Exclusive: Hillary Clinton may delay campaign

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO.

The delay from the original April target will give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign.

A Democrat familiar with Clinton’s thinking said: “She doesn’t feel under any pressure, and they see no primary challenge on the horizon. If you have the luxury of time, you take it.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-may-delay-campaign-114714.html#ixzz3QD7w1xoe

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Why am I reminded of the Tortoise and the Hare fable?

[liberal N proud]

2. GOOD! - People are tired of non-stop campaigns

It would be nice to get back to the campaigns start in December/January ahead of the Election.

We have 24/7 news to thank for this non-stop shit where we are inundated by these politicians. It is just too much!!!!!

[FLPanhandle]

60. I agree

It's smart and she is already well known.

Starting too early will lead to public fatigue.

[pangaia]

131. But, she already has started her campaign..months and months ago...

sneaky, eh....

[merrily]

3. Delaying it? From her second deadline of not making any announcment?

The story is flat out wrong about "originally planned." She had first said she would make an announcement right after the first of this year. Then, she put it at March. So, July is closer to six or seven months after her "originally planned" formal announcement.

will give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign.

She's had a lifetime to develop her message and policies, including serving in the Senate, a past Presidential campaign and the time since she resigned as Secretary of State.

and they see no primary challenge on the horizon.

How very extraordinary. Gee, I can't imagine why.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

71. Being dead broke, this gives Hillary much needed time to extract more cash from her corporate buddies. Well done!

[merrily]

73. Didn't she bust her custom made bike backpedaling on being broke?

j/k I don't even know if she owns a bike.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Haha, Hillary's too poor to own a bike. She walks barefoot in the snow, uphill, both ways. What a complete phony she is.

[Android3.14]

4. Maybe we'll have time to wake up

And avoid another family coronation.
Warren? Sanders? Anyone?

Hit the snooze button.

[merrily]

11. Hillary, Warren and Sanders are by far not the only Democrats eligible to run.

It beggars imagination that no Democratic politician is throwing his or her hat in the ring simply because they all want Hillary to be President so damn much. Also that it's just coincidence.

[pangaia]

132. I doubt it is at all that

they want Clinton to be president. They just don't see a chance in hell of beating her.
She has all the money... and the fascists behind her, as far as I can tell.

[Nay]

135. Yeah, if I were a regular Democrat (not Bernie or Liz), I wouldn't bother

running, either. It would be a waste of time and money. Especially if I were a younger Democrat and had more election cycles in my future where I'd have more of a chance.

[Bandit]

143. That would not be very smart

She is going to pick her VP from someone just like that. She needs to have someone run against her in the primary so she has more choices for her VP and Cabinet.

[reddread]

5. did the groundhog see her shadow?

a loooonnngg winter ahead.
first thing the mole learns about Bop-a-Mole
is dont stick your head up.

[merrily]

116. LOL. And it's not even February!

[LittleGirl]

6. Don't waste your time Hillary

Enjoy your grandchild and forget about politics. We've had enough Clintons and want some new blood as President. Thanks for playing along.

[brooklynite]

8. And by "we" you mean "a bunch of liberal bloggers"?

Because there's no indication of Clinton fatigue among, you know, Democrats who vote in elections.

[PoliticAverse]

12. You mean like the 2008 Democratic primary elections? n/t

[brooklynite]

18. ...where Clinton got as many votes as Obama?

[Gman]

21. +1

[merrily]

29. No. In Presidential primaries, as in Presidential elections, the popular vote is irrelevant

She did not tie him in the popular vote, even with all the votes she got after it was clear he had won; and she lost decisively in the primary equivalent of the electoral vote, which is all that counted. She also lost decisively in the Super Delegate vote.

But you knew all that.

[brooklynite]

43. I'm not disputing that Obama won the Primary process; I'm pointing out the number of Dems supporting Hillary

...which according to Wikipedia was 17.5 M for Obama and 17.8 M for Clinton.

You're the person claiming that that "real" Democrats won't vote for her.

[karynnj]

63. True, but you know there is really no nationwide popular vote in the primaries

That estimate - the aggregation of all votes cast, underweights (or ignores entirely in a few cases) states that had caucuses.

I never ever heard ANYONE refer to a national popular vote count in the primaries in any election until February 2008. The first time I remember reading of it was in the stories speaking of the impact of the Super Tuesday results.

That was when it was suddenly floated that - especially if someone won the national primary popular vote and lost the regular delegate count that the superdelegates (in mass) could support the winner of the "national Primary popular vote". The fact that no names were named the first time I read it was disingenuous because the results of SuperTuesday showed that Obama had not just survived the point where HRC had been very likely to be the defacto nominee, he was actually very well positioned to be very competitive winning the nomination.

However, even then the politicians aligned with Obama immediately argued that the superdelegates were very unlikely to vote against the person holding the most regular delegates . This made it clear which team was surfacing the possibility of the superdelegates swinging to the side of the loser of the regular delegate race. (The Obama supporters lost nothing here because if HRC had more regular delegates, there was no way the party would even think to give the race to Obama.)

[merrily]

66. It's a ludicrous straw man. NO ONE claimed brooklynite said Obama lost the primary.

[karynnj]

80. Nor did I say that -- I meant no disrepect

What I was speaking of was the phrase itself - "national popular primary vote" - which I have a major problem with because the system does not really produce one.

Only in the discussion of 2008 does that concept even come up. While it is true that 2008 was the closest nomination fight from the point when the nomination was determined by caucuses and primaries.

I assume that his point is that Clinton and Obama BOTH had very strong support among Democrats in 2008. With no statistics to back it up, I would assume that the results do not show the full support of either candidate in 2008. Many people I called when phonebanking for Obama went out of their way to say they really liked both -- then some split to support Obama, some to support Clinton and many who simply said they were undecided between them.

I agree that Clinton seems to have no comparable opponent this time and I see no reason to think her weaker.

[merrily]

85. Of course not, karennj. I said it was a straw man. Because it was a huge one.

Which DUer would say Obama lost the 2008 primary?

And which DUer would accuse any other DUer of having said that?

Refuting something no one but you said = straw man; and this one was a doozy.

[merrily]

64. No one said you were disputing Obama's victory. (Who would say such a thing, and why?) And, link

please for this. If you find one, I'll certainly apologize profusely. Unless and until you do, though I am calling it an outright lie, either intentional or made with total disregard as to whether it is true or not, which legally, is the same as intent.

I have a feeling that claim that this is a lie will stand for a long, long time.

You're the person claiming that that "real" Democrats won't vote for her.

[merrily]

101. No link and no apology?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

126. LOL so let's ignore the fact that almost half of those voting 4 Hillary in the '08 primary were Rethuglian cross-over voters hopin she wud get the nomination 2 guarantee victory in the general

[brooklynite]

129. You have proof of that, do you?

I have no objection if Hillary Clinton isn't your candidate of choice, but alleging that no "real" Democrat (Elizabeth Warren? Howard Dean? Barney Frank?) would support her is silly.

[merrily]

136. Because all Republicans ignored Limbaugh? Operation Chaos?

I posted then on two boards where people of all political views were welcome. They were not as big as this board, but quite a few Republican posters checked in as having voted in the primary for Hillary, including both open primaries and primaries where one had to change voter registration.

There was also another turd running a board called No Quarter who was urging people to vote for Hillary. He claimed to be a Democrat, but I doubted it. In any event, he was racist. I don't imagine he was the only one, either. There were also supposed PUMA boards that were probably run by Republicans, male or female, claiming to be female.

Implying there were no crossover votes then is not reality.

[brooklynite]

139. Were there SOME crossover votes? Maybe

But, not all Republicans listen to Limbaugh, and not all Limbaugh listeners bother to do what he tells them. Add to that, the Limbaugh brigade probably wanted to vote to keep McCain out of the nomination. Absent any hard evidence, I would submit that there was minimal Clinton support coming from the Republicans.

As much as some people here don't want to admit it, Hillary Clinton is actually popular among both Liberal and Moderate Democrats.

[merrily]

140. Again, I never said all Republicans listen to Limbaugh. Have mercy on the strawmen.

[merrily]

14. I am a Democrat who votes in elections. So do most of my friends.

Some of them have been getting fed up and threatening not to vote, but I urge them to vote and always will.

[LittleGirl]

19. no I mean anyone that is tired of the same ole, same ole

I would vote for Sanders, Warren and even Dean given the chance. I won't vote for Hillary. Just like I didn't vote for her in '08.

[brooklynite]

20. Why would you want to vote for a "Third Way loving" "ConservaDem" like Dean?

[LittleGirl]

27. I like Dean and

Sanders and Warren. All speak to me about what is important. President Obama spoke to me and that's when I got involved in politics for the first time after sitting out since 1980. Congress is a mess and I really don't believe that Hillary will be any different than Bush, or Cheney or the whole lot of the GOP candidates but Warren, Sanders and Dean seem to be on the right side of history. For me. Just my 2 cents. I don't speak for the whole left, just myself.

[brooklynite]

31. You like Warren; Warren likes Clinton. You like Dean; Dean likes Clinton

See how that works?

[merrily]

33. No one has to like Hillary because someone else endorses her.

And, I don't think you have a clue who those people really "like." Endorsements of politicians are not necessarily based on affection, but on a myriad of other factors, as you know.

[merrily]

32. LOL! The DLC, from which Third Way emanated, endorsed Kerry, not Dean.

[brooklynite]

36. But Clinton is now the DLCer you love to hate and Dean has endorsed her...

[merrily]

38. Please see Reply 33. And, no, she is not "my DLCer of Choice."

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

What a silly thing to say.

ETA: I see you edited to "love to hate" after I replied. "Nice" posting tactics by you all over this thread, brooklynite.

[brooklynite]

50. Please see Reply 20. I never called Dean a DLC member, I called him "DLC loving..."

Since he's endorsed Clinton, who plenty of people here will tar as a "DLC/Third Way member".

[merrily]

51. OMG. Clinton was a founding member of the DLC. Saying that is not "tarring" her, ffs. It's a fact.

Not only was she a founding member, but she toured other countries with Al From to spread the DLC message abroad.

And again, you have no clue what Dean loves, only whom he endorsed, for reasons best known to him.

BTW, where are you claiming I said you posted that Dean was a DLC member again? I said the DLC endorsed Kerry for President not Dean. If you think that Dean loves the DLC after he lost to Kerry, you may not understand politicians as much as you seem to want us to think.

[karynnj]

103. LOL Kerry had no support from the DLC either -- Lieberman was their chosen candidate

However - there was no Lieberman wing of the party as shown when he came in 5 th in NH - though he claimed he was in a three way tie for third with Edwards and Clark.

Kerry got no support from the party until he won Iowa. If you read the beltway analysis in late 2003 - Kerry had little party or media support. (He was the only major candidate not to get one of the 5 New Republic endorsements!)

If he were the DLC choice in December 2003, he would not have had his 4th quarter fundraising nearly dry up. Remember he loaned himself money to continue - because he saw he was gaining traction in Iowa - on the ground.

One of the biggest lies told about 2004 is to diminish what Kerry did in the primaries. He won because he, various MA officials and many MA vets that backed him for years, spent days talking to individuals in Iowa - face to face. One Iowa person I met, who had worked as a volunteer for Kerry, said that one of the things that he noticed was that compared to other years - once someone sided with Kerry, they stayed there. (The norm per him was that people often drifted.)

The fact is that Dean lost the race in Iowa - and he lost it because he was not as good at retail politics as Kerry. I would guess that there was one set of events that happened on the same day in the last week in Iowa that likely caused Kerry to move further ahead and Dean to lose support. On the same day, the news showed two stories from the campaign in Iowa:

The first could have been scripted by Kapra. The man Kerry had saved in Vietnam, a Republican former law official who had been a marine had called the Kerry campaign and they immediately flew him out to surprise Kerry. It was incredibly moving on TV and much better than had Kerry been prepared for it.

The second was that Dean told an old guy who was heckling him to "sit down". On TV that looked terrible. Recently, Dean mentioned that event as something that hurt his campaign.
I suspect that it did lead many to leave him --- and go to Kerry.

I like Dean and Kerry -- and am fortunate enough to have met both. I had always thought that there was a risk meeting people you respect, but I can say that I think more of them after meeting them than before - especially Kerry.

[merrily]

107. Besides the point. However, an endorsement IS support & certainly more than Dean got from the DLC.

Kerry was not the point of my post AT ALL. The point is that a man who wanted to be President as much as Dean did, but lost, is not going to love the organization that endorsed his opponent. And Dean expressly disavowed the DLC wing of the party then, saying, when asked, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." I'd never heard of the DLC then and didn't know what the reporter was referring to when asking Dean which wing of the Party he was from.

brooklynite claimed that Dean is a DLC lover and I am contradicting that claim. The exchange really has nothing to do with Kerry, except that Kerry happened to be Dean's opponent.

As far as Lieberman, please. Everyone, including me, the DLC and most of America, knew Lieberman was going to have to drop out very early in that race. And, when Lieberman did drop out, as everyone knew he would, the DLC endorsed Kerry. Realistically, that initial endorsement of Lieberman by the DLC was a pity/pro forma endorsement to Lieberman a founding member of the DLC.


BTW, fwiw, I voted for Kerry, primary and general. Donated in the general, too, though nowhere near what I donated to Obama in primary and general.

[karynnj]

118. Neither Kerry or Dean were favored by the DLC

Lieberman did not drop out until after NH. He dropped out on February 3 and endorsed no one. The next set of states - DE, MO, SC, NM, AZ, ND, and OK were states that DEAN, after losing NH, said he was not going to strongly contest - working on the next set after that - because they were not likely to be won by someone from the NE.

I don't know if the DLC endorsed Kerry after Iowa and NH - I suspect that many of them might have preferred the 2004 version of Edwards or Wes Clark. The earliest I could find anything (thanks "no elephant " on DU was March 3 - which is when Edwards dropped out - after Clark and Dean were also out - so I guess they supported him over Kuchinich who was still in - though never getting more than about 5%.

The media after NH actually made a pretty big push for Edwards. I assume that given the 7 states, there was a real possibility of something that would have looked like 1992. Had Edwards, not Kerry, won 5 of those 7 states, he would have been seen as the frontrunner. (This might have been what Dean gambled on - as then Dean (with Kerry with no momentum) would have won the next set of states and then the super tuesday ones.)

Both Dean and Kerry had joined the DLC in its early days. Neither ever supported the bulk of the DLC positions. They were both more open to trade (vs protectionism) - which incidentally was why labor was nearly 100% behind Gephardt, not them. (Kerry did have the very strong support of the Firemen) However, with Kerry you could easily see his voting record was more strongly correlated with Kennedy's -- than with say Evan Bayh. (In 2008, when From spoke of the DLC candidates - he named Clinton, Vilsack, Warner, and Bayh -- not including Kerry who outpolled all but Clinton at that point.)

[merrily]

120. Fact: The DLC endorsed Kerry, not Dean. Fact, Kerry is totally beside the point for purposes of my

reply to brooklynite. Also for purposes of the 2016 Presidential. Calm down.

[karynnj]

122. I suggest you need calming down, not me - and something is not a fact just because you state it is

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

It matters WHEN the DLC endorsed. Kerry had less money, media support, and less party support than Dean did pre Iowa. It is a triumph of retail politics that Kerry won in Iowa. After Kerry won Iowa - and won it pretty big (38% to Dean's 18%) - many people swung to Kerry. This happens in every election - not the Obama was 20 points behind in NH before Iowa and almost won it a week later.

Any time after Iowa and NH, is essentially the DLC jumping on the wagon -- and they would have done the same for Dean. In both cases, claiming as theirs men they never really offered any leadership role to.

In fact, what 2004 really showed was that DLC did not work hard to either secure the nomination or fight in the general election. I suspect that seeing Bush above 60% in late 2003, they really did not see it as a Democratic year. Kerry, with huge help from people like Dean, made it closer than anyone would have expected in December 2003

Not to mention consider what it would have meant to get DLC's endorsement?

1) Lieberman had it - came in 5th in NH; did not compete in Iowa -- clearly not a big lift in voter support. Tells you the DLC did not have any real natural power - the primaries are the most concentrated elections for insiders.

2) Money - this is what I assume comes with the endorsement - and it is a big deal in a campaign. Dean had more money in Iowa than any other candidate because of small mostly internet based contributions. Kerry had virtually no money coming in in fall 2003 - there was one day that Mary Beth Cahill was later quoted as saying she sent in a check - because without that they would have raised zero that day. Pretty good sign he was NOT favored by the big money guys of the DLC.

[merrily]

133. Both wrong and irrelevant.

[karynnj]

134. So says you

My point:

Kerry obviously did not have their support before Iowa.

Their support in 2004 was not worth much -- and is likely worth even less today as they really have not been a high profile group for over a decade.

[Lil Missy]

56. What is this "we" you speak of?

Turd in your pocket?

[LittleGirl]

125. just a random person reading this blog is all.

we = me

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. Agreed. Maybe she's having second thoughts. Let's hope so.

[LittleGirl]

124. who is having second thoughts?

Me or Hillary?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

127. Hillary of course! She knows the Rethugs are about to drop the bomb on Bill's underage fetish. It's coming . . .

count on it. And whether it's true or not - tho, where there's smoke (in Bill's pants) there's usually fire - Hillary will be toast. We need a candidate who can stand up for women's rights and speak to the war on women. Not one who enabled her own husband to conduct his own war.

[Man from Pickens]

7. it's probably because

She'll have to stop taking those 6-figure "speaking fee" bribes after she announces.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Once a candidate formally announces, campaign finance laws do apply. n/t

[winter is coming]

9. Knows she wants to be President. Doesn't know what her message is.

Truly a combination that inspires confidence in her desire to serve the country.

[merrily]

15. After a lifetime in politics, too, including elective and appointed office at high levels.

So far, she's doing great. Called her urging her fellow Senators to vote for the Iraq invasion (without even having bothered to read the NIE, no less) a mistake. (DLC and PPI supported a war--but we're not supposed to mention DLC or Third Way in connection with Hillary? LMAO.

A fucking war that killed and maimed people, created innumerable refugees and gave rise to new groups of terrorist. I don't know how anyone gets to "Oopsie" that one, especially someone who wants to be President and Commander in Chief.

Now, she has to delay six or seven months to see what her policies are going to be? Goldwater Girl through Secretary of State, Senatorial campaigns and a Presidential campaign, plus time between SOS and now to mull things over and she hasn't figured out her policies yet?

[HappyMe]

16. That is a good point.

If she was thinking about running, why the hell wouldn't you have been thinking about the message/platform all along.

[merrily]

39. Some people run because they want to be President.

Others because they have been burning to accomplish certain things for Americans.

And some are somewhere in between.

[HappyMe]

52. Well said.

Who knows what the hell we have here.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Could it be the pollsters are still working on crafting her message?

[HappyMe]

84. They don't need a message.

Most of the Clinton faithful don't either. She could come out and say puppy juggling was great and they would agree.

[merrily]

88. Her message for the general? Messages at coronations only create problems

that would not otherwise exist.

No real challenge from the left, so not Dem primary dilemma of having to run left in the primary, then allegedly having to dash to the right in the general.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. Everytime Hillary opens her mouth, she creates problems. Then she spends most of her time walking back previous comments. Can't we do better?

[merrily]

95. We can and we have, many times before. Question is, why the coronation this time?

[KingCharlemagne]

46. Your post reminded me of the penultimate scene from the 1972

film "The Candidate":

[PoliticAverse]

62. An excellent movie. n/t

[merrily]

91. The next to last scene yes, but Redford's character began very differently.

[KingCharlemagne]

97. I know. The post I was responding to reminded me only of that scene and not

the film in its entirety. It's been awhile since I watched the full movie and I may have to do so again soon!

[merrily]

99. I did not contradict you. I only pointed out something in addition to what you posted.

[KingCharlemagne]

102. Yeah, I was merely reflecting on how long it has been since I watched the

movie in full. (A long time.) Redford is sure easy on the eyes, ain't he?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. Give Hillary a break! It takes time to do polling to figure out what your message should be. Barf!!

[peace13]

87. Memo to Hillary .....

Actions speak louder than words. If we don't have your message by now we never will!

[nruthie]

112. Certainly bodes well, doesn't it??

[Nay]

137. That disqualifies her for me right off the bat. Does anyone think Warren or

Sanders would have to take time and effort to craft their messages? No. Why not? Because they ARE their messages, and Hillary has to CRAFT a message because she never really had one, other than perhaps a self-serving one. I mean, come on. Honest, straightforward people don't have to do that shit; only politicians who are trying to 'craft' a message that will get them elected but which they can ignore once in office.

[Sienna86]

13. Maybe wants distance from Epstein/minors/sex issue

I was wondering how that would affect her decision.

[msanthrope]

17. Nah...it's the Vince Foster love triangle/Whitewater/Rose Law Firm thing.

She's gotta give the assassins time to land at the Mena airport, unload the coke, and kill off the remaining witnesses.

It's a full schedule.

[merrily]

53. No worries. It will ALL come up (and more) when Secretary of Much Baggage runs for POTUS.

One of many reasons I am sorry she's running.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Apparently, Bill is lawyering up again, which is never a good sign.

[Sienna86]

146. She has to deal with the fallout of that issue before moving ahead.

And if Bill did something, it may derail her plans.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. MAY derail her plans? Or Hillary could finally divorce Bill but she'll prolly taka poll 1st 2 c how that affects her candidacy b4 deciding.

[brooklynite]

22. I think you folks are missing the good news...

...With Clinton delaying her start, Sanders will be able to start early and grab support from the entire range of Democratic Primary voters.

He can do that, can't he?

[merrily]

42. Perhaps not with a coronation having been on the calendar for years.

[brooklynite]

44. ..and once again, the only people talking about coronations are the anti-Hillary folks

How are "they" (evil music swells) going to stop Bernie if he decides to run in the Democratic Primary?

[merrily]

57. Duh? Why would anyone else talk about a coronation? And what is it, if not a coronation?

Surely, it's obvious. When as a candidate who is not an incumbent been touted as running unopposed since before the incumbent even got re-elected?

Spare the explanation you once gave me about how it was because of Hillary's great likeability.

It has not even been that long that a Democratic incumbent has been running unopposed. And even that is more than sufficiently undemocratic (small d) for the Democratic Party.



Fact: A lot of politicians burn to be President.

Fact: Despite Fact 1, for over two years, everyone on TV has been declaring that Hillary will run unopposed "if (LOL) she chooses to run---and, oh look, it looks as though she might well do that.

This smells.

And any way you slice it, it's not democratic, small d, which is a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

[brooklynite]

65. Here's a clue...politicians don't like to lose

Bernie Sanders may be happy enough to run for the purpose of pushing his issues

Martin O'Malley may be happy enough to run for the purpose of raising his profile for VP consideration

Pretty much everybody else who might want to actually be President generally wants to win if they try, and at least in this election, they think that if Hillary Clinton runs, they don't have a chance of winning. NOT because the system is rigged but because (gasp!) most Democrats really like Hillary Clinton, and she has the ability to build a warchest of funds and political support that's going to be very hard to overcome.

Out of curiosity, how outraged were you in 2000 when VP Gore faced only token opposition by Bill Bradley?

[merrily]

68. LOL! who likes to lose? Yet five or six run for the nom all the time. Keep your "clue."

2008 Obama, fifteen points behind out of the box, as much as 30 points behind at times, ran.

So did those who were even further behind Hillary: Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel, Richardson. And, of course, Hillary.

For you to claim that two and three years ago, pundits and strategists were risking their cred by declaring, almost as one, on national TV, that Hillary would run opposed because politicians don't run if there's a chance of losing--

I don't even have words for how implausible that is.

[Agschmid]

148. So why aren't they running then? Who is stopping them?

[brooklynite]

153. Don't you know? "THEY" are...

It's well-established that Dennis Kucinich would have won in 2008 if the "Party Bosses" hadn't stopped him.

At least, that's what I've read here.

[Gman]

23. It's Hillary's turn

Let the other side make asses if themselves then Hillary shines even more.

[HappyMe]

25. Yeah.

I am so thrilled about voting for somebody who thinks that it's "her turn".

[Renew Deal]

30. I don't buy the "her turn" argument.

That's the way republicans run presidential primaries. We haven't done that in my memory. I think she is correctly looking at the field and not seeing much competition.

[HappyMe]

34. I am a bit tired of her

announcements that she will make an announcement later to announce something later. It's not like she is considering a run for dog catcher. This dithering doesn't make me like her more.

[KingCharlemagne]

92. It has a certain Thomas Dewey 1948 flavor to it, imo. And we all know how

that one turned out. (Best political photograph EVER!):

[HappyMe]

96. It's a classic!

[KingCharlemagne]

100. OT, but the back story behind the photo (and the paper) makes for

a great read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

HST personifies the notion of a 'shit-eating grin' in that photo!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

105. Then next it will be Jeb's "turn".

[Gman]

35. I know I am.

[HappyMe]

37. Good for you.

I will make an announcement to announce what I will anounce later in regards to voting.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Yes, it's Hillary's turn. Make way for the Queen!!!

[brooklynite]

93. I guess it's easier to throw insults than to actually organize an opposition campaign...

[INdemo]

24. She must think that she in the annoited one

"She doesn’t feel under any pressure, and they see no primary challenge on the horizon."

I think Hillary is in for a big surprise. But if she does win the Democratic nomination a Republican will win the White House.
Hillary is a Republican lite with ties to Wall St and many real Democrats will stay home

[brooklynite]

26. Funny, I thought "real" Democrats were the people who actually voted in Democratic Primaries

...like the 17 million Democrats who voted for her in 2008 when the same complaints were being made.

[merrily]

58. Again, in 2008, she lost the only votes that matter at the Pres. level: the Super Delegates and the

primary equivalent of the electoral vote. Citing the popular vote--and she got a few million of those AFTER it was impossible for Obama to lose the primary anyway--is disingenuous.

[INdemo]

59. I'm talking about Democrats that want a real Democrat

nominee.Not someone that is just another Wall Street puppet Take a look at where she got the bulk of her campaign funding from in 2008 and you will see my point.

[brooklynite]

74. Well then, all you need to do is organize enought "Democrats who want a real Democrat"

Hillary had 17 million votes last time; probably starts fairly close to that now. All you need to do is collect all the votes Barack Obama won.

[INdemo]

90. That was 7 years ago

She wasn't 50-$100k per speech then Hey if you support Hillary go for it but for me I think she is a Republican lite and I will not support her end of conversation

[brooklynite]

98. You're entitled to believe the rose has lost it's bloom...

...I in turn might choose to believe that being the successful Secretary of State of a popular President has enhanced her profile (perhaps not among political bloggers) and that current polling and the sign-ups that "READY FOR HILLARY" has obtained supports that assessment.

[frylock]

138. Democratic primaries amount to jack shit to voters in California..

all we get is our symbolic vote.

[Renew Deal]

28. I don't blame her

I don't see much credible competition either. Warren is probably the toughest and she's not running. I think all of this really messes with the republicans.

[Gamecock Lefty]

40. Hill 2016!

She can delay as long as she wants - she'll still get my vote in the primary and on election day!!!

[patricia92243]

41. Maybe she knows something the rest of us don't know. But, to say there

are no serious contenders sounds like over-confidence.

Where was Prez Obama at this time when he first ran? Was he a serious contender?

[brooklynite]

45. Yes he was...and he was also organizing political and financial support.

[merrily]

48. People had been talking about him for President since at least his speech at

the National convention that nominated Kerry in 2004. But, he had said he would not run in 2008.

The real question is, why are there no challengers now?

[Renew Deal]

110. Obama was a serious contender

And she might know something about Biden. But forget her. Who do you think is a serious contender that hasn't already said no?

[onehandle]

47. Why not? The nomination is hers for the taking.

Obama was a known quantity last time.

That scenario won't happen again.

[merrily]

49. Even if that is so, the general sure ain't hers for the taking.

[leveymg]

54. It must be taking longer than expected to rewrite history.

Take that as you wish.

The delay from the original April target will give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign.

[merrily]

76. Given that the original target was right after the first of the year (2015), then March, the line

you quoted is itself a re-write of history--and very recent history at that.

I guess hoping no one has been paying attention lately is strategy #1.


Now they only have to develop the next few hundred.

[leveymg]

111. This is being run like State Dept policies in MidEast during her tenure. Might end up just as well.

Campaign appears to be well-financed, with lots of jet travel and exposure, but policies seem to be captive to long-standing agendas.

[merrily]

113. How do we know? She is supposedly busy developing her policies, even as we speak.

[leveymg]

114. She would do well to follow Obama's lead as closely as possible.

He seems to be the one who exercises reasonably good judgement and quietly shows sound instincts about most things.

She's too much about bluster, threats, and covert action that goes wrong quite often.

[merrily]

119. Word is, she will have most of his campaign team. I don't know if that includes

Axelrod, though. You can't buy judgment, but you sure can buy a better campaign team than she had last time.

[leveymg]

128. What she really needs is Barack's brains and good instincts. His staff just isn't enough.

Sorry, but she's made too many serious mistakes when given the opportunity. Let's not forget this whopper of an error in judgement:

[merrily]

130. Choosing a campaign team, good or bad, says something about judgment, too.

Oh, don't worry. I will NEVER forget that. In fact, I'd be very surprised if I didn't post on this thread about it. (I am not always good at remembering which thread I posted which post on, but this thread sure seems like a natural for one of my posts pointing out that one.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. Actually, the less time Hillary is in the spotlight, the fewer opportunities she has to put her foot in her mouth. Hillary is her own worst enemy.

[leveymg]

117. Try explaining that to her when she's ecstatic with her own triumphs. Like this one>

[Thinkingabout]

55. Since there are so many who have jumped out and said they are running, what's the deal?

She will declare when and how she wants, this is her choice, we do still have choices, eh. I am waiting for a primary, we have too many "trying the primaries" before there has been a primary started. Study possible candidates, know their records, know who can do the job.

[Frank Cannon]

61. Some time ago, I heard a radio personality talk about Hillary.

He went on and on and on about how she was the "natural candidate". That she would be formidable and tough to beat as she pressed her "liberal" message and agenda. He laid this shit on thick for nearly an hour.

That radio personality? Sean Fucking Hannity.

That told me more about Hillary and her campaign(s) than I ever needed to know.

When I was a little kid, my Dad took me to see the Harlem Globetrotters on a couple of occasions. I loved those guys. But I couldn't understand how the Washington Generals fell for all their exact same tricks twice.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. How were you able to listen for an hour to that pompous, bloviating fool Hannity?

[Frank Cannon]

121. It was literally the only radio station I could pick up.

And I was afraid to turn the radio off, as I was tired and feared I might fall asleep.

I figured he would at least keep me angry enough to stay awake until the next town. He did.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

123. Haha, that explains it; you get a pass.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Construction continues on the Maginot Line of campaigns

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

While Hillary is in the throes of the "bargaining" stage of grief.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. Permanently? Yayyyyy!

[karynnj]

70. If true, good strategy

She has frozen the Democratic field. It has always seemed that if she wants the nomination, she is entirely likely to get it. It is interesting that she has - to some degree - pushed back when the race will start.

However, if someone wanted to run against her, nothing is stopping them. However, if they did, I think they might get more coverage as they started than if she were running. It is hard to imagine that anyone will run under the radar in Iowa and NH - gaining confidence and testing speeches without the glare of the media.

[YvonneCa]

78. Here in CA...

...Jerry Brown was WAY ahead when he ran for governor in 2010. He didn't officially get in the race until the very end. And he won.

[hrmjustin]

77. I am ready for Hillary! i think she will make a great president!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

108. President of Walmart, yes, maybe. That's about it.

[hrmjustin]

109. Your opinion not mine.

[peace13]

86. Good...that will give a little time for the story about Bill and the young girls to die down.

He may be her biggest liability in all of this. I hope she delays it eternally. Her last loss sent her to a location undisclosed for weeks. She failed to show up at her own press conferences. She held the Obama campaign up for weeks. She held the Democrats hostage until she could pull herself together, work the deal she wanted or a combination of the two. Hillary can run if she wants but she needs to understand that it is not hers for the taking. If the votes aren't there she needs to concede like a big girl and get on with it!

[djean111]

104. She really has no message. At least none for the 99%.

I am starting to feel that there is no point at all in being interested in politics - our system has been bought, lock, stock, and barrel.

[guillaumeb]

115. Clinton vs. Bush again?

Every 4 years, liberals, progressives and others look for yet another savior. In 2008 it was Barack Obama, a man who ran basically on the fact that he seemed progressive and is obviously well educated and articulate. He talked the talk that progressives like to hear on many issues, but his actions over the last 6 years have been anything but progressive. To wit:
1)He allowed corporate whores in the Senate to set up a bailout plan for the Insurance industry disguised as a healthcare plan.
2) He absolutely refused to consider legal action against members of the Bush White House for their war crimes.
3) Same as above for all the rich thieves in Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate who have looted the country since 1980.
4)Is pushing yet another "Free Trade" deal to export jobs and benefit the rich.
5) Mr. "lace on my walking shoes and join you on the picket line" when talking about the union busting in Wisconsin obviously mislaid his shoes after the election.
6)FILL IN YOU OWN "disappointed with Obama because..." HERE
That said, I voted for him twice because he is better than the alternative of President Palin. Better Sotomayor than another Scalia.

Can anyone tell me that Hilary Clinton will be any different? When we talk about Obama, Clinton the First, a possible Clinton the 2nd, are we just fantasizing? All three are corporate funded. Sure Obama received the majority of his contributions from small donors, but the majority of his money came from Wall Street.

All of that said, I would vote for Clinton over any Republican because the current crop of Republican politicians are insane.

[BlueStater]

141. Can she delay it until 2017?

[DonCoquixote]

142. In other words

wait for any challengers to go broke and get legs busted, then ride in as the savior.

Honestly, if she needs "more time to develop her message, policy and organization" then I wonder what she did back in 2008. Shes hould have the first two down pat by now.

[msanthrope]

144. Nah--it's the Benghazi hearings. Gowdy is trying to delay the hearings...but no Repuke is

going to let that interfere with summer break.

So she waits.

[Sunlei]

145. I would LOVE, Mrs. Clinton to wait untill next year. Rather see republicans flail for a year+++

please wait until the last second Mrs. Clinton

[quadrature]

147. when HRC is on the campaign trail, does she gain or lose votes?

sometimes a myth is better looking
than reality

[closeupready]

149. If Hillary is such a popular figure, she had every opportunity to sew it up LAST time.

She failed with EVERY advantage on her side, and she will fail THIS time, too - not because people on DU didn't vote for her, but because many people who would vote (if it were someone inspiring and liberal) will NOT bother to do it this time, and the GOP will win - due to that apathy.

[winter is coming]

150. I don't think she'll get the nomination, but I don't think the GOP's a shoo-in, either.

If we can field a candidate who can speak about income inequality and the plight of the 99% without drawing guffaws and skeptical stares from the voters, I believe we can win in 2016. Income inequality is an enormous issue right now, much more so than it was eight years ago, and vague platitudes aren't likely to be enough to put Hillary on the right side of that issue. IMO, she lost her chance at the Presidency by blowing it back in 2008.

[brooklynite]

151. Sounds great...who've you got?

Bearing in mind that a lot of the "the 99%" voted for Hillary last time.

[winter is coming]

152. A lot of the 99% didn't realize they were "the 99%" last time.

And a lot of them still had decent full-time jobs. It's going to be fun watching Hillary trying to make it sound like she's for the 99% without angering Wall Street.