Why the Clinton hype?

[Maxwell]

Because Clinton is the best out of a downright toxic field. Warren is probably their best non-Clinton candidate and she ain't that great if she's trying to appeal to anyone beyond the Democratic base. And who's beyond Warren? Joe Biden? Martin O'Malley? ANDREW CUOMO?

[bedstuy]

Because Clinton is the best out of a downright toxic field. Warren is probably their best non-Clinton candidate and she ain't that great if she's trying to appeal to anyone beyond the Democratic base. And who's beyond Warren? Joe Biden? Martin O'Malley? ANDREW CUOMO?

Jim Webb.

But, let's no underrate Hillary Clinton.  It's true that she ran a bad campaign in 2008.  But, she actually became a good candidate over time and she can apply the lessons of her awful messaging and strategy to 2016.  I disliked her back in 2008 myself.  I thought her campaign was presumptuous and very bland, almost like her slogan was "vote for me!"  I fully expect a different sort of campaign, if only because the mood of the country and the Democratic Party is different.  Americans were hopeful and excited in 2008.  Now, we're more just looking to someone get the government working at a C- level.  We're looking for a contact hitter, it's about Craig Biggio, not Jeff Bagwell to make a mid 90s Houston Astros reference. 

As for you people making arguments about how Clinton's foreign policy will doom her campaign, cool your jets.  Just because you personally dislike someone or disagree with someone, doesn't mean they're going to lose.  That's not how politics works.  It's not about your subjective opinions, it's about getting more votes.  So, saying "she's a warmonger!" "She's an abortion monger" "He's a peace-nik!" is just a dumb opinion and nobody cares.

[IceSpear]

In an alternative universe, this forum is waxing ecstatic about Barack Obama 2016's campaign, because obviously the Democrats made a mistake in the 2008 primaries etc etc.

People like what could have been.

If Hillary won in 2008, Obama would likely be the front runner in 2016 no matter what. Especially since age wouldn't have been an issue for him.

[Free Bird]

Because liberals love over-hyped, expired candidates.

Commie has a point

[Mister Mets]

I'm reasonably sure there have been articulate responses about Hillary Clinton's unique advantages.

[Mr. Smith]

I have a better question,what's with the Rand Paul hype?

That's the guy who seems to have a messianic complex if anyone.


The Clinton hype is simple,she has more gut to stop the obstructionist regressives than Obama, the guy who has no idea how to bargain (you bargain for more of what you want and work to the center, you don't start in the middle or throw the GOP a bone and consistently go against your ideas)

And as for other candidates, Jim Webb and Joe Manchin both could probably take the House easy with good campaigns, if Schweitzer could temper himself, he could be a western Jimmy Carter or even Obama and totally come out of nowhere to win it.

It's simply that Clinton of all the candidates would probably be the most bipartisan yet authoritative. And she still has a bit of charisma to her, and it was there in 2008 before Obama made a few upsets and she started going overboard.


And what right does any GOP/Regressive have to call out anyone for hyping a candidate? They're still worshipping a 10 years dead, 25 years out-of-office, Dixiecratic (despite not coming from the South) relic who was a relic even when he first ran?

And he was pretty much overhyped when he lost in a campaign to the far more reasoned incumbent....yet he wasn't discredited.

Oh that's right, GOP and Regressives just LURVES them some double standards on that kind of stuff.

[GOON]

I have a better question,what's with the Rand Paul hype?

That's the guy who seems to have a messianic complex if anyone.

Hey, if anything, that's the same complex that Obama had.  That didn't stop him from becoming President.

Anyway, Rand represents a radical shift from the failed status quo, whether the topic at hand is civil liberties and/or foreign policy  Many people have represented this to an extent, but he's the only one who stands a legitimate shot at winning the entire game. 

[KCDem]

I have a better question,what's with the Rand Paul hype?

That's the guy who seems to have a messianic complex if anyone.

Hey, if anything, that's the same complex that Obama had.  That didn't stop him from becoming President.

Anyway, Rand represents a radical shift from the failed status quo, whether the topic at hand is civil liberties and/or foreign policy  Many people have represented this to an extent, but he's the only one who stands a legitimate shot at winning the entire game. 

Only in your mind.

[GOON]

I have a better question,what's with the Rand Paul hype?

That's the guy who seems to have a messianic complex if anyone.

Hey, if anything, that's the same complex that Obama had.  That didn't stop him from becoming President.

Anyway, Rand represents a radical shift from the failed status quo, whether the topic at hand is civil liberties and/or foreign policy  Many people have represented this to an extent, but he's the only one who stands a legitimate shot at winning the entire game. 

Only in your mind.

Reality begs to differ.

[KCDem]

I have a better question,what's with the Rand Paul hype?

That's the guy who seems to have a messianic complex if anyone.

Hey, if anything, that's the same complex that Obama had.  That didn't stop him from becoming President.

Anyway, Rand represents a radical shift from the failed status quo, whether the topic at hand is civil liberties and/or foreign policy  Many people have represented this to an extent, but he's the only one who stands a legitimate shot at winning the entire game. 

Only in your mind.

Reality begs to differ.

You're right, reality shows no Republican candidate has any chance against our Savior Secretary Clinton.

[GOON]

I have a better question,what's with the Rand Paul hype?

That's the guy who seems to have a messianic complex if anyone.

Hey, if anything, that's the same complex that Obama had.  That didn't stop him from becoming President.

Anyway, Rand represents a radical shift from the failed status quo, whether the topic at hand is civil liberties and/or foreign policy  Many people have represented this to an extent, but he's the only one who stands a legitimate shot at winning the entire game. 

Only in your mind.

Reality begs to differ.

Nah brah. Libertarianism has an appeal to Millenial conservatives, but let's be real here: the people who actually vote in the primaries are the same old white Boomers who love their precious Social Security, Medicare, bloated military-industrial complex, and drug and property laws that are enforced primarily against poor brown and black people. In 2012, the (Ron) Paultards would always scream "CONSPIRACY!!!!!" when he failed to win really anything, but the truth is the base of the GOP is still people above the age of 40 who listen to traditional talk show radio. They won't hear anything of Paul until the debates, at which time his views on the programs they fiercely defend will be his demise.

Though I really can't wait for our generation to take over and finally shift the direction of the GOP, Paul is not getting the nomination in 2016, let alone the general election.

I wouldn't go THAT far.  Unlike Ron, Rand has been pandering his message towards those who actually vote in the primaries.  Although I love him, Ron never catered his message past his niche base.  There is a reason why Rand is leading and/or close to leading in most GOP polls unless they're all coincidentally just sampling a majority of millennial conservatives.  Unlike Ron, his appeal extends past that base. 

Plus, Rand gets favorable coverage from mainstream right-wing hosts like Hannity.  Will that change come primary season?  Perhaps, but it might be too late to change the minds of those who are fed-up.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Bill Clinton built us a bridge to the 21st century. Now it is time for us to get back on that bridge and return to the other side.

[Free Bird]

Bill Clinton built us a bridge to the 21st century. Now it is time for us to get back on that bridge and return to the other side.

Hillary is not her husband

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I have a better question,what's with the Rand Paul hype?

That's the guy who seems to have a messianic complex if anyone.

Hey, if anything, that's the same complex that Obama had.  That didn't stop him from becoming President.

Anyway, Rand represents a radical shift from the failed status quo, whether the topic at hand is civil liberties and/or foreign policy  Many people have represented this to an extent, but he's the only one who stands a legitimate shot at winning the entire game.  

Only in your mind.

Reality begs to differ.

You're right, reality shows no Republican candidate has any chance against our Savior Secretary Clinton.

@ Goon: Just ignore him.  KCDem is pretty clearly a sock or troll (or both).

[IceSpear]

Bill Clinton built us a bridge to the 21st century. Now it is time for us to get back on that bridge and return to the other side.

Hillary is not her husband

Tell that to the True Leftists.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Bill Clinton built us a bridge to the 21st century. Now it is time for us to get back on that bridge and return to the other side.

Hillary is not her husband

Correct.  She is his wife.

[dmmidmi]

Just by looking at the title of this thread, I knew it would be cringe-worthy.

If you can't see Hillary Clinton's political strengths/appeal, you're being willfully ignorant.

[Mister Mets]

Just by looking at the title of this thread, I knew it would be cringe-worthy.

If you can't see Hillary Clinton's political strengths/appeal, you're being willfully ignorant.

And you've failed to read posts by others on the forum.

[Free Bird]

Bill Clinton built us a bridge to the 21st century. Now it is time for us to get back on that bridge and return to the other side.

Hillary is not her husband

Correct.  She is his wife.

That's deep, man.