Beat Hillary, Run to her Left!

[JackLuis]

Democratic Strategist On How A Democrat Could Beat Clinton

Foreign policy: Given her hawkish reputation, Mrs. Clinton and her top advisers have been especially alert to any signs that a left-of-center Democrat would emerge to challenge her on foreign policy.

For all the concerns about Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and her economic populism, the person some of Mrs. Clinton’s allies kept their closest eye on regarding foreign policy last year was Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat who has been critical of interventionist policy in the Middle East.

Mr. Murphy is not running for president. But there is clearly an opening to run to Mrs. Clinton’s left on foreign policy.

In foreign policy, there is a lot of room on her Left.

 

[phrodeau]

That's impossible. She isn't running.

 

[JackLuis]

That's impossible. She isn't running.

Oh don't get my hopes up, then I'll want Change!

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's impossible. She isn't running.

If she does run, which is likely, another Dem. might be able to deny her the nomination by running to her left. Of course, that other Dem would be soundly rejected by the voters, as George McGovern was in 1972. That election was the greatest landslide in a contested election in history, but that hypothetical Dem. candidate would probably have the distinction of breaking McGovern's unenviable record.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If she does run, which is likely

No it's not.....

, another Dem. might be able to deny her the nomination by running to her left. Of course, that other Dem would be soundly rejected by the voters, as George McGovern was in 1972. That election was the greatest landslide in a contested election in history, but that hypothetical Dem. candidate would probably have the distinction of breaking McGovern's unenviable record.

It's not 1972 and the USA is considerably further right today than it was back then, I mean St.Reagan himself, Mr. Pro Union, Public education, Taliban, Socialized HC and raising taxes, would be tared and feathered a fuckin' RINO commie and sent packing in todays GOP.

 

[phrodeau]

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If she does run, which is likely, another Dem. might be able to deny her the nomination by running to her left. Of course, that other Dem would be soundly rejected by the voters, as George McGovern was in 1972. That election was the greatest landslide in a contested election in history, but that hypothetical Dem. candidate would probably have the distinction of breaking McGovern's unenviable record.

Hillarys the best the Democrats got, and she's doomed. A new Florida poll shows Jeb Bush beats her. If Obama had a lick of sense he'd toss Ruth Ginsberg off the Court and replace her before we elect a GOP President in 2016. He wont, and she'll die in office in 2017. The GOP will replace Scalia with a new conservative. Liberals are screwed for a generation.

 

[sr71plt]

Hillarys the best the Democrats got, and she's doomed. A new Florida poll shows Jeb Bush beats her. If Obama had a lick of sense he'd toss Ruth Ginsberg off the Court and replace her before we elect a GOP President in 2016. He wont, and she'll die in office in 2017. The GOP will replace Scalia with a new conservative. Liberals are screwed for a generation.

Yay. Having JBJ saying Hillary Clinton is doomed means she's still in the driver's seat.

There there JBJ goes, displaying his lack of knowledge about the U.S. government again. A president can't just toss a U.S. Supreme Court justice off the Court.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If she does run, which is likely, another Dem. might be able to deny her the nomination by running to her left. Of course, that other Dem would be soundly rejected by the voters, as George McGovern was in 1972. That election was the greatest landslide in a contested election in history, but that hypothetical Dem. candidate would probably have the distinction of breaking McGovern's unenviable record.

Grampa Kiddiefucker hasn't been paying attention.

In the aftermath of the 1972 drubbing at the polls, Democrats came up with the concept of "super delegates" to prevent "extremists" from having undue influence in elections. The super delegates all but ensure that the candidate will be middle-of-the-road.

Hillary is probably the most right-leaning candidate on foreign policy among major Democrats right now. They are basically all the same on Domestic policy.

Given Clinton's name recognition, I think she's probably a lock for the Democratic candidacy in 2016. I still wish Elizabeth Warren would run. She makes Ish and AJ break out in hives at the mention of her name.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If she does run, which is likely, another Dem. might be able to deny her the nomination by running to her left. Of course, that other Dem would be soundly rejected by the voters, as George McGovern was in 1972. That election was the greatest landslide in a contested election in history, but that hypothetical Dem. candidate would probably have the distinction of breaking McGovern's unenviable record.

Depends on whom the Pubs nominate. E.g., Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders could not beat Jeb Bush, but could wipe the floor with Walker/Cruz/Huckabee/Perry.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yay. Having JBJ saying Hillary Clinton is doomed means she's still in the driver's seat.

There there JBJ goes, displaying his lack of knowledge about the U.S. government again. A president can't just toss a U.S. Supreme Court justice off the Court.

A US President cant charge a US Senator with corruption when Super PACS donate money, the Supremes say so in Citizens United, but it just happened didn't it? Nothing will come of it, of course, except to waste tons of time and money and seriously piss off the US Senate.

Lemme say it another way: murder is illegal, too. Happens every day, Pee Wee.

 

[sr71plt]

A US President cant charge a US Senator with corruption when Super PACS donate money, the Supremes say so in Citizens United, but it just happened didn't it? Nothing will come of it, of course, except to waste tons of time and money and seriously piss off the US Senate.

Lemme say it another way: murder is illegal, too. Happens every day, Pee Wee.

This, of course, doesn't have a damn thing to do with your claim about a president "tossing out" a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice. Typical of you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This, of course, doesn't have a damn thing to do with your claim about a president "tossing out" a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice. Typical of you.

He tossed out Harry Reid. Once one of Obama's agents pushes her ugly ass down some stairs she'll know what to do.

 

[sr71plt]

He tossed out Harry Reid. Once one of Obama's agents pushes her ugly ass down some stairs she'll know what to do.

You're getting crazier and crazier on this, aren't you? Again, this is irrelevant to your ignorant claim of what a president can do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

He tossed out Harry Reid. Once one of Obama's agents pushes her ugly ass down some stairs she'll know what to do.

You have to realize a POTUS cannot fire a Supreme Court justice, nor can he toss out an elected member of Congress. Obama could use his position as party leader to apply pressure and try to induce someone to resign, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[JackLuis]

You have to realize a POTUS cannot fire a Supreme Court justice, nor can he toss out an elected member of Congress. Obama could use his position as party leader to apply pressure and try to induce someone to resign, but that's as far as it goes.

I don't believe that Obama leads the party, the Dark Lords lead and Obama does their bidding, see Wall Street, Afghanistan continued, and what happened when the Insurance industry canceled single payer(GOvt Insurence INC.).

Obama is a actor, same as Regan was, same as Clinton and the Bushs.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think Obama leads the Democratic Party either. I think the Clintons (from overlapping but largely separate bases) come closer to doing that than Obama does (or ever did).

 

[JackLuis]

I don't think Obama leads the Democratic Party either. I think the Clintons (from overlapping but largely separate bases) come closer to doing that than Obama does (or ever did).

Yes I see your point and agree that the Clintons were/are more progressive, but Hill's militantisim is just a little too much for me. If she had spent time in a war zone in fatigues, she would be much more moderate.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes I see your point and agree that the Clintons were/are more progressive, but Hill's militantisim is just a little too much for me. If she had spent time in a war zone in fatigues, she would be much more moderate.

Seeing them as major power centers in the party (again, not as a unit--largely separately) isn't meant as an endorsement of either or them or even claiming it gives Hillary a lock on anything. And, yes, she's an armchair hawk on military action. Always has been--which sometimes became hilarious when she was in the Senate and the Republicans were trying to paint her as an ipso facto accommodator just because of her placement in the party. But the same with Obama at the time. He ran for president on a platform of scaling the war in Afghanistan up, not down. Hillary only came across as not as warlike at the time because she had a better handle on what a president actually could do (and thus should promise to do).