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

[Maxwell]

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

Is the Democratic field so bad they can't beat a really corrupt guy, the brother of a President who ended his term with a 19% approval rating, Rand Paul, or a guy who literally did a fake filibuster to fund-raise?

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

It's too bad they didn't. They would have been the only damned decent ones.

[SWE]

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

Is the Democratic field so bad they can't beat a really corrupt guy, the brother of a President who ended his term with a 19% approval rating, Rand Paul, or a guy who literally did a fake filibuster to fund-raise?

Indeed, if the Democratic party is that weak, it deserves to lose

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

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

Is the Democratic field so bad they can't beat a really corrupt guy, the brother of a President who ended his term with a 19% approval rating, Rand Paul, or a guy who literally did a fake filibuster to fund-raise?

I'm exaggerating, but it goes from a guaranteed win to a 55/45 chance at best. A candidate like Schweitzer is a risk that could pay off or fail miserably. We don't know how well he would play nationally. Cuomo can't win in a 50/50 year and Sanders would never win. Hillary is clearly the best candidate, everyone in America has already formed an opinion on her, and she starts out in a great position in key states like FL & OH.

2008 was a heavily Democratic year and it was fine to take a risk, I can't same the same for 2016.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

People critcising other people over Iraq just suck. I mean they were fed lies.

But if they have not repented I will continue to criticize them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

[Rockefeller GOP]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/01/brian_schweitzer_interview_the_former_montana_governor_is_the_most_likely.single.html

I can explain to you the difference between a Shia and a Sunni: Persians and Arabs don't get along.
Mujahadeen = Osama bin Laden. Taliban is irrelevant.
Afghanistan is in the Stone Age, so who gives a  what happens to it.
Woodrow Wilson and Obama are big military-industrial complex corporatist Democrats, unlike FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton.

Um, Woodrow Wilson was NOT a corporatist...

[Mr. Morden]

If you look at the Iraq War roll call vote, everyone that voted against it did not have any presidential aspirations.

Except Bob Graham.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/01/brian_schweitzer_interview_the_former_montana_governor_is_the_most_likely.single.html

I can explain to you the difference between a Shia and a Sunni: Persians and Arabs don't get along.
Mujahadeen = Osama bin Laden. Taliban is irrelevant.
Afghanistan is in the Stone Age, so who gives a  what happens to it.
Woodrow Wilson and Obama are big military-industrial complex corporatist Democrats, unlike FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton.

Um, Woodrow Wilson was NOT a corporatist...

Yeah.  I guess by some definition he might be, but surely not especially. Less than many politicians of either his era or ours certainly.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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.

[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.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[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.

[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.

[morgieb]

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.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

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.

Maybe I remember this wrong but didn't Bob Graham run only after it became clear the war was going to be a problem (at least in the primaries)?

[Mr. Morden]

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.

Maybe I remember this wrong but didn't Bob Graham run only after it became clear the war was going to be a problem (at least in the primaries)?

What do you mean by "after it became clear the war was going to be a problem"?  Do you mean after the war became unpopular, after it became a liability for one party or the other, or what?

In any case, Graham announced his candidacy in February 2003, a few months after the authorization for war was voted on, but before the war actually began.

[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.

[Donerail]

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.

[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.

[Donerail]

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.

[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.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

What do you mean by "after it became clear the war was going to be a problem"?  Do you mean after the war became unpopular, after it became a liability for one party or the other, or what?

In any case, Graham announced his candidacy in February 2003, a few months after the authorization for war was voted on, but before the war actually began.

A liability for Democrats that voted for it. I remember Kerry making vaguely anti-war comments in early '03 and Dean was against it from the beginning, which generated buzz before the war actually started. Pretty much everything I remember hearing about Bob Graham was "hey it's a vaguely electable guy that's against the Iraq War." I don't remember him being discussed as a potential candidate before the war vote, though he always came up for veep.