural-Iowa-VAN-poses-pics-gas-station.html

As central to stereotypical American life as is the automobile and automobile travel, that might be a serious lack.

Perhaps the identification of the apoplectic, about the 2012 Benghazi attack, should be military veterans that have stood in harm's way, rather than the poorly focused "right wingers." I am a Viet Nam Era veteran and I am very concerned by the debacle. I like to post this as my memorial to Ambassador Christopher Stevens, A Song of Peace to the melody of the tone poem from Sibelius' Finlandia

http://www.art101.com/peace/peace.mp3

 

[mheslep]

Don't forget that Sec Clinton is also a combat veteran of sorts, according to Sec Clinton, having "landed under sniper fire".

 

[OmCheeto]

...
As central to stereotypical American life as is the automobile and automobile travel, that might be a serious lack.
...

Quite true. Someone mentioned a while back, regarding the appointment of the new energy secretary:

2/5/2013
...We need politicians who change their own motor oil.

old jim

 

[Doug Huffman]

My comment will likely go far afield of OPie's intentions. A close paraphrase of Aristotle (Politics 4 ) is "It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election." A candidate seeking office must be viewed with deep suspicion.

 

[SteamKing]

A meaning of astroturf is a claque posing as a grassroots movement or clique. Another is artificial grass used on American football grounds and that her hubby bragged was in the bed of his El Camino 'pick-up' truck.

Man, talk about Back to the Future! Look out! Here come the Nineties again!

It's like national politics is stuck in one of those endless loops, like on Groundhog Day or the Twilight Zone, or maybe even Twilight (the one with the vampires.)
[Look out! She's Undead!]

If it's Tuesday, it must be Clinton. If it's an even numbered date, it's a Bush (pick one).

It's time for someone (anyone) else.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'll calling it now. Walker vs Clinton

 

[CalcNerd]

There is a website called "skeletons in the closet" that dig into the presidential candidates backgrounds. Sadly most of them wouldn't be good enough to be elected dog catcher, but they manage to become front runners.

Sadly, most of us will vote for the candidate who claims to be the best for us vs looking at their record or history of How They Have Voted.

I worked in Newt Ginrich's district when he was in the house. How he became a front runner (even for a short time) speaks volumes of the smarts on the right.

I used to be ticked off about GW's stealing the presidency from Al Gore. Until I learned more about good old Al Gore. Now I suspect Al probably wouldn't have done better (and we ALL know how well GW did).

As American's we get to select from the two parties most extremist, bestest, butt kisser to choose from. Does that help anyone feel better??

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

As American's we get to select from the two parties most extremist, bestest, butt kisser to choose from. Does that help anyone feel better??

I've always felt that elections were lose-lose. I pick the best of the worst. Anyone who actually zealously supports a candidate is foolish imo.

 

[Doug Huffman]

There is no effective difference. The two party system is good-cop-bad-cop on the world stage, guaranteed to elect a weasel. The Ruling Parties are all progressives suffering from the incontinent need to make-things-better by burying US in mountains of legislation and never rescinding any of it.

Edit: Removed inappropriate link.

 

[OCR]

There is a problem with the forum... or something...

Evo said: ↑
As American's we get to select from the two parties most extremist, bestest, butt kisser to choose from. Does that help anyone feel better??

Evo did not post that...

As American's we get to select from the two parties most extremist, bestest, butt kisser to choose from. Does that help anyone feel better??

I've seen that misdirect on several other posts, too...Astroturfing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

 

[Evo]

As American's we get to select from the two parties most extremist, bestest, butt kisser to choose from. Does that help anyone feel better??

There is a problem with the forum... or something...

Evo did not post that...I've seen that misdirect on several other posts, too...

Thanks, I corrected Greg's post, weird.

 

[lisab]

It's unlikely Hillary is behind the wheel: She said last year that she hadn't driven a car since 1996
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ey-rural-Iowa-VAN-poses-pics-gas-station.html

As central to stereotypical American life as is the automobile and automobile travel, that might be a serious lack.

This makes no sense to me. While it's important to be connected to mainstream America, how does one's driving pattern pertain to that? Why would a candidate's driving count as qualification criteria? This is an example of "fluff" and folks, we're going to be seeing an awful lot of fluff for the next few years. The media loves that stuff!

Perhaps the identification of the apoplectic, about the 2012 Benghazi attack, should be military veterans that have stood in harm's way, rather than the poorly focused "right wingers." I am a Viet Nam Era veteran and I am very concerned by the debacle.

I have close family members who worked for the State Department, as professionals. Being posted in areas of unrest isn't for the weak of heart. It can be, erm, spooky - if you get my drift.

Have you read the Benghazi Report?

https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

 

[russ_watters]

This makes no sense to me. While it's important to be connected to mainstream America, how does one's driving pattern pertain to that? Why would a candidate's driving count as qualification criteria? This is an example of "fluff" and folks, we're going to be seeing an awful lot of fluff for the next few years. The media loves that stuff!

Indeed. Bush Sr. made a comment on supermarket checkout scanners that got mis-reported in the media and grew temendous legs about him being out of touch. Hillary's been in herself or married to a guy who was in high political office for 20 years, and having drivers and security with you 24-7 goes with that. Not a big deal.

 

[russ_watters]

... I can't think of anyone that is as qualified as she is.

"Qualified" is a funny thing. Used to be that the most important qualification was head of an executive branch experience, which is why so many governors became President. But Obama's lack of experience was actually a selling point for him and Hillary has only slightly more actual government job experience than he did - so is that good or bad? If she needs to (I don't think she does - she's Hillary), I'm not sure how well she can sell 'I was married to a President and another President gave me a job to get me out of the way' as being convincingly "qualified".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

"Qualified" is a funny thing.

I can't imagine Walker or Rubio could be successful at foreign policy. That is Clinton's strength. Jeb seems like he knows something, but having 3 Bush presidents is just depressing.

 

[Evo]

"Qualified" is a funny thing. Used to be that the most important qualification was head of an executive branch experience, which is why so many governors became President. But Obama's lack of experience was actually a selling point for him and Hillary has only slightly more actual government job experience than he did - so is that good or bad? If she needs to (I don't think she does - she's Hillary), I'm not sure how well she can sell 'I was married to a President and another President gave me a job to get me out of the way' as being convincingly "qualified".

Ok I agree, so more experience with International affairs, knows world leaders, been on the inside of what a president deals with. She won't have the learning curve and surprises that others will have. Of course those may be the very things some people hold against her. Ultimately I will go with the candidate I think can do the best. I have voted Republican several times, democratic actually less. I don't vote with a party.

 

[russ_watters]

That is Clinton's strength. [foreign policy]

She certainly has some experience, but I don't think republicans and independents will agree that it is good experience. Experience is only a positive if people like the things you did when you got that experience!

Other than getting Bin Laden and implementing an afghan surge despite opposing Bush's Iraq surge (both were quite a while ago), are there any significant foreign policy wins for Obama/Clinton? Is the world a safer/better place than it was 6 years ago?

Yes, I'm aware that traditionally democrats have been seen as weak on foreign policy, so it should be good to get that on her resume, but I'm not sure that just getting her ticket punched is enough if the result of the experience doesn't look good.

I've always felt that elections were lose-lose. I pick the best of the worst. Anyone who actually zealously supports a candidate is foolish imo.

I think that's a problem for democrats. Obama won largely because people zealously supported him, and he rode that wave. It's the republicans who win races between boring, old white guys. If Hillary wins it will be because she's Hillary -- a cult-of-personality, not a random/stock candidate (which the Republicans typicall put up). But if she loses, it will probably be because that cult-of-personality isn't fully positive as Obama's was - a lot of people hate her.

 

[Vanadium 50]

She certainly has some experience, but I don't think republicans and independents will agree that it is good experience. Experience is only a positive if people like the things you did when you got that experience!

A different way to think about this is whether this experience will cause people who wouldn't otherwise vote for her to change their minds. I don't think many will, partly because, as you say "are we better off than we were 6 years ago", but more because foreign policy is not typically a swing issue. People who follow it closely enough to even have an opinion have likely made up their minds on other things.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But if she loses, it will probably be because that cult-of-personality isn't fully positive as Obama's was - a lot of people hate her.

True, many people voted for Obama because he was more likable and wanted to make history. Clinton can make history, but needs to be likable. That is a problem for her. For me, I still have trouble getting over that news interview with Bill where they blatantly lied to our faces for an hour about Bill's affairs.

 

[gfd43tg]

Don't forget that Sec Clinton is also a combat veteran of sorts, according to Sec Clinton, having "landed under sniper fire".

Yeah, I guess Brian Williams is a combat veteran too!

 

[mheslep]

I can't imagine Walker or Rubio could be successful at foreign policy. That is Clinton's strength. Jeb seems like he knows something, but having 3 Bush presidents is just depressing.

Governor Clinton,Governor Reagan had successful foreign policies. Why not Governor Walker, Senator Rubio (who is fluent in Spanish)

 

[Lowedown]

It could be worse...Joe Biden is out there.

 

[hagar]

An office holder need not be the most intelligent of the candidates but if they know how to hire the right advisers who are the best in there field it works just as well.

Quality is also in the eye of the beholder. To me one of the critical issues is honesty and honesty or the lack thereof has made or broken many a person. There are many today who care more for a political group than they do about the welfare of the nation and I believe this to be a mistake as general speaking an individual's welfare is based on the nations.

Respectfully,
Hagar

 

[CalcNerd]

No one questions the moral integrity of Jimmy Carter (I kind of think pompous myself). Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were on opposite extremes for honesty and integrity. Who was the better president?

George W. surrounded himself with more competent people than himself. How well did that turn out?

Sadly, I kind of think that if a candidate doesn't sell out to some special interest, NO ONE (corporate American companies) will back him nor will they want THAT candidate in office. If he doesn't have a price and he's not for sale, NO ONE WILL Buy! The squeaky clean candidate never gets very far in our election type system.

Some candidates may not have a price tag (Mitt Romney comes to mind). But since he already represented a big portion of Corporate America, he was OK to run. But he was an exception, most candidates are beholden to one or more groups.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm afraid that I knew very little about Hillary, so I read the wikipedia article about her, focusing mainly on her time as Secretary of State.
I can't really find fault with her.

...This is an example of "fluff" and folks, we're going to be seeing an awful lot of fluff for the next few years. The media loves that stuff!

Which is why I still hate the media.

 

[hagar]

I think neither one, honesty or competent people will work alone and they must be utilized properly.

Carter may have been honest and I do not remember who he relied on as advisers but his decision making left much to be desired and theirs as well if he did use them. and Bill Clinton needs no clarification nor does his wife. If God loved liars they would drop dead. (Please pardon my reference to a deity.)

If most politicians had moral values (Harry Reid comes to mind) they would not know whether one baked or fried them.

G.W.B. May have had knowledgeable advisers (which I doubt) but if so he did not avail himself of there use. I have no problem with removing Sadam as at the time most countries thought he did have W.M.D. or at the least was trying to procure them but you cannot disband an army of a half million men and just dump them on the economy or lack there of with no way to support themselves or there families.

Our election system is hampered by the requirement of to much money needed to be electable and it is becoming worse daily.

All corp. America is not bad, after all they do supply many jobs and as most things if not left to run amok can be acceptable.

I shall cease and desist now as my comments have wondered more into the Fantasy forum than current events.

Respectfully,

Hagar

 

[StatGuy2000]

There is no effective difference. The two party system is good-cop-bad-cop on the world stage, guaranteed to elect a weasel. The Ruling Parties are all progressives suffering from the incontinent need to make-things-better by burying US in mountains of legislation and never rescinding any of it.

Edit: Removed inappropriate link.

I respectfully disagree completely with your characterization. If anything, I feel that both the Democratic and Republican parties have become "conservative" (not true conservative, but corporatist) parties serving the narrow interests of special interests who, as donors, provide the funding for election campaigns of politicians seeking federal office.

In fact, two of the problems that exist for democracy in the United States are the following:

(1) The negative, corrupting influence of money in politics (worsened by the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, which had the effect of rescinding existing restrictions on campaign finance limits

and

(2) The lack of choice available in terms of the ballot -- 2 political parties who have become increasingly radicalized on cultural matters (while in other matters become increasingly beholden to special interests) have a complete monopoly on political office.

To address the first, there is a grassroots campaign, led by the group Wolf-PAC, that is gaining momentum to bring about a constitutional amendment to ban money in political campaigns, by having state legislatures approve a law calling for that constitutional amendment, since according to the US Constitution, an amendment can be made in 2 ways: (1) passing an amendment in both the House and Senate by 2/3rds, and then having 2/3rd of different states approve the amendment, or (2) having 2/3rds of states pass a law calling for the amendment.

Here is a website for Wolf-PAC:

http://www.wolf-pac.com

(moderators: please let me know if I am allowed to include the link above).

 

[StatGuy2000]

She certainly has some experience, but I don't think republicans and independents will agree that it is good experience. Experience is only a positive if people like the things you did when you got that experience!

Other than getting Bin Laden and implementing an afghan surge despite opposing Bush's Iraq surge (both were quite a while ago), are there any significant foreign policy wins for Obama/Clinton? Is the world a safer/better place than it was 6 years ago?

Yes, I'm aware that traditionally democrats have been seen as weak on foreign policy, so it should be good to get that on her resume, but I'm not sure that just getting her ticket punched is enough if the result of the experience doesn't look good.

I think that's a problem for democrats. Obama won largely because people zealously supported him, and he rode that wave. It's the republicans who win races between boring, old white guys. If Hillary wins it will be because she's Hillary -- a cult-of-personality, not a random/stock candidate (which the Republicans typicall put up). But if she loses, it will probably be because that cult-of-personality isn't fully positive as Obama's was - a lot of people hate her.

The Republican party that is currently in Congress has been increasingly dominated by conservatives of two types: (1) the neo-conservatives of the type represented by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who have frequently taking unilateral actions on the world stage (particularly in military affairs) often showing contempt for and disregard towards multilateral, international diplomacy -- the 2nd Iraq War is a perfect example of this, and (2) the Tea Party activists who have taken an increasingly isolationist stance on foreign affairs.

I don't know about you, but IMO, neo-conservatives within the Republican party have brought a tremendous degree of damage to US standing in world affairs (of which Obama and Clinton have each done their part to try to repair), while the Tea Party have brought nothing to the table on foreign affairs that is of any use. So whatever natural advance on foreign affairs that the Republican party might have had has been squandered. So in that respect, I feel that Clinton's experience on foreign affairs has been positive.

As for significant foreign policy wins for Obama/Clinton? Here are a few I can name: (1) Getting Bin Laden (which you mentioned), (2) Repairing relations with the various European countries after the Bush years, (3) Coordinating with various countries to implement economic measures to prevent further damage caused by the Great Recession, (4) The preliminary deal with Iran (alongside the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China) on the nuclear front, with the intent to prevent their ability to develop a nuclear weapon and imposing a tough inspection regime through the IAEA -- possibly one of the toughest in existence.

OK, (4) took place after Clinton left office as Secretary of State, but it is nonetheless a continuation of previous activity that the Obama administration was involved with of which Clinton had taken an important role.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Here is a website for Wolf-PAC:

http://www.wolf-pac.com

(moderators: please let me know if I am allowed to include the link above).

Only one of my Facebook friends is a co-fan of Wolf PAC.
I'm a left wing commie democrat.
He's a libertarian.

It's one of the few things in the world we agree upon.

ps. Just a moment ago, I again unfollowed my sister on Facebook. She and her friends apparently all feed from the media trough.

 

[cellurl]

Saw Carly Fiorina speak once. Whomever you see speak, you instantly fall in love with. Its physics.

 

[montoyas7940]

Gary Johnson 2016! (I am a libertarian leaning toward anarchist.) The problem is he doesn't stand a chance. The "process" doesn't allow an outsider a voice in the debate.

 

[mheslep]

Gary Johnson 2016! (I am a libertarian leaning toward anarchist.) The problem is he doesn't stand a chance. The "process" doesn't allow an outsider a voice in the debate.

Johnson says that Paul is the next best thing in the current GOP field, "I mean, the most libertarian candidate that Republicans may end up fielding."

 

[montoyas7940]

I didn't read an endorsement in this though.

"Great, I mean terrific," Johnson said sarcastically. "I mean, the most libertarian candidate that Republicans may end up fielding."

Edit: Not that you said there was an endorsement.

 

[Dotini]

Ordinarily I would want a Democrat in the White House when both houses of congress are held by Republicans. But I think Hillary has too many millstones around her neck.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/21/the-dems-most-awkward-party-crasher.html

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton, Rubio lead in 2016 US election poll
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-rubio-lead-2016-us-election-poll-110848806.html

But with 564 days until election day, isn't this too much already?Lincoln Chafee’s 2016 run might matter more than you think - another potential spoiler
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/lincoln-chafees-2016-run-might-matter-more-than-117110262201.html

 

[Evo]

Ordinarily I would want a Democrat in the White House when both houses of congress are held by Republicans. But I think Hillary has too many millstones around her neck.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/21/the-dems-most-awkward-party-crasher.html

Ewww, he looks creepy, I would never vote for him. He looks like a tele-evangelist.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are some issues involving foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation which might or might not be illegal, but certainly look unseemly. From the NYT:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

The backstory has to do with State Department recommendations on a Russian takeover of a Canadian uranium company: while the State department was preparing recommendations, principals were donating millions to the Clinton Foundation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Ewww, he looks creepy, I would never vote for him. He looks like a tele-evangelist.

This is exactly how Americans actually vote and why we are doomed

 

[mheslep]

There are some issues involving foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation which might or might not be illegal, but certainly look unseemly. ...

Unless Clinton is actually caught driving a car with a body in trunk I'm not sure there's any real consequence to how her actions "look". Never mind, that won't do either as the chauffeur would take the fall.

 

[mheslep]

Ewww, he looks creepy, I would never vote for him. He looks like a tele-evangelist.

This is exactly how Americans actually vote and why we are doomed

I'm American and I voted for him once.

Tele-evangelist bio:

• Born 1946, Grew up across the US, military family.
• Naval Academy
• Lt USMC infantry in Vietnam, heavily decorated inc Navy Cross, wounded.
• Georgetown Law
• Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, 1987, age 41
• Journalist and author (nine books); Emmy Award, 1983, for on the ground PBS coverage of Marines in Beirut.
• US Senator (D-Va) 2006, beating incumbent. Retired after one term.
• Married, five children, one step-child.

 

[Evo]

This is exactly how Americans actually vote and why we are doomed

Well, in reality, I would take a look at what he's saying, but he needs a makeover.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Unless Clinton is actually caught driving a car with a body in trunk I'm not sure there's any real consequence to how her actions "look".

As a former Louisiana governor once said, "I have this election locked up unless I am caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." It's nice to be inevitable. The New Yorker, which I guess is the newest member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has a nice summary by Amy Davidson. The most amusing turn of phrase was "Was there a quid pro quo?...There was certainly a lot of quid...and multiple quos."

But Ms. Davidson brings up a very interesting point. So what if laws were broken, ethics were violated, and required disclosures weren't made. The beneficiaries (besides the folks who put the deal together) were some of the world's poorest people.