Hillary Clinton declares 2016 Democratic presidential bid

[Publicus]

The presidency is Hillary's to lose.

She'll figure out a way.

Just about every one of 'em is better second time around.

Republicans this cycle will have to decide on a first-timer for the first time in a long time, which is radical for them. Romney's second try at it, McCain's 2nd go at it, GHW Bush went from vanquished to vp to prez.....etc all the way back to Nixon yet again in 1968.

HRC with different people to include some Obama campaigners is going at it strategically and coherently, systematically, with former White House chief of staff John Podesta as the overall chairman of the campaign.

In this election cycle, it's the Rs that are desperate, not the Ds.

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One major reason I would never vote for this woman - Her flat out Bengazi Lies to the American people.

. No No No the Bengazi. thing again, my God give it a rest is that all ya got, Geez

It only takes one lie to destroy your credibility, and her's was a major one. No way I could vote for anyone, man or woman, who allowed American's to die when help was available to save them, and then flat out lie to the American people about it. I could give a crap about what other "qualities" she may have, as far as I'm concerned, she's a traitor to the American people. If you don't agree with me, fine, that's your privilege, but I stand by what I believe.

I don't know if she told the truth or not. However, I know it's standing policy for Republican attack corps to try to find any bit of dirt on the Clintons, and blow it up. Do we expect perfection in our president. People are mortal and fallible. There has never been a US president who is perfect.

She has a very good chance of winning if the real powers have already decided. Start building your bunkers, time for the USA to get some real (profitable) wars going, Hillary is war establishment all the way.

I would trust her as president. She's not a warmonger. If you want to find warmongers in your crosshairs, here are a few:

Goldwater, who was the Republican nominee for prez in the 1960's: advocated nuking the North Vietnamese into submission

Reagan: Republican prez for 2 terms in the 80's, advocated 'Star Wars' which was a complete money drain with zero function, and Reagan also had a secret war going in Nicaragua.

Romney/Ryan: Rep. Nominees for top office recently: claimed they would increase military spending even if the military didn't want added funds. If person can wrap their head around that, then that person's a good Republican.

[boomerangutang]

When Jerry Brown was kicking around during his earlier stint as California's governor, he bandied around an interesting idea for simplifying tax paying:

On a pre-printed postcard: State what you earned last year. Send in 7%. Done.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Gov Brown running in the race. Now there's a guy who can think on his feet. He has pedigree too, as his dad 'Hap Brown' was California gov earlier (leading up to Reagan, if memory serves). Maybe Brown will get tapped as Hillary's running mate. Locally, he's known as 'Moonbeam' because he's been known to toke on a joint once in awhile. oooo, naughty naughty.

[RickBradford]

[Jingthing]

When Jerry Brown was kicking around during his earlier stint as California's governor, he bandied around an interesting idea for simplifying tax paying:

On a pre-printed postcard: State what you earned last year. Send in 7%. Done.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Gov Brown running in the race. Now there's a guy who can think on his feet. He has pedigree too, as his dad 'Hap Brown' was California gov earlier (leading up to Reagan, if memory serves). Maybe Brown will get tapped as Hillary's running mate. Locally, he's known as 'Moonbeam' because he's been known to toke on a joint once in awhile. oooo, naughty naughty.

He's too old now and I don't think he wants it anymore but the U.S. lost a great potential president in not tapping him earlier.

[Jingthing]

To those who say it shouldn't matter, they may be right, but the reality is really that it DOES matter that Hillary is a woman and it matters in a very good way for her probable chances of being president.

You see, the U.S. is more than past ready to break this barrier, and the first time a CREDIBLE highly experienced woman presents herself, she will probably be it, and Hillary is it.

That's why in some ways I think the republicans best bet will be Fiorina, not experienced at government at all, but credible as a leader and younger.

It's going to be a woman this time, most likely.

Now after the first one, then it won't matter anymore.

Interestingly, I think the first time a "real" African American potential president has a chance, that will also be seen as a kind of a first time thing.

Yes, I'm getting racial, two African American born parents.

Remember when Obama starting running that a lot of African Americans were complaining that Obama wasn't "black enough" and then when it became clear that he had a decent chance of winning he instantly became PLENTY black.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed. Please stick a little bit closer to the topic of Hillary's declaration. Comparisons to others is acceptable, but off-topic remarks about other issues needed to be limited.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

[Johpa]

I honestly don't know any guy--Dem or Rep--who wholeheartedly supports Hillary. Even amongst Democrats, it's mostly "well, she's not my top choice, but she's a heck of a lot better than Cruz, Paul, Bush, Walker, who anyone else that the GOP can muster." I'm in that camp.

Same here. I actally like Elizabeth Warren but Hillary it is.

I am not voting for her but against who ever the republicans can find.

Atleast the GOP will have the next 8 years to get their house in order.

Unless she falls seriously ill, Hillary will be the next president.

Although Warren is currently making the obligatory public statements that she will not enter the race, her oft mentioned potential running mate Bernie Sanders did make it clear last week on Wilmore's Nightly Show that he and his group are making a serious evaluation on the potential of a progressive candidate running independently. And I infer that his group includes Warren. There is no need to rush to announce for such a candidate as they can ignore the Red State Iowa caucuses and make their initial splash in New Hampshire where Both Sanders and Warren have excellent name recognition. So I think there is still hope for a progressive alternative to Ms. Clinton, the scarlet woman of Wall St.

[Jingthing]

The presidency is Hillary's to lose.

She'll figure out a way.

To become president, that is:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html

The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political party not run by lunatics. There is only one choice for voters who want a president who accepts climate science and rejects voodoo economics, and whose domestic platform would not engineer the largest upward redistribution of resources in American history. Even if the relatively sober Jeb Bush wins the nomination, he will have to accommodate himself to his party's barking-mad consensus. She is non-crazy America’s choice by default. And it is not necessarily an exciting choice, but it is an easy one, and a proposition behind which she will probably command a majority.

[shaurene]

Bummer. Is that the best that the Americans have for president? They are doomed.

They could do much worse, I think she would be a good one. The Men have been useless.

[NeverSure]

The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political party not run by lunatics. There is only one choice for voters who want a president who accepts climate science and rejects voodoo economics, and whose domestic platform would not engineer the largest upward redistribution of resources in American history. Even if the relatively sober Jeb Bush wins the nomination, he will have to accommodate himself to his party's barking-mad consensus. She is non-crazy America’s choice by default. And it is not necessarily an exciting choice, but it is an easy one, and a proposition behind which she will probably command a majority.

I see. So anyone who disagrees with this author is a "lunatic" and "barking-mad" (sic).

Let me write that down so I won't forget it because that insight isn't available elsewhere.

I really don't buy into anything written that way, sorry. The guy is just too full of himself, and he's certainly not biased.

[Jingthing]

Hilary isn't exciting.

Hillary doesn't excite.

Another reason she's going to win.

Americans did excitement when they first elected Obama.

Time for a change.

Time for something old, more dull, and more American midwestern, instead of Hawaiian-Chicagoan-Kenyan.

[Credo]

....and not from Texas.

[notmyself]

I waited until Rubio entered the race to see what market reaction which was very very little. Put 4k GBP on Clinton to be the next US President at 11/10. I don't like her nor trust her but hey, double my money.

[Beng]

Bummer. Is that the best that the Americans have for president? They are doomed.

Why so negative ?

[sirineou]

This is great news !! There is no way in the world she will win.

She is carrying so much baggage and lies it is amazing she

can walk. So now just a matter of the Republicans chosing a

reasonable candidate, who should be a slam dunk win...

It's amusing to me that Hillary derangement syndrome can fog objective reality so dramatically. Dude, she is strongly favored to be our next President. Deal with it.

Strongly favored?

are we not jumping the gun a little bit? There is this little thing called the Nomination,We have not seen her opposition in the primary yet, but we favor her over them? and then we have the general election, I assume there will be a republican opponent, we don't even know who that will be, yet we favor her over him/her?

as much as the media would like this to be a coronation, there is this pesky little thing called , the democratic process.

[boomerangutang]

I can think of another country which would do well to consider a female at top position, but I can't be specific here.

[Pinot]

All the odds makers in N America and Europe show H is the odds-on favorite. This is due to the fact Americans have known HRC since 1992.

What do Americans know about H?

They know H is safe on the economy and in the matter or war and peace.

Americans know all of the 'scandals' against the Clintons since the 1992 campaign Bill and Hillary won are Republican party (right wing) invented scandals ballooned from some germ of a reality, such as Monica or the completely above board Whitewater development project in Arkansas. HRC has no scandals, only Republican party and other right wing inventions.

Because of this reality, Americans have made up their minds about H for president and all the mainstream credible and reliable polling shows she beats everyone in either party.

Also know that white, blue collar voters who did not vote for Barack will vote for H. Add to that the polling from 2008 to the present that consistently shows suburban Republican women decidedly for H for prez.

In 2012, which is instructive history and not predictive, the Ds had three strategies independent of one another to win. Not a combination, but separately as any one of the three would do the job. There was the Western strategy of winning Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa. Then there was the Mid-West strategy of carrying Iowa and Ohio. Third was the Southern strategy of bagging North Carolina and Virginia. Succeeding in any one, exclusive of the other two, would produce a win.

The Ds lost only one state, NC, which means the three separate and independent strategies converged on election day to produce victory. Next year, Rs need to win Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Nevada. Or any combination of the 52 electoral college votes they need to win. The votes are not there.

Top Democratic party figures expect the R nominee to be either JEB or Walker, with Rubio as the outside shot. If the nominee is JEB, it will be the end of the Bushes forever, thank the almighty voters. If it's Walker, voters will choose the known HRC over this unknown. If it somehow might be Rubio, the evangelicals, the tea party and the war hawks have no candidate.

Voters know now how they will vote, so when the Rs reach back for the kitchen sink -- whatever that might yet be-- it still means that it's all over but the shouting.

Don't forget Sarah Palin, Publicus. The Republican field is pathetic. All their issues are just that...their issues.

[chuckd]

The presidency is Hillary's to lose.

She'll figure out a way.

To become president, that is:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html

The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political party not run by lunatics. There is only one choice for voters who want a president who accepts climate science and rejects voodoo economics, and whose domestic platform would not engineer the largest upward redistribution of resources in American history. Even if the relatively sober Jeb Bush wins the nomination, he will have to accommodate himself to his party's barking-mad consensus. She is non-crazy America’s choice by default. And it is not necessarily an exciting choice, but it is an easy one, and a proposition behind which she will probably command a majority.

JT:

Who wrote your editorial? Curious who the author was and where he is coming from.

[Jingthing]

JT:

Who wrote your editorial? Curious who the author was and where he is coming from.

Huh?

You didn't see the link?

The author's name is there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Chait

[zydeco]

Hilary isn't exciting.

Hillary doesn't excite.

Another reason she's going to win.

Americans did excitement when they first elected Obama.

Time for a change.

Time for something old, more dull, and more American midwestern, instead of Hawaiian-Chicagoan-Kenyan.

Hillary is decrepit.

Hillary is corrupt.

Hillary is the last gasp of the aging, coming to terms with their mortality feminist harpies of the 60s and 70s.

Their last chance to emasculate American society.

Oh, and Hillary apparently is still the world's champion newbie, one time commodities trader.

[Jingthing]

Whatever.

She just needs one more vote than the challenger in the electoral college to be president.

The Hillary derangement syndrome suffers will be of no consequence ... what difference do they make?

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Hilary isn't exciting.

Hillary doesn't excite.

Another reason she's going to win.

Americans did excitement when they first elected Obama.

Time for a change.

Time for something old, more dull, and more American midwestern, instead of Hawaiian-Chicagoan-Kenyan.

Hillary is decrepit.

Hillary is corrupt.

Hillary is the last gasp of the aging, coming to terms with their mortality feminist harpies of the 60s and 70s.

Their last chance to emasculate American society.

Oh, and Hillary apparently is still the world's champion newbie, one time commodities trader.

so, let me get this right, ....you don't like her? BTW, this isn't so much about some individuals trying to find as much subjective dirt on her as possible. It's about getting the best possible candidate to become leader of the world's most robust economy (and strongest military) for the subsequent 4 or 8 years.

[zydeco]

And one more thing, why take the chance on electing a 70 year old woman with a history of recent health issues? The Left mercilessly attacked Reagan for his age in 1980 and now they put up the aging crone as their answer to the 21st century? I doubt she has the stamina, energy, or good health to hold the job.

[boomerangutang]

A win by Hillary would also be a great self-image boost for girls in the US - and possibly around the world. Girls need all the help they can get in the self-image dept. Not so much in the US, where females can do just about anything men are doing, including combat roles in the military, wall street hot shots, astronauts, lead guitarists in rock groups, piloting jumbo jets, boxers. .....but more importantly a role model for countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa where women are often treated as 2nd class or worse.

I project Hillary as president would also campaign for less sugar in diets. Currently, the average American eats over 50 kilos of sugar/year. Probably similar for the average person in every country. Look at any mall or sidewalk in the US: Grossly Fat people everywhere. Mayor Bloomfield of NYC came within a gnat's ass of getting legislation enacted to ban super size cola drinks in NY, but at the last minute, a concerted campaign by Big Sugar trashed it.

Conventional thinking: Whiskey, sugar, vodka, trans-fats, MSG: no problem. Hemp, no way, that's an illegal drug and can get you thrown in prison (no matter that no one has ever gotten stoned from smoking hemp).

[zydeco]

^^^

That's some campaign slogan. "The self esteem president." As if there is a deficiency of it in the US.

[zydeco]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Hilary isn't exciting.

Hillary doesn't excite.

Another reason she's going to win.

Americans did excitement when they first elected Obama.

Time for a change.

Time for something old, more dull, and more American midwestern, instead of Hawaiian-Chicagoan-Kenyan.

Hillary is decrepit.

Hillary is corrupt.

Hillary is the last gasp of the aging, coming to terms with their mortality feminist harpies of the 60s and 70s.

Their last chance to emasculate American society.

Oh, and Hillary apparently is still the world's champion newbie, one time commodities trader.

so, let me get this right, ....you don't like her? BTW, this isn't so much about some individuals trying to find as much subjective dirt on her as possible. It's about getting the best possible candidate to become leader of the world's most robust economy (and strongest military) for the subsequent 4 or 8 years.

And Granny Clinton is NOT that person.

[chuckd]

JT:

Who wrote your editorial? Curious who the author was and where he is coming from.

Huh?

You didn't see the link?

The author's name is there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Chait

Nope. I completely over looked it. Sorry about that.

[Chris Lawrence]

Might be an opening for Bill? he could become the first lady if he can't make wood?

[Jingthing]

Calling Hillary "Granny" used as an obvious intended denigrating insult is very SEXIST.

How many presidents have been grandfathers? Never heard one of them being insulted with snarky accusations of being Gramps.

Hillary derangement syndrome victims keep at it. That kind of sexist rhetoric is going to backfire big time and energize the majority out there which doesn't go for that regressive garbage.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Jingthing