Papantonio: Hillary Clinton in 2012?

[GoLeft TV]

Run time: 06:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-6Aygn6MDQ   Posted on YouTube: July 17, 2010 By YouTube Member: golefttv Views on YouTube: 2   Posted on DU: July 17, 2010 By DU Member: GoLeft TV Views on DU: 2064

 
Is Hillary Clinton prepping the field for a possible 2012 challenge to President Obama? Republicans sure seem to think so. But the bigger question is whether or not she could be viable in the current political climate. Mike Papantonio appears on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor to discuss the pros and cons of a Clinton challenge in 2012.

[bluestateguy]

1. That's the stupidest hypothetical I have ever seen

Hillary Clinton supports this Administration.

[blue_onyx]

2. Hillary isn't running in 2012 or 2016 n/t

[emilyg]

6. You don't know that.

[blue_onyx]

8. Yes, I do

She said she wasn't.

[saracat]

16. Obama also said he wasn't going to run. I heard him say it in person.

[JDPriestly]

26. Hillary would not get my support.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. He expanded the trade agreements that have harmed our economy. He set the stage for Bush to ruin the economy. He appointed Tenet to the CIA. He did away with welfare -- in a manner that has hurt our economy.

Under Clinton we had a big boom, but it ended in the crash of 2000. (The beginning of the crash was apparent in 1997, maybe even earlier.) Bush tried to hide the fact that our economy was in the tank the entire time he was president. Bush thought starting wars would improve our economy. They did not. Bush and Greenspan reduced taxes on the very rich and lowered credit restrictions and credit borrowing rates to try to help the economy. We got a disastrous housing boom but no real rescue for our economy which has been sick actually since for a long time -- just reeling in jumps and starts toward feudalism.

Clinton is the big advocate for HB-1 visas for people to fill highly skilled positions (especially people from India). Those HB-1 visas, the Hillary visas, are far more harmful to our domestic economy than the illegals who take low-level jobs. The fuss over illegal immigration is a distraction from the real problem -- the outsourcing of high-tech jobs, the imports of high-tech gadgets and manufactured goods and the visas to foreigners to do top-level, well-paid technical jobs.

We are depriving our own young people of the opportunities they need to become technically independent as a nation. It is a terrible thing. And Hillary advocates for the policies that are so hindering our own development.

[LongTomH]

37. Hillary Clinton was the Senator from India

Actually, she was the senator for Tata, the Indian company that does much of the outsourcing of US IT jobs.

She made her pilgrimage to India during the 2008 campaign to 'woo India' and to promise to keep sending them American jobs. Quoting from the Asia Times article:

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Both the Clintons have a long history with India:

Perhaps one of the biggest friends of the Indian American community has been former US president Bill Clinton. Clinton is closely associated with the American India Foundation and visited India in 2001, as head of an Indian delegation to collect funds for victims of the Gujarat earthquake. There was considerable talk at that time that the Clinton visit was a well-orchestrated plan to cultivate the Indian American community to prepare for Hillary Clinton as president of the US.

One of the big donors to her campaign was Indian born Rakesh Gangwal, who also worked for her campaign.

Gangwal was the CEO of my old company, Worldspan. He downsized American workers, first to get the company ready for an IPO; when the market wouldn't pay what he was asking, he tried to get the company ready to sell, downsizing even more workers in the process. I was 'downsized' in 2005. Apparently, he did the same thing at his old company, USAirways. When he left, the company was in bankruptcy; Rakki walked away with a cool $15 million in his piggybank. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Ken Burch]

3. She wouldn't be different on any of the issues.

Except for foreign policy, where she'd be even worse(we can assume Tehran would be vaporized at 12:05 pm, January 20, 2013). And obviously an even MORE hawkish foreign policy would make progressive change at home impossible.

She wouldn't stand up to Wall Street. She wouldn't fight the health insurance industry. And she'd be even MORE dismissive of activists than Rahm and Co.

What would be the point?

[pattmarty]

24. Bingo! That's the idea in a primary is CHOICE and she would be....................

......the same ole, same ole. It is always difficult to run against a sitting President in a primary (think Ted Kennedy), but if you are going to do it at least provide a contrast. I think we will be "stuck" with Obama in 2012 and he may in fact be a one term President if the Republicans nominate someone that is "somewhat" sane.

[saracat]

31. I think all there is is same old, same old. But i would like to see someone who would protect

basic rights like choice , Social Security, Medicare and and give us "real" healthcare and not mandated insurance But I suppose that isn't likely either.

[Ken Burch]

32. Fair enough. But a "grudge match" challenge won't give us that.

n/t.

[saracat]

33. I didn't say it would. I don't think anything is going to change anyway.

It hasn't so far. I am fresh out of "hope" at least not in my lifetime. Maybe someday.

[pattmarty]

34. Well, you know that is not Hillary. It'd have be someone like Kucinich,

......Franken (he definitely won't run), Sherrod Brown, Boxer oh, and maybe a few others. Otherwise it's all the corporate cabal.

[saracat]

35. Actually, I don't think it is anyone. Sigh. Perhaps Grayson. Maybe.

[saracat]

29. They are similar but I do believe she would have been better on healthcare and she would not have a

choice to be as battered as it is. I also think she would have been better on GLBT issues, and I don't think we would have Arne Duncan in the Dept of ED. But who knows?

[SusanaMontana41]

36. Yup.

She wouldn't get my vote. Too Bush-like on foreign policy.

[EFerrari]

4. Oh, for pete's sake.

[freethinker2]

5. Allen Grayson 2016

Whatcha think?

[lib2DaBone]

20. Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders!

[pattmarty]

25. You're dreaming, never happen. Grayson, possible Sanders, never.

[freethinker2]

27. I know your rite.

That would be to much like real change for the better.
So sad.

[saracat]

30. I am a huge Grayson fan but I would have to see what he accomplishes.

but I really like what he says!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

12. Mike Is RFK's Jr's Partner on Ring of Fire and they are both good Democrats.

You don't have to like Mike's opinion but he has the right to it.It is ridiculous to call him names because you don't agree with his opinion.

[Turborama]

14. And Monica Crowley's sister is married to Alan Colmes. So what?

I didn't say Mike doesn't have a right to his opinion, if he's upset that I called him a PUMA then he has every right to tell me himself. In my opinion, anyone who is supporting a Hilary presidential run for 2012 is equal to a PUMA.

He also has every right to go on Faux and be in complete agreement with its reich wing host. It doesn't mean I have to like it. In fact, as soon as I see a Democrat on Faux aiding and abetting their totally false "Fair and Balanced" slogan I lose a great deal of the respect I formerly had for them

[saracat]

15. Under the bus with a lot of Dems then, including Wes Clark. who was a commentator,

Howard Dean and President Obama. President Obama went on O'Reilly as well, just like Pap. Did you lose respect for them as well???? Funny, I was under the impression that expressions like PUMA were no longer allowed. I don't really think Pap's scenario is really likely, but it isn't impossible. He brought up quite a few points I had not considered. And Crowley is just an idiot. She didn't even notice that Pap came at the subject from a completely different angle than she did.

[Turborama]

18. Yes, I did lose a lot of respect for them when they did that, actually.

With one exception. Senator Obama's appearance on O'Reilly was necessary because it was election time and he was getting cast as an "evil "Arab" communist terrorist from Indonesia" and he had to dispel the very destructive rumors and myths that were being built up around him with great vigor. I respect his motives for doing that.

Me losing a great deal of respect for Democrats who appear on the Reichwing's TV station and in turn give it a hint of undeserved legitimacy is not "throwing them under the bus". It's me losing respect for them. My respect. Which I'm entitled to lose. It's more like I'm "kicking them off my bus" until they redeem themselves and I let them back on.

Having said all that, I did like his stab at the Teahadists that he got away with, though.

I didn't get the memo about expressions like PUMA not being allowed. If there is a post from the admins relating to it, please post a link and I'll refrain from using it in the future.

[saracat]

21. Well, they all went on to explain Democratic positions during election cycles so

the President really shouldn't be singled out. All of these guys are attempting to bring out some of the Democratic positions. I don't really watch FOX but I occasionally see clips like this on DU and other sites and I just view it as part of the big tent.(Not FOX, the Dem opinions expressed)

[Turborama]

22. Obama was explaining his position as candidate for the Presidency

and showing potential voters what he was really like. That's a big difference. The White House's war against Faux after the election should still be going on, too.

Additionally, in this particular instance Mike was not explaining a Democratic position during an election cycle. He was predicting that Hillary is going to run in 2012 and for some reason seemed excited about the prospect.

[saracat]

28. Now it appears you are singling out Mike.I can agree to an extent

with this and I do understand your lack of enthusiasm concerning his topic but he absolutely has a right to express it and his reasons were most certainly not those of the FOX Girl Crowley. It was funny to see her not even realize they were completely different POV! As I said, I am not sure I agree with his conclusions but his numbers were intersting. He was correct about the Primary numbers and if those folks on the other side of an extrodinarily close primary that then supported Obama are no longer on board, that could indeed be a problem. Unfortanately the news about the WH voluntarily banning abortions in the high risk pool is not helping with those voters either. But again, there is no concrete reason to see a Hillary run.

[tulsakatz]

9. that's not new.........

aren't all republicans terrified of Hillary? I remember in the last Presidential election, when Obama was going to be nominated, a republican friend of mine was convinced that Hillary would march in there and figure out a way to steal it away from Obama! I didn't believe him, of course.

But that's not the first time he was wrong about the Clintons! They always act like the Clintons are like the Great Satan!

[donheld]

10. Unrecommend

How stupid can you get?

[Iwillnevergiveup]

11. In October 2012

Hillary will be 65. Just sayin'.

[Turborama]

13. And Alan Grayson

will be 58 in 2016. In case anyone was wondering...

[southmost]

17. this rampant fox noise stupidity ...

just bruised my brain... ouch

[ProgressOnTheMove]

19. I would most lie to see 16 years of Democratic rule 2016 is the perfect time if that i even on the.....

cards the wisest thing is to make this potential 2 term presidency work to give the next leader and even stronger chance.

[spicegal]

23. Currenty, it feels to me like the GOP is winning the

messenging war. All their anti-Obama, he's a socialist, breaking the country, anti-government over the top accusations seems to be sticking, particularly amongst those who don't pay much attention.