General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoward Dean: I hope Hillary Clinton becomes president
By Peter Hamby, CNN National Political Reporter
updated 2:49 PM EDT, Tue August 19, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/politics/howard-dean-hillary-clinton-2016/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3
Still, he said Clinton "might be a great candidate because of that."
"It's fairly likely the Republicans are going to nominate somebody who is going to be considered pretty flawed," he said, handicapping the GOP field.
Dean called Ted Cruz and Rand Paul "the wing-nut brothers." Clinton, he said, would be a "perfect foil" for Paul, who is, in his words, "a guy who wants to turn back the clock to the 1840s and all this other crap and pretend he is a libertarian but doesn't want women to exercise any rights over their own lives. She is going to mop the floor with him."
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I've always agreed with Howard Dean in the past.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)LloydS of New London
(355 posts)yay
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And I'm not sure that she is even qualified to become president.
WTF has she ever accomplished? I think she is actually one of those people, like Paris Hilton, who is famous for being famous. She is an underwhelming public speaker, not quick on her feet, has made a practice of associating with some of the most repulsive nut cases in the senate, Wall Street and the Pentagon, didn't accomplish much as a senator, had an unremarkable term as SoS.
She voted for the IWR because she was afraid of being smeared as a "liberal" and she lied about being exposed to sniper fire in Bosnia.
I don't "hate" Hillary Clinton, because I don't hate anybody. BUt I don't see any evidence that she is presidential material. IMO, all Clintons should immediately retire from public life, get the fuck out of the Democratic party and spend the rest of their lives counting their money.
I'm about as sick of them as I am of the Bushes.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)WTF has she ever accomplished?
...well, she was a very effective Senator from the state of New York, and she was Secretary of State in the four years immediately succeeding a presidency that did more damage to our overseas image and credibility than any other I can recall.
She voted for the IWR for the same reason Chuck Schumer did -- she represented the state that was most impacted by 9-11.
Yes, she exaggerated about the Bosnia sniper thing. Just as one-time Republican Party member Elizabeth Warren exaggerated her Native American heritage. Factoring those things out, Clinton is far more experienced than Warren in areas that qualify one to be President -- and I'm not even factoring in her time as FLOTUS.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Ultimately, I don't blame the Senate. I blame the members of the administration who lied to the Senate.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Hillary knew better, she wasn't "lied to". I don't trust her to act in the best interest of the country, except for the rich & powerful.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)that would give Bush the blank check IWR that he wanted.
Instead, she and some other Dems signed on to give him an IWR with conditions -- he was only supposed to act if WMD were found. He ignored the restrictions. But it didn't matter because if the October IWR hadn't been approved, the Rethugs would have approved a blank check resolution in January. Bush would have gone to war after that no matter what.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)to get us Single Payer Universal Healthcare many many years ago...Before it was even on anyone else's radar....she was very near successful at it too.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks in advance.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)..which, as a Senator from New York, was something she should have taken the lead on. In 2005, she worked across party lines to get a bill passed that gave tax breaks to American manufacturers (again, important as a NY Senator -- especially for the upstate cities). She was also a steadfast advocate for 9-11 First Responders.
She was a leading voice in the failed attempt to derail the Alito nomination, and she voted against the Roberts nomination as well. She also opposed the Federal marriage Amendment. She also opposed the Bush Tax Cuts.
What have Elizabeth Warren's three most important triumphs been as Senator?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Seriously? None of these were difficult or controversial things. For example, IIRC, *every* Democrat opposed the Bush tax cuts.
Warren's only been senator for a year, but she's gotten Holder and the Fed to at least start pretending that they regulate banks, stopped Larry Summers from having another crack at us, was one of only 4 senators to vote against the rich banker Obama nominated to negotiate trade agreements, has co-sponsored several pieces of legislation, and so forth. Prior to that, she got the CFPB started.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)..back to the argument.
Yes. Those are triumphs. HRC was a) a Senator in the minority party, b) a Senator from a state that is largely dead to Republicans (notwithstanding Mayor Rudy and Steve King) -- so getting money for first responders and post-destruction redevelopment money in that climate were worthy accomplishments.
So, let me get this straight: The current class of Republican Senators is as hostile to this Presidency as any group of Senators has been to any President, and Elizabeth is a one-time Republican: she couldn't reach across the aisle and get any more votes against the President's nominee just on GOP-spite alone? Doesn't seem too effective to me. Froman won 93-4.
She's co-sponsored dozens of pieces of legislation. Clinton co-sponsored hundreds. You realize 90% of these are measures that have no impact on anything, right?
A resolution designating the week beginning September 7, 2014, as "National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week".
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding global climate change.
She has been a co-sponsor on some good work
Access to Contraception for Women Servicemembers and Dependents Act of 2014
Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2014
..and
United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014
She sponsored this that is very near and dear to my heart
Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
...and wasted far too much time on this..
A resolution congratulating the Boston Red Sox on winning the 2013 World Series.
Sponsor:
Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] (Introduced 11/05/2013)
......
Much of the legislation Sponsored by Hillary Clinton failed for two simple reasons -- hostile president and hostile congress. However, she did some co-sponsorship
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
ALS Registry Act
(which should get her and Harry Reid out of dumping ice water on their heads)
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
...and just so you don't think I'm picking on Elizabeth
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006
..............................
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/08/22/elizabeth-warren-attorney-she-has-nothing-with-ready-for-warren/O7nOU8Z4bwAwFNRNrMFyNM/story.html
Manny, before I leave, let me state, as I did to NanceGreggs, that it's an honor to have you in the thread. That's serious. It is stated with neither snark nor irony. I could be fairly described as a third-wayer; you clearly are not. We both opposed the Iraq war, but likely for very different reasons. IIRC, you feel the IWR is the most important congressional vote in the past two decades, while I'd go ACA hands down. I enjoy reading your work and I appreciate you stopping into the thread.
Let's set ALL of that aside for a moment.
Howard Dean states that he hopes Hillary Clinton will become President. Elizabeth Warren thinks Hillary Clinton is "terrific". And Warren has said about a million times now that she ain't running for President. At what point do you maybe concede that these stalwart liberals see something in Hillary Clinton that you don't, and perhaps should?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and her support of Israel at all costs is one of them. If we do not stop, we will be drawn into endless war with the Arab World, and endless loss of credibility abroad.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)With Lazzio. Never saw a candidate better. She is flawless.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)IIRC, she wasn't doing particularly well against Giuliani when he dropped out due to cancer. Lazio stepped in, and blew himself up by physically menacing Hillary on stage during a debate.
No?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)to be President.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Since she is over 35 years of age and a native born citizen of the US, she is indeed "qualified" to be president.
What she seems to lack IMO is the temperament, judgment, poise, dignity and veracity to be an effective president. And that's not sexist. I feel the same way about Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and every other prospective presidential candidate on the republican side.
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)... that made me laugh out loud this week when I read them.
1. "I think (Hillary) is actually one of those people, like Paris Hilton, who is famous for being famous." Tulertom
2. "Tina Fey would be nothing without me." Sarah Palin
Whether you like, love, or loathe HRC is beside the point. The fact that you think she's "famous for being famous" is right up there with Tundra Trash thinking that Ms. Fey never accomplished a thing in life before she donned a pair of glasses, a bouffant wig and said "You betcha!" into a camera.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Because you appear to have reached deep into your posterior to pull out a post that compared what I wrote to some dumbass statement by Palin.
Sorry, she hasn't accomplished much on her own. She was married to the president. She became a senator because she was married to the president. Her record as a senator is mediocre. She ran for president because she was married to a former president and had appeared on Good Morning America and Today many times. She ran a lousy campaign and lost to a rookie with a funny name. She was appointed Secretary of State because Obama's chief of staff was a good buddy of her husband. As SofS she was meh.
You want a few quotes that'll make you LOL? Try "We were dead broke when we left the White House" or "I was fired at by snipers when my plane landed in Bosnia", or maybe "I misspoke when I said I was fired at by snipers when my plane landed in Bosnia".
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)The only thing missing from your stand-up routine is the rim-shots!
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)No matter where you stand on all of this, it's an honor to have you visit the thread. Thanks!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)they are indeed are handicapped. We have a very good candidate in Hillary Clinton, and a large group in which to select a VP. I am excited about the 2016 campaign. Our first order of business is to elect as many Democrats for Congress as possible, the beginnings of getting this country back on track to be the greatest nation possible. This Republican inspired depression inflicted upon our citizens is terrible, we are working harder and not going anywhere. We have seen what the trickle down economics brought on by Reagan, it did not work.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We have a number of truly progressive individuals we could choose to support, or we could go backward and select Clinton.
Let's not do that.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts).
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I tell you, partisan politics sucks the life blood out of you, or sucks out any intention you ever had of remembering WHY you wanted to go into politics.
I hate the local run of it, regional, state, and national. Gee
I think I've let this ship sail. Dean would have been my last port before I thought Bernie Sanders had a chance.
I do not know WHAT it's going to take to get anyone in office who can do it. The last one who really tried was blown away in 1963.
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,703 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)I'm hoping that the harder working, better funded candidate is not named Christie, Bush, Romney, Cruz, Rubio, Martinez, or Paul.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)with that word inevitable. We have seen how that worked out for her in 2008. "Reagan over Carter"? No, I don't see that. Age is not the only factor here. HRC is a woman, which is a totally new and different issue.
I don't agree with Dean on this one, but that does not mean much.
I have still a hope for a newer candidate, someone who at this time is not necessarily known nationally. After all, we are over 2 years away from these elections.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JI7
(89,267 posts)this is why i didn't support either of them in the primary and went for more liberal candidates.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'll give Dr. Dean credit, it's more original than "inevitability"
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Correct me if I'm wrong...
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ (albeit briefly)
Nixon
Ford
Reagan (albeit in special services -- mostly doing films)
H.W. Bush
Our involvement in WWII was 12/41 to 8/45 (not counting lend-lease, the AVG, or the post-war occupation) -- basically 45 months. The Bay by Boom (depending who you ask) starts in 1946 and lasts until somewhere between 1961 to 1965 -- 15 to 19 years. We've had three baby boom Presidents so far. I think it's reasonable to expect more.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But it's not really a campaign slogan.
onecent
(6,096 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.[35] His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office.[36] Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the First Motion Picture Unit (officially, the "18th Army Air Force Base Unit" in Culver City, California.[36] On January 14, 1943, he was promoted to first lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California.[36] He returned to the First Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to captain on July 22, 1943.[33]
In January 1944, Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the Sixth War Loan Drive. He was reassigned to the First Motion Picture Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II.[33] He was recommended for promotion to major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year.[37] While with the First Motion Picture Unit in 1945, he was indirectly involved in discovering actress Marilyn Monroe.[38] He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945.[37] By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.[33]
Reagan never left the United States during the war, though he kept a film reel, obtained while in the service, depicting the liberation of Auschwitz, as he believed that someday doubts would arise as to whether the Holocaust had occurred.[39] It has been alleged that he was overheard telling Israeli foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1983 that he had filmed that footage himself and helped liberate Auschwitz,[39][40] though this purported conversation was disputed by Secretary of State George Shultz.[41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Military_service
Metric System
(6,048 posts)challengers. We may lose the White House, but that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. What really matters is how nice and smug we feel about our professed progressive political purity (that's a mouthful!).
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)4b5f940728b232b034e4
(120 posts)so we're even.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)I'm hoping hell eventually succeed Pat Leahy in the Senate.
DFW
(54,437 posts)In early 2009, I asked Howard what he would do if Obama didn't pick him for a position in his administration. He said he'd lend his name to some law firm for some steady income and spend the rest of his time "raising hell for causes I believe in." Plus, he said no one over 50 should start the job of President, and considered himself already too old for the job.
He has been doing just that--from organizing a Democratic Party in Italy to helping the Liberal Democrats in England to participating in jungle walks against human trafficking in Thailand.
Add to all that: Judy is dead set against his taking on a long-term post in Washington, and family is very important to him.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)That's a shame, because he'd be a very worthy successor to Leahy -- who obviously isn't getting any younger.
DFW
(54,437 posts)I'll bet there aren't 30 people on DU who know details about his family without looking it up. He doesn't parade them around like Romney, and they all have their private lives away from the limelight, and like it that way. Howard would have taken HHS in 2009. Now I doubt you could drag him there with a team of horses, much less into a Senate seat.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Family should always come first, and there's not a damn thing wrong with putting your energy into raising Hell for the causes in which you believe.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)This woman opposes the very 50 state strategy and liberal policies that you were respected for! Has the leg breaking and soul selling already begun?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what proof of this could you possibly have?
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)supported the 2009 coup that overthrew the democratically-elected president of Honduras. After that coup, everything went to hell in Honduras and is why we've been seeing child refugees from that country crossing our border.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this meme is ridiculous....Barack Obama is just to the left of Bill Clinton....the Moderate or Centrist.....to the left of him is Hillary Clinton and just to her left is Elizabeth Warren...not by much....a bit farther to the Left you will find Bernie Sanders....who is not even a Democrat......
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks in advance.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Obama:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Clinton:
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
Oh yeah... 'prooogresssiiivvees" don't like this site anymore ... because. LOL.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)consistently to the left of Obama?
I'm not sure how someone can be "overall" to the left of someone, if they're not to the left on some specific issues.
The only area where there's clear daylight between these two, AFAIK, is on starting a war with Iraq. And Hillary's now saying that Obama's foreign policy should have been tougher.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)LOL. Right, Manny.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Your response is puzzling.
Seems like you're looking for a loophole, say, one vote of little importance. Is there any other reason that you'd reject demonstrable and consistent?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Your response is predictable.
Seems like you're looking for a loophole, say, one issue you think means more than others. Is there any other reason that you'd reject overall measurements?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And what validation has it received?
Hard to believe "overall" would be different if they're the same on individual issues, other than Hillary's greater proclivity for putting troops into battle, but let's see what ya got.
Thanks.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)It used to be one of those gospel sites on DU. Sorry.
Thanks.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Is this one of those "in my gut" kinda things?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)"in my gut" kinda things is a 'proggggreeessssiivvveee' affliction.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)DFW
(54,437 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:22 AM - Edit history (1)
He has also said, when among friends and the microphones are turned off, that he thinks that someone 65 or over is way too old to begin a 4 year term as POTUS.
If the Conservative News Network (what CNN as become) is asking him, of course he is going to say something tailored for the audience as well as the media outlet that is asking. It beats saying something CNN and Fox Noise can run with for the next 24 months. He won't have anything negative to say about any prominent Democrat short of Henry Cuellar or Zell Miller--not in public, anyway. Read between the lines if you want what's on his mind. If one of the Castro brothers or Martin O'Malley wins a majority of delegates going into the 2016 convention, guess whom Howard will endorse?
Cha
(297,656 posts)had the fire in his belly to run for the Dem nom?!
"One of the Castro brothers.. " something I never thought we'd be talking about in America!
DFW
(54,437 posts)"Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a hundred schools of thought contend."
The way things look NOW (very important to emphasize that), no Republican whose candidacy can be taken seriously is running for president. Of course, no sane Republican candidate would have said anything to that effect at this point, anyway. That's why the headlines and talk shows keep saying "Republican presidential hopeful," or "possible Republican presidential contender" when mentioning Rick Perry or Rand Paul. Yes, they're clowns, but they're visible clowns, and Wolf Blitzer has to talk about SOMETHING other than the weather.
That means, by default (again, the way things look NOW), that as in 2008, the winner of the Democratic Party's nomination is the winner of the presidency. That's why speculation is so intense, and why all the Hillary or not Hillary talk gets so intensely scrutinized. Unless things change (and beware--they usually do), for Democrats, the fight for the 2016 primaries is really the fight for the Oval Office.
Glad you posted this DFW... makes a lot of sense. Not an unusual thing for you of course! but I needed to see this as I like Dean a lot.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)He is a good guy and was a great DNC chair, but all he's doing is helping her lock up the nomination before it starts.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)
No need to throw Dr. Dean under the bus.
-Laelth
DFW
(54,437 posts)Good observation
GiveEmEnoughRope
(19 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)...unless Hillary is the only Democrat who runs.
tavernier
(12,401 posts)Because shooting ourselves in the foot will feel so good.
MADem
(135,425 posts)We'll cut off our noses to spite our faces! That'll hurt so good, too...!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't understand what he means there.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)Reagan was one of the WWII vets while Carter served in the Navy post WWII.
Hillary is older than Obama. She's a baby boomer while I believe Obama is Gen X.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)...maybe 20.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... appeared in the sky to announce support for Hillary Clinton, I STILL wouldn't vote for her. She represents EVERYTHING I detest about establishment politicians.
Gothmog
(145,558 posts)The Texas Democratic Party has been selling Clinton/Castro merchandise for over a year now. This ticket would put Texas into play