Just great.

8 years of W and the Dick wasn’t enough, so we extended their policies with 8 years of O. Now 16 years of shit apparently isn’t enough, as apparently many want to extend that 16 years into 8 more of the EXACT SAME.

Unbelievable.

I hope no one wastes their time trying to convince me Hillary would be somehow different than O. Nearly every Obama appointment is a recycled Clinton one. No, Hillary would just be another 8 year extension on the status quo. Which is, after all, so wonderful it’s easy to see why many want it to continue. (Yeah, that last sentence was snark. Did I have to say it??)

Why, oh why, isn’t Bernie Sanders the most popular political figure in America?

Maybe because his name isn’t included in the poll questions.

I did admire Hillary’s pushing back at her final Senate hearing, but otherwise view her and Bill as a pair who played a major role in destroying what the Democratic Party once represented, in favor of getting more donations.

Hillary has many views that I don’t share but I think that if she had become president the War on Women would have had a very different outcome. I believe that she would not have tolerated it.

Wow, what a shock. The mainstream media is already laying the groundwork for a continuation of business as usual regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat in 2016 wins.

Who could have foreseen it? The media needs to get this going now to ensure that this takes up all the oxygen in the room so that any 3rd party or outside-the-usual-suspects candidate has absolutely ZERO CHANCE at winning or even being discussed. It will be “US vs. THEM” before the end of the year.

Yes, that’s right people. We either have a Bush or Clinton in the White House with Obama acting as a surrogate Bush (who am I kidding Clinton was no better in many things).

That’s right step right up, Hillary is going to be the next President. Everyone get in line now. I’m certain she’ll be a real winner. *yawn*

How predictable (and sad).

Too bad it was all for show and just intended to divide us that much more and ensure we respond on a visceral level as opposed to having an intelligent discussion about the direction of this country. Like a mosque at ground zero, it was all foddler for 2012. We are so doomed.

Get used to it. The lemmings are already clamoring to line up and say,

“Things will be better under Hillary..”

“Just you wait, all the ground Obama had to give up.. all the initiatives that Obama failed to come through on will be Hillary’s first priority in 2016…”

*lol*

Sure.

I’d support her if it weren’t for that White House Travel bureau thing and Vince Foster. They never did get to the bottom of all that, did they?

Seriously, I think she matured a lot as Sec State, and given the alternative set of Bozo’s in either camp, she’s probably as good as the US can get. She would have been beyter than Obama, but it’s too late for that–spilt milk and all. There are no good candidates, and anyone truly good would be killed off by the MSM and the PTB before she got thick in the running. The days are long gone when we could have a President who reflects the interests of anyone who doesn’t have a real lot of money. The one thing that worries me is that she is a hawk. But maybe this is just for show.

Perfect candidate for the Bush IV WH.

When has she ever not voted for military action? She is a hawk plain and simple. Don’t kid yourself.

She is a hawk which is my main disagreement with her but isn’t it interesting that she was so disliked as the wife of the prez and now she is hugely popular – even though most people haven’t a clue what she did at State because Americans really get bored with foreign policy.

Oh I think I could tolerate Clinton as Pres. The same way I could tolerate root canal work. With lots and lots of pain killer and an iPod with hours of music on it.

After all she’s not bad looking. But then I’m in my sixties so what do I know. :-)

“…among Democrats Clinton is basically the sun around which the rest of the political world rotates.”

One more good reason NOT to self identify as a Democrat. When has dynasty politics ever been a good thing?

Oh.. oh.. so we can be one of those “independents” that theoretically the Democrats are willing to court at the cost of their souls? Not saying that I disagree, but it is depressing all the same.

I must add that I have great respect for HRC. That does not mean I would like to see her as president.

Hilliary is the perfect “bird in a mine” detector for authoritarian sleaze bags. If she weren’t a Democrat, and a “favorite” one at that I would have spent years wondering if Democrats (by and large) where a bunch of evil, boot licking hypocrites.

Who else could we talk about and have someone say they were the best we realistically could do? I mean, someone who considers Mubarak a part of the family. Whose all about a woman’s right to her vagina.. being ripped apart along with any internal organs if they’ve committed the sin of being poor or in the way of MIC money. Whose on the record committing crimes and violating our treaties as part of state. The poster child of getting rich off of “public service”.

All a decent person would need to know is that she served under Obama without resigning in disgust.

So do I.

I still have some respect WJC too, but when he waived his finger in my face and lied to me, I lost most of it.

I imagine I’m in the minority here in that I thought he deserved impeachment (and still do). However, W and O have far, far surpassed any earnings of impeachment lying Bill ever had (that I’m aware of anyway).

But HRC is a strong, fair, and highly intelligent person, and that she’s female is just icing on the cake for me (I truly believe men have fucked this world up so badly that women ought to run it for awhile). And the way she handled herself in the 1990′s was of the utmost integrity, and I will ALWAYS have tons of respect for her.

But I don’t want her, or anyone else, from that damn DLC era messing up this country any more than they already have. This country needs to move left, A LOT, and instead we keep taking baby steps (or more) to the right. And for lots of ‘progresive’ folks, just keeping them to baby steps is enough. Not enough. We need to CHANGE the direction.

Exactly, the media and pollsters ignore all but a few undeserving political figures. I’m getting desperate enough to hope Elizabeth Warren, even though she’s inexperienced and unimpressive on foreign policy, steps into the space created by DLC scroungers. She’s the only Dem politician with a high profile, popularity, and a strong sense of justice. The thought of having to choose between Cuomo and Clinton in the next Democratic primary is just too depressing.

Outstanding comments everybody.

I really haven’t made up my mind on her just yet. The reason? Obama. I though I had him pegged. I was wrong. I don’t want to make the same mistake agin.

I will say this. The good ol’ boys club BOTH R’s and D’s will NOT welcome a female president. She will have to fight both sides of the aisle in my opinion. The question one has to ask, will she leave bruised testicles all over the house and the senate in her wake.

We can only hope.

“… will she leave bruised testicles all over the house and the senate …”

I suspect that Hilary already has a jar full of testicles just waiting to be squeezed. My reservations have little to do with effectiveness and a whole lot to do with policy. As OFG said above, we need somebody who can go their left and not another blue dog appeaser.

I weary of finding the fine distinctions among the various faces of the blood-drenched plutocracy, so I have little to say about Hillary on substance.

But I read somebody, maybe Alex Pareene but I’m not surw, point out that her current status as a branded “non-divisive” figure is purely an artifact of the right’s media smear machine having completely re-aimed its gunsights in 2008 once it was clear Obama was headed for nomination. They have been ret-conning an era of the supposedly harmonious, bipartisan, non-secret-Muslim-dominated Arcadia we enjoyed under the Clintons ever since.

Now that a Clinton may be running again, expect us to be at war with Eastasia once again (as we always have been, of course). This old-is-new epoch was kicked off, I would say, by the Republican Benghazi fixation.

Her high poll numbers should be interpreted with this factored in.

Who needs facts when popularity will do?

Nader gets it right:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/generalissima_clinton_expands_the_empire_20130208/

“A militarized State Department is more than a repudiation of the Department’s basic charter of 1789, for the then-named Department of Foreign Affairs, which envisioned diplomacy as its mission. Secretary Clinton reveled in tough, belligerent talk and action on her many trips to more than a hundred countries. She would warn or threaten “consequences” on a regular basis. She supported soldiers in Afghanistan, the use of secret Special Forces in other places and “force projection” in East Asia to contain China. She aggressively supported or attacked resistance movements in dictatorships, depending on whether a regime played to Washington’s tune…”

“Time and again, Hillary Clinton’s belligerence exceeded that of Obama’s secretaries of defense. From her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee to her tenure at the State Department, Hillary Clinton sought to prove that she could be just as tough as the militaristic civilian men whose circle she entered. Throughout her four years it was Generalissima Clinton, expanding the American Empire at large…”

There is no better example of the failure of feminism than the person of Hillary Clinton and her unprincipled, blood-soaked supporters.

No, no, no, no, no!

… X 2

… she didn’t did she?

… X 2

H.Clinton 2016 WH bid balloons being let go…

D zealots will gladly begin doing a H.Clinton 3 Monkey D Dance. Simpletons.