Hillary Clinton reported saying she will never hold for public office again.


Party is screwed...



Those of you who don't view this as bad news may have to wait till 2012/2016 and see how many of us view it otherwise.


Tags: (all tags)



Is this news?

She's said so repeatedly.

Is this a diary?

You could at least figure out what you want to say with the title.  Does she claim she won't run for, or she won't hold public office.  No one can hold for public office.

Aren't you against cults of personality?

Equating the party and its future with a single individual seems quite the opposite.

And what does this say about HRC?

If she's the party's only hope, doesn't she have a responsibility to seek to lead?  Why aren't you frothing at the mouth about her?  Does she, like anyone you disagree with, have blood on her hands now?

As for your threats, the once again establish that you are more interested in partisan vindication, in sports team drama than in politics.

And you are absolutely welcome.  Your quasi-diary now has a COMMENT!!!

by Strummerson 2010-12-06 08:43AM | 0 recs
RE: Is this news?

When they said wait your turn Hillary can run in 2016 they projected that it was just a matter of who was first.

Now they talk as though everyone knew we elected incompetent leadership over competent and forever removed one of the most well managed teams from our white house.  And now you are trying to make me feel like that state of having Hillary as an option in 2016 and the sate of having Hillary not be an option in 2016 never happened.


They sold us failure.  But worse Failure AND the permanent removal of 8 years of success.  Its not a cult of personality, the Clinton team was smarter.  Honestly smarter not omg he is a professor super smart but um can you make sure the teleprompter is set up before he gets there...They con'ed us with a beginner who needs training wheels.


If we ever follow them again we will get failure again.  Carter, Mondale, Dukkakis, Kerry, Obama.  The liberal wing of the party can't win anything.


We need a strong pragmatic core and leave the progressive koolaid drinkers as cheer leaders and money raisers or else we will continue to wallow in the mud.  

Seriously if Howard Dean can admit that he comes from the "democratic" wing of the democratic party why can't all these loser candidates stand up and say I am from the Jimmy Carter wing of the party.  I am from the Mondale wing of the party.  I am from the Dukkakis wing of the party.  I am with John Kerry.  I am with Obama.


But you watch every single one of them will say I am from Bill Clintons's party....


Traitors who can't even admit what their values are.  They act against the part of our party that actually makes peoples lives better and at the same time they claim to be Bill Clinton jr.


It really is pathetic.  I am never voting for pathetic again.





by donkeykong 2010-12-06 09:16AM | 1 recs
Who are "they"?

Maybe you could provide some links or quotes to these people who said it was just a matter of who went first.  It certainly wasn't the dominant line, particularly given HRC's age.  I heard a lot of "Obama should wait" from Clinton supporters.  But, especially after HRC accepted State, the conventional wisdom, which in part stemmed from her statements, was that she was likely done with electoral politics.  If she were really keeping options open, she'd have done well to stay in the senate.  But she sought the most meaningful role she could find, out of both her own ambition and her demonstrated ethic of public service.  I know this doesn't fit with your narratives, which are boldly crafted to gin up resentment.  But I simply don't see any informed observers who have been building on an HRC 2016.

And with all of your redundant finger-wagging, I seriously think you are risking repetitive stress injuries.  Seiously...


mazel tov

by Strummerson 2010-12-06 01:48PM | 0 recs
RE: Who are "they"?


Now you are pulling a page out of 1984 trying to rewrite history. We just had a primary where 50% wanted one candidate and 50% wanted the other.  And Florida was disqualified and many states didn't actually hold elections where one person one vote without peer pressure held sway. Do you honestly believe the first 50% just said fuck you we are in charge but vote for us anyway? Is that how you see the world? My half of the party got fucked and there will be consequences.

Now you are pulling a page out of 1984 trying to rewrite history.

We just had a primary where 50% wanted one candidate and 50% wanted the other.  And Florida was disqualified and many states didn't actually hold elections where one person one vote without peer pressure held sway.

Do you honestly believe the first 50% just said fuck you we are in charge but vote for us anyway?

Is that how you see the world?

My half of the party got fucked and there will be consequences.


by donkeykong 2010-12-06 02:17PM | 0 recs
RE: Who are "they"?

So you can't provide any links?

Who is trying to re-write history?  And spare me the "orwellian" cliches.

You don't represent half the party.  Most of the party is more like me.  I preferred one candidate and would have worked for the other.  Had HRC won the primary (I know, I know, she DID win and those horrible koolaid swilling anti-democratic Obama fanboys stole it), I would have worked my ass off to elect her and would be pleased as punch if she were my president, though I firmly believe I would have faced similar "disappointments" that I face with Obama.  And there was no fuck you to Clinton supporters, only to PUMAs, who proved a tiny and inconsequential minority.

But I know that's how YOU see the world.  I don't need to subordinate history and memory to an ideological narrative centering on one personality.  Your biggest delusion is that most Clinton supporters feel as you do.  I've got plenty of friends who preferred her to Obama.  They don't have much in common with your world view at all.

by Strummerson 2010-12-06 09:34PM | 0 recs
RE: Who are "they"?

1) Florida not counting is Orwellian.  There was a big attack on democracy led by Howard Dean and you cheered.  Thats a position I hold regardless of the year or candidate.  If Obama is primaried because california isn't counted I will be on his side of that position.  You as an individual don't actually care about democracy or we wouldn't be talking about this.  You personally are the first step towards all those who took away democracy in small steps because they had some better plan...You with the moustache.


2)  I lived through that history.  Editing history only works on those who didn't live through it.  Again what political powers in history have used this tactic....do we want to be more like them or less like them?


3)  The non elections that we have in the hick states is also not democracy.  When your neighbors kids can be shouting at you to change sides its not democracy like we have been raised to believe we deserve.  I can't throw in with a party that uses thug tactics like that.  They need to go.  Seriously what are we some third world nation with 100% voting for the candidate???  Thats democracy Castro could get behind.



We had a movement that its better to be ideologically pure than to be effective.  

There will be a counter movement that its better to be effective than ideologically pure.


For me that means splitting the ticket.  I think you will be surprised how many will sit out 2012 or actually vote for the GOP.

Starting in 2010 I would rather vote for the best person, who actually has the skills to get the job done than vote for a D that has been force fed to me.  I will be giving my money the same way.  I have lost all faith in the political machine's character, they sent me flash over quality and our nation will suffer for 8 years over it.

But its not me you need to worry about.

Believe it or not I am on your side.

Its those like me that realized that the left side of the party doesn't know shit.

Seriously did you think I would forget how many pundits sold Hillary in 2016 as the answer?


I know its because you ultimately like all liberal progressives think voters are stupid to be molded to your and your monied interests.  But we actually can remember the last presidential cycle pretty clearly for pete sake.


But keep practicing...



1) make friendly claim.  One of them had to go first, Hillary will be young enough to run in 2016.

2) When its clear that won't happen pretend that you never said it.  Who for 2016?  No one serious has EVER said Hillary for 2016.  That the media says it ALL THE FUCKING TIME is just a coincidence.

3)  you need to work on the nice thing making you seem like a good personable guy in here before you go back to step one... Didn't Bush teach you anything?  


by donkeykong 2010-12-07 01:28PM | 0 recs
RE: Who are "they"?

The only thing worse than the rabid screeching idiot in the corner who flings his feces and invents personal accusations with no basis is the person who tries to reason with him.  I concede your superiority.  Should I try to convince you that I care deeply about democracy?  What for?  You don't want conversation.  You don't want debate.  You want foils...bogeymen you can scream at and demonize in order to feel you are righteous and persecuted.  I'm not your guy.  And I don't give a fuck about your weird fantasies regarding what I care about and with whom I am affiliated and whatever else serves your wounded psyche.

This diary argues that there was a clear consensus after the primary that HRC would be the nominee in 2016.  There wasn't.  That wasn't the trade-off.  And if it were, you should be howling at Hillary for betraying you.  Not me.  But you can't verify this so you revert to your obsessional ad hominem manichean crap.  Nice move.  But your 4 line diary is ginned up bullshit and nothing you can say about me refutes that in the least.


That should help you sleep at night.

by Strummerson 2010-12-07 07:32PM | 0 recs
She knows the party apparatus is

against her after it kept silent during the blatant misogyny directed at her and continuously telling her to get out of the race as if her winning the nomination was not a feat in itself, being the first woman to do so and the possibility of being the first woman President.

The party screwed her repeatedly, openly and behind closed doors i.e. in May, taking away delegates that she had rightfully won. She learned the hard way how the party people she tought would stand by her were never there or ditched her on a dime.

She must have learned through Reid's book in which he tells how Obama was always the annointed one while she was never considered because she/Bill were seen as too controversial therefore could not win the general elections.

She found out early on how the press is definitely against her/Clintons. The reporting was so over the top biased against her.

She's intelligent enough to realize that if she ran it would be deja vu!

by suzieg 2010-12-08 04:51PM | 0 recs
RE: She knows the party apparatus is

The thing that really really really pisses me off is we haven't had a team as strong as the Clinton team in my lifetime except for the Clinton team in 1992.  And the Clintons circa 2008 had two sets of 8 years in the whiltehouse.


And instead we followed a bunch of kids who were following a teleprompter...

by donkeykong 2010-12-09 05:21AM | 2 recs
RE: She knows the party apparatus is

a$$kong?  Pissed off?  Really?

by Strummerson 2010-12-09 10:13AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads