Lefties desperately searching for reasons not to nominate Hillary

posted at 7:21 pm on February 12, 2014 by Allahpundit

No judgment here. I remember a lot of long, bleak nights in 2010 spent trying to talk myself into believing that the GOP would never nominate a candidate whose state health-care initiative paved the way for ObamaCare. Sure, he was next in line and would outspend all his opponents and had a business resume that might prove attractive in a battered economy. But there were lots of ways to stop him. Weren’t there?

If Hillary wants the nomination, nothing’s going to stop her. And the worse Obama’s second term gets, the fewer Democrats there’ll be who are willing to forfeit her electoral advantages in order to roll the dice on a purer liberal like Elizabeth Warren with one-tenth the name recognition of the Clintons and one-thousandth the fundraising potential. There’s a cold calculation coming, just as there was for Romney: At the end of the day, who’s most likely to help us win power? Lay aside what he or she might do with that power. At a bare minimum, no matter how bad it gets, at least we’ll be keeping the ball away from the other team.

They’ll come around. Kubler-Ross is a process, after all. But for now, we’re in the early stages. Via Mediaite, watch below as Krystal Ball wonders whether Hillary should skip 2016 because she’s not blue-collar enough. I’m thinking union members will be okay with her, especially once she starts pandering on income inequality Warren-style and especially if her opponent’s Scott Walker. Or read this from National Journal, lamenting that Hillary’s sucking up political oxygen that rightfully belongs to the party’s up-and-comers. Question: Should the most formidable Democratic candidate in America step aside so that no-name losers like Martin O’Malley can take their rightful place at the head of the crowd?

By 2016, it will have been eight years since Democrats have had a contested primary, and if Clinton is effectively anointed the nominee and wins the presidency (still two big ifs), it will have been 16 years by the 2024 cycle. That’s a long time without the incubation chamber for national leaders that primaries provide. A run, or even the anticipation thereof, draws media attention and voters’ interest, boosting the potential candidate’s national profile.

Republicans have developed a farm team of up-and-coming elected officials considering presidential bids. Just look at leaders in their 40s who, if not candidates themselves, can at least serve as national surrogates for the party. In the Congress there’s Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, along with 2012 vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan. In the statehouses, there’s Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Most have positioned themselves as part of a new generation of reformers.

The story is very different for Democrats. There are just two well-known potential 2016 candidates in their 40s: New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Ask Democratic strategists for examples of other younger up-and-comers, and you’ll hear names like Julian and Joaquin Castro, the congressman and San Antonio mayor, respectively. And California Attorney General Kamala Harris is always touted, despite her limited political experience.

That’s not only the fault of Clinton’s shadow. The 2010 Republican wave wiped out many Democratic officeholders, including many governors, which are traditionally the primary pool of presidential contenders.

Kirsten Gillibrand versus Scott Walker? I’ll take those odds. Hillary and Bill Clinton versus Scott Walker? I’m less eager to bet. Besides, if lefties are worried about their ticket being insufficiently diverse (with the would-be first woman president at the top of the ticket?), they can take comfort in the fact that Cory Booker’s almost certainly going to be their VP nominee. Doesn’t matter who they end up nominating for president. Democrats are deathly afraid that increased turnout among minority voters for Obama’s two elections will dissipate once he’s out of politics. If the “Obama coalition” falls apart, they’re in trouble — although Hillary, probably uniquely among Dems, might be able to make up the shortfall with increased support from women. Regardless, Booker, who’ll have spent roughly as much time in the Senate by 2016 as Obama had in 2008, is one way to hedge against that.

Exit question: How soon will it be before lefties seize on Hillary’s ruthlessness as a new reason to block her? Bridgegate is an easy peg for a pretext like that. E.g., “How can we criticize Chris Christie for bullying when we’re poised to re-nominate a couple who keep an enemies’ list?” Needless to say, the nanosecond her nomination is assured, they’ll get over it.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How could the REB campaign for anyone else? He’s not capable of talking about anyone but himself. If he endorses Hillary, HE will be the one called an ‘Uncle Tom’ in the black community.

He also can’t share the stage with Bill, because Bill makes Barry look so small and helpless without his telepromptered speech at the ready.

Remember the accidental sharing of the podium with Bill, when Barry realized he had to get out of there fast? He NEVER again will put himself in that position.

slickwillie2001 on February 12, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Maybe Julia will run.

Or how about Washerwoman-Schlitz?

onlineanalyst on February 12, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Corey Booker 2016. Wait for it

Key West Reader on February 12, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Corey Booker 2016. Wait for it

Key West Reader on February 12, 2014 at 8:25 PM

That’s the smart money.

Lanceman on February 12, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Really Allah? Then just exactly what the hell happened in 2008?

Hillary! got her “3am phone call”.

She FAILED!

GarandFan on February 12, 2014 at 7:46 PM

She really got her 3 AM phone call at about 10 PM on September 11, 2012 (the night of the attack on the Benghazi consulate) and failed miserably. Republicans need to remind the electorate of that, as well as the “reset button” and the Arab Spring disasters and her propping up a dictator in Honduras, all under her watch.

By the time 2016 rolls around, Hillary Clinton will be 69 years old, out of office for 4 years, out of elected office for 8 years (she left the Senate in 2008), with a failed tenure as Secretary of State, and the gay ’90′s will be a distant memory, or before some younger voters were even born. What has she actually done with her life, besides marry a President?

Steve Z on February 12, 2014 at 8:29 PM

A few problems with that theory. First, Joe Biden running would cause a major headache for Obama. How can he be out there campaigning for Hillary against his own VP who for all his faults(and God knows he has many) has been a loyal foot soldier for this regime? Second, who in their right mind would actually want Obama on the campaign trail come 2016? Nobody wants him around right now heading into the midterms. You think another 3 years of this disaster will help his reputation? Third, I have a sneaking suspicion that dismantling the Obama “legacy” as you call it will not only be a part of the Republican platform in 2016, but more than a few Democrats seeking the nomination. Obamacare will only get less popular over time. His handling of the economy will be a major issue in that campaign. And US foreign policy is a mess.

Doughboy on February 12, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Yes, another problem, -Joe knows where the bodies are buried in Benghazi. He can rip the heart out of any claim of competence that Hillary might make.

slickwillie2001 on February 12, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Not to mention shrill and less charismatic than a brick wall.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 7:34 PM

If you look back at every presidential election since the TV era, you can make the case that no candidate with significantly less charisma than their opponent has won the election. That’s a big reason why Democrats are pushing the “War on Women” talking point so much.

midgeorgian on February 12, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Wow. You are in denial.

terryannonline on February 12, 2014 at 8:18 PM

I heard this before, when I said Obama would trounce Romney to my conservative friends.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 8:38 PM

he really got her 3 AM phone call at about 10 PM on September 11, 2012 (the night of the attack on the Benghazi consulate) and failed miserably. Republicans need to remind the electorate of that,
Steve Z on February 12, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Yes, another problem, -Joe knows where the bodies are buried in Benghazi. He can rip the heart out of any claim of competence that Hillary might make.

slickwillie2001 on February 12, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Let me fill you in. None other than General David Petraeus has endorsed Hillary and praised her handling of Benghazi.

In a new book he is quoted lavishing so much praise on Hillary Clinton, he seems to be endorsing her as a candidate for President.“She’d make a tremendous president,” Petraeus says in the new book “HRC” by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes. “Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times,” Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes. “In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/did-david-petraeus-endorse-hillary-clinton/article/2543781

Independents and suburban moms will love this vote of confidence from General Petraeus who once was Republican presidential hopeful.

GOP House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon gives clean chit to Hillary and Obama Administration on Benghazi. There is a new Armed Services Committee report out yesterday:

V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.

VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.

“Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Benghazi is only an issue for the hardest of hard core right.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Corey Booker 2016. Wait for it

Key West Reader on February 12, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Since we now know that blatantly lying to the people is not a show stopper to the electorate, that’s a real possibility.

John Deaux on February 12, 2014 at 8:40 PM

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 8:38 PM

HAHAHAHA…that’s funny right there, you have conservative friends…HAHAHAHA

BeachBum on February 12, 2014 at 8:41 PM

I want to hear Hillary say in her black voice ‘What difference does it make?’.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 8:43 PM

It’ll be time to hit the links 7 days a week and write his memoirs. We’re talking about a very lazy individual who’s not going to invest that kind of energy into holding someone else up. He’s not going to care at that point about what happens to his legacy. He got the brass ring and he’ll make his millions in retirement. Remaking America is just a pastime till something better comes along.

Bitter Clinger on February 12, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Hilarious to read the comments and know some people actually believe Dear Leader will actually be campaigning for Hillary. He’s radioactive now.

If the economy gets worse or crashes, he’ll be at 30 percent.

cat_owner on February 12, 2014 at 8:15 PM

you guys better be right on this……….

8 weight on February 12, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I heard this before, when I said Obama would trounce Romney to my conservative friends.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 8:38 PM

And you also thought Bush would lose his two races.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 8:47 PM

I heard this before, when I said Obama would trounce Romney to my conservative friends.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Do you have pride?

and if you say yes..

Can you tell me what pride means?

Electrongod on February 12, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Republicans simply do not have that kind of star power and star campaigners. SNIP
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is basking in glory with 64% approval rating even after impeachment.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Yes we do, two of them: Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Yes, Trump.

I think he’s the only rocker we have against Hitlary.

Who is John Galt on February 12, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I think he’s the only rocker we have against Hitlary.

Who is John Galt on February 12, 2014 at 8:48 PM

He [Trump] endorsed Hillary prior to 2008.

Lanceman on February 12, 2014 at 8:51 PM

She really is too old.

stenwin77 on February 12, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Deep Thoughts…..

Amnesty gets done, one way or another.
The GOPe – useless; the Conservatives – too few, for now…
O has made it abundantly clear what he really wants.
Michelle gets nominated; the trifecta of “firsts”, meaning O essentially gets 4 more, maybe 8…..

Anyone think it couldn’t happen?

fresh air on February 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM

It is as if George W. Bush presidency never happened.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton blah bah blah

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 7:54 PM

.
Man, the Sanctimonious Sock Puppet sounds so confident! I laughed out loud at this and then I read this:

Oh, yeah if it was so easy for a black guy to win the presidency, how come we have not had 2, 3, 4 black presidents by now?

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM

.
… to which I referred in my Legendary Memory to Joe Biden the Democrat and Perennial Presidential Punching Bag, who said “… clean and articulate …” So that’s the answer to number two (which is a really good summary of all this Might_Is_Right Super-Rooster imitation).
.
The answer to number one is that Barry the Ø is George W. Bush on steroids beginning with drone strikes dealt by card hand, followed by NSA expansion that would make Putin envious and followed close on by the ineptitude of “leading with my behind” in foreign policy. I haven’t even mentioned unilateral law changes, EO edicts that have run non-stop from day one, and use of the IRS to pummel conservative groups in a manner that would make Nixon blush, lying to everybody for the sake of lying because “might need to lie” and spending to make sure that “e’rybody knows I be president.”
.
Yeah, I’m gonna love hammering Democrats beginning whenever the election crapola starts… I’m gonna own my own personal Democrat (not literally, of course, just figuratively)!

ExpressoBold on February 12, 2014 at 9:00 PM

I heard this before, when I said Obama would trounce Romney to my conservative friends.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 8:38 PM

1) Hillary is not Obama

2) I think Rubio will likely get the nomination and he is not Romney.

3) It is hard for a party to win three presidential elections in a row.

terryannonline on February 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Barack Obama may not be running but you can bet that he will campaign for Hillary if she wins the nomination. And so will Michelle.

Might_Is_Right

I hope he does, lol.

Oh, yeah if it was so easy for a black guy to win the presidency, how come we have not had 2, 3, 4 black presidents by now?

Might_Is_Right

Because they actually have to run first. Kind of hard to elect a black person if they don’t bother to get in the race. What have there been, 5-6 blacks that have bothered to run over the last 40 years? And most of those were nuts like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, lol.

xblade on February 12, 2014 at 9:06 PM

There can only be one Obama…now bend over…

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Benghazi is only an issue for the hardest of hard core right.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Only a fringe issue? Here’s a poll that shows that 60% of the public holds Hillary responsible for Benghazi. There is also polling that shows the majority of Americans want a select committee to investigate Benghazi.

TarheelBen on February 12, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Barack Obama won 357 Electoral Votes in 2008 and 330 Electoral Votes in 2012.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM

He also increased his share of the high school dropout vote from 70% in 2008 to 80% in 2012, and also lost the college graduate vote in 2012.

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 9:10 PM

He [Trump] endorsed Hillary prior to 2008.

Lanceman on February 12, 2014 at 8:51 PM

He’s still the only “media-famous” type we have. And “media-famous” seems to be the new Competency, “trump”-ing all.

We elect rockstars now, not Competent Managers. But Trump is BOTH!

“You’re Fired!!” EPA, HHS, NEA…..skinny the Feds down to proper size…”You’re Fired!”

Don’t Tread On Me!

Who is John Galt on February 12, 2014 at 9:11 PM

terryannonline on February 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Bless your heart.

Key West Reader on February 12, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Lefties desperately searching for reasons not to nominate Hillary

I’d be happy to offer some of mine…..

But then, I guess the left doesn’t really care about little things like integrity and competence.

Sooooo, not much point.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 12, 2014 at 9:13 PM

terryannonline on February 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Bless your heart.

Key West Reader on February 12, 2014 at 9:12 PM

BTW, that was my best Cindy Munford impression.. Just sayin’.

Key West Reader on February 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

And you also thought Bush would lose his two races.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Well Majority of Americans didn’t vote for Bush the first time around.

Let’s not brush over that.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

It takes some serious talent when you are a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama with a name that sounds like the world’s most dreaded terrorist Osama to win the presidency.

People say flippanty it was easy for him to win because he was black.

Oh, yeah if it was so easy for a black guy to win the presidency, how come we have not had 2, 3, 4 black presidents by now?

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Wow, you really are obsessed with the B word. Tell us again what race your Cult Leader’s Mom was, and we’ll stop laughing at you.

To answer your last question, name all of the previous black candidates for President (hint: not many) in the modern era, and we’ll move up (or down) the food chain from there.

And remember, in 2012 the Racist Republicans ran a qualified black candidate for President. Your “tolerant” Democrats took him out for the same “crime” they gave Bill Clinton a pass for. How Victorian of those Prudes!

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Well Majority of Americans didn’t vote for Bush the first time around.

Let’s not brush over that.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Bush governed like a quasi-patriotic democrat, yet you radical leftist lunatics, whom damn near nobody agrees with, keep trying to change history.

It cray cray

You feelin’ me?

Murphy9 on February 12, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Barack Obama will do everything to ensure Hillary or any other Democrat wins because ONLY a Democrat win in 2016 will preserve his legacy.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:06 PM

He got bin Laden, right?

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 9:20 PM

LOL! Looks like you are still cheering for President McCain and President Romney in your fantasy world.

Actually, I was a die-hard Hillary supporter in 2008.

myiq2xu on February 12, 2014 at 9:21 PM

BTW, that was my best Cindy Munford impression.. Just sayin’.

Key West Reader on February 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Alright.

terryannonline on February 12, 2014 at 9:24 PM

One “slow jam” with Jimmy Fallon, a few more $200,000 speeches, a screeching promise to institute Socialized medicine, and a new pantsuit made from Hemp and she’ll be back in the commies good graces.

StubbornGreenBurros on February 12, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Benghazi is only an issue for the hardest of hard core right.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Which is why she called it her “greatest regret” as Secretary of State.

You’re great entertainment.

F+

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Regardless of how the libtards try to paint our economy and state of freedoms in this country as rosy, they aren’t, and things are going to get much worse pretty soon. So much so that I ALMOST wish conservatives would back off from taking the senate and presidency because they aren’t going to be able to fix things in 4 or 8 years.

The lack of progress or solution to the problems is just going to be more fuel to get more libtard progressive socialists in for another stretch to finish us off. If conservatives wait till it bottoms with hands off style, there can be only one party to blame.

Yes, it’s more complicated than that, but face it, the electorate is a shambles of sheepish idiots at this point. Not enough have suffered severely enough to realize what’s been lost.

I’m wondering at this point what the answer will be….a super star conservative that can unite and fix the problems, steamrolling and marginalizing the libtards on a generational basis, or letting it all burn and try to pick up the pieces after the next world war and revolution in what’s left of the USA.

I’m stocking up on precious metals, MREs, and ammo, but I’ll still be praying for the best.

Diluculo on February 12, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Well Majority of Americans didn’t vote for Bush the first time around.

Let’s not brush over that.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

First of all, the national popular vote does not determine the outcome of Presidential elections. The electoral vote does, although it is based on the number of popular votes. Your Democrats hate this Electoral College system, because they think it’s irrelevant.

Your second problem is that Bush only lost the 2000 national popular vote by about 500,000 votes. That is a margin of only one half of one percent.

The automatic trigger for the 2000 Florida automatic election machine recount was one half of one percent.
Which means that if the popular vote standard was applied nationally, the race ended a draw.

Your third problem is that your candidate was so horrible that he was rejected by the voters of his own home state. Had he won Tennessee, he would never have needed Florida’s electoral votes to become President (and inherit 9/11).

Your fourth problem is that the majority of Gore’s legal challenges in Florida were rejected by Democrat Judges.

Your fifth problem is that in the 3 rulings made by SCOTUS in the Bush-Gore dispute, they sided with Bush by an aggregate total of 21-5.

Your sixth problem is that when your Democrat Media rushed down to Florida to recount the votes to prove that Bush really lost, they found that in all but a few ridiculously narrow recounting standards scenarios, Gore lost every time. The only times he one in their recounts was under recount scenarios that were not considered remotely viable, and standards which Gore himself had never asked to be used.

GORE-

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Well Majority of Americans didn’t vote for Bush the first time around.

Let’s not brush over that.

liberalrules on February 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

So if a football team has more yards than another team they win the game? You seem to want to re-write the rules.

But thanks for admitting I proved you full of shite.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Perfect nic for a statist ahole.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 12, 2014 at 9:44 PM

The Rs will have two white men on the ticket and the D’s will have Clinton/ Booker or Clinton/ Castro.

She’ll successfully run Way from Dear LEader, and the MSM will be in overdrive helping the first woman to become President.

It won’t be close. Sad to say, but that’s my guess. It will be even worse if Rs are stupid enough to nominate another squishy RINO.

cat_owner on February 12, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Benghazi is only an issue for the hardest of hard core right.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Which is why she called it her “greatest regret” as Secretary of State.

You’re great entertainment.

F+

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Of course, she regrets that her friend Chris Stevens died in a CIA operation gone bad. When the right attacks her, she will throw General David Petraeus and Sec Def Bob Gates endorsment in their faces.

You think you are a better patriot than David Petraeus?

Or are you now with Moveon.org and will call him General Betray-us because he has given Hillary a clean chit on Benghazi?

Ha!

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Too many new trolls, not into the sparring. See y’all in a few months.

“Trump ’16! Hitlary go to he77!”

Don’t tread on me!

Who is John Galt on February 12, 2014 at 10:05 PM

Maybe the dems should run someone who has signed up for Obamacare, quit their job to pursue their passion, collects food stamps and unemployment, those are the qualities they’ve been praising, why not make someone who lives their agenda their nominee instead of a rich fat cat who charges $400 g’s for a speech?

scalleywag

I love this idea! I watch a lot of old movies, and in the heyday of Hollywood there came out any number of comedies on the premise that some ordinary guy somehow gets into office/a campaign/a publicity stunt and suddenly, attracts all kinds of support. These tales could occasionally lay the wood to thinly disguised public figures or causes of the day, or at least satirical stereotypes.

Such a fictional candidacy could be a great storyline in a movie that while entertaining, could point out and illustrate the folly of these policies to a wider public. So why not make “someone who lives their agenda” the lead role, and show the public what’s wrong with the progressive way?

ugottabekiddingme on February 12, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Booker has no reason to settle for the number two spot in 2016. What Obama accomplished in 2008 verses the Clinton Machine redefined the parameters of the possible.

African-Americans are the most powerful voting bloc in the Democrat primaries and now that they know it is possible for a black man to be elected President they will not hesitate to throw their considerable support behind a Booker.

All Booker has to do is declare and he has it. What’s more, he’ll be exempt from any meaningful attacks in the primaries because his opponents will know that if they go after him too hard blacks will sit out the General Election in protest. And without the black vote, a Democrat would have a hard time getting elected dog catcher.

If the Clinton Machine is as Machiavellian as we’re led to believe she would offer Booker the VP spot right now, providing he doesn’t run against her.

Lamont Cranston on February 12, 2014 at 10:38 PM

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 9:55 PM

In the exact transcript of her remarks, she never accepts responsibility or takes any blame for her failure as Secretary of State to provide additional security to that outpost, despite repeated requests from the soon-to-be-murdered Ambassador to do so.

That alone is a direct violation of her oath of office (even as a “US Senator” she had to take that oath) and is thus a prosecutable offense.

You must be so proud of her.

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 10:38 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 12, 2014 at 10:38 PM

It was CIA operation gone bad.

Not the first time an Ambassador was killed or a CIA operation had gone bad and it certainly won’t be the last

All Americans serving abroad are at a risk all the time and the risk cannot be eliminated.

George W. Bush violated his oath too when he ignored the memo ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside US’ and allowed 3,000 Americans to be killed on 9/11 and failed to protect and defend the USA and its citizens. And yet, he was elected again in 2004.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 11:00 PM

All that Hillary has to do is to promise continuation of freechealth cacare \ keep the borders open \ continue free stuff\ make gay marriage the law of the land & other far left liberal agenda & she’ll be elected.

RightWingConservative on February 12, 2014 at 11:34 PM

*free healthcare*

RightWingConservative on February 12, 2014 at 11:35 PM

Wish that either Allen West or even Herman Cain would run for the presidency in 2016 against any far left liberal democrat nutjob.

RightWingConservative on February 12, 2014 at 11:41 PM

How quickly people forget that both Hillary and Bill ran their Sluts and Nuts defense in order to keep Cigarman in office, thus the inning of the Democrat Party War on Women.

Anyone who can’t make political hay of that needs to move back in with their mama.

DannoJyd on February 12, 2014 at 11:48 PM

BEGinning….

What the heck is wrong with this web site? It causes my pc to lock up, loses my letters after I type them, and it is dead dog S-L-O-W!

No wonder so many stopped trying to post here.

DannoJyd on February 12, 2014 at 11:52 PM

The wingers don’t run anything in the Republicans. They like to say they do. They like to think they do. They do not. Just look at the POTUS nominees. just look at the issues on the table. No socons anywhere. They have a zero chance in the primaries, no matter who they are.

For the Democrats, wingers run the show. Their version of religion, political correctness, runs everything they do. They also despise the Clintons and there is no way they will just let ol’ Hill just walk through the primaries. They will take her out just like they did in 2008.

It will be very interesting to see how they react if Clinton doesn’t run. They are getting all fired up to take her out in the name of continuing the Obama Change. If Clinton isn’t around their enthusiasm probably goes way down.

Moesart on February 12, 2014 at 11:52 PM

Can this country really put Hillary Clinton in charge for four years? She would be our Putin.

Techster64 on February 13, 2014 at 12:27 AM

George W. Bush violated his oath too when he ignored the memo ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside US’ and allowed 3,000 Americans to be killed on 9/11 and failed to protect and defend the USA and its citizens. And yet, he was elected again in 2004.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 11:00 PM

You talking about the PDB that referred to the 70+ agencies trying to verify and identify the threat and when and where it might occur? That one? If only Bush had assigned the 71st gov’t agency it all could have been prevented. LOL, Get some new talking points..progtard.

HumpBot Salvation on February 13, 2014 at 12:40 AM

Hillary will run strong, based on her galactic ego, but Obots will not want her to sour their progressive legacy – she is not a progressive, just a good old-fasioned corrupto-crat. The base will not turn out for that – on the other hand, America has had enough of disastrous leftist meddling with their personal healthcare.

Hillary vs Warren vs Biden vs Van Jones. All great choices!

virgo on February 13, 2014 at 1:05 AM

George W. Bush violated his oath too when he ignored the memo ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside US’ and allowed 3,000 Americans to be killed on 9/11 and failed to protect and defend the USA and its citizens. And yet, he was elected again in 2004.

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 11:00 PM

First of all, he inherited those attacks from (Democrat) Bill Clinton. After the attacks took place, bin Laden said he wanted them to take place before Clinton left office, because he had personally declared Fatwah against said Bill Clinton in 1996, mentioning him by name several times in that document. He never mentioned Bush once.

Second of all, you can’t tell us how Bush could have prevented those attacks, in a manner that your Party would approve of. Please do so.

Third, please tell us why Clinton’s National Security Director felt the need after 9/11 to steal and destroy classified documents from the National Archives that implicated Bill + Hill’s failure to let intelligence agencies do their job, other than spying on their political opponents of course.

Dance, Scarecrow!

Z———-

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2014 at 1:17 AM

Hillary’s history will be her down fall. The media can make up all the fairy tales it wants and the public now knows the fraudulent media and anyone with a lick of sense will think before backing her. She cursed and screamed too much while she thought she was half the President and the way she treated the employees of the White House sealed her fate.

mixplix on February 13, 2014 at 5:29 AM

Liberals hate Hillary the same way Tea Party folks hate Chris Christie- big government, beholding to the Banks/Wall St.
The activists of both parties hate squishes. And they hate having the media brainwashing them into believing these two are inevitable. They’re starting very early, this time.

Nape-wa-ste on February 13, 2014 at 7:49 AM

She (Hillary) cursed and screamed too much while she thought she was half the President and the way she treated the employees of the White House sealed her fate.

mixplix on February 13, 2014 at 5:29 AM

I’ve read the Secret Service had to suffer her prima donna antics as first lady. A real beotch on wheels.

Nape-wa-ste on February 13, 2014 at 7:53 AM

I’ve never thought Hillary was a shoe-in. I think the DNC would happily dump her for the first minority (preferably a homosexual or transgender, immigration status negotiable) that is somewhat articulate that they can find. Nobody’s missing the lesson of late that the Republican establishment is terrified of being called racist to the point where … frankly, there is no Republican party at the moment.

John_G on February 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM

When have Lefties needed a reason for anything?

TimBuk3 on February 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Why do I think Democrats are desperately looking for someone brown again? Deval Patrick is available.

rhombus on February 13, 2014 at 9:33 AM

She (Hillary) cursed and screamed too much while she thought she was half the President and the way she treated the employees of the White House sealed her fate.

mixplix on February 13, 2014 at 5:29 AM

I’ve read the Secret Service had to suffer her prima donna antics as first lady. A real beotch on wheels.

Nape-wa-ste on February 13, 2014 at 7:53 AM

Read former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s book “Unlimited Access” some time. According to him, Hillary was a real piece of work in those days. As was daughter Chelsea.

In the book, Aldrich relates an anecdote about talking to Chelsea one day. When he mildly criticized her for referring to her Secret Service Detail as “personal trained Pigs”, she replied simply: “That’s what my parents call them.”

Yep, such tolerant people!

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Lefties desperately searching for reasons not to nominate Hillary

Here’s two:
1) she has no legitimate qualifications
2) she has a grand total of zero positive accompilshments

affenhauer on February 13, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Lefties desperately searching for reasons not to nominate Hillary …

Well, they must not be too desperate, because the REASONS are plentiful, and date back long before Hillary purposely allowed for Americans to be slaughtered in Benghazi …

Bill & Hillary Clinton: A Life of Violating People

http://1984arkansasmotheroftheyear.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-clintons-greatest-shame-chelsea-is.html

Pork-Chop on February 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM

This could be enjoyable. If some group of the Dems shut out Hillary again we could see an intra-party civil war that makes the Tea Party/GOP insider disagreement look like a celebration.

I don’t think there is some other special interest candidate the Dems can shove onto the Hillary supporters to make them suffer a second shafting. Of course there may be some Hispanic or LBGT candidate sitting out there. Imagine.

katiejane on February 13, 2014 at 12:09 PM

V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.

VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.

“Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.
Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Oh yeah? Check this out

Vince on February 13, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Might_Is_Right on February 12, 2014 at 11:00 PM

You are a moron. The Senat’s investigation determined that the attack could have been prevented and there were dozens of ships, including two carriers nearby

Vince on February 13, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Vince on February 13, 2014 at 1:49 PM

I will take the golden words of General David Petraeus endorsing Hillary Clinton any day over the mindless ‘Benghazi-Benghazi’ barking and yelling of mad dogs.

Might_Is_Right on February 13, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Vince on February 13, 2014 at 1:49 PM

I will take the golden words of General David Petraeus endorsing Hillary Clinton any day over the mindless ‘Benghazi-Benghazi’ barking and yelling of mad dogs.

Might_Is_Right on February 13, 2014 at 3:13 PM

lol, are you talking about the disgraced ex-CIA Director? And you wonder why we laugh at you?

The 2016 campaign ads will write themselves. Hillary will put out an ad trumpeting her Petraeus “endorsement”. But then all that the Republicans have to do is show the clip of her as the Junior US Senator from New York, calling General Petraeus a Liar to his face before he had even opened up his mouth to testify about The Surge.

You also seem too feeble to recognize the fact that your Democrat Party hates the military, and many Democrats publicly criticized the General back in 2006. Yet here you are praising an evil 5 star General! When are you going to enlist?

And another campaign ad the Repubs can use should Hillary try to use Petraeus-simply remind people about the MoveOn.org ad controversy of 2006.

The MoveOn.org ad controversy began when the US anti-war liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in The New York Times on September 10, 2007 accusing General David H. Petraeus of “cooking the books for the White House”. The ad also labeled him “General Betray Us”. The organization created the ad in response to Petraeus’ Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. MoveOn hosted pages on its website about the ad and their reasons behind it from 2007 to June 23, 2010. On June 23, 2010, after President Obama nominated General Petraeus to be the new top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan (taking over the position from retiring General Stanley McChrystal), MoveOn erased these webpages and any reference to them from its website.

Many prominent Democrats distanced themselves from that ad, but many others did not. In any case, the Republicans have plenty of ammo to use should Hillary try to run on the endorsement of an evil military man who she once accused of lying under oath.

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2014 at 3:47 PM

LOL!

Keep Plucking that Benghazi Chicken!

Ha!

Might_Is_Right on February 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Hope her liver fails before we get a chance to find out.

Murphy9 on February 13, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2014 at 3:47 PM

LOL!

Keep Plucking that Benghazi Chicken!

Ha!

Might_Is_Right on February 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Nowhere in my 3:47 post do I mention Benghazi. Your lack of reading comprehension is duly noted; after all your Party lost the college graduate vote in 2012.

F-

Now. Please tell us what she’s going to run on, and we’ll stop laughing at you.

(Starts Sundial)

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Keep Plucking that Benghazi Chicken!

Ha!

Might_Is_Right on February 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Oh, and should Hillary try to use the Petraeus “endorsement” for her own political gain, she will have to censor Petraeus’ own words from that “endorsement”:

Like a lot of great leaders, her impressive qualities were most visible during tough times. In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, I thought she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled.

Sounds like your new War Hero Petraeus is the one plucking the Benghazi Chicken.

You’re dismissed.

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM

It’s going to be Clinton. You can take that to the bank. We moderate libs won’t back
Warren–basically Howard Dean but with a vagina.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 13, 2014 at 10:27 PM

‘Searching for reasons’?

How about…
1) She is a B!t@h!
2) She is a DISGRACED Watergate Lawyer
3) She was a humiliated, impotent, naieve wife whose husband would rather sexually harass ‘trailer trash’ than be in the same room with her…
4) Part of the reason she was able to become a Senator was because ‘Slick Willey’ agreed to pardon terrorists in a community in exchange for votes
5) She was a complete and utter FAILURE as Secretary of State, responsible for over 20 Middle-Eastern U.S. Embassies being overrun on the anniversary of 9/11/01, refused to provide Americans adequate and repeatedly requested additional protection, aided in the cover-up of a terrorist attack that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, lied about it, modified CIA documents to support the lie…
6) She is a B!t@h!

If you really don’t want to nominate her, you don’t have to look hard to come up with reasons…

easyt65 on February 14, 2014 at 9:43 AM

It’s going to be Clinton. You can take that to the bank. We moderate libs won’t back
Warren–basically Howard Dean but with a vagina.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 13, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Warren is also almost as old as Hillary is.

Now, getting back to Hillary-what is she going to run on?

Del Dolemonte on February 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM

TheReasonableLiberal on February 13, 2014 at 10:27 PM

I hope you are right.

Bmore on February 16, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2