Your 2016 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

which is why we don't need third rate MSNBC Chuck Toddisms from him.

Greenwald has two default positions: self-satisfied smugface and bratty manchild. Neither of them endear even his most salient arguments to me.

― Johnny Fever, Monday, May 12, 2014 6:18 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

these are pretty minor sins compared to everything else he's done. they certainly don't invalidate anything. so you wouldn't want to be alone with him at a garden party; so what?

there's plenty to criticize about GG, he's abrasive and repetitive and long-winded and he said way too many nice things about ron paul a while back, but he's still a fucking hero for so many reasons and 95 percent of the criticism directed at him by progressives is total garbage by ppl who are either arguing out of careerist jealousy (the exiled/nsfw crew) or in bad faith (that wretched sean wilentz piece from a few months back).

i do find it weird and off-putting when GG brags that he and snowden are 'saving the best for last' in terms of timing the release of stories, there's a sort of childish glee there that's hard to imagine coming from past whistleblowers and it sort of hurts the seriousness of his case imo.

But after the cant and sententiousness of so many cable pundits it's refreshing.

yeah, i could care less about GG's personality, but the strategy of "saving the best for last" bugs me too. if "the best" means that it's the biggest govt. privacy invasion of all (maybe i'm off in that assumption), then why wouldn't he want to lead with that story first, to hasten the process of exposing it and fixing it?

i dunno i think it's good that someone who thinks in terms of publicity is in charge of this. the way that revelations from the snowden files have systematically undercut the lies told by officials to explain earlier revelations has been effective.

greenwald is smart and insufferable.

he's not wrong about hillary clinton, but in some ways, i don't care. i do care that HRC is too much of a hawk, and even more of an incrementalist than pres. obama, but i still want her to be president. the only alternative is a gop clown, who would likely be disastrous. and having grown-up in the era of democrats who make you want to hang your head in shame, just based on their personalities (e.g., dukakis), i'm happy with a democratic dynasty over 12 -- 16 years.

well, he did say he wanted her to win.

tho i have my doubts about the wisdom of his 'things should just keep getting worse, so it'll demonstrate how bad things are!' attitude.

Rodham should be punched in the face

having grown-up in the era of democrats who make you want to hang your head in shame, just based on their personalities (e.g., dukakis)

keep that head hanging

unless it's just charismatic [sic] monsters that make you happy

charismatic monsters make me so happy!

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/our-blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/grover_whitehouse.jpg

outrageous. now, statler and waldorf, those are some charismatic monsters.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/128723/waldorf-hits-statler-o.gif

http://37.media.tumblr.com/4c1aedbd5f1e87d1415bb8912907a122/tumblr_moajjpHWGS1s9dnijo1_500.gif

that's no muppet. that's george w. bush, looking for the third-term that was promised to him.

Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic

I see what GG is going for here, but it seems hard to deny that there is going to be a tidal wave of actually misogynistic opposition to HRC when she's nominated, and it's going to dwarf any opposition to her based on "she likes bankers and war too much"

there's going to be a three-tiered opposition: (a) she's an establishment elitist, too cozy with bankers; (b) Benghazi!, Worse than Watergate!©; (c) an ugly campaign resuscitating every scandal mentioned during the 90s.

on the other hand, she is a semi-charismatic monster, so maybe it's best if rand paul is president.

(b) Benghazi!, Worse than Watergate!©; (c) an ugly campaign resuscitating every scandal mentioned during the 90s.

probably prefer benghazi to 90's scanal mania all things considered

you're getting both, for months and months. so settle in; it's going to be a bumpy ride.

(that's my 50s starlet imitation. been working on it all week)

can we turn off the internet for the 18 months leading up to the 2016 election?

http://macenstein.com/default/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/photo-5-640x426.png

can we turn off the internet for the 18 months leading up to the 2016 election?

― espring (amateurist), Tuesday, May 13, 2014

http://perpetuallite.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/hell-no.gif

probably prefer benghazi to 90's scanal mania all things considered

― Clay, Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:19 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what, you don't miss discussions of how HRC had Vince Foster killed?

not just vince foster!

maybe, like, 100 -- 300 of the clinton's political enemies. you got to get deep, deep into the underground to get the real info.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/13/politics/rove-clinton-criticism/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

keep it classy, karl

the first comment is the obvious one, but it bears repeating:

Karl Rove is an expert in diagnosing brain damage. He spent so many years so close to George W.

why a Bernie Sanders candidacy would not accomplish a single solitary thing

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/no_bernie_sanders_should_not_run_for_president_why_his_challenge_would_achieve_little/

pore pore pitiful me

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5796396/only-a-rich-person-could-go-as-broke-as-hillary-clinton

Her quotes that were linked in there are really clueless.

Bill worked really hard

we had to buy houses

Watching her with Diane Sawyer I relieved the nightmare. So weird I'm already feeling nostalgia for late '07-era Obama's stentorian platitudes.

In essence, the result of that 2008 near tie vote was that Obama got to go first with the understanding that Clinton would automatically get the nomination 8 years later. What this means is that (barring unforeseen circumstances)there will have been no left wing challenge in presidential races for 16 years and I think that suits the Party and its rich donors just fine. They hate primaries. And since they will have had 16 uninterrupted years of preferred policy, even as the voters get to feel the inspiration of the two historic firsts, why would anyone rock the boat?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.br/2014/06/that-marriage-of-convenience-was.html

Progressives might have been able to leverage that fierce competition in 2008 but they got caught up in the emotion just like everyone else...

shame on u alfred

I would never use "leverage" as a verb

is there a precedent for a totally uncontested nomination like this?

I would love more than anything for Hillary to get pushed by the left by somebody/something - because she is actually susceptible to pressure - but I don't know where it's going to come from. probably nowhere.

Taft.

she is actually susceptible to pressure

I must've missed this. Anyway, pressure is off once the presidency starts and you can chuck everything you said in the campaign, as BHO has illustrated.

I would love more than anything for Hillary to get pushed by the left off a cliff

Hillary's political m.o. is basically "if that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow"

First term presidents are susceptible to financial pressure/lobbyists (gotta get re-elected!), second termers aren't susceptible to any pressure beyond the threat of impeachment.

xp

and they're usually hamstrung by the opposing party and their own party's re-election schemes; nothing much ever happens in 2nd terms except on the unpredictable foreign policy front

xp

is there a precedent for a totally uncontested nomination like this?

it's still only 2014, i'm assuming there will likely be some kind of challenger?

Hard to imagine -- even that crazed socialist Bill deBlasio is trying to arrange the coronation for Brooklyn.

I'm hoping for any kind of surprise to unleash that leaden Rodham spontaneity.

no money = no challenger