O'Malley: 'The Presidency of the U.S. Is Not Some Crown to Be Passed Between Two Families'

[Ichingcarpenter]

Martin O'Malley, a likely Democratic presidential candidate, took a shot this morning at Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, saying that the presidency is not a "crown" and need not "be passed between two families." Of course Clinton's husband Bill Clinton was president. And Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, and brother, George W. Bush, were both president.

O'Malley made the remarks on ABC's This Week:

"Well I think that our country always benefits from new leadership and new perspectives. I mean, let's be honest here: the presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families. It is an awesome and sacred trust, that to be earned, and exercised, on behalf of the American people," O'Malley told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

[JonLP24]

1. I just saw the interview

He is definitely running, in these questions he could suggest somebody else but all I hear is him suggesting himself.

[earthside]

2. Hurrah!!!

How can anyone disagree with Gov. O'Malley on this point?

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I don't know of anyone who would disagree with that--however

it is a hypothetical that has not ever been suggested or considered.

[azureblue]

122. I do and here's why

he is ignoring the principle factor and that is experience. Who is best qualified for the job? IOW he puts blood line above experience, and that is pretty sophomoric thinking. Simplistic, at best.

Ms. Clinton has a lot of experience nationally and world wide, and a track record to show how she uses that experience. And there is not a single contender from either party that can match that, especially if you start with the day Bill was elected president. While I would prefer Warren, ideologically, Clinton knows how the game is played and how to make things happen. She knows how the GOP game is played, and she, right now with email - gate, is making fools of them. She has the GOP absolutely terrified - they know what she is capable of and they do not want to get into the political ring with her - they know they will get eaten alive, and they just got bitten. And she bites hard. Why do you think the GOP is desperately trying to find anything they can hang her with? I would not be surprised if they resurrect Ken Starr to smear her.

Take note of her recent move of getting an endorsement from Kissinger. This was brilliant. One one move, she split the GOP in two, and reminded everyone that even a political enemy thinks she is qualified. O'Malley is in no position at all to do something like that, and neither is anyone else, for that matter.

She is a gracious person, but woe to those who try to smear and lie about her. She is what will be needed to end the GOP stonewalling games, and we know they will come if any Democrat wins. This is a sad commentary on what the GOP has reduced itself to, but it must be faced and dealt with. Right now, look at the tone of the Hil haters, right and left: it's downright 5th grade level smears, innuendo, and name calling. Plus trying to "put the little woman in her place".

Probably what it boils down for me, is that we need a warrior in Washington to clean up the corruption and the bribery, and fight back against the money interests that control this country right now. If this was not a major factor, then I would go for Warren or Sanders in a second...

This is where Warren falls short - how to play the DC game. She just needs more experience and from a stronger position - maybe as veep? Clinton is paying close attention to Warren and her populism - remember when Bill took office and he and Hil started a populist agenda - nation health care, and the GOP shot them right down. And kept shooting. Obama is savvy and super smart about playing the game, and I'm sure Hillary has picked up a tip or two from him. Ms. Clinton is paying attention to us, and I do not think it is just a put on - she, like Obama, would carry a huge weight when President: Obama, the first black President, and Clinton, the first woman President, and she wants to go down in history as a successful Statesman, not as a politician. She knows that she can be attacked as "old line politics as usual", but she is not that. She knows she has to make her mark, and prove to the world that the first woman to be an American President is a resounding success.

Clinton has my vote.

[TheNutcracker]

127. He's held executive office. Very few senators become presidents..

[rhett o rick]

157. Your argument that HRC is a savy politician doesn't cut it with me. We need more.

She showed her true stripes in 2002 and helped Bush. We need someone, not in the pocket of Wall Street, working for the 99%.

[LondonReign2]

164. yes, getting an endorsement from Kissenger certainly does show exactly what she stands for

[donnasgirl]

8. Simply put

You can't.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I don't know that anyone has suggested that this is the case ...

we still have elections, both, the primaries and the general.

Assuming the (almost) certainty that our electoral system remains intact, his concern is unfounded.

And, BTW, the result of a primary loss (i.e., a HRC primary victory), does not equal a crown being passed.

[morningfog]

147. It's all about the money. The 1% dynasties can block

out the non-dynastic candidates from even considering a run.

[1StrongBlackMan]

156. I do not agree ...

If we/you really believed that, then there would be NO reason to participate in the franchise.

[NYC Liberal]

14. No disagreement, but it’s a pretty silly statement.

Anyone who wants to be president has to stand for election. They have to make it through the party primaries (unless they’re an independent, obviously) and then they have to convince people to vote for them in the general election. Nothing is being “handed” to anyone. If Hillary wins it will be because the voters wanted her not because she was “handed a crown."

[treestar]

31. +1

A silly thing to say.

[truedelphi]

43. Yes it really is. Forty percent of

Us are so tired of politics as usual that we have told Pew Surveys consistently since 2008 that we don't feel loyal to either of the two major parties.

That forty percent is a larger number than the two parties own.

Usually only around 34 to 36% of all voters consider themselves Democrats, and the Republicans fare worse.

The big problem is that both parties are owned by Big Money interests. And Both Parties are operated in such a way that except for occasionally on lower levels of political offices, no new voices and mindsets are allowed.

Neither party has done much admirable in the manner of responding to those citizens in states where Marijuana is now legally okay for medicinal uses, or for outright recreational ones. Then Party Big Wigs wonder why younger voters are being "seduced" by libertarianism.

[zeemike]

74. +1

And both parties care little for getting those who don't vote to do so...the fewer the better the way they see it.
It is much easier to control a small crowd than a big one, and the more there are the more uncertainty there is.

[Enthusiast]

107. You could do an excellent OP based on this post.

Most Americans are sick to death of the status quo. Yet arrogant loudmouths in both parties tell us to STFU.

[qazplm]

69. exactly

and that's exactly the response she'll give (or Bush for that matter).

I get the reminding folks of the issue, but if he's wise he won't rely on that to do much heavy lifting.

[aspirant]

71. Didn't SCOTUS

hand George JR the Presidency?

[Agschmid]

133. Yup.

[rhett o rick]

158. The big money will control the message the voters get. They will "hand her the crown".

We do not live in a functioning democracy. The corrupt, corp-media pushes the choice of the Powers To Be. And elections are rigged.

Our only hope is that enough of the 99% will take action and vote in someone dedicated to support the 99%.

[billhicks76]

120. Clintons Are Weasels

It was exposed today that Bill Clinton coached Romney and gave him advice during the debates.

[azureblue]

123. and it worked, didn't it?

"advice" doesn't have to be good advice, you know. Remember how badly R money botched it. Either Clinton told him something to make him do that or he ignored Clinton, so your point is moot.

[LondonReign2]

165. Logic...fail

[Agschmid]

134. Apparently that coaching worked really well...

Another stupid non issue bought hook line and sinker by the fools.

[billhicks76]

141. Yeah Right...He Was Pretending To Help?

Romney isn't that stupid. Yes he lost but Bill still tried to help him. All you Clintonites need to accept reality. Stop asking those with good instincts to trust the untrustworthy.

[Agschmid]

145. Not a "clintonite" but thanks for the label.

Better luck next time...

[stonecutter357]

143. .

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Awesome. K&R

[Dems to Win]

4. +1 Boy I am NOT looking forward to a Bush vs. Clinton race n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. 16 years is enough n/t

[demwing]

98. 20 years

don't forget Bush the Elder

28 if you count Bush as the VP

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. just the thought of it , makes me want to hurl. eom.

[JaneyVee]

7. He's right. Which is why we have primaries.

[donnasgirl]

9. Bernie Sanders for prez

Yup, or Elizabeth Warren with a taste of Sherrod Brown.

[JaneyVee]

19. Hell YES.

[wyldwolf]

11. yeah, what a silly statement from O'Malley

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. The only Democrats who will be voting for Hillary Clinton

The only Democrats who will be voting for Hillary Clinton are the ones who are satisfied for Wall Street to own Main Street.

[NYC Liberal]

16. Not at all. MILLIONS of liberal and progressive Democrats support Hillary.

They support her because she, too, is a strong liberal Democrat.

[It is Tuesday]

62. Millions see her as a familar name.

That's all it is.. Support a mile wide, and a inch deep.

When the primaries starts, it will expose Ms. Clinton for the Third Way tripe that she really is, and better choices are going to be offered.

I'm fairly confident that Secretary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee.

[StevieM]

67. If they wanted a familiar name, then Joe Biden would suffice. Hillary has a lot of support

and much of it is quite deep.

[It is Tuesday]

72. Sure, if it makes you feel better..

keep on believing that, and backing a right-of-center candidate that has offered nothing to the 99%'ers, and offering a lot of value to Wall Street/1%'ers..

Having said that, The Democratic Party does not need to lurch further to the right to get voters..

That's why they are losing voters.. We need to go hard left, and back to left-of-center policies here. New Deal type policies are needed at this point.

MIC needs to be starved to death. Most countries are now capable of defending themselves. Hell, the Arab League has just decided to create their own NATO-type military group.

Our infrastructure are crumbling. We need jobs. We need a stronger safety net. We need UHC. We need a lot of stuff that the right-wing doesn't even want to think about. We need ways to capture the overseas money that corporations are moving out of the United States to avoid US taxes. We need a major infusion of cash back to the domestic issues, instead of foreign policies and aids sent out of the country and wasted money on military misadventures that are not necessary for the security of the United States.

The Republicans has already proved that they offer absolutely no value. And That's what the Third Way Party to go - Republican lite.

A perfect quote to conclude this - "I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign." - Harry S Truman, May 17, 1952

[Thinkingabout]

103. Are you talking about Jeb, he is right of center

In fact O'Malley is near the center.

[aquart]

139. If ignoring her voting record makes you feel better go for it.

A determined, dedicated, undeniably ambitious woman makes LOTS of people uncomfortable. Not enough to show up in the polls, though.

[whereisjustice]

90. "and much of it is quite deep pocketed." Fixed that for you.

[Agschmid]

135. DU is NOT representative of the actual Democratic Party... Not sure I agree with your assessment.

[stonecutter357]

144. K&R!

[wyldwolf]

26. Your reply has nothing to do with O'Malley's dumbass statement.

[demwing]

99. Burned a little, didn't it?

Truth is like a fire, it gives off light and heat.

[840high]

110. Heehee +10

[treestar]

33. Gee maybe if you

Repeat that enough, you can get some people to believe it

[StevieM]

66. I think millions of people, including many liberals, will vote for her because they like her,

they like her stances on the issues and they like the thought of her as president. You may not feel that way....but many others do, including many who are not satisfied for Wall Street to own Main Street.

[eridani]

106. They'll vote for her because they recognize the name and don't have a fucking clue--

--about her positions on issues.

[azureblue]

124. wrong again sparky

nt

[awake]

37. "a silly statement" if that was said about HRC her supports they would carpet bomb the poster

How about commenting about the substance of what he said, I believe that his statement will resinate with many Americans.

[wyldwolf]

42. I just did. He's obviously pandering to 'progressives.'

Everyone else knows we have a primary process to pick the nominee and then a general election to choose a president. If DU is to be believed, only 'progressives' think the presidency is a crown to be passed off.

[awake]

48. He said "that the presidency is not a "crown" and need not "be passed between two families...

..any two families." nothing that I heard suggested that only 'progressives' think that. I am sure most right wingers may think that as well.

[wyldwolf]

59. Regardless of who believes it, O'Malley is pandering to progressives who do

In the real world we know the primary and general election system in no way resembles passing a crown on to someone. Last I checked the constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility doesn't include what family you're from or how many in your family can run.

[awake]

65. Only in the same way Hillary "panders" to women or any candidate "panders" to their base.

Pandering to one could be seen as supporting the issues that another believes in. How about changeling him on the issues instead of call out names like "panderer" or just "silly" I am sure you can find something that members of this site would be concerned about in his style or record.

[wyldwolf]

70. Have the primaries or general been canceled? Do you think they will be?

Of course you don't. Your defense of O'Malley's statement is just bizarre. This has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with contributing to a false narrative.

[awake]

73. Please re-listen to the clip in the OP

He started talking about the need for "new leadership" which I do not find "bizarre" and as for the primaries or general being canceled goes I think just the opposite we may actually have a choice in our primary with O'Malley in it.

[wyldwolf]

75. I have. I know exactly what he said

Do you think no 'new leadership' means the presidency will be passed like crown with no primary or general election?

[awake]

79. :)

[awake]

82. ?

[awake]

84. You suggested my "defense of O'Malley's statement is just bizarre"

That was what I responded to and as you have already pointed out of course I don't think that the primaries or general been canceled so why ask if I believe that "the presidency will be passed like crown with no primary or general election?" instead of bringing up an issue that would disqualify O'Malley from becoming our candidate.

I have not decided which person I will support in the primaries yet but it is good to know that it looks like we might get some real choices to pick from.

[elleng]

142. 'We need new leadership.'

Pandering???

[snooper2]

154. be prepared for him to give you more of a sad as he starts beating clinton in State after State!

Just like the greatness that is Obama!

no bush no clinton

[bemildred]

10. New blood. Yeah. nt

[SheilaT]

15. Yes. Ever since November 6, 2012, when

people here immediately started swooning over having Hillary Clinton as the next candidate (or alternatively Joe Biden or John Kerry), that what we most needed was someone new.

Not only is the family dynasty a bad thing, if Hillary Clinton becomes our next President, we will essentially have Bill Clinton's third term happening. Now I happened to have felt that he was a pretty good President, but that was back two decades ago.

We also see the dynasty thing when people start daydreaming over Chelsea Clinton running, or the Obama daughters, as if none of them are capable of having their own independent lives. And remember what a disaster it was when Caroline Kennedy thought she'd try to get the Senate seat in New York? I'm sure she's a perfectly wonderful human being, but her political skills were non-existent.

I know I need to be taking a much closer look at O'Malley. But I'll say this right now: I hope he runs.

[Dragonfli]

29. Do you remember Graham4anything or whatever his name was?

He had the presidencies plotted for the next fifty years including all the kids with the names Clinton or Obama, I forget what year Chelsea was slated for, but I believe she was to be followed up by Malia.

He certainly epitomized the type of imaginings you describe in your post.

[SheilaT]

63. I don't recall him specifically,

but I recall more than one such prediction. Fortunately, many of them are tongue-in-cheek.

[ms liberty]

77. I do...LOL, haven't thought of them in a while! n/t

[Dragonfli]

95. Here is one of his typical posts (just for laughs)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2284894

the Barack Obama agenda. Forever. Hillary45. Michelle46 Chelsea 47. Sasha/Malia48/49

[demwing]

100. The worst political prognosticator ever!

If that DUer predicted it, you could bet your last dollar on the opposite.

[Dragonfli]

102. Funny to read tho

I loved the flavor of his word salads, even if the ingredients were predictable.

[choie]

130. yeah, what happened to that Duer?

n/t

[Dragonfli]

140. PPR'd I think a couple years ago. /nt

[treestar]

36. Baloney how sexist.

Bill will only be First Gent

[jeff47]

87. Bill and Hillary Clinton have similar political views.

"Third Bill Clinton term" does not literally mean he would be running the show. It means they have similar political ideas.

[treestar]

104. Then the economy will be good

And there won't be any wars. Maybe a few strikes where human rights violations are rampant, but it won't be needed to distract from the President's sexual peccadilloes.

[jeff47]

119. Only if there's another revolution in the wings.

The 90's boom was largely caused by massive investment in information technology by businesses, in order to reap the productivity gains. That kinda thing is really hard to repeat. You need another technological revolution in the wings.

[librechik]

17. I would vote for O'Malley n/t

[woo me with science]

18. Corporatism makes a mockery of democracy and transfer of power.

Corporatism is the ruling elite's answer to the problem of democracy replacing monarchy.

Democratic government was supposed to solve the problem of monarchy: the hoarding of wealth by a ruling elite over generations.

The goal of corporatism is to grow/transfer/redirect and SUSTAIN the wealth of this nation in the hands of a tiny, privileged elite, notwithstanding the propagandized illusion of democracy and transfer of power. It is the equivalent of monarchy, just wearing a slick democracy costume.

The Clintons and the Bushes are not the ruling elite, but they have close ties to it and are/will be handsomely rewarded for their service to it. They are not the dynasty itself (Think Rockefellers, Rothschilds...), but the corrupt, purchased political product of it; if we don't get a Clinton or a Bush, we get an Obama or a Romney. As long as our government is purchased by this fraction of the One Percent, there will always be more corrupt corporate-political puppets being groomed and waiting in the wings.

For their service in entrenching, legalizing, sustaining, and growing this monied corruption at the expense of the 99 percent, they and their children will never have to worry about anything for the rest of their lives.

[Thespian2]

56. Hello, Nail Head

here is the hammer! 100% agreement.

[zeemike]

78. +1

Could not say it better.

[Phlem]

105. yep.

Worse yet with all the dark money floating around I wouldn't doubt other countries "Investing" in our *Democracy*.

[840high]

111. ...^ that

[Dems to Win]

20. Kick for truthiness

[BlueMTexpat]

22. I believe that O'Malley handled his

interview very well. It's a real pleasure to see and hear someone who can string words together logically, which is not something we've seen from ANY GOPers.

Apart from that fairly generic comment, he did not rise the the consistent baiting Snuffo dangled. He chose his words well.

I believe that he will make an excellent President some day. Whether that day will come in 2016 is something yet to be seen.

But he is certainly helping to sway the dialogue to concerns that appeal to ordinary Americans. I also applaud anything that pulls Dems back to their traditional base and his words speak to that.

[FSogol]

109. I agree, handled well. O'Malley 2016!

[MineralMan]

23. In the United States, there is no crown. We have elections.

We'll have one again next year. Who becomes the next President will be decided by voters. May the best candidate win!

This is not a good strategy for O'Malley. He needs to campaign on his positions, not on some false monarchy argument. It won't work.

[Snotcicles]

28. I agree fringe players should bring it up. nt

[MineralMan]

32. And if that's the basis for their campaigns, they will

remain fringe players. The only way a candidate will beat Clinton in the primaries is with a positive campaign on issues. Only by contrasting their positions with Clinton do they have any hope. A substantive, issue-oriented approach is the only one that has any chance of working.

[treestar]

40. Yes. Hillary is not disqualified

Nor is anyone related to or married to a prior President

[MineralMan]

44. Exactly. She'll be running in the primaries, along with everyone else

who declares. The voters will decide. That's how we do it here. Some people seem to forget that. Maybe a lot of people actually want another Clinton in the White House. I'm betting that's the case. Bill Clinton still remains a popular former President. Very popular, actually. He will be a huge campaign asset if Hillary wins the primaries.

[GoneOffShore]

167. Hugely popular, unfortunately.

Because he was/is just another snake oil salesman from Arkansas.

As the saying goes, fool me once. NAFTA, DOMA, the list goes on.

And another Clinton in the White House? Please no.

[Reter]

51. A former governor up until 2015 is not fringe

n/t

[Snotcicles]

88. I was referring to staff or those not running for the position. nt

[donnasgirl]

30. Why is this not a good strategy for O'Malley?

[MineralMan]

39. Because it has nothing to do with the issues.

It's an ad hominem sort of campaign strategy, which will not take any candidate from 4% to enough votes to win the primaries. Not a chance. Hillary Clinton has many supporters. Changing their minds will required serious discussion of issues where they differ. Ignoring the fact that we elect Presidents, rather than crown them, is a poor way to campaign. People know that their votes are what chooses candidates in the primaries. They're not going to change their votes over some incorrect slogan.

[donnasgirl]

46. In my opinion

He is not going to use this as an overall strategy, he is just reminding people of the fact that the Clintons and the Bushes' have had their shot at the Golden ring. If people read news papers local and National and read the comment sections you will start to understand there is a movement of no more Dynasties and it doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican, People are fed up with the lack of choices and voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

[MineralMan]

49. Actually, I think you're incorrect.

You are fed up. If you look at Clinton's current poll results for the primaries and against various Republicans, I think you'l find that not everyone is fed up. It's always a mistake to assume that your opinion is shared by voters across the country. Unless you have evidence that is so, you'll most often be incorrect.

We elect our Presidents. First, we elect the candidates, and then we elect the winner. That is how it works. We do not live in a monarchy.

[donnasgirl]

53. I could very well be incorrect

But I do not think so.

[Major Hogwash]

128. No! You are wrong! Again! We, the people, do not elect our Presidents in the United States!

Not directly.

See "Electoral College" to find out who actually votes for the President of the United States.

[MineralMan]

149. I'm aware of the Electoral college, thanks.

It's fed by the voters in every state. We do vote for President.

[Major Hogwash]

159. No, George, you cast your vote for the Electoral College member who votes for the President.

They cast votes are for the Presidential candidates!!

The 2000 Presidential election wasn't that all that long ago.
Was it?

[MineralMan]

160. Well, see, I live in a state with fair, accurate elections.

The winner of the popular votes gets all the electoral votes from my state. So, my vote for President gets counted. If the candidate I vote for wins, he or she gets our electoral votes. That's where I live.

If you live in a state that has unfair elections, then that's another matter, altogether, isn't it? I'm afraid I can't help with that, really.

[Major Hogwash]

161. It's about the Electoral College process, George, not about fair, accurate elections.

We, the people, do NOT elect our President.
We, the people, cast votes to elect members of the Electoral College, who represent the state in which the voter lives, and they are the ones that actually cast votes for the Presidential candidates.
The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote.

The Constitutional crisis caused by Jeb Bush in the state of Florida in 2000 was solved by the Supreme Court stopping the seemingly endless recounting of the votes to decide who would represent Florida in the Electoral College.
In the last 3 days before the Electoral College was to meet, the Supreme Court stopped the counting, and told Florida they could certify their state's election results.
As time was running out, the Constitutional Crisis caused by Jeb Bush was averted.
The Electoral College meets on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President.

Link ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

[Agschmid]

136. Yup...

I like him, this made me like him LESS...

If he wants to win he should win on the issues not this.

[Snotcicles]

41. I think it would look like he is opting for low hanging fruit. I think he should got after

her positions on populist issues.

[FSogol]

114. That is one cherry-picked comment out of an entire interview

and doesn't really represent the issues O'Malley discussed. Blame the MSM for ignoring economic issues, not O'Malley. Watch the whole clip and you'll see I'm correct:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-martin-omalley-presidency-crown-passed-families/story?id=29988770

[MineralMan]

115. I'm not the one who posted it.

Maybe your comment should be directed at the OP.

[FSogol]

118. You said, "This is not a good strategy for O'Malley. He needs to campaign on his positions...

...not on some false monarchy argument. It won't work."

That is what I was responding to. He is campaigning on the issues and spent the interview discussing his positions as you would know if you watched the clip.

[MineralMan]

150. I'm writing about the OP, though.

It was about the "coronation" issue. There won't be enough people watching the entire clip to make any real difference. It's what goes in the media that most voters see, frankly. That's too bad, but it's the reality. We live in a sound-bite world. I deal only with realities, not the ideals of elections. Elections are won and lost based on those realities.

[FSogol]

152. Ok, but just because the MSM wants to lead with the divisive and unimportant, doesn't mean we

have to accept it. O'Malley said things of substance. You criticized O'Malley for the MSM's inaccurate portrayal and in doing so helped the media's portrayal. That's too bad. We can change the sound-bite world by refusing to aid the media's portrayal.

[MineralMan]

155. Personally, I evaluate candidates carefully before voting.

I wish everyone would. They don't. Since I'm involved in canvassing and other election activism, I see it all the time. I'm not able to convince people to dig deeply into candidates' positions. The best I can do is find out what issues an individual cares about and help them understand the candidate's position on that issue.

DU can't really change the sound-bite world, or its influence on the vast majority of voters. We can't. It's that simple. DU has many a couple thousand active readers of the site, and far fewer active posters. That's it. It's an interesting place to discuss politics, but useless in terms of influencing elections.

Sound-bites influence voters. Candidates should make their sound-bites count. So few people care about this "coronation" thing that it's not a useful issue in any way, in the larger picture.

[elleng]

24. THANKS for posting this, Ichingcarpenter!

[Snotcicles]

25. As strong an addiction as any other lifestyle. nt

[elleng]

27. More of this interview:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

117. Thanks for the clip, my dear elleng...I'm watching him closely. n/t

[elleng]

121. You're welcome, CalPeg.

Glad you're watching him.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Qualifications are not based on the fact of whether "crown" is passed or not, one has to have

the qualifications. Also, on the other side, having had someone in the same family does not make for a qualification.

[Historic NY]

35. Yeah so, I imagine people saying that about the Roosevelt,

Harrison, Adams, Madison & Taylor families....imagine the talk if the Kennedy's all succeeded.

[LittleBlue]

38. Glad he said something. Our political climate is starting to resemble a banana republic

Electing brothers, sons and spouses is how weak or non-existent democracies work.

[mylye2222]

55. The Unofficial United State Kingdom.

[bigtree]

45. more

"...it's not about being for or against any other candidate, it's about being for the national interests. We can become a strong country again with a strong economy that works for everyone again. But we have to put national interests ahead of special interests."

"And right now, it's not even a fair fight. It's as if Wall Street owns one party, and is trying to totally intimidate the other party. And we need to stand up and put the national interests first. If we do that, we can restore our economy."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-maryland-governor-martin-omalley/story?id=29953609&singlePage=true

[hedgehog]

68. Dayam! Speak it, brother!

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

[840high]

112. Yes!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

47. "America’s elite: An hereditary meritocracy"

Reminded me of this article.

I just want fresh blood, male or female. And as a former Marylander, I'm liking O'Malley more and more.

[antigop]

50. OMG! He went there. nt

[Zorra]

52. Interesting, time to dig deep to see if he is safe and for real. nt

[mylye2222]

54. K&R!!!!

The Clinton Team DU us expecting to come mock you and derail your OP in

5...4....3...
.2....
.

[BeyondGeography]

57. Omg, a Democrat actually threw a punch!

It's about time.

[awake]

60. And the great news is he is punching for the majority of Americans not just the 1%

Good to see a candidate with "governing" experience, check out what he has done in solving real problems. While some will find issues that they may disagree with over all he has accomplished a lot for his state, on balance a good recored he can run on.

[Ichingcarpenter]

64. lol........yep

and instantly brought out the usual crowd of silly negatve naysayers

[WorseBeforeBetter]

97. LOL Yes, so refreshing. (n/t)

[L0oniX]

58. Either stand with Wall Street or stand with the common people. You aren't going to do both anymore.

[Skidmore]

61. And neither is any legislator's office.

Part of the reason we have this mess is that we have a lazy citizenry.

[tomsaiditagain]

76. $$$ Hillary is the chosen one $$$

The Bilderberg's and the Rothschild's rule the world. Hillary is their puppet. Money is the game and after Hillary it will be a billionaire who is in the White House. Ya know, a corporate CEO of a big box company.

Bet?

[99Forever]

80. Yep.

And those that are scurrying to deny his words, are in for a rude awakening.

Enough is enough.

[rury]

81. O'Malley is right. I hope that somebody challenges Hillary.

She is not the only Democrat who is qualified to seek the presidency in 2016.
And she is certainly not my first choice.
That is not an endorsement of O'Malley but I would like to see a lively Democratic primary where candidates debate and compare and contrast positions on issues and their own records.
If Hillary has no opposition I will write somebody else in during the primaries and then hold my nose and vote against her Republikkkan opponent in the general election.

[Thinkingabout]

83. The only ones I read who is pushing the notion of Hillary is going to be the nominee

without a primary. What the hell, I am a Hillary backer, I am looking forward to a primary. Instead of running with somebody needs to challenge Hillary, get a candidate you would like to back and spend the time on developing that candidate to be in the primary. This is not Hillary's negative, she is ready for the primary. The primary provides an opportunity for the DNC to build their platform and get air time.

[Kammer]

86. Hillary is our best chance

O'Malley, Warren, Sanders or any other Democrat has the right to challenge Hillary in the primary and I haven't heard anyone say they didn't have that right.

However, if they do, they will force Hillary even more to the left. That presents an opportunity for the Republican nominee to pull more center voters to him/her. The reality is that the Democratic candidate will get 47% of the vote and the Republican candidate will get 47% of the vote; it is that remaining 6% who will decide the election, and I doubt those people are on this board. We need those 6% to be more left of center than right of center. The extreme right wing primary candidates in 2008 and 2012 pulled both McCain and Romney so far to the right, they couldn't recover in the general and it was a major reason President Obama is in office instead of one of them. It is my hope and belief that the nutty right wingers (yes I am talking about you, Ted) will force the entire Republican field to the right, helping the Democrats again.

2016 is a great opportunity for us because of demographics and timing (many more Republican senators up for reelection, many in blue leaning states) in retaking the Senate and maintaining the presidency. If we win in 2016, any opening on the Supreme Court from one of the 5 conservatives will result in a solid liberal leaning court for years to come.

This is especially important considering the slim to none chance of us retaking the House. We won't see than opportunity until we retake more statehouses and governorship's and can undo the gerrymandering in 2020 that the Republicans were so successful at in 2010.

Just my humble opinion. I will support Hillary with my vote, time and money.

[Mike Nelson]

85. Voters have the right to vote for the person they want...

...over the awful vote right-swiping Bush family.

[joeybee12]

89. He's right, it really sucked when Teddy was president and then FDR...

Knee jerk soundbite bound to get applause from Clinton-haters

[whereisjustice]

91. NAFTA sucked, banking deregulation sucked, Iraq war sucked, welfare reform sucked...

it runs in Bush/Clinton family.

Clinton is no FDR. If FDR is your vantage point, Clinton and Bush might as well be co-joined twins.

[elleng]

126. and if that's ALL the msm wants to spread around,

that's all the public, 'haters' or not, will here.

However, there is MUCH more to what he said than that.

[AzDar]

92. Ayup.

[whatchamacallit]

93. And people don't understand why the status quo prevails

Again and again...

[allforone]

94. I fucking love this

[WorseBeforeBetter]

96. This might resonate with the Malleable Middle.

Those who see no differences between the two major parties and sit out elections. If they're dissatisfied, I doubt they'd be inspired by yet another Clinton or Bush... they want fresh blood. Didn't Maryland lead in post-recession recovery? Hammer that home, O'Malley -- jobs and the economy.

[tomm2thumbs]

101. www.OMalleyWarren.com is already taken

hmmmmm

[imthevicar]

108. Silly Man!

Of Course it is! And Just in case their are any Genius's here.

[appalachiablue]

113. J. CASTRO 2016 has to be on the ticket, he's highly qualified & is a fresh face.

Adding him as VP to O'Malley or Clinton will excite voters across the board. It's essential. I like what I'm seeing of O'Malley. East and West, Irish and Spanish, that would be a great combo, a 1st too-

[YoungDemCA]

116. Last I checked, no one was forcing anyone to vote for HRC

You are free to vote for whichever candidate you want to.

That being said: As far as Democrats who oppose the very thought of her candidacy-I don't understand why some posters here are trying to pretend that a vocal minority is a "silent majority."

The More-Progressive-Than-Thou bickering over potential or hypothetical Democratic presidential candidates is rather tiresome.

[morningfog]

148. We won't get the option to vote for potential candidates

squashed by Clinton money from even running.

[pscot]

125. Tru dat!

[Major Hogwash]

129. This thread should have 100s of recommendations!!!!!

Who can disagree with this:

Well I think that our country always benefits from new leadership and new perspectives.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

131. Gee Wizzz

Will the media be informed king maker is no longer excepted as a politically correct term should he win it ! Than there's emperor with no cloths. Some crown ,? George Washington delt with the crown issue a very long time ago.

If thats the best he's got ,it ain't good enough.

[Agschmid]

132. I wish if he was going to attack he'd do it on issues...

This isn't really a valid argument IMO.

There are a whole lot of other things Hillary isn't doing right so it's not like he is lacking on issues to differentiate on.

[liberal_at_heart]

137. I always find it bizarre when people suggest that Michelle should be President. And then of

course there is always speculation about what the Obama daughters will do when they are grown. There are also those who would love to see Chelsea run. People fall in love with politicians. Just look at the Kennedys. Conservatives fell in love with Reagan and Bush, the Democrats seem to be head over heels in love with both the Clintons and the Obamas. I don't vote based on a warm and fuzzy feeling a politician gives me. I vote on whether or not they will fight for living wages, education, unions, SS, SSDI, WIC, food stamps, and other real life impacting issues.

[GoneOffShore]

166. Bingo!

We don't need political dynasties.
We need people dedicated to moving the country forward - increasing equality, guaranteeing equal rights for all, preserving the whatever is left of the "American Dream™", and keeping us from heading down a road to serfdom to corporations.
Mrs Clinton is not our only and best hope. In fact, if elected, she will be handicapped by the same folks who have stalled President Obama's agenda.
I wish that there were better candidates other than Mrs Clinton. I'll vote for her, but I'm not going to be happy with that vote, because I fear that her agenda will align with the that of the monied interests and the oligarchs (a group which she seems eager to join).

[aquart]

138. Dontcha love those old, so so familiar talking points?

Like he swiped them out of Karl Rove's trash.

[RiverLover]

146. Another reason she shouldn't run. Its old. We need a new direction forward.

Not backwards.

[cheapdate]

151. O'Malley's remarks in the OP are completely irrelevant.

He doesn't provide any answer to the question of why he would make the best president, what would he do as president, etc. He simply provides some information about Hillary's husband and Jeb's father, which we already knew. O'Malley sounds like any other politician.

[FSogol]

153. BS, watch the entire clip. He makes the case for his candidacy. n/t

[mstinamotorcity2]

162. Can't say I disagree with the statement.

I believe to get the best or worst from any candidate is a healthy primary with challengers.

[hifiguy]

163. It is long past time that someone who can attract national attension

said this in public. My regard for O'Malley just went up several notches, and I liked him to begin with.