President Hillary Clinton? If she wants it

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/opinion/rothkopf-hillary-clinton/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

515645205.jpg
 
I don't think everyone on the left really supports Hillary in that role. If she couldn't do last time, she won't do it next time
 
Sorry to sound morbid, but I don't know if Hillary is going to be with us in 2016.

Normally, the person to follow a two-term president, is his two-term VP, isn't it?

Why aren't we seeing the pinhead excitement over Biden 2016?
 
There are a LOT of Dems who fanatically hate Hillary. I knew some of them in college, and they were really worried that she might get nominated in 2008. That's not to say she can't get nominated with the base she does have, and subsequently get elected, but these people are still out there, and they still buy into the "Hillary is evil" line.
 
Dixie said:
Sorry to sound morbid, but I don't know if Hillary is going to be with us in 2016.

Normally, the person to follow a two-term president, is his two-term VP, isn't it?

Why aren't we seeing the pinhead excitement over Biden 2016?
Click to expand...

Normally? Really? Ok, so Bush Sr. did.... Bush Jr., followed Clinton... Id say normally Bush follows a two term president, but that aint going to happen again, is it?
 
tinfoil said:
I don't think everyone on the left really supports Hillary in that role. If she couldn't do last time, she won't do it next time
Click to expand...

I voted for Hilary as did the state I live in.

The problem was voting for Obama was even more progressive than voting for Hilary.
 
Threedee said:
There are a LOT of Dems who fanatically hate Hillary. I knew some of them in college, and they were really worried that she might get nominated in 2008. That's not to say she can't get nominated with the base she does have, and subsequently get elected, but these people are still out there, and they still buy into the "Hillary is evil" line.
Click to expand...

I never understood the fanatical hate from Dems.

Btw, Threedee, if you ever set foot in PA you better watch your back.
roteirista_de_lanterna_verde_e_escalado_para_filme_da_mulher_maravilha_noticias_mais_acao.jpg
I noted how you changed my SN on another post to that of the Unspeakables.
 
Jarod said:
Normally? Really? Ok, so Bush Sr. did.... Bush Jr., followed Clinton... Id say normally Bush follows a two term president, but that aint going to happen again, is it?
Click to expand...

Well, Bush Sr. VP was Dan Quayle, but Sr. only served one term. Clinton's VP won the Dem nomination and ran a close race with Bush Jr., some say he actually won. Reagan's VP was Bush Sr., we all know that one. Bush Jr.s VP was Dick Cheney, who was doing well to make it through two terms, he wasn't in any physical shape to run. Nixon was another former 2-term VP to run. So I think there is a precedent. Just seems to me like Biden would be the logical choice to succeed Obama. Come on now, Democrats! You can't deprive us of a Biden 2016 campaign, can you?
 
Hillary can't fool people into thinking she is antiwar, supports civil liberties or is not in the pocket of the rich the way Obama can/could. If the Democrats drop all pretense on those issues and embrace big government fascism maybe she can win the nomination. The GOP looks pretty dysfunctional and whoever is nominated by the Democrats might win but there might be a better Republican class next time too.

I think Cory Booker would be great. He'd really piss off the racists. It would really make them squirm.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Hillary can't fool people into thinking she is antiwar, supports civil liberties or is not in the pocket of the rich the way Obama can/could.
Click to expand...
>Implying that matters to Democrats when talking about Democrat candidates
If the Democrats drop all pretense on those issues and embrace big government fascism maybe she can win the nomination.
Click to expand...
>Implying the reelection of Obama didn't cement this as Democrat policy.
The GOP looks pretty dysfunctional and whoever is nominated by the Democrats might win
Click to expand...
>Implying 40% of voters would vote against their party of choice, regardless of candidate.

>Implying implications
>ISHYGDDT

1300044776986.jpg
 
Sinn Fein said:
>Implying that matters to Democrats when talking about Democrat candidates

>Implying the reelection of Obama didn't cement this as Democrat policy.

>Implying 40% of voters would vote against their party of choice, regardless of candidate.

>Implying implications
>ISHYGDDT

1300044776986.jpg
Click to expand...

On the first two points, it matters to them during the primaries.

On your third point I don't know what you mean by saying I am implying they would vote against their party or even who "they" are. No. The Republicans seem to be hell bent on scaring off any and all independents by appealing to fundamentalist psychos and racists. As long as they continue that they are doomed.
 
Sinn Fein said:
>Implying that matters to Democrats when talking about Democrat candidates

>Implying the reelection of Obama didn't cement this as Democrat policy.

>Implying 40% of voters would vote against their party of choice, regardless of candidate.

>Implying implications
>ISHYGDDT

1300044776986.jpg
Click to expand...

your font color is awesome

that is all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top