Type to search

No Good Argument For Clinton Needing A Challenger

Featured Post Memo Pad Politics

No Good Argument For Clinton Needing A Challenger


Even before Hillary Clinton formally announced her intention to seek the office of the presidency, left-of-center pundits had been worried about the appearance of primogenitor. While the Republicans are generally comfortable with the coronation of heirs to the party’s nomination, the Democrats are not. There’s something monarchical about political ascension, the pundits say, something authoritarian and dynastic: it’s anathema to the principles of egalitarianism and meritocracy.

After Jeb Bush announced the launch of his exploratory committee, Glenn Greenwald, the civil-libertarian journalist, said a matchup between the wife and son/brother of former presidents would “vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative value would be undeniable.”

David Corn didn’t go as far as Greenwald. But he found Clinton’s apparent inevitability equally distasteful. Corn advanced the name of former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley as a foil. O’Malley, he said, “would make a good sparring partner. He’s a smart guy with sass, but he’s not a slasher, who could inflict long-lasting political damage.” Critically important, he said, is that Clinton shouldn’t assume victory. Only with a primary fight, Clinton would “earn—not inherit—the nomination,” Corn wrote. “She’d be a fighter, not a dynastic queen. The press and the public would have something to ponder beyond just Clinton herself.”

I admire Corn and Greenwald immensely, and agree with them mostly. But I’d argue their assessments, as well as those of others in the left-liberal commentariat, are not arguments. Instead, they are statements reflecting a discomfort with power, a discomfort widely shared among Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans have no such qualms whatsoever.

Despite her flaws, Clinton and her campaign represent a singular moment in the history of the Democratic Party. Namely, there probably has not been this much party unity since 1964 when President Lyndon Baines Johnson, campaigning in the memory of an assassinated president, beat conservative Barry Goldwater in a landslide. But that unity failed to last. Four years later, in the shadow of Vietnam and in the backlash against the Civil Rights Act, LBJ’s Democratic Party would crack up forever.

In the wake of that crack-up, the Republicans routinely won by deploying an array of wedge issues to divide and conquer—from Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in 1968, to George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” attack in 1988, to his son’s “gays, guns, and God” in 2004. But by 2008, something essential had shifted. Barack Obama forged a coalition among minorities, young voters, and white liberals and John McCain refused to go negative on his opponent’s race, fearing backlash. In 2012, the Obama coalition held despite Mitt Romney’s clumsy attempts at race baiting.

Holding that coalition together is vital to maintaining the gains, large and small, made in eight years of unprecedented, massive, and total resistance on the part of the Republicans. And I’m not only talking about the Affordable Care Act, which is transforming life for millions, nor the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which is finally taking effect.

Since 2013, when Obama realized he’d get nothing in terms of legislation from the Republicans, the president used his executive authority to make several small-bore advances in climate change, immigration, foreign policy, gay rights, and the minimum wage (among federal contractors). All it takes to turn that around is the next Republican president.

In 2000, Ralph Nader won a few million votes by claiming there was no difference between the major parties. While his message was undeniable, his campaign was indisputably destructive. Nader’s take of the popular vote was enough for George W. Bush to beat Al Gore by a hair. In addition to a disastrous war, giveaways to the wealthy, and incompetent governance, we have Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who, along with the high Court’s Republican majority, believe money has no corrupting effect on politics and that closely held businesses may discriminate on the basis of religious liberty.

Nader isn’t responsible for the Bush era. My point is that the stakes are high—too high to worry about a candidate’s foibles and fret over a “dynastic queen.” That matters less than Clinton’s being a Democrat who will, at the very least, hold the line against attempts to redistribute more wealth upward, to dismantle the welfare state, to privatized the public sphere, and wage more war abroad. Hopefully, if Clinton wins in 2016, she will build on the progressive record started by her predecessor.

Left-liberals are right in saying Clinton must clarify her positions on immigration, Wall Street, unemployment, foreign policy, and a host of other issues. She has been and will continue to be like her husband: maddeningly circumspect and hard to pin down. But that, in addition to all the other complaints thus far, doesn’t amount to an argument against her winning the nomination. Those complaints reflect liberals’ unease with power and the use of that power to protect hard-won progressive gains.

It’s time to get over that.

After all, voting is a political strategy that hopes to achieve political ends, not a quadrennial occasion to assess a candidate’s ideological worth.

John Stoehr is managing editor of The Washington Spectator. Follow him on Twitter and Medium.

Photo: Michael Kovac via Flickr



  1. Sand_Cat April 21, 2015

    How about that she’s too much of a moderate conservative, as Bill and Barack Obama were (are)?

    1. Theodora30 April 21, 2015

      How about that is what voters want? Not to mention that is what the media wants. They would excoriate anyone proposing policies that are too liberal and the media has a lot of influence, especially on swing voters. (In contrast they do not come down hard on Republicans who push magical tax cuts that pay for themselves even though the evidence is overwhelming that that has never happened yet they harp on deficit spending.)

      1. TZToronto April 22, 2015

        I agree about the MSM. If the GOP said that cats are really dogs, the MSM would report that, providing the details that the GOP used to make their point–four feet, tails, noses, whiskers, fur–same thing, no? Today’s MSM seems to lack a critical sense; they are willing to examine what’s being said without comparing it to the evidence. For example, how many times have Republicans claimed that President Obama is incompetent? And how many times have you heard anyone in the MSM ask for the basis of that evaluation? How many times have the MSM pointed to what President Obama has accomplished and asked how those things relate to incompetence? Perhaps the MSM got so used to incompetence under Dubya that they just got into the habit of not asking relevant questions.

        1. jmprint April 22, 2015

          I find Rachel Maddow very informative and factual. MSMBC is it different then MSM? For a minute I thought you were talking about Foxx news.

          1. TZToronto April 22, 2015

            The tough questions just don’t get asked these days. Oh, there are occasions when someone will question stupidity (Anderson Cooper has done it on occasion), but when the real questions have to come from a comedian on a late-night TV show while the hard news shows ignore the stupidity, well, something’s very wrong.

          2. jmprint April 22, 2015

            I agree.

        2. Theodora30 April 22, 2015

          The media’s malpractice goes back a lot longer than Dubya. Reagan got a pass for his budget busting fairy tale about tax cuts paying for themselves and the media has yet to inform the public that even Republican economists admit that has never and will never happen. He also got a pass on the illegal and unconstitutional Iran Contra mess although by then his Alzheimer’s was kicking in and his staff actually considered have him removed from office – something else the media largely ignored. Here is a rare exception:

          Poppy Bush claimed he was out of the loop on Iran Contra when he was in fact a major player. That fact would have come out during the trial of Caspar Weinberger had Bush not covered his butt by pardoning Weinberger. The media was not nearly as outraged by that as they were by Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, a pardon requested by our best buds the Israelis. When Bush ran for president the first time Dan Rather attempted to ask him about his involvement in Iran Contra Bush sidestepped it by attacking Rather. Most of the media sided with Bush. The NY Times presented it as a contest and declared Bush the winner. Clearly the paper of record did not care that Bush had most likely lied about braking the law and violating his oath of office to uphold the constitution. So much for an informed electorate.


          Our “liberal” media has been terrible for a very long time and have caused serious damage to our democracy.

          1. TZToronto April 22, 2015

            Can’t argue with you about any of this. I used Dubya as a recent example of the media giving a pass to power, no matter how wrong-headed that power is. I don’t expect it to change. (It took Michael Moore to ask the questions about 9/11. Where were the skeptical reporters who should have been asking the questions Moore asked?) Look what happened to Rather when he exposed Bush 43’s Vietnam War Air NG record. He was probably right, but he got pilloried anyway based on a typeface. The substance of the argument was ignored. The media preferred to let the matter drop rather than do some serious research into all of the documents, available and missing, that would have substantiated the accusations against Dubya. Not that Woodward and Bernstein were exceptional reporters, but they were persistent, and they got it right about Watergate.

    2. TZToronto April 21, 2015

      I would trust Hillary Clinton to act responsibly in vetoing irresponsible legislation coming from Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans. I would trust not one of the current crop of third-stringers that the GOP faithful have had placed before them to do anything to scrap legislation designed to harm America and its people. When re-election and access to the money tree are all that politicians think of, no good can come of it. While a number of other Democrats could be trusted to act as responsibly as Hillary Clinton, I wouldn’t want to risk putting forward a lesser “name” just to get a President whose progressive credentials are a little more in line with what many of us want. Sometimes you have to give up some things to get what’s really important. At this point, with Republicans likely to control the House and maybe the Senate after the 2016 elections, I see the Presidency as a defensive position for America. And let us not forget that Hillary Clinton has qualifications that any of the current GOP clown car crew would love to be able to flaunt.

      1. Sand_Cat April 21, 2015

        I understand, and agree, but she will only slow the descent. Obama probably could have done a great deal more, but – in my opinion – “compromised” before there was anyone to compromise with, and got torn to pieces by the GOP lunatics who homed in and met almost no resistance.

        1. Grannysmovin April 22, 2015

          Compromise is not a dirty word – it is what the hard right of the GOP believes and that is simply unrealistic. There are compromises every day in all walks of life: relationships, business deals, legal settlements etc. I do agree you need both sides at the table to attempt a compromise.

          1. Sand_Cat April 22, 2015

            What I’m saying is that he “compromised” away points before the negotiations – when there were any – began, and took too long to realize there was no one to compromise with. Ronald Reagan – a person who, much to my dismay, Obama seems to admire – went to the people and made things uncomfortable for those who opposed him, and I think such action might have turned some things around, at least, but even now he hardly does it.

          2. Grannysmovin April 22, 2015

            Upon reflection I agree there were times he compromised ahead of the negotiations and there were times he was offering concessions that appeared negative to our concerns and had his hand slapped away by his opponents.

          3. TZToronto April 22, 2015

            I agree, especially when it comes to the ACA. Before anyone had a chance to even say “single-payer,” it was off the table. You can’t start from the middle and expect to get what you want. You start from the position you know is unwinnable; then you give up as little as possible. The other side, unless they’re TPers, will give up some of their position, and you may be able to give up less than they do. At worst, you can meet in the middle, hold your nose, and say OK. When you start in the middle and the other side sticks to their guns, all you can hope for is to get way less than you would have had you been adamant from the start.
            What people don’t seem to understand is that dissatisfaction with the ACA isn’t all because of what it does but rather what it doesn’t do. Many people want more from it; they don’t want to get rid of it.

      2. Wrily April 23, 2015

        That makes Hillary the stop-loss candidate. What a sad state of affairs.

        1. TZToronto April 24, 2015

          Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. When we were young we thought the President was someone to look up to, but I have an idea that even then it was the lesser of the two evils. There are no miraculous candidates out there, and there probably never were. These are people, not gods. They make mistakes. We can only hope for someone who makes few mistakes and is not malevolent.

          1. Wrily April 24, 2015

            You’re right, of course, they are people, not gods.

            Still, the voting public seems to believe in miracles; witness Obama and the growing disappointment.

          2. TZToronto April 24, 2015

            Yes, there’s disappointment with President Obama about some things–the drones, the TPP, the Wall Street connection. But then we can look back at his predecessor and the disappointment with President Obama fades a bit. Sometimes we focus too much on the here and now and forget how things used to be.

    3. Eleanore Whitaker April 22, 2015

      Perhaps, what this country needs are less of the far right radicalism that has to use billionaire funding to bribe voters to buy the president billionaires want.

    4. jmprint April 22, 2015

      How about she is the cream of the crop.

  2. Daniel Jones April 21, 2015

    Dear Democrats:

    I tend to agree with Agent Bloom. That said, *with all due respect*, have you lost your fucking minds?

    Hillary has fought and earned her nomination already, having survived staying married to Bill, facing the same garbage he did, and getting painted with slime, thrown dirt, and the Benghazi brush for the last fifteen years. (Well, Benghazi’s more recent, but you get the idea..)

    As the gallows are not used so much, I feel it is time to update a aphorism from the time of the American Revolution: “We must stand together or we will fall apart.” For fuck’s sake, we have states so insubordinate it’s amazing the country hasn’t Balkanized.

    If you have a better candidate, *on merit*, put that sucker up. If not, go with the merit.

    If you want to save democracy from plutocracy, apply some meritocracy and stop giving your face the Michael Jackson treatment out of spite.

    1. Dominick Vila April 22, 2015

      Any challenges to her nomination are likely to be bids for the number two spot in the ticket.

  3. lilyhammer April 22, 2015

    I do hold Nader and his supporters greatly responsible for the Bush era disaster. If they’d been able to see the difference between Bush and Gore, Citizens United would never have happened. Those same people insisted on John Edwards, and, failing him, Barack Obama — whom they now condemn as too centrist.
    If left-wing Democrats reject Hillary Clinton, or insist on a primary process that makes it impossible for her to win in November, they better make sure their candidate wins — because otherwise, I’m gone from this party forever.
    Also, if they succeed in electing a President Sanders, O’Malley (whom I can tell you is no liberal firebrand), or Warren, they should spend the next eight years loving him or her. No whining about how they’ve been betrayed when s/he inevitably tacks to the center. They should do their counting before the election, not after.

    1. Allan Richardson April 22, 2015

      Worse, you and I may be gone from this COUNTRY forever; either chased into exile, or sent to Guantanamo (which the next GOP president would reopen even if Obama manages to close it before his term ends).

      In fact, they were so rabid even during W’s first term, it seemed that the 2004, or certainly 2008, Democratic convention would be held inside Guantanamo, because W would have established a legal excuse to put all of us there.

  4. Eleanore Whitaker April 22, 2015

    Awww….they found Hillary’s inevitability “distasteful?” Did they? And did they for one minute figure on how distasteful it is for JEB to try a 3rd Bush dynasty run? Or how distasteful putting $900 million into the GOP campaign really is?

    Hillary is a sure bet. Greedy men always always always love a sure bet. They are attracted to the thrill of the chase, ever the kill.

    The reality is that as a woman, her gender makes her different. And just who created that kind of scenario for the past 235+ years insisting the White House was the domain of “men only?”

    I think it’s hilarious that men are getting their testicles in a bunch because they know they are standing toe to toe with 52% of the population of the US: women.

    But now, they are telling women, “oh no…you can’t vote based on gender!” Who they hell have they been voting for these past 235+ year if not THEIR gender?

    What a simpering bunch of milksop wusses men in the US have become. Put a woman, ANY woman, in a position of absolute equality and that equality smacks them in their kissers as if it was Joe Frazier knockout.

    1. Leftout April 22, 2015

      Oh oh. I have never met a man in corporate or small business that ever said women are less qualified for any position. Most men were always aware than women performed better academically and new they were generally more intellectual . You mention 235 years. of men controlling politics this was due to convention and cultural habits of the time. Aristophanes, in 450B.C. showed / recognized kthat in ” Lysitrata” that women had a niche that could be explored ! in that women , early in history, had been acknowledged for their power to stop wars , even. Also obviously there are many matriarchal cultures ( personal conversations / Margaret Meade ) where men would give in to ALLOW women to rule the roost. …… Not Saudi Arabia as yet. Sounds good to me I could use a little rest.

      This thought that woman must be president is a crock. It should be the best candidate, Hilary may be that , or another woman with better ideas but we may never know that.!! there is Jim Webb , ex gov from Virginia with better managerial credentials, but we may never know since Democrat men have been so emasculated by the women lobby. And many women potentials are also afraid to show their credentials. I want a new ace that is competent and can move the U.S. forward with pride, courage and competence.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker April 22, 2015

        Oh puhlease…Your post has so many lies in it, Clarence Darrow would have you begging for mercy in seconds. I also NEVER met a man in corporate or small business who eve said were are less qualified for any position. But, when I worked in a very large, very well known data processing co, they used a code to identiry males from females on the backs of job applications. When I worked for nearly 25 years in engineering, 1 woman applied and I was told, “we can’t have a woman climbing on beams 100 feet in the air.” Not biased toward the male gender?

        Of course you never met a man who would chance a liability lawsuit for gender bias. But, there are men who are leading as CEOs over women…why? Who approves the members of the executive boards? Men. Who decides who will be chairman of the board? Men. When Hewlitt Packard hired Carly Fiorina as CEO, they found an excuse not one year later to replace her…with a man.

        No one up north knows who the hell some drawling, swaggering hick like Jim Webb is..who is he? Loretta Webb Lynn’s long lost brother from Butcher Holler?

        As for your male supremacy referring to male dominance in business and government as culture and convention…you are correct…MALE dominance culture and MALE convention.

        Time you boys took a hike and sat this election out. You can make up all the good ole good ole good ole boy excuses you want. This next president WILL BE A woman..whether it’s Hillary, Warren or Davis.

        As for Jim Webb…who the hell do you think you are fooling? You want him only because he’ll keep the rest of us up north busting butts while you DogPatch lazy butts lay around collecting our tax dollars. Get off your lazy butts and get a life.

      2. Louis Allen April 22, 2015

        Leftout: You heard her right ! My ex-wife Lenore Whittaker (why she removed one “t” from her surname, and why did she change to “Eleanore” really eludes me) has what appears to be an INNATE inability to express her hate towards (all) men with reasonable, measured arguments.
        Her typical demeanor is: ” No one up north knows who the hell some drawling, swaggering hick like
        Jim Webb is..who is he? Loretta Webb Lynn’s long lost brother from
        Butcher Holler?”
        AND this other GEM: “This next president WILL BE A woman..whether it’s Hillary, Warren or Davis.” – VINTAGE Lenore.
        AND this other GEM: “You want him only because he’ll keep the rest of us up north busting
        butts while you DogPatch lazy butts lay around collecting our tax
        dollars. Get off your lazy butts and get a life.”
        I apologize for her: the woman is crazy and absolutely refuses to see a “PYSchiatrist” (that’s how she calls them….)

        1. Leftout April 23, 2015

          No apologies, I try and mix a little satire with the facts. These issues are so phony , they create divisiveness amongst people , who I know are hypocritically the opposite in real life. There may be a few abused women or less loved, but having a nice personality does work . If being nice does not work, kill the bastard and go on . Many times I was told you have a great personality ….it is a euphemism for saying ” but you sure are ugly”. The only thing that saved me is that I wear extra large boots…..that means something in some cultures..I think.?

          The divisiveness in creating these small groups of hatred between us is a well tested technique of politics to create in small isolated groups , a sense of inclusiveness and togetherness of losers. They are in totality a small percentage , but even a small stone makes a lot of noise in a garbage can.

          Most men enjoy women, and are not intimidated, by their intelligence . It’s appears the men in the Democratic Party have no testosterone to challenging Hilary , nor are there any women , what does that say as to who is strong. Women’s and men in the Democratic Party love to be dominated …..I guess. I only like being on bottom only while I am reading.

          1. Louis Allen April 23, 2015

            Leftout: You are excellent, not only at mixing satire with the facts, but also (and this is something that liberals have loooong lost) at introducing HUMOR into our everyday and political reality.
            My “hat” goes off to you!

    2. mike April 22, 2015

      Still thinking women representing 52% of population will vote in one Big Monolithic block aren’t you?? When pigs fly, maybe.
      Hillary is a terrible politician and one of the most inauthentic people ever. She had to bubble wrapped to make the silly tour meeting real people, which turned out to be political operatives.

      Hillary Clinton’s astro turf candidacy is in full swing in Iowa.

      Her Tuesday morning visit to a coffee shop in LeClaire, Iowa was staged from beginning to end, according to Austin Bird, one of the men pictured sitting at the table with Mrs. Clinton.

      Bird said that campaign staffer Troy Price called and asked him and two other young people to meet him Tuesday morning at a restaurant in Davenport, a nearby city.

      Price then drove them to the coffee house to meet Clinton after vetting them for about a half-hour.

      The three got the lion’s share of Mrs. Clinton’s time and participated in what breathless news reports described as a ’roundtable’– the first of many in her brief Iowa campaign swing.

      Bird himself is a frequent participant in Iowa Democratic Party events. He interned with President Obama’s 2012 presidential re-election campaign, and was tapped to chauffeur Vice President Joe Biden in October 2014 when he visited Davenport.

      ‘We were asked to come to a meeting with Troy, the three of us, at the Village Inn.’

      The other two, he confirmed, were University of Iowa College Democrats president Carter Bell and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland employee Sara Sedlacek.

      ‘It was supposed to be a strategy meeting,’ Bird recalled, ‘to get our thoughts about issues. But then all of a sudden he says, “Hey, we have Secretary Clinton coming in, would you like to go meet her?”‘

      ‘And then we got in a car – Troy’s car – and we went up to the coffee house, and we sat at a table and then Hillary just came up and talked with us.’

      Bird said ‘we all were called.’

      ‘I mean, Troy asked us all to do – to go to a meeting with him. And we didn’t really know what it was about. I mean, he did. He knew.’

      It’s unclear how many Iowans featured in photographs with Clinton that rocketed around the country on Tuesday were planted.

      ‘The mayor of LeClaire was there, and his wife was there,’ Bird said, recalling the scene at the coffee shop.

      Hillary is about as authentic as Obama, which says it all.

      1. Louis Allen April 22, 2015

        Quoting you: “Hillary is a terrible politician and one of the most inauthentic people ever.”
        “Hillary is about as authentic as Obama, which says it all.”
        On both counts, ….. EXACTLY; RIGHT !!
        But you have to excuse my ex-wife’s (Lenore) BREATHLESS rantings about Hillary because: a) Lenore is a terrible political ideologue and one of the most inauthentic people ever, and b) Lenore is about as authentic as Obama and Hillary, which says it all.
        The poor woman: she absolutely refuses to seek help, …. and it shows.

        1. mike April 22, 2015

          Really! Eleanore is your ex?
          God Bless You! That had to have been one helluva ride!
          Really!!! I am speechless.
          She loves describing male parts.

          1. Louis Allen April 22, 2015

            Yep. The poor woman is deranged/delusional and, of late, into other “proclivities”; use your imagination ….

          2. mike April 22, 2015


    3. Louis Allen April 22, 2015

      Lenora, my dear ex-wife:
      You keep getting dumber and dumber with your “shoot from the hip” comments.
      1) “The reality is that as a woman, her gender makes her different.” – WOW ! That’s BRILLIANT! What perception! What lucidity! What eloquence!
      2) “I think it’s hilarious that men are getting their testicles in a bunch
      because they know they are standing toe to toe with 52% of the
      population of the US: women.” – WOW ! “testicles in a bunch”!! That’s (to say the least) worthy of me giving you a cleansing of your dirty mouth with SOAP.
      Don’t cheapen yourself like that. Or is it that you just can’t come up with elegant ways of making your point anymore without resorting to “balls”, “testicles” and “cojones”? (Come to think of it, you NEVER had any elegance or something intangible called “upbringing”, dear. But it IS becoming worse now, much worse).
      Your mental condition is (sadly) showing, dear. Go see your friend the “PYSchiatrist”. Go, go, goooo!!!

  5. FT66 April 22, 2015

    Am sorry coronation of heirs doesn’t apply to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. It applies quite well to the Bush family. Hillary can decide to leave Bill tomorrow or vice versa and she will be called (X-wife). Jeb Bush can’t do that. He will always and forever belong to the family. Every Democrat need to understand that this woman, Hillary has been fighting whole her life. She doesn’t sit idle and expect anything to drop to her lap so long she was once/twice called first lady or senator. She uses her own initiative and effort to reach wherever she wants to be. She needs all our support in her endeavour. And we owe her a lot as she has shown she wants to extend her hand of working for us all.

  6. ATC333 April 22, 2015

    While not necessarily requiring a challenger, it would be most appropriate for a real discussion of how Hillary, and the Democratic powers that be propose to take time to educate the American voting public about the abject failures of the GOP economic agenda, beginning with Reagan, and continuing through Bush I, Bush II, and the GOP controlled House, and now Senate. It should address off shoring jobs, and the tax credits that go with that process, further encouraging US corporations to continue that approach to ever more profits, It should address the massive redistribution of wealth under the GOP economic theory of low taxes create jobs, the fact that but for those same GOP Administrations tax cuts, assuming all administrations, including Regan spent the same, we would now have to deal with a Federal Debt which would remain at the same level as when Reagan took office. Instead, those 13 Trillion in GOP caused deficits served only to increase the top 2% wealth, which we, the US tax payers have financed, and will have to pay down. We need a discussion about some the massive increases of corporate profits which have resulted from those GOP policies, as costs went down, wages stagnated, yet the American public did not see a corresponding reduction in prices,

    In other words, we need a national debate about the failures of the very same polices that the GOP Politicians lining up to vie for the GOP Nomination are once again hawking as their solution to our struggling economy, which the GOP has helped slow as a result of continued block and stall activities in the House, and now the Senate. as well as a transparent discussion of what, and how it should be corrected.

  7. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

    Hillary Clinton has already proven that she owes her fealty to big money. How can there be any movement away from the Koch/Adelsen/Dimon type of crowd that has pretty much bought off the federal government if the Presidency goes to yet another peon beholden to these people? If Clinton is elected to office then the Presidency will once again be a part of their fiefdom just as it is now under Obama. Think – chained colas for Social Security or perhaps even outright privatization / whistleblower blues as bad if not worse than now / government secrecy as bad if not worse than now / continued drone warfare and continued inappropriate interference in the affairs of other countries / continued growth in wealth and power of companies such as those in the fossil fuel industry and Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and the like who produce the poisonous GMO’s that they actually sell for profit. What would really change as compared to what the US has now? Other than the ACA (which could have been a much better arrangement for the citizens of the US than it turned out to be because of the influence of the moneyed interests) Obama has actually turned out to be in many, many ways a worse President than his predecessor George W. Bush. Yes, Bush did invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and his administration did promulgate an official policy for torture but he did not officially arrange to begin the extralegal murders of US citizens including at least one child! Further, Obama expanded the drone program far beyond Bush’s wildest dreams and Obama never fully ended the torture policy and has refused to pursue investigation and prosecution of any of the people involved in this terrible, completely illegal program thus possibly ending any chance of future regeneration of it. The US is still tangled up in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least when the Bush people committed their acts of sin against the people at great many loudly protested. Obama, being a Democrat, has never been subject to anything near the level of the Bush protests.

    So, we had George W. for eight years and then Obama continued the country down the Bush road for another eight years. Hillary Clinton has been around long enough and has spoken out on a great many issues, and has already been bought by a large number of corporate lobbyists – do we really need to add another four or eight years more of this?

    YES, There truly needs to be an alternative to Hillary.

    1. oldtack April 22, 2015

      Name me one of the scum bags in the House or the Senate that doesn’t owe their existence and their careers to BIG MONEY. BIG MONEY runs this Countrey – not this bevy of wimp assed nut jobs.

      1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

        Alan Grayson in the House and Bernie Sanders in the Senate. And, Mr. Sanders may very well be a Presidential candidate. AND, yes, BIG MONEY has basically run this country for more than a century and one half, but things have definitely gotten progressively worse since the end of World War II.

        1. Carolyn1520 April 22, 2015

          I like both of them but neither can win the presidential primary much less a general election.

          1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            I would not underestimate Bernie Sanders. He reminds me of Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or even Howard Dean of more recent vintage. Had many in the Democratic party not turned on Dean as viciously as they did I believe he may have become a legitimate contender.

          2. Carolyn1520 April 22, 2015

            There’s a shift in the dem party, people don’t seem to be taking into account. The majority, like it or not, are not hard left dems. I like Elizabeth Warren too but she gets more accomplished where she is and as the conscience. She endorsed Hillary awhile ago because she knows realistically
            a higher number of dems will embrace and vote for her. Don’t discount when women vote, dems win and while dem women won’t vote for any woman just because of gender (McCain’s big mistake) they will pick an intelligent woman over a man at this point. Hillary fits the bill. Bernie Sanders doesn’t have the same appeal across the board.

          3. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            You realize that those you would consider to be hard left would fifty years ago been considered to simply be left of center. The real shift for both Republicans and Democrats has been to the right,

            As to Warren, her choosing not to run and to support Hillary Clinton are her own reasons and of little matter to the public. In fact Warren may decide to never divulge the real reasons behind her decision. But again, the decision she made was hers to make and not to be begrudged by others.

          4. Carolyn1520 April 22, 2015

            That’s precisely why Bernie Sanders wouldn’t win a primary.

          5. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            No, Bernie Sanders could not win the primary because of the vicious attacks that would be launched against him by the supporters of Clinton. Attacks designed to damage him in the same way as Howard Dean was damaged. This would happen because the primary system now in place is so dysfunctional and needs to be replaced. In fact, a real third and fourth parties should be established but the backers of the two party system will never allow it. The current system offers them too much access to power and money. Sadly, Mr. Sanders would be a much better president than Ms. Clinton.

          6. Carolyn1520 April 22, 2015

            That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I’d never attack any candidate who is a member of my party. There’s a sufficient amount of that that would occur from the right.

          7. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            You are correct and I was wrong. I should have stated that MANY, probably a great many, (instead my original reply failed to use that delimiter) of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters would conduct such attacks. Historically, we have witnessed such things many times.

        2. oldtack April 22, 2015

          I read you loud and clear.

    2. jmprint April 22, 2015

      What would you have done instead of using drones?

      1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

        If you are unhappy with your neighbor or neighbors, do you simply shoot at them with a scattergun to kill and maim as many as possible? That is a crazy way to deal with an issue that is basically a political issue because you will only garner more enemies than friends which is precisely what the drone war has accomplished with the large number of civilian lives, especially those of children that have been taken.

        Understand also that FEW of the people killed by these strikes have actually been proven to have been involved in what can be defdined as terrorism. Remember too that any targeted male who is 14 years old or older is killed with a drone strike, the dead person or his relatives are REQUIRED to come forward and prove that he was not a terrorist otherwise the target(s) are automatically counted as terrorists. Most of the victims of these strikes live in areas of great illiteracy and outright poverty thus are not readily able to come forward. Details are only brought to light when journalists and researchers work their way into these areas to find out what they can. Thus this is one way to keep a lowered count on the actual count of civilian deaths is by simply classifying them as terrorists. This is NO different than the policy of killing any or all civilians (which included children and even babies) in a designated area and them counting their bodies as the enemy ‘Viet Cong’ dead which was a policy followed in Vietnam. Such policies are immoral and unethical by the standards of most people, except perhaps by the many Americans who support them (that is they are supported as long as they are being used on others, not on Americans).

        Worse still, those who have been responsible for choosing who is to be murdered by drone have no qualms about targeting even very young children. This we can readily determine by the numbers and the ages of children who have been victimized by drones. And to openly call for the deaths of children down to 14 years of age? CRAZY!

        And double tap strikes have NO other purpose than to murder the innocent in an effort to strike fear into the hearts of others.

        The people who have prosecuted these drone NEED to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for their egregious crimes.

        AND, perhaps you might have a different understanding if an outside country were to promiscuously dropping killer drones on the US, would that be ok to you?

        1. jmprint April 22, 2015

          The question wasn’t answered, but your opinion does matter. If there were different circumstances, I would agree with your statement, but knowing that these terrorist, kill on-sight all christians, regardless of age, color or gender and would like to wipe out America’s civilization. There will be casualties in any war, and it is sad that many innocent people die, but this is a war that is based on evil & hate and I don’t think it should be fought with our children lives.

          1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            Are you suggesting that the US should murder ALL 1.6 billion muslims on the planet? First off, become knowledgeable before making sweeping statements such as what you said about these people killing Christians. Read and learn about these people. Once you have done that and you find out that truly these people are not murderers as you would claim but from a different land and a different culture and they are PEOPLE! And, unbeknownst to you, considering the demographics of the US, you may have some as neighbors. Now, I believe you to be a Christian, so before you go any further, find ANY passage in the Bible wherein Jesus says anything about killing – enemies, neighbors, or whatever. Secondly, you offhandedly, as does the Obama administration refer to the murder of the unintended targets as ‘collateral damage’. This is simply a gauche way of saying it is OK to commit murder and mayhem, regardless of whether innocents are hurt.

            I guess I would have to ask you what value you place on the lives of others, especially those who are not ‘Christian’ from your perspective? Why not just kill the atheist down the street the next time you see him since he definitely does not believe as you do? Perhaps the Jew further down the street needs to die. Does this have a familiar ring to you?

            And then there are the double tap strikes – strikes that serve no purpose but to kill and maim, create destruction and instill fear. Again these people are not doing these things to the US. BUT instead, the US is happily and promiscuously doing this to them. Be grateful they are powerless to do anything about it. Just as the black people who have been lynched in all the years following the Civil War were powerless to prevent those.

            Remember, Christ talked about returning injury with positive action because he knew that negative action usually created a momentum of negative actions which often lead to regrettable consequences.

            So, before you talk about it being OK to murder people, you should not only remember the words of Christ, but learn about the situation as a whole and, as stated in the movie, “Jerry Maguire” ‘follow the money’. Who truly benefits by the drone strikes. Not the people being murdered. Not the US because each murder creates more enemies for the US abroad. The drone manufacturers are making MONEY hand over fist though!

          2. jmprint April 22, 2015

            The question I asked you was what would you do instead of using drones? No I don’t suggest we kill anyone, but if it takes drones to stop the terrorist from advancing and progressing, and we don’t have to send our children to war, then I think that is what needs to be done. I do try to read and learn and that is why I asked you a question as to what you would do, not to criticize you, but to learn from your opinion. The terrorist are murderers, they beheaded human being and burn them alive, what do you mean the are not murderers.

            So when we send troops overseas to help defend the citizens of other countries, aren’t our children collateral damage?

          3. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            The first question that I would ask of you is, if you are not proposing to kill those that you have decided should be labeled as ‘terrorists’ and thus deserving of having their lives and the lives of many around them immediately subject to some form of destruction or outright murder, then if the drones are not to be used for destruction and murder HOW are they to be used, if at all?

            Secondly, please define a terrorist. After all, many the west define as terrorists such as ISIL and al Qaeda are people working to undo (in their own way) damage that has been imposed upon them by the west, primarily the US.

            And then you have Hezbollah, a group that has primarily worked to undo the damage that Israel has created on other nation states in the mideast, for them their primary focus is Lebanon. The effect of Israeli behavior resulted in helping to create political instability and the resulting destruction of this democratic and successful nation state in the 1970’s (in fact, Lebanon prior to the political instability that lead to the civil war was considered to be a real GEM – a place one needed to visit for understanding the benefits available in the middle east). The Israeli’s have been instrumental in helping to maintain that instability in Lebanon and thus current state cannot change for the better until some force can successfully counteract it. And that is the role that Hezbollah has been attempting to fill.

            As to the Palestinians, The West Bank (including Jerusalem) and Gaza were defined by the UN convention that created the state of Israel as being NOT parts of Israel. That the Palestinians had no form of what the west would consider established governance was what the Israeli’s have used as reasons for continuing their brutal occupation of the territory. Originally, these areas were loosely governed by Jordan but Jordan really did not want that responsibility and so cut any and all governance ties after the Israeli conquest in 1967. How brutal is the occupation? Since 2004 Palestinians have been burying, on average, three children EACH DAY. Many killed by Israeli soldiers for sport or target practice. These murders are rarely reported in the west. In addition the Israeli’s continue to illegally (under international and UN law) seize more and more of the West Bank and Jerusalem area territory as they see fit. Palestinians who protest, even children, become subject to either murder or arrest (and the concomitant torture that the captors usually subject these people to). A few years ago, one member of the Israeli parliament (called the Knesset) who was himself a survivor of the Nazi death camps, likened the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to being worse than the Nazi’s treatment of the Jews.

            The best way to settle the issue would be for the Israeli’s to withdraw to the 1967 borders and settle all issues politically, but that would end their dream of the ‘Greater Israel’ they seek. Thus Palestinians fighting to save their own homelands by fighting against the Israeli occupiers will continue to be defined by the US as terrorists and thus continue to be murdered and tortured as they are now.

            So, who are you defining as terrorist? The Taliban of Afghanistan? They may have ruled Afghanistan in ways that foreigners may not like BUT they never brought death and destruction to those outside Afghanistan as the US has so happily brought to Afghanistan. In fact, around the year 2000 al-Qaeda, seeking a place to train their people (al-Qaeda, another group for which the US played a significant role in creating), offered to pay the Taliban rulers for the privilege of allowing the training to take place in that country. Needing the money, the Taliban quickly agreed. After 9/11, when the Taliban feared US invasion because of the presence of al-Qaeda, the Taliban offered to actually turn the al-Qaeda people over to the US. The US preferred to invade. So, who are the real terrorists? Who deserves to considered, along with their families and friends, worthy of outright murder by drones run by the US?

            If you truly are Christian, before suggesting that people be harmed (the casting of stones) for ANY reason, might I suggest that you look to yourself first and try to understand why Jesus made the statements about casting the first stones and about turning the other cheek. If you try to understand why people are behaving in ways of which you may disapprove by simply putting yourself in their ‘shoes’ – once you understand that they are acting in response to grievances imposed upon them, would it not be preferable

            to address their grievances through peaceful means rather than raining death and dismemberment upon them, their families, their friends, and their neighbors.

            Consider the US legacy in Vietnam if you would. If you read “The Pentagon Papers” you will come to understand the government lied about the reasons for the US incursion there (again, it turned out to have primarily a profit motive). The people of Vietnam simply sought to reunify a country under a national hero that had been temporarily divided after a long term French occupation. The US incursion left in its wake an estimated two and one half MILLION dead, untold numbers maimed, untold numbers of women who had been forced to sexually service the US and other foreign troops the US brought in, the devastation of the country and countryside, untold numbers of bombs and cluster bomblets that did not explode when dropped but that are exploding these days thus continuing the process of killing and maiming more innocents (often children), and the terrible effects of the chemicals of Agent Orange on the population (not only were these carcinogenic but they were mutagenic thus inflicting damage on those who were born since as well as providing a well for damage on a great many who have yet to be conceived. How has the US acted in response to the actions it took that have so devastated these people?
            There has not even been a real apology from this country. Many members of those who served in the US armed forces there at that time have apologized, but an official apology and some form of reparations remain lacking.

            For all the destruction the US has unnecessarily wrought upon so many innocent people around the world – say just since 1960, has the US not defined itself by carrying out the same and worse actions by which it defines others as ‘terrorist’?

            Remember too that those the US captured during the George W. Bush years, claiming that these people were outright terrorists (and as we have discovered, even children as young as eight years old) – even the worst of the worst such – confined them to the dark prison sites such as Abu Ghraib (and there were many around the world) such as the one at Guantanamo, subjected them to brutal torture from which many died, and in the end found out that very few of these people did anything that could even be remotely described under the term ‘terrorism’. You must ask yourself, what is shown in the pictures from Abu Ghraib alone that is so bad that the Obama administration has done their best to hide them from public view? Do the American people NOT deserve to know what has been done in their names and with their tax dollars?

            Yes, if we simply kill these people off perhaps our own offenses will be prevented from coming to light. Besides, Raytheon and the other companies involved in drone production are making a real ‘KILLING’ by their manufacture.

          4. jmprint April 23, 2015

            Yes, the United States has made grave mistakes in the passed, and most certainly will in the future … but, the mentality that a group of people can annihilate a whole religion, just because, is insane. The guy in the photos that is doing the beheading is young, British who converted to muslim , who is not doing this for the reasons you speak of, he is evil and so are his followers.

            They (the muslims) have fault in destroying there own. They have used chemicals to get rid of their own neighbors, so the a lot of the US involvement is for the sake of helping other countries, yes greed is very barnacle like.

            … will continue killing Christians until “polytheism” is destroyed, that is, until the belief in the Trinity is destroyed. ”

            “A masked man wielding a gun says that Christians must convert to Islam or pay a special tax as prescribed by the Quran. The video then alternates between images of captives in the south who shot dead and others in the east to the beheading on a beach.”

            As long as this mentality is there, we can only pray for the casualties caused by the pursuit of dominance.

          5. Clifford Terry April 23, 2015

            You obviously need to learn about ISIL and its origins. ISIL came out of Iraq as a response to the situation in Iraq that had been created in the wake of the US lead invasion. They are being bombed, yes, and perhaps even experiencing some drones. But as to the drones I am really not sure. The point that I am making though is that you are looking at the result of a political situation that the US had created and the only real way to successfully deal with it is NOT to try and kill anything moving with drones, bombs, or nukes. This is the kind of thinking the actions from which ISIL was created in the first place. EVEN if you kill 100% of all life in the area through the use of nuclear bombs all you do is create generations of hate amongst the relatives and friends who live elsewhere. These people will have a high propensity to strike back at those who committed the nuclear killings – that is, the US, and strike back they will, in their own way. Lex Talionis – an eye for an eye, a death for a death. This is what ISIL is acting out right now and when they have finished their blood lust revenge many people will have died. Had the US not gone into Iraq there would never have been a group called ISIL acting out its revenge terror. The US created it, is responsible for it, and yet cannot control it.

            The lesson here SHOULD be that death imposed on others usually brings more death in return – and that will hold true if you keep the killing going in the middle east.

            Death holds no honor and is often responded to by more death. Again, this is why Jesus sought to have people understand the importance of turning the other cheek and even returning injury with kindness. ONLY kindness can truly overcome problems such as ISIL. So, if you truly are a follower of Jesus, listen to the words of your prophet and act accordingly. You will find this process actually WORKS and that is why Jesus recommended it..

          6. jmprint April 23, 2015

            Well I truly agree with your logic, but what do we do while they kidnap hundreds and hundreds of innocent humans. Do we just sit here and watch, do we wait while they train and multiply to the point that we cannot control and convert our own children to join them against us, or do we react and let them know that we will not tolerate the violence they are imposing. Cheney created this hell, it was because of greed . . . President Obama together with other allies is trying to do their best to curtail. Like Pope Frances said we are in a piece meal 3rd world war.

          7. Clifford Terry April 23, 2015

            Intelligent response. This does not mean simply caving into them but dealing with them with respect and trying to find ways and approaches that will be acceptable to them. Ultimately, their greatest enemy is Iran because the Iranians are Shia and ISIL are Sunni. In addition they have as enemies the Kurds, so they do have issues and pressures that may very well result in their own undoing – but in the meantime the US is in no position to immediately end their murderous rampage. Remember ISIL and its murders are a DIRECT result of US action in the mideast and the responsible approach would be to seek means of mitigating the current bloodshed and then find ways to help bring healing to the area. It will take time and cost money, but as anyone truly knowledgeable about the area will tell you, it is the only path to true peace for these peoples.

          8. jmprint April 23, 2015

            Now I’m interested in knowing how you feel about the Iran deal that is on the table, any takes on that.

          9. Clifford Terry April 23, 2015

            Actually I find the US efforts here under President Obama to be of a much higher nature than I expected of him. Think about it. Under the Bush imposed sanctions the number of centrifuges and the amount of processed uranium that Iran had grew ENORMOUSLY. The numbers of both before and after are publicly and readily available. Combining the fact that Iran has agreed to drop both the numbers of their centrifuges and the processed uranium they will store back to levels close to the pre-sanctions days along with the fact that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which requires regular and thorough inspections of nuclear materials and nuclear sites Iran will not be able to hide any effort to creating some kind of nuclear bomb making capability. Remember that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows nations to use nuclear materials for peaceful purposes which is exactly what the Iranians have wanted all along. At no time prior to the imposition of sanctions nor at any time since the sanctions has anyone demonstrated in any way that the Iranians have sought otherwise. The Iranians have been true to their words.

            On the other hand, Israel opposes the treaty because they want to find ways to emasculate the Iranian military. They want this because the Iranian military is the only force in the area willing to stand up to Israels brute force approach to impose their wishes on the countries in the area. Remember, Israel denies having nuclear weapons but the current estimate by those in the know is that Israel holds about 600. Worse, Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty because they do not wish to allow inspections of their nuclear arsenal. Yet the best approach to the Mideast and nuclear weapons would be to make the area a nuclear weapons free zone thus eliminating the possibility of any use of such weapons in the area. Further, Israel is aware that if the treaty is successfully agreed upon by all parties involved, Iran will in effect have ‘broken the ice’ and successfully negotiated with the west, and especially with the US government, in a way that has not happened since the Iranian revolution thus Iran will probably acquire greater prominence and greater success in further dealings with the west. The thought of this the Israelis hate as much as they hate any and all followers of Islam, because since their neighbors are all Islamic, future dealings with them will have to be done on a more respectful basis. This will replace the current situation in which Israel simply imposes its own terms on its neighbors.

            Finally, about a year ago I read an investigation into the climatological and biological effects of a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The study determined that even a limited war in which less than one third of the weapons now thought to be held by Israel were detonated, would have such a massive impact on the climate that many millions could wind up starving to death for lack of food. While the study did not take into account the use of such weapons in the Mideast, I can only assume the results would be similar.

          10. jmprint April 23, 2015


    3. Allan Richardson April 22, 2015

      Obama has NOT kept the country going “down the Bush road,” except to taper off, rather than cut off cold turkey, our addiction to war, which, sadly, is not ONLY the result of manipulation by the wealthy, but a part of public opinion which no elected official can ignore. This fear was certainly magnified and pointed in an unhealthy direction by the neocons, but it DID exist and STILL exists in the minds of too many VOTERS to win an election without conceding to it for the time being. Yes, Obama has used drones more than W did, because they are now more reliable than in W’s day, and they are being used to REPLACE boots on the ground. You and I do not agree with all of the occasions they are being used, to be sure, but not using them at all, when the public (other than us) still believes the world is too dangerous NOT to use them, is just ASKING those voters to vote Republican just on the basis of that issue, even when it is against their interests. And that is exactly how we got two terms of neocon Republicans in the White House, five years (with at least another one scheduled) of Republican rule in the Congress, and Republican dominated legislatures and governors in so many states, including formerly Democratic shoo-in states.

      The same is true of the surveillance issue. Public opinion is ONLY NOW, thanks to the dialog stimulated by the fact that a Democrat (NOT acceptable to the far right; and worse, a BLACK Democrat) inherited and is using the same power that Republicans GAVE TO a Republican, and they are even making up stories that he is using it against THEM and not only against terrorists (and liberals). But UNTIL the same people who WANTED surveillance to keep liberals in line began to speak AGAINST it, most Americans sincerely believed that the benefit of stopping future 9/11 attacks was WORTH the loss in theoretical “freedom” (which would not apply to “good” Americans with “nothing to hide”). And ANY PRESIDENT who slacked off on, or spoke and acted against, such surveillance, if ANY terrorist attack occurred, would be BLAMED by the public for “allowing” it. The right already went wild, making up their own “facts” to “prove” Obama “allowed” or even “planned” the Benghazi consulate attack. What would they do in the case of another OKC bombing, if the perpetrators had not been caught before the act by using total metadata surveillance?

      The point is, because of “conservative” influence on voters since the middle of the 1970s, leading up to the Reagan coup of 1980, it has NOT BEEN SAFE for a Democrat to oppose right wing economics, or right wing law and order, ideology TOO strongly. And in some states and districts, it is not not safe for a GOP official not to SUPPORT those ideas strongly ENOUGH to satisfy the crazies. This is gradually changing, but it accounts for Carter caving in to calls for airline deregulation, President Clinton caving in to NAFTA, and Senator Clinton caving in to the PATRIOT act rhetoric … but please note that she qualified her vote as being to allow the use of force as a LAST RESORT, but W took it as license to attack Iraq as a FIRST RESORT. A President Carter or Clinton TODAY would have some electoral “cover” to oppose those conservative swings, PROVIDED voters who disagree with Republicans do not ABANDON the only force currently OPPOSING them, for third parties unable to win, or for the silence of not showing up, thus giving the GOP a victory by default … because THEIR rabid, misled voters, even though fewer in number, WILL show up to vote.

      I have used this illustration before: in the 1960s there was a TV commercial for Alka-Seltzer Cold medicine in which a young college man, obviously brain impaired by sinus congestion, was standing hip deep in snow somewhere in the Northeast, hitching a ride to spring break, with a sign saying “MIAMI.” A beautiful single young lady in a red convertible sports car pulled over and, in a very friendly voice, offered him a ride, but said she was only going to Fort Lauderdale. Being confused because he hadn’t taken their medicine, he turned it down; most viewers would have been happy to go to Jacksonville or Savannah or even Charlotte!

      The point is, don’t hold out for a ride to Miami that may never come; TAKE THE RIDE TO FORT LAUDERDALE!

      1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

        Have the wars REALLY tapered off? That would be something that the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya should be informed about ASAP. Just because fewer US personnel may be getting killed or injured does not mean that the ball that the US began rolling in the first place is something for which the US no longer bears any or just little responsibility. If you purposefully burn your neighbors house down and then help him to hose down the last few embers does not mean that you were not responsible for burning down the house.

        As to the surveillance issue – there has been more of under Obama than there ever was under Bush. As to the issue of creating secret documents to hide inappropriate behaviors – More under Obama including thes new trade deals such as the TPP.

        Basically, Obama is not just George W., Jr. He is George W., Jr. on steroids. When you look at the Nixon accomplishments versus misdeeds, he actually comes out well ahed of Obama.

        I realize that the time of political genius in this country such as that exhibited by the likes of Sam Rayburn or even Lyndon Johnson (good old LBJ!) may be long gone but the techniques they left behind can still be wielded with reasonable effectiveness.

        1. Carolyn1520 April 22, 2015

          If they had the same people in congress as did LBJ.
          The entire circumstances are different.

          1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            Because of corporate lobbyists and their successes things are different, but the tools of success are no different and no difference can be made if there is no effort.

          2. Carolyn1520 April 22, 2015

            We disagree.

          3. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            in what way have the tools become different? Is it not the whole point to shape enough public opinion regarding an issue. The Kochs, Monsanto, and so many others successfully redefine the issues around global warming and GMO’s that people actually agree with the views they propagate despite the fact that global climate change is occurring at a rate far greater than scientists had realized and the dangers of GMO’s are becoming all the more apparent. And, these people are doing it for NO other reason than profit! Because so many people now deny climate change when will people truly begin to address the issue? When the temperatures around the planet have reached to the average increase of six degrees centigrade and life as we know it will no longer be possible on this planet? When will enough people wake up to what GMO consumption is doing to people’s bodies? How many people must become sickened, even to the point of death, before people begin denying consumption? The relevant information on both of these topics is available in ever increasing amounts but the curtains drawn by the profiteers have been successful.

            Less successful were efforts such as those of the George W. administration to redefine torture to make it appear to be legal. Unfortunately for them, national law, international law, and history were not on their side, yet they were successful enough at convincing enough people that it was ok that NONE of them has yet faced any form of prosecution in this country thus forcing those who seek justice to have to seek such through European courts. There, they may find (if any of the people involved travel outside the US and thus become available for arrest) the justice that the US system denies them.

            Less successful still were Woodrow Wilson’s efforts to gain acceptance by the American people (who at the time were very isolationist regarding European affairs) for the League of Nations. Who knows what effect such an acceptance may have had on history.

            NO, the tools are the same – information and persuasion, and sometimes a little guile.

  8. Elliot J. Stamler April 22, 2015

    The alternative to president Hillary Clinton is president Ted Cruz/Jeb Bush/Mike Huckabee/Rick Perry/Rick Santorum/Bobby Jindal/Rand Paul. Those are the two items of the menu-there is no real third.
    If we get any of the Republicans at the end of their term(s), we will get a Supreme Court of 7 or 8 Antonin Scalias, continued disenfranchisement of Democratic-inclined voters; continued sanctioned gerrymandering all of which will permanently ensure a Republican one-party country, and the erosion of the Bill of Rights to a point hitherto unimaginable .
    THAT IS THE CHOICE. Here is my message to leftists: if Hillary Clinton is not “liberal” enough for you and neither is the Democratic Party, which is a capitalist, center-liberal, pragmatic party in the spirt of FDR, JFK, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, then do us and yourselves a big favor; GET OUT OF IT AND GO JOIN WHICHEVER SOCIALIST/RADICAL/QUASI-COMMUNIST PARTY MORE TO YOUR IDEOLOGICAL LIKING. People like you never learn from history because just like the Tea Party radical rightists you live in a dream world in which you think there’s a secret majority out there who will vote for one of you if only given the “real choice” – no, there isn’t just as there is no secret majority out there to give the radical raving right wing victory. But the latter will have over l billion dollars (see the recent Koch brothers decision on donations) alone going into the campaign. Everyone is entitled to their own political view-mine is I want to save political democracy, constitutional rights, economic prosperity for our country.

    1. kenndeb April 22, 2015

      Liberals and the democratic party ARE the new Amerikan communist party.

      1. Allan Richardson April 22, 2015

        You can go drink yourself to death like your idol Joe McCarthy.

        1. Louis Allen April 23, 2015

          And you can go prostitute yourself to death, you idiot, like your MODERN idol Killary Rodham, who prostitutes herself by saying ANYTHING to get elected ….

          1. jmprint April 23, 2015

            And the republican bozo, you don’t think they are prostitutes?
            They have all been bought by the Kochs. They are yoyo’s.

          2. Leftout April 23, 2015

            And Soros, and Foreign Iranian donors, paying the Clintons 2M, and to Bill 500k for a speech, missing Haitian Relief Monies. Ho Hum, oops do not say hum. Monica might be near by.

          3. jmprint April 23, 2015

            Well I would say they are pimps as well. Hum Ho!! Please drop Monica sht, there are more men that have committed adultery then there are that haven’t. This is about Hillary not Bill.

          4. Leftout April 23, 2015

            Adultery, by men only? Cleopatra and Caesar. Having aural / oral sex is not sex according to a survey of young people. Sorry, Ok, forgot…Monica , did not want any young ones knowing that story and getting a bad taste in their mouths about Bill. . But , as a modern day , happy pair, they are all family , enabling each other , Bill & Hilary , to achieve their dreams, a great role model for American yoots.

          5. jmprint April 23, 2015

            Isn’t that better, to love and forgive, and help one-another. American yoots as you call them, see a lot more on cable, I don’t think they are being harmed by Biil’s extramarital affair.

          6. Leftout April 23, 2015

            You are right, most younger people are well versed and not harmed???. I guess I am living in the past where some mystery was more fun. Maybe I am jealous …I was too good and missed the fun! Also the personal dalliances of role models had been hidden, from general public, now …since it is so common, why bring it out anyway , since we are so desensitized.

            The behind the scenes expected “quid pro quos ” and money exchanges whether PACs or outright bribery is trouble some.

          7. jmprint April 23, 2015

            “money exchanges whether PACs or outright bribery is trouble some.”

            Very true.

          8. Louis Allen April 23, 2015

            Leftout gave you the answer to your query.

          9. jmprint April 23, 2015

            I’m impressed.

          10. Louis Allen April 23, 2015

            I know, I know.
            I also know how easy it is to impress you ….

          11. jmprint April 23, 2015

            Yes, Louis Allen the troll bully, here to straighten everyones hair.

      2. Carolyn1520 April 22, 2015

        Have a clorox cocktail. Your gene pool seems to need a serious cleansing, you keep repeating the SOS. It’s sad.

  9. jabber1 April 22, 2015

    Yes, she definitely needs competition. Remember all the economic damage done by Clinton? He signed NAFTA and got rid of Glass-Steagall. Don’t believe anything HRC says regarding helping the middle class. She is still a neo liberal, a supply sider, a trickle down fan and that is the root of our problems economically. So she can be liberal on all the social issues but until we undo the damage done by the Chicago School of Economics we will suffer.

    1. johninPCFL April 22, 2015

      And president Cruz will be better?

      1. FT66 April 22, 2015

        You are not going to hear: “President Cruz in your ears. Never ever. This might happen if Dems and Independents will no longer live in America, of which won’t gonna happen.

  10. ram1020 April 22, 2015

    The statement “After all, voting is a political strategy that hopes to achieve political ends, not a quadrennial occasion to assess a candidate’s ideological worth.” is terribly misguided. We are voting for someone who will direct our country in the direction we want to see progress. There is some ideology, and a lot of practicality involved in that decision. Brand loyalty is being a bit stretched on both sides, so if a campaign comes off as just a media event with meme quality discourse, it will reinforce all the stereotypes that Hillary should be fighting fighting and can end poorly. Since we don’t have the split in the party like in 1968 caused by the Vietnam War, a challenge by O’Malley will allow Hillary to sharpen her message. If for some reason O’Malley polls well against Hillary like McGovern did against LBJ, we will still have time to bring in an “RFK” to save the day. It is dangerous to count on a Jeb Bush nomination to save a strategy.

  11. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

    If the voters are foolish enough to elect any of these people the result will probably differ little from a President Hillary Clinton. I had expected a whole different approach when I voted for Obama in 08, but unfortunately found that I had simply helped elect ‘W.’ Jr. I knew little about Obama in ’08, but having heard and read as much as I have about H. Clinton, I feel comfortable that my prediction about her Presidency will be correct, though I would be very happily surprised to be proven false.

    1. FT66 April 22, 2015

      It seems you are not fully aware how the system works in American politics. Candidates go there and campaign as much as they want, and on much they have in their minds of what they anticipate to do. This happens to every Presidential Candidate and it did happen to Pres. Obama as well. The way system works in US politics, a President can’t command anything to be done because he campaigned for it. Everything has to go through both Chambers to be voted for or against. If the President idea will be voted down there, he/she has little authority to change the outcome.Some few weeks ago, I had a good discussion with some of my friends how politics work in America. We ended up to agree, campaigning sometimes there is wastage of time.

      1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

        Unfortunately I know too much about how the American system works as I have witnessed its evolution since Eisenhower and studied the machinations of the wheels of power prior to that when I was in college. Obama had some very sharp tools that he could have used to change things when he came into office, but he allowed corporate politics to blunt them and even to set limits on his accomplishment with the ACA.

        1. FT66 April 22, 2015

          Still you haven’t gotten my point. ACA was passed because that time it was the Democrat Party had a very limited time of which they controlled both chambers and the President was a Democrat as well. Do you think if ACA has to be introduced now and votes be taken, it can pass either chamber? Please give yourself a little bit of a thought on this logic.

          1. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            I got your point. BUT, I really believe much more could have been accomplished with the ACA had Obama used the tools available to him. Instead he allowed the corporate lobbyists to determine what the act would become, and that was a very bad move because it proved to those lobbying his administration for various and sundry things just how malleable the Obama administration would be.

          2. FT66 April 22, 2015

            I wish Terry you could had tried to fit yourself in Pres. Obama’s shoes. Boy, thats a hell of a job, believe me. It is not all about ACA, it is a variety of jobs coming to him at the same time. Watching how he has changed so quickly on his looks outside, tells all how the job has eaten him more than he eats his daily food.

          3. Clifford Terry April 22, 2015

            Thank you, but no. I am only too aware of the job stresses the presidency imposes. Everyone since Lyndon Johnson (except Nixon and Reagan) was negatively impacted by their experience. Yet, it does not provide excuse for NOT trying to use all available tools to achieve higher goals. “Follow the Money”.

      2. kenndeb April 22, 2015

        Funny how the Emperor cares little for our laws, our Constitution, or our procedures. He has forgotten that he works for the American people. He seems to think and acts as though he RULES the American people.

        1. jmprint April 22, 2015

          Your delusional eyes see things different, it has always been obvious.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker April 23, 2015

            You have to feel pity for KennyBoyDebbyGirl…”it” has yet to come up with a single peaceful, loving thought it “its” lifetime. Most alien lifeforms can’t do that…humanity not being an attribute of which they can lay any claim to. roflmao

          2. jmprint April 23, 2015

            Eleanore I like your comments, you always make me laugh, and you always get to the point. To me he is more of a robot, master says spit, he spits, master says roll over, he rolls over. He lives in a dark black box, no sunlight!. So he cannot see the realities of the world!

          3. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

            That is because a stupid clown ALWAYS makes another stupid clown laugh ….

      3. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

        FT: “wastage” of time?!!!
        Oh brother.

  12. stcroixcarp April 22, 2015

    I am fine with Hillary being the democratic candidate, but the Democrats need to start bring up some new and intelligent voices. I would like to hear from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders during the primary season. What about Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota?

    1. Eleanore Whitaker April 23, 2015

      Actually, I think you are going to hear a Dream Team announcement in the coming months: Clinton/Warren.

      Don’t forget that another very popular candidate is fermenting as a Junior Senator: Cory Booker. There’s also CA’s Linda Sanchez and TX’s Wendy Davis.

      1. Wrily April 23, 2015

        You’re dreaming. Warren wouldn’t allow herself to be maneuvered into such an ineffectual position.

        1. Eleanore Whitaker April 24, 2015

          If you are man, you base your post on the mental prism of masculinity. If you are a woman, then you are obviously too immature to have ever been associated with what older women in the US know are mentally superior women who do not hand over predictability into the male dominated society only men deny exists. Sorry to inform you but Elizabeth Warren is a fighter as is Hillary Clinton.

          It is long past time for some men in the US to realize that women are not, NOT, not…going to allow big mouth males to be the only voices heard…not when our tax dollars are equal to theirs. So..you really have NO idea what Warren will do or won’t do..but do keep guessing..that’s the idea most smart, highly proficient women hope men will do..live in a state of guessing games.

          Elizabeth Warren is not vetted through the crucifixions the GOP has put Clinton through. But..as we all know…there’s always the phoenix who rises from the ashes to ruin the domination games the male control freaks can’t seem to give up.

          1. Wrily April 24, 2015

            Now you’re just trolling, and using the wrong bait to boot.

            Warren has my vote for President, if she runs, but is smart enough to know that she can be more effective as a Senator than a VP.

          2. Eleanore Whitaker April 24, 2015

            No..You are just “trolling.” Don’t try to push your ideas on others. Warren has said a dozen times now she won’t run for president. How obtuse do you plan to get?

            Senators are only effective “if” they are members of prominent committees. Warren has actually acted more the consumer and public advocate whether you admit it or not. Like Sen. Sanders, the are both good at pushing issues from their own platforms. Government doesn’t work that way. It’s not monolithically inclined to pyramidal participation.

            McCain is a Senator, as is McConnell..do you consider them “effective?” Most don’t …but..they do.

            I’ve already seen bumper stickers on cars here in NJ that read: “Clinton/Warren 2016.” So..as a troll, I’m sure you understand the vacuousness of your post.

          3. Wrily April 24, 2015

            I’m entitled to my opinion and I stand by it. Time will tell.

          4. square1inny April 24, 2015

            How obtuse do you plan to get?

            So..as a troll, I’m sure you understand the vacuousness of your post.

            I see the Hillary supporters are planning to insult their way to victory. After all, nothing generates enthusiasm among potential voters like being insulted.

          5. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

            square: Both wrily and you are wasting your time arguing with my mentally retarded (let’s say “challenged”), venomous, men-hating, hypocrite EX-WIFE, Lenore WhiTTaker (she now calls herself “Eleanore Whitaker”).
            Can’t you realize that her mind is not well?

      2. paulyz April 24, 2015

        That dream team may never happen with all the legal troubles Hillary has. The latest involves making millions from sending U.S. uranium to Russia. If not that, then the missing emails or Benghazi.

        1. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

          Come on, man !!!
          Hillary can very well serve as President FROM JAIL !!!
          You know that, my friend !
          Let’s not exclude her just because of that.

      3. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

        Yep! As long as it’s a WOMAN, ANYBODY will do !! Forget about qualifications!!
        What about Nancy The Witch? What about Diane Fakestein? What about Barbaric Boxer? What about Joy Behar? What about Barbara Walters?
        DUH !

    2. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

      Yeah, and what about Jane, Tarzan’s mate??

    3. NoNumberNow April 29, 2015

      Let’s take gender and race out of the picture and select candidates for their qualifications. I don’t care if the candidate is short, fat and ugly, speaks with a lisp and has one leg longer than the other–can said entity manage the country, select talented and experienced people for his/her/its cabinet?

  13. lifetree April 22, 2015

    Is John Stoehr a hack writer for neocons and spins half truths on history?

    1. Eleanore Whitaker April 23, 2015

      Nah…he’s just doing what some guys who can’t stand the idea of taking a back seat do…pull tantrums, sputter, roll their eyes, roll on the floor and spend every dime of their money to buy a government..course…it ain’t gonna happen. There are too many truly smart males in this country who size up their own gender and know what’s really at stake here: Bashing Hillary to prove she can’t lead so the Koch boys can become back room presidents.

      1. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

        Another ridiculous post and “thought” by this half-brain, Lenore WhiTTaker.
        P.S. – Did I say “HALF-brain”??!! I am SOOO generous ….

  14. John S. April 22, 2015

    None of the currently announced candidates or potential Republican candidates for POTUS have earned my support, and I can’t imagine these candidates winning my vote.

    On the important economic issues of creating jobs, reducing income and wealth inequality, growing the middle class and making trade work for the average American each candidate talks a good game, but there doesn’t seem to be one iota of difference between them. Get in the race Mr. O’Malley!

    1. NoNumberNow April 29, 2015

      One also has to wonder why the Dems have only one candidate, a loser from the last Presidential election, who’s main claim to fame is being the spouse of another politician. Her accomplishments are all related to riding the coat tails of another. She quits her most important job she ever when the heat was too much. She is a highly motivated calculating manipulator, moving to a more advantageous state-New York vs. Arkansas–to improve chances of winning. Her current campaign is so orchestrated and staged, it is rivals any slick Hollywood special effects pic.

      1. John S. April 29, 2015

        As a Democrat, I am very concerned about the Dems’ one-candidate policy, and it is not because the one candidate is Mrs. Clinton. The one-candidate policy seems so Republican and elitist, and it could lead to a major collapse in support for the Dems.

        I’m happy to hear that Senator Berrnie Sanders plans to announce his candidacy for POTUS and to run in the Democratic Primary. Still, I think Governor O’Malley should get in the race at the time he thinks is appropriate, and his leadership as Governor of Maryland would be a positive.

        Regarding Mrs. Clinton departing the Secretary of State position, I do not fault her for departing. Moreover, I don’t think the “heat” was too much for her to stand. More likely, it was Republican clowns making a mockery of diplomacy that she didn’t wish to tolerate. Lastly, all politicians are calculating and manipulating to an extent, but very few are willing to undermine the foreign policy of the United States like Senator Tom Cotton and his 46 fellow Republicans who abetted the Iranian hard liners with that disgusting letter they sent to the Iranian government.

        1. NoNumberNow May 5, 2015

          Clinton resigned as SOS at a difficult time. Rather than dig out of the hole she was in, she quit. There are literally scores of foreign policy experts in government, education, think tanks and private business that she could have tapped for advice and guidance. She choose to cut her losses to preserve her chances to be POTUS. What kind of President is she going to be if cut-and-run is her primary strategy for handling a difficult situation, especially ones that leave some, if not all participants, disenchanted? I see a lack of true leadership abilities. Any fool can do well in good times. USA needs a strong leader that can make the hard choices needed when SHTF. That is not Hillary.

  15. Louis Allen April 22, 2015

    John Stoehr’s argument to the effect that there is “No Good Argument for Clinton ‘Needing’ a Challenger” HAS TO BE AMONG THE 5 MOST ASININE STATEMENTS EVER PUT FORTH ON THIS CESSPOOL OF LEFTIST/LIBERAL/SOCIALIST/PROGRESSIVE “thought” !!
    Clinton “needing” a challenger??!! Who “needs” a challenger, Stoehr, you dumbass??!!
    Oh brother.

  16. Eleanore Whitaker April 23, 2015

    The reality is that this country has been male dominated for far too long. Now, it’s an expectation of entitlement that government and big business must, must, must always be led by a man. Get over it.

    So..do tell..Put Cruz, next to Rubio, next to Walker…Can you tell them apart? They look like triplets. Door No. 1, Door No. 2 and Door No. 3..with Rand Paul pulling up the Stars and Bars contingent…roflmao.

    The reality is that the hidden “trap” door hides the real back room presidents: The Koch boys. No man spends a dime without expecting to “get” something back. $900 million smackers is one whole hell of a lot of Koch “get” when the 2016 election rolls around.

    But, to call their bluff, women in the US are now seeing more and more of what men do when they have to take a seat behind a female leader: Drag out everything but the date of her last menstruation. Give it up boys…You haven’t got anything women want for president.

    You asked for this. You’ve dominated the entire country expecting male rule to be the ONLY rule. Now, some of the worst dipshits in the male gender are pulling the Terrible Two tantrums…as if that EVER changes any woman’s mind.

    1. Gilbert West April 24, 2015

      Your comments about the republican field of candidates fairly well describes my own sentiments. Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? Walker, the Koch’s preference? Mrs. Clinton is a far more sensible choice than any of these, including Rand Paul. She has the experience, the knowledge base, is not seen as a limp-wrist puppet trying to prove something, and she would beat the pants off any and all of these jokers in any debate. I want to see Ted Cruz’ birth records… his mother’s birth record, his daddy’s birth record. The same with Marco Rubio. We need someone in office who understands what the country needs and who is not a lap-dog for the Koch brothers. Marco Rubio would probably make for a fair game-show host, or perhaps a sitcom. Some of the things he says are pretty funny, but President of the U.S.A.? No way!

      1. paulyz April 25, 2015

        Maybe it’s time you realize everything corrupt about Hillary is true. More proof of the falsity of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” Even the N.Y. Times knows how corrupt she is. But Liberals would vote for her regardless.

        1. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

          1) “Even the N.Y. Times knows how corrupt she is.” 2) “But Liberals would vote for her regardless.”
          BOTH statements are PATENTLY TRUE !!!

      2. NoNumberNow April 26, 2015

        For clarity, it’s the candidate’s nationality, not his parents, that is an issue for anyone running for President. I trust your comment does not reflect a discriminatory attitude toward people with family members that legally immigrated to the USA. The field of Republican candidates differ significantly from Clinton’s in that each can claim long resumes of self accomplishments–rather than riding the shirt tails of a spouse. The problems with Clinton’s “qualifications” is that without her husband Bill’s position in government, she would have no resume. Every job she has had is tied to his influence and ranking.While her husband was AG and later Governor of AR, she obtained her job at Rose law firm. She tackled Arkansas education issues but her husband was governor. After moving to New York, she became a junior senator while her husband was President. During her tenure she accomplished nothing of consequence, deferring her duties to the senior state senator. If you take hubby Bill and her gender out of the equation, there is nothing there. Her political experience is limited to a stint as a junior senator and Sec. of State, a job she quit to reduce damage to her long-term political ambitions.

        1. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

          She should be weary of her husband’s shirt tails; …. they are stained with semen ….

      3. Canistercook May 5, 2015

        Your biases are showing!

    2. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

      To this BRAINLESS woman, Lenore, my EX-wife (thank God for the EX !), the only qualifications our next president should have is, TADAAAAA !! TO BE A WOMAN !! (I guess even Whooppi Goldberg or Joy Behar would do).
      God, please spare us.

  17. lifetree April 23, 2015

    There is one assumption that makes this whole article ludicrous, that who ever challengers Hillary will resort to personal name calling, rather than focus on policy with some degree on mutual respect. It also in half truths ignores times when elected officials including presidents were elected after primary challenges, other circumstances that caused losses in the general elections, and when this very this approach may have backfired. People are not that happy with national politics, even those supporting, say Obama, are often lukewarm. Is “unity” and complacency going to change that? People are attracted to beauty and challenge when well defined as seemingly possible. Perhaps a little grace with some open positive challenge, socially or intellectually might work better than a spin from a “yes” man hack.

  18. Canistercook May 5, 2015

    Well we have had our ‘First Black President’. Are we now heading for our ‘First woman president’. I just hope for our country’s sake we will elect our ‘first best president’ who can re-unite us, create jobs, has experience in industry, is worldly and can make us all proud to be an American. We are so divided now!

  19. Canistercook May 5, 2015

    Too bad that these days becoming President is such a financially rewarding job!


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.