NYT Imagines 2016 Without Hillary Clinton.

[mylye2222]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/upshot/imagining-2016-without-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0&referrer=

According to them it is only two choices.
Hillary or Chaos.
The fact is that, using this very rethoric, they in fact ENDORSE her.

But , would it happen, and that should cheer up non Clinton fans, at least a REAL primary would be set....

And remember ... still over a year to pass before General Election. And thay is an eternity in politics...

[NYC_SKP]

1. I'll take Chaos, please.

A Hillary in the mix will be a hot mess though the election season and, if she prevails, for four years or longer.

We can't take such chances.

The truth is that if she wins the primary she'll lose the general and we'll get Jeb or some other POS.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. Chaos / Mayhem 2016 n/t

[Fumesucker]

3. Hillary is the true Bearer of the One Ring

[gratuitous]

4. Whereas 2016 without any one of the GOP Clown Car denizens . . .

What does the country lose? The mendacity of Cruz? The vacant stare of Walker? The panting thirst of Rubio?

I'm guessing the Times isn't going to be running any companion pieces. For some reason. And no, it's not sexism or partisanship, so stop saying that!

[KMOD]

5. It's hyperbole

Hillary may in fact choose not to run. I'm in the small camp that believes she may not.

But it's quite ridiculous to think it's Hillary or bust.

We do have other candidates who are more than capable of beating Bush, Walker or whatever the right puts up.