Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 09, 2014

{eter Nicholas, Wall Street Journal: Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery. People are "really, really nervous" about their future, Clinton said at an event in Colorado last week that included hints of her emerging strategy to convey that she would be more effective in the pursuit of Democratic policy goals than Obama has been during his time in office.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

nullifidian

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief speech writer for Pete Wilson when the Republican was California's governor, suggested that Clinton's distancing strategy at least partly reflects Obama's lackluster popularity.

"If the president had 60% approval ratings, she would be hitching her wagon to him," Whalen said. "At 40%, he's an anchor." Still, given the delicate spot Mrs. Clinton is in, "to the extent that she throws him under the bus, she has to run over him at a very slow speed."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Hillary is going to throw Obama under the bus. lol

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

" take a more assertive stance toward global crises,"

Translation: More wars from Neocon Hillary.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans

Like voting for the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act.

#3 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-07 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

.sure that's easy for her to say, she IS a Republican.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-07 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The problem with Obama is he's done too much to compromise with, and to appease, Republicans.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-07 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

#5 Yeah...THAT's his problem.

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-07 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The problem with Obama is he's done too much to compromise with, and to appease, Republicans. "

Exactly. Hillary Boehner is using Republican talking points in her ruthless quest for power.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You would think Carlyle Clinton would at least have the decency to wait until after the midterms to throw Obama under the bus.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

lol, Nulli and the WSJ... a match made in Clinton Hater Heaven.

A relationship based on the same fetish, apparently.

topics.wsj.com

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-07 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"lol, Nulli and the WSJ... a match made in Clinton Hater Heaven."

*yawn* Do you have any substantive response other than than guilt by association?

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Well, pointing out in a link that the article author shares you Hate fetish undermines the spin in this article that there is something sinister about Clinton's recent statements.

There isn't.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-07 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary is standing on a razor blade.

She so much wants to jump into the pit of racism and dog whistles but knows to do so would be political suicide. All she dares is to "nibble around the edges".

This shows a lack of vision and ideas.

#12 | Posted by fresno500 at 2014-07-07 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"you Hate fetish "

lol. Do you agree with Hillary or not, that Obama is the one who refuses to compromise? Yes or no?

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Run Hillary, run!

#14 | Posted by badbird at 2014-07-07 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Obama is the one who refuses to compromise

Hilarious! The author spins and you go all Maytag, lmao!

She never said that, "Obama refuses to compromise". That is just the spin you fell for as any Clinton Hater might.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-07 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12

Not "to jump into the pit of racism and dog whistles... shows a lack of vision and ideas." ??

Where's that funny flag.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-07 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you agree with the Hillary/Mitch McConnell position that Obama is at fault? Yes or no?

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-the Hillary/Mitch McConnell position that Obama is at fault

lol, you can spin it and lie about it however much you like, but she never agreed with Mitch about Obama's faults.

S'riously, You reading Peter Nicholas is like BL2 in the Rwing Echo Chamber.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-07 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You reading Peter Nicholas is like BL2 in the Rwing Echo Chamber."

That article was posted at the liberal Huffington Post. They must be Clinton haters as well.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

One only need look at his list of articles I posted in #9 to get his drift.

And one only need to look at the ridiculous assumptions you make with your ever changing questions to see that you share the same Hate fetish.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-07 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.huffingtonpost.com

Huffington Post. Nuff said.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Obama has "worked so hard and reached out so often, and it gets discouraging because you don't feel like you're getting much back." She added: "I don't think you can ever stop. And I think that's part of whoever the next president is just has to be ready to do."

Yeah, she's an Obama Hater fer sure!

-Nuff said.

You bet'cha!

Huffpo linking WSJ stories is another good reason not to read them.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-07 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, Obama's problem is not so much compromising with republicans, but compromising with the American people on some of his policies. ACA for instance. Stating that Obama should have tried harder to "compromise" ignores the fact that many people did not want the ACA, did not want to pay for the ACA, and the only group who was defending those people was the republican party. But Obamacare was his political legacy. And the American people were going to take it whether they liked it or not.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-07 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

But Hillary is pretty much a republican. There's little difference between her and the mainstream republican machine.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-07 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In 2000, then-Vice President Al Gore was careful about positioning himself as a continuation of Democrat Bill Clinton's presidency, since some voters were disillusioned with Mr. Clinton in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1988, though, Republican George H.W. Bush aligned himself directly with the popular Ronald Reagan. Mr. Gore lost, while Mr. Bush won."

I just love sneaky little attempts to rewrite history. George H.W. Bush did not win the election in 2000, he was appointed President by the SC.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-08 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any Republican who is seen as willing to work with Obama is lambasted by his own party. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Obama but this isn't one of them. The GOP will not work with him and he's correct to assume he'd be wasting his time in getting them to try.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-09 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

She had better not get to far lest she alienate Obama voters.

#28 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-07-09 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

So if Hillary and Heb Bush fight it out it will be a right winged Republican against another Right winged Republican.

#29 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

JEB Geesh

#30 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama alienated the lefty-ist Obama voters by not giving them the whole loaf they think they deserve.

They'd rather have broken glass muffins instead.

www.quickmeme.com

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama alienated the lefty-ist Obama voters by not giving them the whole loaf they think they deserve.

They'd rather have broken glass muffins instead.

www.quickmeme.com

Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 12:18 PM | Reply

I expected Obama to actually fight for we Liberals instead of throwing us to the curb. You know the ones who brought him to the party to begin with.

#32 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Expecting him to put the 15 percent of the voters who are Solid Liberal ahead of the remaining 85 percent is unrealistic.

And to enable rwingers by claiming an equivalency between the GOP and the Dems is self-defeating.

You may wind up with Ted Cruz instead.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Expecting him to put the 15 percent of the voters who are Solid Liberal ahead of the remaining 85 percent is unrealistic.

And to enable rwingers by claiming an equivalency between the GOP and the Dems is self-defeating.

You may wind up with Ted Cruz instead.

Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 12:29 PM | Reply

I expect the president that I voted for to fight for me. I expect them to not forget who brought them to the white house. Oh and it's common knowledge that Hillary is a Right winged Republican. She was a Goldwater gal after all.

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The whole problem with Obama is that he has wooed the Rethugs continuously while they spite on him continuously. Following ------ policy is a formula for continuing disaster, as it has been since Regan launched Friedman style economics.

#35 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-09 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

She better be careful how she words her critique of the President and his policies. Might lose the hard left and minority vote as anyone who questions this authority is a automatically admitted in the Racist Bigot Club, complete with membership card and secret decoder ring.

#36 | Posted by aescal at 2014-07-09 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't blame Hillary for trying to position herself optimally for her candidacy. I do blame her for being a right of center corporatist/militarist pretending to be a Democrat.

#37 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-09 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Hillary would be a guaranteed loss for democrats.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-09 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

No Clownshack. You are wrong. That is the scary thing. I wish she would be a guaranteed loss. But she's not. She has positioned herself in the center and right-of-center on so many issues that a lot of right leaning independents will vote for her along with the most uninformed Party-line voting Democrats. She may very well win. Don't let our distaste for her lead us to underestimate her.

#39 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-09 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Her presidency would be a loss to liberals, but she would quite likely win the election.

#40 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-07-09 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Republicans won't vote for her.

Moderates won't vote for her.

Independents won't vote for her.

And it would split the democratic vote.

Plus. She's about 500 years old. And a horrible human being.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-09 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

When and if we get the choice of Hillary or Jeb or Mitt or Ted, the best choice for the country will be pretty obvious.

Sorry, but Noam isn't on the ballot, and if he was he would lose worse than the guy I voted for the first time I could vote, George McGovern.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

When and if we get the choice of Hillary or Jeb or Mitt or Ted, the best choice for the country will be pretty obvious.

Sorry, but Noam isn't on the ballot, and if he was he would lose worse than the guy I voted for the first time I could vote, George McGovern.

Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 01:37 PM | Reply

YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!! NONE of the above.

#43 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary's primary strength is that of the nine ------ candidates fielded last time, Romney was the best one. Many of the other eight were two sheets to the wind.

#44 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-09 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Plus. She's about 500 years old. And a horrible human being."

If it looks like she's going to win, one suggestion: invest in cattle futures.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-09 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even if one thinks that Clinton is the merely the best of bad choices, tearing down that choice with no alternative other than the worse ones is irresponsible and naive, enabling those worse choices and their rwing supporters.

"None of the above" is a cop out, not a choice.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even if one thinks that Clinton is the merely the best of bad choices, tearing down that choice with no alternative other than the worse ones is irresponsible and naive, enabling those worse choices and their rwing supporters.

"None of the above" is a cop out, not a choice.

Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 02:35 PM | Reply

None of the above isn't a cop out when the choices available are equally as "Kohler gift + ty" Tis better to vote none of the above than it is to vote for a very bad choice.

#47 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Wrong. "None of the above", voting 3rd party, writing in a candidate, boycotting the rigged system, etc., are all valid and principled alternatives in a democracy. The DNC Clintonites hate democracy.

#48 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-09 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

With the current crop of horrible GOTP and DNC candidates, third party is the best option.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-09 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

third party is so passe. i want a viable fourth party candidate.

#50 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-07-09 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Actually, Hillary is the only serious DNC candidate I oppose. Enough dynastic Presidents. Enough right of center Dems.

What about the guy from Maryland?

#51 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-09 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky, you overstate the differences between Hillary and many rightwing potential candidates. They are not as different as you portray. At least not in their rhetoric.

#52 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-09 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does anyone know if Hillary is an unsigned member of PNAC???

#53 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

What about the guy from Maryland?"

o'malley you mean. we talk about this guy all the time at my favorite watering hole. i usually end up calling him yet another polical whore.

well, he is catholic, but.... he's been to israel a bunch of times. being squarely in israel's pocket certainly doesn't hurt his cause--

washington.cbslocal.com

the evidence is in and the conclusion is evident: all democrats suck.

#54 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-07-09 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hillary would be a guaranteed loss for democrats."

Especially if elected.

#55 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-09 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"None of the above" is a cop out, not a choice.

so is party line voting. it's not thinking at all.

At least "none of the above" requires someone to look at all of the candidates before making a choice. party line voting is for retards who don't have to think at all.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-09 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#54

that's an example of a foreign government directly buying influence from elected politicans here in the USA.

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-09 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary wants to be America's Margaret Thatcher. Just say no.

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-09 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I shouldn't even have to say anything at this point..

#59 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-09 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

- valid and principled alternatives

If your vote aids the GOP candidate, it is neither for a progressive voter.

-They are not as different as you portray.

Just in domestic economic policy and judicial appointments alone, you are dead wrong, they are very different in policy outcomes for average Americans.

But I understand that Obama wasn't the Messiah you all thought he would be, and that it will be years before you guys pant's dry out over that.

I suggest you get over it then next couple of years before you manage to put Ted Cruz into office.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

If your vote aids the GOP candidate, it is neither for a progressive voter.

-They are not as different as you portray.

Just in domestic economic policy and judicial appointments alone, you are dead wrong, they are very different in policy outcomes for average Americans.

But I understand that Obama wasn't the Messiah you all thought he would be, and that it will be years before you guys pant's dry out over that.

I suggest you get over it then next couple of years before you manage to put Ted Cruz into office.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is PRECISELY this attitude that is the problem here in America. We don't elect the best candidate for America. No wonder we are headed downward.

#61 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama supporters in the Dem primary told me and everyone else that Obama was the "real deal", a dyed in the wool Liberal with a big L that was WAY Left of Hillary and would CHANGE the way government operated.

Well, that shows that A) you have a mightily inflated idea of what one Pres can do about the way government operates, especially when the opposition Party decides they will not agree with him on anything more important than the time they will have lunch, EVER, before he even gets into office.

and B) that the next time you tell me you have such a candidate, I should laugh first and ask questions later.

If you don't have a candidate that is "Left enough" for you this time, it will be because you have not done the hard werk of grassroots efforts to build the Party on the Left, and now you want to whine about that and ridicule any candidate that isn't perfect in your now discredited view, and in the process help elect a real NeoCon from the GOP rather than the fake ones you have created.

(That's not really all for you, Larry, you just happened to be standing there, lol)

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

1Obama supporters in the Dem primary told me and everyone else that Obama was the "real deal", a dyed in the wool Liberal with a big L that was WAY Left of Hillary and would CHANGE the way government operated.

2Well, that shows that A) you have a mightily inflated idea of what one Pres can do about the way government operates, especially when the opposition Party decides they will not agree with him on anything more important than the time they will have lunch, EVER, before he even gets into office.

and B) that the next time you tell me you have such a candidate, I should laugh first and ask questions later.

3If you don't have a candidate that is "Left enough" for you this time, it will be because you have not done the hard werk of grassroots efforts to build the Party on the Left, and now you want to whine about that and ridicule any candidate that isn't perfect in your now discredited view, and in the process help elect a real NeoCon from the GOP rather than the fake ones you have created.

(That's not really all for you, Larry, you just happened to be standing there, lol)

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. Which is precisely why I voted for myself instead of Obama in 2012

2.I expect the one I vote for to fight for me. I don't want a President that gives me crumbs after he is elected. I'm sorry that You don't understand this Corky.

3Hillary he a Old Guard Republican Conservative with a TOKEN D at the end of her name. She was a Goldwater gal for Pete sake.

#63 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I gave that a funny/sad flag.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-09 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

We don't elect the best candidate for America.

Sometimes we don't Larry because we're too busy trying to keep the greater of two evils from becoming the most Powerful MFer on the planet! This isn't a game, it's REALITY and if all that has transpired since 1980 hasn't completely made you aware of this, you aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Everybody is corrupt and corruptible to an extent because WE'RE ALL corrupt and corruptible in our own ways!

Of course, there are powerfully compelling arguments to make for MANY non-Democratic/Republican candidates for POTUS. However you can sit and ---------- with the Libertarians, Greens and Birchers; only ONE of TWO people are going to be elected POTUS and it matters greatly that we ALWAYS chose the lesser of perhaps two evils or the greater evil will win.

At the end of the day, I find it impossible for anyone of true conscious not to see all that hasn't happened that the GOP and regressives wanted to happen simply because Obama's been President since 2009.

Reality also tells us that one's options are often limited based on the fact that the things which caused the problems might have to also be a part of the immediate, most rational solution; even though enacting it doesn't repudiate the folly of the original decision and the wrongheaded fools who made it.

#65 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-09 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Of course, there are powerfully compelling arguments to make for MANY non-Democratic/Republican candidates for POTUS. However you can sit and ---------- with the Libertarians, Greens and Birchers; only ONE of TWO people are going to be elected POTUS and it matters greatly that we ALWAYS chose the lesser of perhaps two evils or the greater evil will win.

Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-09 10:31 PM | Reply

Then we are doomed for the dustbin of history.

#66 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I expect the one I vote for to fight for me. I don't want a President that gives me crumbs after he is elected. I'm sorry that You don't understand this Corky.

The President has to fight for what's best for all Americans Larry, whether or not they voted for him. That's his job, to get things done for everyone. In order to do that, sometimes you compromise with those who disagree with you and stay firm when it's an absolute must (Stimulus, ACA).

Everything is not going to go your way regardless of which end you approach it from. And in the end, you have to have the trust, respect, and support of the people in order to govern with decisiveness and win the pitched battles. I think it's objective to say that the GOP never allowed Obama one second of comity in which to perform at his best and to bring Americans together around the very policies he ran on and was elected on twice. The right and their media have sown nothing but seeds of discontent and use every single issue as a cudgel to delegitimize the most banal of presidential actions and policies.

We see what's wrong Larry and it enrages me too, but the damage today's GOP IS doing and the irreparable carnage they can do if everyone else doesn't unite to take them from power is far worse than any failing that Obama or Hillary could ever have.

#67 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-09 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Then we are doomed for the dustbin of history.

Possibly, but then we always were. You cannot expect people to be what they aren't, namely always honest, moral and forthright. It's not a government problem, its a humanity problem and no government throughout the span of time will ever overcome the imperfect nature of man and our subjugation to our baser instincts.

I'm all for striving to forever do what's best; but it's got to be the best based on the reality surrounding us, not on any utopian ideal because utopia only exists in the souls of the truly wise and their are no governments there.

#68 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-09 10:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

We see what's wrong Larry and it enrages me too, but the damage today's GOP IS doing and the irreparable carnage they can do if everyone else doesn't unite to take them from power is far worse than any failing that Obama or Hillary could ever have.

Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-09 10:49 PM | Reply

A vote for Hillary IS a vote for the GOP.

#69 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 11:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#69

No Larry it isn't. It wasn't and it never will be. A Democratic president can and will be constrained by both reality and by the voices and powers within the party. The GOP has proven to be nothing more than a movable feast of malleable idiocy, ready to buy whatever the loudest and most corrosive voices are selling. They are more than willing to create their own reality far removed from facts, evidence, logic and reason.

There aren't any perfect candidates and their never will be.

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-09 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

No Larry it isn't. It wasn't and it never will be. A Democratic president can and will be constrained by both reality and by the voices and powers within the party. The GOP has proven to be nothing more than a movable feast of malleable idiocy, ready to buy whatever the loudest and most corrosive voices are selling. They are more than willing to create their own reality far removed from facts, evidence, logic and reason.

There aren't any perfect candidates and their never will be.

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-09 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I give You exhibit A) Tony

www.huffingtonpost.com

#71 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-09 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I give You exhibit B)

www.globalresearch.ca

That Iraq's "sovereignty and territorial integrity" was guaranteed in law and by the United Nations was not an issue for consideration. Signatories, a veritable "Whose Who" of neo-cons, included John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, James Wolsey, Zalmay Khalizad and PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan.

Robert Kagan is currently on Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Advisory Committee,

#72 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-10 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#69
No Larry it isn't. It wasn't and it never will be. A Democratic president can and will be constrained by both reality and by the voices and powers within the party. The GOP has proven to be nothing more than a movable feast of malleable idiocy, ready to buy whatever the loudest and most corrosive voices are selling. They are more than willing to create their own reality far removed from facts, evidence, logic and reason.
There aren't any perfect candidates and their never will be.

#70 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

With a post like this, I don't know how you can, with a straight face, cast yourself as anything other than a fierce partisan.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-10 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

- a movable feast of malleable idiocy, ready to buy whatever the loudest and most corrosive voices are selling.

Spot on, TR, as per usual.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-10 02:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"A Democratic president can and will be constrained by both reality and by the voices and powers within the party"

That's a steaming load.

#75 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-10 04:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's a steaming load.

No it isn't, it's simply the truth. Where and when has Obama forced through policies favored by the most radical sectors from the left? Isn't one of the left's principle criticisms of Obama his penchant for starting with a compromised position when engaging the GOP in trying to get legislation and policy past their obstinance? Which party tries to adopt proven economic principles that would build up the recession/inequality-riddled economy from the bottom-up and which party (even after 30+ years) continues to champion further renewed efforts at supply-side remedies which have never worked and in fact have exacerbated said inequality and working class stagnation issues?

Is there any sentient being alive that didn't watch Mitt Romney run away from his own signature policy because Obama had co-opted it as a template for what became the ACA and is largely doing what it was expected to do without any substantive help from the those now calling this Heritage Foundation spawn "communist"? In my mind, part of Mitt's discomfort and awkwardness as a candidate stemmed from the fact he isn't a natural lunatic who disbelieves science and facts -- just because the Democrats believe them -- and the GOP base demands total fealty to their own twisted reality of who and what the other side is and wants to do.

Don't take this for what it isn't: politically and socially there is much, much more expected from Obama than he has been able to deliver. But being pulled by the radicalization of his most vocal wing has never been one of them, nor does anyone dismiss facts just because they don't fit the party narrative. The GOP cannot sneeze without the permission of it's most radical voices because those voices are almost all that is ever heard from that side of the aisle. Prior to 2010, the Democrats were constrained by the Blue Dogs, to the chagrin of many liberals. There are simply no moderates to counter anything on the right anymore and some of the most conservative politicians are forced to throw red meat in order to keep from getting primaried by the even more radical.

#76 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-10 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

With a post like this, I don't know how you can, with a straight face, cast yourself as anything other than a fierce partisan.

I can keep a totally straight face because I'm speaking the truth about what I see TODAY in our politics, not what traditionally has been thought or said about it.

The Democrats have the larger tent and they always have had it because they're the only party trying to serve EVERY master simultaneously. This is NOT something I see as a feature, it's just a reality. Money talks (1st Amendment, right) so of course the Democrats have to go where the money is just like the GOP. The difference being the Democrats (as a whole) don't completely throw the workers and poor under the bus as does the entirety of GOP economic policy -- which only exists to demonize consumers and worker-taxpayers as impediments to the real economic growth of banksters and capitalists (much of it non-productive, under-regulated speculation), while making it easier to park record profits offshore away from domestic taxation at the same time our infrastructure continues to decay from neglect and overuse and the GOP denies long-term unemployed benefits that they contributed toward back when they had gainful employment before the financial sector's casino losses almost sunk the world's economy.

I don't know how anyone can look at today's GOP and even compare it to Reagan's time and not see the stark difference, radicalization, and total abdication of any sense of governing for the betterment of our entire community but for the extreme agenda of it's enraged and outrageous base.

#77 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-10 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

TR: Honest question: Who would YOU like to see be the Democratic nominee? 9Because it sounds like you are pulling for Hillary.)

#78 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-10 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#78

I would prefer Elizabeth Warren over Hillary, but I don't know if she's ready yet for such immense responsibility. For the future, I really like the Castro brothers from San Antonio.

I see and recognize exactly what and who Hillary Clinton is and so should anyone paying attention over the last 20 years. The difference will be that Hillary's Cabinet will likely be full of people who won't just rubberstamp her instincts and will challenge her on her neo-con impulses.

There is no room for contrarian or conciliatory voices inside today's GOP and those who appear to be positioning themselves for a 2016 run are far worse options than is Hillary, at least for me.

#79 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-10 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm curious if Warren isn't ready for immense responsibility how was Obama ready?

#80 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-10 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#80

I said "I don't know..." not "I'm sure". Everyone is different and brings a different life experience to the table. I'm merely currently ignorant of Warren's personal story.

#81 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-10 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gotta love Clinton's view of how to attract the "right wing"...

"Hey y'all, lets all get together for a good ol' round of killing people. Nothing unifies 'Merica like cruise missiles."

#82 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-10 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow.

As much as the MSM is trying to portray her is inevitable...if this thread is a true microcosm of where liberals and Democrats are with her....she's in trouble.

Also - she wants to distance herself politically from Obama? Screw her! She was Sec of State for 4 years under Obama. Her best hope is that foreign affairs improve considerably over the next couple of years. Otherwise, Dem primary challengers and certainly the GOP will tether her to Obama with ease.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-11 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

The "MSM" portrayed her as inevitable back in 2007, as I recall. Oops.

Who knows who will rise to the top in the 2016 primaries?

And, distancing oneself from the current president is not uncommon for would-be successors.

In other words, the Journal is writing about something that, to some extent, is inevitable.
Doesn't mean it's not news, but it's not ground-breaking or surprising.

#84 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-11 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

The "MSM" portrayed her as inevitable back in 2007, as I recall. Oops.

That is true. Once they jumped on the Obama-messiah bandwagon, she was finished.

And, distancing oneself from the current president is not uncommon for would-be successors.
In other words, the Journal is writing about something that, to some extent, is inevitable.
Doesn't mean it's not news, but it's not ground-breaking or surprising.

Agreed. Well said.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-11 12:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Considering Bush Sr considers Bill Clinton his son. That would mean if it's Hillary against Jeb. It will be a political Family Feud for the WhiteHouse.

#86 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-11 02:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Larry,

If '16 ends up being Hillary vs. Jeb I might just shoot myself.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-11 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

If '16 ends up being Hillary vs. Jeb I might just shoot myself.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-11 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

That would be wiser than wasting your vote on someone else.

Sincerely,

Corky

#88 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-11 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

#42 | POSTED BY CORKY
"the guy I voted for the first time I could vote, George McGovern."

So you're the one! Had no idea that was you.

#89 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-11 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

What people seem to forget is that the voters can do electoral math just like pols do.
It doesn't just matter WHO you vote for, but also WHERE you're voting.

If you're in a swing state, I can totally understand the "lesser of two evils" approach.
But if you're in a solidly blue or red state, then why not vote for a third party candidate?
You neither help nor harm either of the "two evils", but you do forward the possibility of a viable third (or fourth) party run, some time in the future.
You can start to make it seem like a reasonable possibility.

I live in Kentucky, and in 2012, Romney won the state 60.5% to 37.8%. Of the four counties Obama won, only Jefferson County (Louisville, the state's only real "city") was decided by a margin of greater than 10%. In fact, the other three counties were decided by a TOTAL of less than 1,500 votes.
In other words, a very solidly RED state, and the 8 electoral votes are going to whomever the Republican party nominates.
Say I don't like that Republican candidate...am I really going to make a difference by voting for the Democrat?
Say I DO like that Republican candidate...am I really going to make a difference by voting for the Republican?
Why not vote third party? I could get 100,000 people to go along with me, and the Republican candidate would still win by a very comfortable margin.
People vote for the lesser of two evils because they don't see a third party run as viable.
Not the candidate, the concept.
And if the electorate doesn't see a third party run as viable, they won't vote third party...and as long as the electorate behaves that way, it won't be viable.
Both major parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, in reinforcing the notion that there are only two options.
And the electorate laps it up.

#90 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-11 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort