Your 2016 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

how is Warren more fiery and blunt than any man?

Don't really know that much about any of this at this point (so discouraged), but it feels like these days (especially with evolving demographics) it's more about firing people up and getting them out to vote than it is about appealing to some magical (and idiotic) set of "reasonable" undecided voters. In that case, HRC seems like a not-so-great candidate, esp. If she's not going to fire up women in any big way.

I'm just wondering if some sort of straight-talking liberal (like Warren, but it doesn't have to be her) would actually have success these days. Polls seem to suggest people are more liberal on many issues than they think they are. But I may just be caught in in a bunch of liberal blogosphere horseshit, I dunno.

how is Warren more fiery and blunt than any man?

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 11, 2014

her grilling of the bankers testifying before congress, and of the s.e.c. officials who hadn't brought a single case against those bankers to trial, was especially fiery and blunt (much moreso than the blowhard questions that other representatives ask). it's more that she's blunt, doesn't seem to pander, is a very focused cross-examiner, and carries herself in a way that can all seem sort of "northeastern elitist" to some.

waren is no more fiery and blunt than any man, e.g., richard gephardt, bill richardson, evan bayh, tom vilsack, etc? many, maybe most, recent democratic presidential candidates have overly-mannered, overly-calculated panderers.

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/

― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:34 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is a strange argument for you of all people to accept

Yeah that was a pretty cynical piece. But of course Salon have always been tireless Clinton boosters.

...to put it generously.

It seems far from a pro-Hillary piece (and yes, even farther from being pro-Obama).

There is no reason to suspect, after all these years, Hillary Clinton in the White House will be any better than the Hillary Clinton we have come to know as a hawkish corporate Democrat; if history’s any guide, she’ll be worse.

is Salon pro-HRC these days? I have no idea.

this is a strange argument for you of all people to accept

bullshit, bcz we're done, it's e$$entially fixed, and none of it matters

if anyone on the true anticorporate left managed to win the billion-dollar POTUS auction, they would not live to January 20.

Hope and change!

also Bernie Sanders is a hack who says pretty things

and Hellary is not going to be "pushed" anywhere ideologically, as like her hubby she had her principles lanced in the '70s

Ew @ "lanced."

If Brooklyn gets the Dem convention I am v interested in seeing how deBlasio instructs the NYPD to handle protests, which should be daily and vigorous.

don't you mean vigorou$

hard to $ay

"What is this, Russia? We're not allowed to get rich anymore?" - Paul Begala

http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/06/11/crossfire-clueless-on-israeli-occupation/

Russia has more millionaires than any other country iirc

She could've just said, “I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don’t think you did either. This was an incredible new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay right movement began to talk about and slowly, but surely, convinced others about the rightness of that position. I was initially reluctant because I didn't know much about it; eventually I began to see how important it was to gay friends. They convinced me I had a moral obligation to support it."

Instead she attacks one of NPR's more annoying questioners.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-gay-marriage-npr-terry-gross

"Well, Terry, Bill and I thought we knew how to count votes at the time -- our pollsters stick to us like flies on shit."

totally dgaf about what she thinks or thought about this issue, since it's totally immaterial now

in the end everybody in the legislature were total cowards, it took the courts to do it

why are you un-American?

force of habit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GemdhewVso

this is a strange argument for you of all people to accept

bullshit, bcz we're done, it's e$$entially fixed, and none of it matters

― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if this is true, why bother posting here at all? or even giving a 2nd thought to any of it? i'm sure you can find things to do that are more fun, and i'm sure few of us would miss the constant above-it-all dispatches. it's win-win. i am not being facetious.

that said, i'm the dr. morbius of dr. morbius, since I hold out little hope that you'll stop trolling here. nothing will change. it's all fixed.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/f4abfaed15cf43125e7af995d622d4d3/tumblr_n6yyr4bAWt1rgh197o1_400.gif

what is that behind her? is that a translucent coat of arms?

oh you haven't watched that yet? so many lolz to be had

link?

http://www.56.com/u73/v_MTE1MDcxOTQy.html

am, I AM DONE WITH YOU SPECIFICALLY. BOOM!

NOT ABOVE IT ALL, JUST ABOVE YOU

whatever. you live in new york, right? you should order some russian food at 2 AM. i wish i could do that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/

That video is incredible.

was struck by this offhand observation, in the middle of the NYT's unjustly admiring profile of neocon blowhard robert kagan:

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

oh, story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

I still believe in a place I pour Hope.

Hillary was in Toronto today, speaking to the Board of Trade about how she's not sure if she's running for president, she has to give that some thought, and then over to Indigo for a book signing. Actually would have gone down for the second if it had been summer break.

the fuck outta here with this triangulation bullshit:

Former President Bill Clinton, in a video message to be broadcast this week, says he was “honored and grateful to be among the voices urging” the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act, the measure he signed into law in 1996 that barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Mr. Clinton’s remarks will be included in a special program to honor gay rights activists that will be shown on Thursday on Logo TV, a cable channel aimed at gay and lesbian viewers. The special, called “Trailblazers,” will mark the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the marriage act, and will pay tribute to two figures in the case: Roberta A. Kaplan, a lawyer, and Edith Windsor, the plaintiff.

“As marriage equality spreads across the states, the number of people impacted by these two amazing women will only continue to grow,” Mr. Clinton said, according to a transcript of his comments.

defines chutzpah as well as any prez we've had, I'm sure he wd set a new standard for First Spouses too

wow. but the events of 1996 have far exceeded the statute of limitations on the memories of potential voters, so he can say whatever he wants now, pretty much

rmde

i know a lot of ppl who have changed their mind of gay marriage between 1996 and today (like all of the centrist/labor-democrats i know) so i doubt that they'll forgive him bc they forgot what happened in 96 - they probably see him mirroring their own evolution on the issue.

"evolution"

aren't american politics pretty much a history of ppl evolving on various issues? first a cause is championed by a minority - they make a compelling case (here, an ethical one) - and slowly ppl come around to it until it builds steam and policy changes.

also old people die

i'm just saying that in my world of old ppl...