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

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

Well, Democrats didn't unanimously vote to authorize the Iraq war. And I don't think it's too much to say a candidate who was in the senate can be criticized for their votes by candidates who weren't. But you can laugh at the other Schweitzer's attacks when you remember he campaigned for McAuliffe in the 2009 Virginia gubernatorial primary, transparently cozying up to Clinton donors for 2016. In any case, his own record on guns would probably keep him from getting too much traction in a Democratic primary. But the guy certainly has a flare for words.

[Bull Moose Base]

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 impossible to imagine her not winning the nomination if she runs.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

This thread has now gone more off the rails than the plan the create a democratic, US-allied Iraq. Hillary voted to authorize the war. Legitimate to criticize her for it. Saying Schweitzer would have voted the same way is speculation based on nothing. It's irrelevant. If he runs, he won't beat her.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

I cannot deny Hillary is a frontrunner and I won't be surprised if she's nominated, but things can indeed change. If every frontrunner at this point would have been nominated, we would have President Gary Hart or President Rudy Giuliani or President Clinton, finishing her second term.

The point is: Hillary's nomination is not a forgone conclusion yet and other Democrats lack of electability is not a forgone conclusion either.

But none of those candidate's dominance was anywhere close to Hillary's right now. I'd say Hillary right now is the strongest non-incumbent nomination frontrunner in the modern age of primaries. Including incumbent VPs Bush and Gore. And looking at the same time frame, today's Republicans are right now the weakest party heading into an open election. Not impossible that will change but there's no indication at this point it will. Which is why I started another thread last year wondering if Hillary was, three years out, the best positioned non-incumbent ever. Now, it's 2 and a half, and I say yes to that too.