Schweitzer:"In England, a baby’s born and they know he’ll grow up to be king..."

[IceSpear]

I have to laugh at politicians who weren't Senators at the time of the Iraq vote criticizing Hillary. Everyone knows Schweitzer would have voted for it had he been one in 2002, same with Obama.

Yup. Obama's FISA reversal proves that. If he didn't have the principle to vote against that once he was a candidate, why would he have voted against the Iraq War?

[IceSpear]

I have to laugh at politicians who weren't Senators at the time of the Iraq vote criticizing Hillary. Everyone knows Schweitzer would have voted for it had he been one in 2002, same with Obama.

Yup. Obama's FISA reversal proves that. If he didn't have the principle to vote against that once he was a candidate, why would he have voted against the Iraq War?

Because maybe he really believes in government spying the crap out of one but not in hasty, open-ended military occupations. His presidency kind of suggests that actually.

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

I disagree the GOP is favored if Hillary doesn't run. Hypothetically, there's an argument that she has more weaknesses in a general than someone like Schweitzer but it's academic since 2016 isn't 2008 and it's damn near impossible to imagine her not winning the nomination if she runs.

He opposed FISA the entire time he was in the Senate, including during the primaries in 2008. It was only once he became the presumptive nominee that he voted for it, as the article shows.

If you look at the Iraq War roll call vote, everyone that voted against it did not have any presidential aspirations. That was no accident.

[IceSpear]

He opposed FISA the entire time he was in the Senate, including during the primaries in 2008. It was only once he became the presumptive nominee that he voted for it, as the article shows.

If you look at the Iraq War roll call vote, everyone that voted against it did not have any presidential aspirations. That was no accident.

Ronald Earnest Paul.

I was referring to Democrats. But even Ron Paul knew he was never going to win the nomination, he ran just to give his platform more exposure.

[IceSpear]

Hillary was born into an American political dynasty? News to me.

No, but her claim for power is semi-hereditary. If not for being the first lady, it's debatable she'd ever be a serious presidential candidate. Hillary's hype is actually hurting female politicians that made their career on their own, not by marriage.

You can demean anyone's career in the same way:

If Obama doesn't get the keynote slot from Kerry, he's not taken seriously as a one-term senator running in '08.
If Kennedy's dad isn't a millionaire...
If Reagan doesn't meet Nancy and become a well-paid right-wing shill...

Nobody gets anywhere completely on their own, as I think Elizabeth Warren said.

Also, by this stage of her career, Hillary actually has more on-paper credentials (not that this makes a good president necessarily) than most any woman that could realistically run. It's really not a Ma Ferguson/Mary Bono situation after you've been SoS.

Yeah, it's funny how male politicians are never demeaned in this nature. I'd really like to know how Hillary's husband has had anything to do with her experience and credentials as senator and secretary of state.

[IceSpear]

He opposed FISA the entire time he was in the Senate, including during the primaries in 2008. It was only once he became the presumptive nominee that he voted for it, as the article shows.

If you look at the Iraq War roll call vote, everyone that voted against it did not have any presidential aspirations. That was no accident.

Ronald Earnest Paul.

I was referring to Democrats.

Again, Bob Graham.

I actually just learned Bob Graham ran for president in 2004, thanks! His campaign synopsis was uh...interesting. And very short.

[IceSpear]

Hillary was born into an American political dynasty? News to me.

No, but her claim for power is semi-hereditary. If not for being the first lady, it's debatable she'd ever be a serious presidential candidate. Hillary's hype is actually hurting female politicians that made their career on their own, not by marriage.

You can demean anyone's career in the same way:

If Obama doesn't get the keynote slot from Kerry, he's not taken seriously as a one-term senator running in '08.
If Kennedy's dad isn't a millionaire...
If Reagan doesn't meet Nancy and become a well-paid right-wing shill...

Nobody gets anywhere completely on their own, as I think Elizabeth Warren said.

Also, by this stage of her career, Hillary actually has more on-paper credentials (not that this makes a good president necessarily) than most any woman that could realistically run. It's really not a Ma Ferguson/Mary Bono situation after you've been SoS.

Yeah, it's funny how male politicians are never demeaned in this nature. I'd really like to know how Hillary's husband has had anything to do with her experience and credentials as senator and secretary of state.

Well, being the husband of Bill Clinton probably helped her get elected to her original position as a Senator.

And it also probably helped her campaign in 08 a lot better.

Successful politicians use their connections to their advantage, that's the name of the game. 14 years ago, Hillary jumped into a Senate race. She ran hard and she won. Her being first lady helped her win, but it did not let her glide into the seat uncontested. In 2006, she ran for re-election in her own right, and won in an enormous landslide. Clearly the voters of New York thought she was doing a good job.  In 2008, she ran for president and came up just short. Then she worked hard as SoS for 4 years. To suggest, as Schweitzer and many of Hillary's detractors do, that she's been sitting on a throne since 1992 waiting to be coronated solely due to her last name is absurd, and seems to suggest that as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him.

[IceSpear]

She ran hard and she won. Her being first lady helped her win, but it did not let her glide into the seat uncontested.

She won by 12 points against a GOP candidate with little statewide profile who entered the race late.

In 2006, she ran for re-election in her own right, and won in an enormous landslide. Clearly the voters of New York thought she was doing a good job.

Against the former Mayor of Yonkers.

seems to suggest that as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him.

Because everybody's suggesting Jonathan Gillibrand is the sole reason for Kirsten's success.

So now Hillary's success is attributed to her luck, not her "dynasty"? I'm sure it was just her mediocre opponents that caused her wins, not her overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

[IceSpear]

She ran hard and she won. Her being first lady helped her win, but it did not let her glide into the seat uncontested.

She won by 12 points against a GOP candidate with little statewide profile who entered the race late.

In 2006, she ran for re-election in her own right, and won in an enormous landslide. Clearly the voters of New York thought she was doing a good job.

Against the former Mayor of Yonkers.

seems to suggest that as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him.

Because everybody's suggesting Jonathan Gillibrand is the sole reason for Kirsten's success.

So now Hillary's success is attributed to her luck, not her "dynasty"? I'm sure it was just her mediocre opponents that caused her wins, not her overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

Your problem is that you made a blanket claim, that "as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him" without including the important qualifier "as long as that husband was President". And yes, Clinton was trailing Giuliani in several polls before the candidate swap, so it can't be discounted as a factor.

So in other words, all of Obama's accomplishments are irrelevant because he lucked into facing Alan Keyes in 2004. After all, if <insert super popular Illinois Republican here> ran instead, he would've lost, and then never would've been president.

[IceSpear]

Your problem is that you made a blanket claim, that "as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him" without including the important qualifier "as long as that husband was President". And yes, Clinton was trailing Giuliani in several polls before the candidate swap, so it can't be discounted as a factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#General_election

If you look at the Quinnipiac polls on here, Lazio pretty much caught up with Rudy's numbers by the summer of 2000. It was definitely a hard-fought race, and the media took Lazio's chances quite seriously, as ridiculous as that looks in retrospect. The 12-point margin probably had something to do with Gore's coattails, just as LBJ helped RFK in '64.

Yup, that race was not a cakewalk by any means. But I doubt facts matter much here anyway. The True Leftists with a vendetta against Hillary would refuse to give her credit even if she brought about world peace and cured cancer at the same time. It's scarily similar to the irrational hatred Republicans have for Obama.

[IceSpear]

She ran hard and she won. Her being first lady helped her win, but it did not let her glide into the seat uncontested.

She won by 12 points against a GOP candidate with little statewide profile who entered the race late.

In 2006, she ran for re-election in her own right, and won in an enormous landslide. Clearly the voters of New York thought she was doing a good job.

Against the former Mayor of Yonkers.

seems to suggest that as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him.

Because everybody's suggesting Jonathan Gillibrand is the sole reason for Kirsten's success.

So now Hillary's success is attributed to her luck, not her "dynasty"? I'm sure it was just her mediocre opponents that caused her wins, not her overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

Your problem is that you made a blanket claim, that "as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him" without including the important qualifier "as long as that husband was President". And yes, Clinton was trailing Giuliani in several polls before the candidate swap, so it can't be discounted as a factor.

So in other words, all of Obama's accomplishments are irrelevant because he lucked into facing Alan Keyes in 2004. After all, if <insert super popular Illinois Republican here> ran instead, he would've lost, and then never would've been president.

Does the hacks for Hillary brigade hand out medals for missing the point? It's really pretty simple here: Hillary Rodham, Arkansas lawyer, would not have won the Senate race. Hillary Clinton, First Lady, did. It may not have handed her an uncontested election, but it's what made her able to be a candidate in the first place.

You're very good at missing the point yourself. As has been pointed out multiple times, you can point to anything in anybody's political career and say "if it wasn't for ____, they'd never be ____!" It's an exercise in futility.

[IceSpear]

overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

> 50-42
> overwhelming popularity

For one, that post was clearly referring to in New York, where her ratings are likely in the 60s or 70s. Notice the posts you're comparing are two days apart.

Secondly, most politicians would would kill for a 50-42 favorability rating in this environment. Which politicians in the US top that right now?

Third, she is overwhelmingly popular among Democrats nationally. She has a 90-5 favorability rating, with 87-5 saying she'd make a good president.

No matter how hard Atlas wishes that there truly is a vast undercurrent of Democrats who hate Hillary that will deliver the nomination to Schweitzer or Sanders, in reality, they do not exist.

[IceSpear]

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

There's no indication another Democratic nominee would be weaker than Hillary once the campaign started. Not that it matters. If she runs, she'll be the nominee.

Back when people bothered to poll Biden, he did much worse than Hillary every time despite having similar name recognition. Of course, you can guess that Hillary will fall/whatever other Democrat will rise, but your guess is as good as anyone's on that front. I'd much rather be ahead at this stage than behind, even though things can change.