Former Clinton adviser says Hillary will run in 2020

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Its funny that the Hillary card is yellow and negative about Hillary. That's what she'll be remembered as. Trump's bogeyman, who lost the presidency to him that she was expected to easily win. Great legacy there eh?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Its funny that the Hillary card is yellow and negative about Hillary. That's what she'll be remembered as. Trump's bogeyman, who lost the presidency to him that she was expected to easily win. Great legacy there eh?

Funny, not many can easily name off who lost to Nixon in '72. Nixon's resignation and disgrace is responsible for that, much like Trump's disgrace will make Clinton's legacy much less than "First woman to run on a major ticket for President... and one of the few to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote."

 

[Politesse]

Its funny that the Hillary card is yellow and negative about Hillary. That's what she'll be remembered as. Trump's bogeyman, who lost the presidency to him that she was expected to easily win. Great legacy there eh?

Funny, not many can easily name off who lost to Nixon in '72.

Wait, you think people have forgotten George McGovern? Not my parents, that's for sure.

He would have been the second American president to have earned a PhD before taking office.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Some 70 million registered voters would disagree with the notion that she was a "failed" candidate.

She lost to someone who was clearly going to be one of the worst presidents in history. I call that a collasial failure.

Would you also claim that all the republicans that Trump beat (Bush, Marco, Cruz, and etc.) and all the republicans that he beat to submission (Romney, Grahm, McDonnel, and etc.) were also colossal failures?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Some 70 million registered voters would disagree with the notion that she was a "failed" candidate.

She lost to someone who was clearly going to be one of the worst presidents in history. I call that a collasial failure.

Would you also claim that all the republicans that Trump beat (Bush, Marco, Cruz, and etc.) and all the republicans that he beat to submission (Romney, Grahm, McDonnel, and etc.) were also colossal failures?

They really were. Especially Cruz.

 

[PyramidHead]

Sure, she had the potential to be an excellent president, but her time is up. I doubt she will actually run again, despite her desire to be president. And, I can't imagine any way that she would make it through the primaries, unless her supporters are the major group that votes in the primaries. I didn't even think she should have run in 2016. I thought she had too much baggage and was hated by too many people, that didn't even have a clue regarding her accomplishments and voting record. I have personally known quite a few Bernie Bros that voted third party, simply because and I quote, "I don't like Hillary". This is what you get when your vote is based on your emotions and not on a rational look at the candidates experience and voting history if they were members of Congress.

All of which is why I would love for her to run a third time, actually. Like I said, it would either fizzle very quickly, OR it would be a side of her we've not yet seen before and it would knock everyone's socks off. A last-ditch Hillary--gloves off, stripped of awkward speaking stance and too self-conscious "establishment" decorum--would be a remarkable force to be reckoned with.

This kind of shit scares me. We're not talking about Rocky II. The President is a wealthy person who spends years lying to us about what they will do when elected, and then does whatever other wealthy people want them to do when they finally get elected. You're talking about Clinton like she's some pent-up miraculous phenomenon just waiting to be unleashed to solve all our problems by pwning the competition with her true colors. She's not your leader, even if she manages to win. She's just the person we all hired to execute laws we all agreed to follow, and that's under the most charitable interpretation. The political structure of the US doesn't warrant the kind of drama and excitement that surrounds these elections.

Iow, the only possible way she could ever get anywhere would be to perform in such a way that no one (of significance) could argue against it. I for one would love for that to happen. It probably won't, but I'm more than open to her stepping back in that ring and taking on anyone who dares.

Also chilling and alarming to hear. So, being able to argue against somebody's perspective should be a matter of having a position that refutes it, not being able "to perform" in the right way. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that anyway only someone "of significance" (i.e. from money) has a shot of being listened to, is a tragedy for human civilization, not something to look forward to witnessing again.

It can only sharpen the next generation to go up against something like that and unlike Sanders (who was a fraud and a Russian dupe as well) a last-ditch-bitch Clinton would actually school them in policy and experience, something so far lacking in darlings like Beto and Kennedy.

Well, that's it, isn't it. Our purpose as a society isn't to prepare the next generation for rational argumentation and cooperative action to meet their shared goals, it's to create policy wonks who can run circles around the naive, thus demonstrating their obvious superiority without ever having to address their ideas.

I think I may spend tomorrow in bed.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Its funny that the Hillary card is yellow and negative about Hillary. That's what she'll be remembered as. Trump's bogeyman, who lost the presidency to him that she was expected to easily win. Great legacy there eh?

I disagree. She'll be remembered at least as much for her career prior to her first, or last, presidential campaign.

 

[laughing dog]

Its funny that the Hillary card is yellow and negative about Hillary.

IIt is a clear indictment of the desperation of the GOP and irrational HRC haters. Which means it is not negative about Hillary - it is negative about the GOP and irrational HRC haters.

BTW, the color of the card and the figure is a clear reference to the community chest cards in the original Monopoly game. Community chest cards confer benefits to players.

 

[ZiprHead]

Its funny that the Hillary card is yellow and negative about Hillary.

IIt is a clear indictment of the desperation of the GOP and irrational HRC haters. Which means it is not negative about Hillary - it is negative about the GOP and irrational HRC haters.

BTW, the color of the card and the figure is a clear reference to the community chest cards in the original Monopoly game. Community chest cards confer benefits to players.

They don't have Monopoly at the South Pole.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This kind of shit scares me.

You mean your subjective interpretation of something I wrote?

The President is a wealthy person who spends years lying to us about what they will do when elected, and then does whatever other wealthy people want them to do when they finally get elected.

You mean as a general rule, or something or are you referring to a specific person? Because your next sentence would imply you're talking about Clinton:

You're talking about Clinton like she's some pent-up miraculous phenomenon just waiting to be unleashed to solve all our problems by pwning the competition with her true colors.

That's a shitload of hyperbole straw.

She's not your leader, even if she manages to win.

No one is. The Presidency is a job, not a magical totem or "leader." The President should lead, but that's not the same thing as being a leader the way I am now subjectively interpreting what you wrote.

She's just the person we all hired to execute laws we all agreed to follow, and that's under the most charitable interpretation.

Yes, I know. Again, I'm the one who keeps having to point out that it's a job and that Presidents aren't messiahs as Sanders was portrayed.

Many people forget that Obama first started running with the "Hope" angle unofficially until someone very smart said to nix that and go with "Change" instead. Why? Because "Hope" is messianic and promises magical ponies (like Sanders), while "Change" is pragmatic and evokes hard work to be done and expertise in how to get that work done.

The political structure of the US doesn't warrant the kind of drama and excitement that surrounds these elections.

Well, now I don't know whether you agree with me or were taking issue with me.

Iow, the only possible way she could ever get anywhere would be to perform in such a way that no one (of significance) could argue against it. I for one would love for that to happen. It probably won't, but I'm more than open to her stepping back in that ring and taking on anyone who dares.

Also chilling and alarming to hear. So, being able to argue against somebody's perspective should be a matter of having a position that refutes it, not being able "to perform" in the right way.

What?

The fact that it isn't, and the fact that anyway only someone "of significance" (i.e. from money) has a shot of being listened to,

I said "no one (of significance) could argue against it" meaning lot's of stupid people--e.g., Trump supporters--could, of course gainsay and deny, but not argue against it, because she would present her case for candidacy in terms so clear and compelling as to disarm any counter argument. It had nothing to do with anyone "from money."

It can only sharpen the next generation to go up against something like that and unlike Sanders (who was a fraud and a Russian dupe as well) a last-ditch-bitch Clinton would actually school them in policy and experience, something so far lacking in darlings like Beto and Kennedy.

Well, that's it, isn't it. Our purpose as a society isn't to prepare the next generation for rational argumentation and cooperative action

That is precisely what I am talking about; rational argumentation and cooperative action. My comments were intended to argue for a rising tide lifts all boats and that Clinton's third candidacy would mean everyone would need to bring their own A games to the table, which, for Democrats can only be a good thing, because our policy debates are always about how best to elevate the entire country and not just particular groups.

So, yes, Beto would have to face a tough opponent, but that is a GOOD thing, because it would in turn bring out the best in him and so on.

What we saw with Sanders was a zombie candidacy based entirely on ego and a refusal to get off the stage in spite of that fact that he was already dead in March and the stage needed to shift to the REAL opponent (Trump). Sanders presented his slightly modified version of Hillary's platform and it was rejected consistently by the larger percentage of Democrat voters as not practical. Too many magical ponies.

He wasn't "forced" out or "rigged" against; he failed. And should have got off the stage and joined the fight against Trump six months earlier than he eventually did (after significant damage had been done directly as a result of his zombie refusal to leave). Tens of millions of dollars and months of attacks (GOP and Russian fueled no less) and for what? He knew it was not possible for him to win after March.

Their platforms were 95% identical. The only differences were his magical ponies that he confessed could NOT be implemented. He actually said this and has said it again and again; that his healthcare proposal was about the "conversation" (that Hillary started as first lady). Straight up said I can't get this shit implemented without 80% of the entire country--republicans too--behind him after being elected President.

Hope, not Change.

it's to create policy wonks who can run circles around the naive, thus demonstrating their obvious superiority without ever having to address their ideas.

Again, strawman. You have fundamentally misconstrued nearly everything I wrote. As I stated previously, for Clinton to run again--and not just immediately fizzle out--would necessarily have to mean that we see a side to her that we have previously not seen. The bar for her would be incredibly high, which means she'd have to effectively come out naked (figuratively speaking of course) and incontrovertiblly sincere.

I don't mean she would have to pretend really really well and fool everyone. I mean she would have to be actually and truly vulnerable and unguardedly honest, unlike she's presented herself previously (except in certain unbridled moments).

Again, NOT as artifice.

IF she could do that right out of the gate and maintain such humanity (for lack of a better word), then her expertise and experience and policies would have a far better chance of being focused upon, instead of what Sanders did, which was to first co-opt her platform (and then one up it with the "Price is Right" approach; bid a dollar over your opponent's bid) and then go on the relentless personal attack, but primarily letting your fanatic followers do all the initial damage so you look like a messiah, which is a tactic of the "Hope" not "Change" candidate.

"Corporate whore;" "establishment" (he was too); her speeches (when he knew damn well that's not a issue and in no way has she ever been bought); everything is rigged against us to coronate her; etc. These were all ad hominem attacks and he knew it.

In no way did Sanders raise any bars that couldn't have been done with a graceful exit in March and then joining the fight to reveal Trump six months before the election. Just as I would expect Clinton to get out if she fizzled like Sanders did.

THAT was the totality of my point. Her best, to everyone else's best, rises us all up.