Hillary: I'm not retiring, I'll be back on the "fast track" in a "little while"

[Oakvale]

The idea that Hillary was significantly more experienced than Obama in 2008 didn't make a lot of sense considering it amounted to a few years of unremarkable Senate service and, er, greeting the wives of foreign dignitaries for eight years before that.

LOL. Yeah, that's all Hillary did there.

Fair point, I suppose you could include launching a disastrous healthcare reform effort that crippled Clinton's first term.

[Beet]

The idea that Hillary was significantly more experienced than Obama in 2008 didn't make a lot of sense considering it amounted to a few years of unremarkable Senate service and, er, greeting the wives of foreign dignitaries for eight years before that.

LOL. Yeah, that's all Hillary did there.

Fair point, I suppose you could include launching a disastrous healthcare reform effort that crippled Clinton's first term.

But which was still a valuable experience, as it allowed the Obama administration to take away the important lesson of letting Congress write the bill. Without the Clinton effort and the lessons taken from it, Obama's effort would never have succeeded. Of course, it could be argued that Obama over-learned, and his extreme hands-off policy nearly killed the thing.

Then there is SCHIP. Since Hillary wasn't in Congress at the time, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch spearheaded the drive for SCHIP, but by most accounts Hillary played a role in getting it passed (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html).

In any case, none of this really matters as with eight years in the Senate and four years as Secretary of State on top of her time as First Lady, she has plenty of experience.

[Oakvale]

The idea that Hillary was significantly more experienced than Obama in 2008 didn't make a lot of sense considering it amounted to a few years of unremarkable Senate service and, er, greeting the wives of foreign dignitaries for eight years before that.

LOL. Yeah, that's all Hillary did there.

Fair point, I suppose you could include launching a disastrous healthcare reform effort that crippled Clinton's first term.

But which was still a valuable experience, as it allowed the Obama administration to take away the important lesson of letting Congress write the bill. Without the Clinton effort and the lessons taken from it, Obama's effort would never have succeeded. Of course, it could be argued that Obama over-learned, and his extreme hands-off policy nearly killed the thing.

Then there is SCHIP. Since Hillary wasn't in Congress at the time, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch spearheaded the drive for SCHIP, but by most accounts Hillary played a role in getting it passed (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html).

In any case, none of this really matters as with eight years in the Senate and four years as Secretary of State on top of her time as First Lady, she has plenty of experience.

Oh, I'm not denying Hillary has more than enough experience now, my post was referring to the same question in 2008, where I was disputing the idea that Obama was vastly less experienced than Clinton. Apologies if I caused any confusion.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

The idea that Hillary was significantly more experienced than Obama in 2008 didn't make a lot of sense considering it amounted to a few years of unremarkable Senate service and, er, greeting the wives of foreign dignitaries for eight years before that.

LOL. Yeah, that's all Hillary did there.

Fair point, I suppose you could include launching a disastrous healthcare reform effort that crippled Clinton's first term.

And that disaster undoubtedly made her a better politician.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Christ, experience is not everything. Ask Jim Buchanan.

[Blue3]

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

More like she manages to become our first female President DESPITE everything that's gone on with her husband. She really became beloved in New York on her own, and then all her work as Secretary of State over the last 4 years.

[JerryArkansas]

I am glad at this news, she is one of the only democrats that I would vote for and I will be proud to have my first vote go to her.

[Lupo]

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

More like she manages to become our first female President DESPITE everything that's gone on with her husband. She really became beloved in New York on her own, and then all her work as Secretary of State over the last 4 years.

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

This is such sexist and silly nonsense, that assumes Clinton never accomplished anything on her own. She's already accomplished more than a lot of presidential nominees, including arguably Obama when he won the nomination.

Do you really think she would've been able to run for the U.S. Senate in New York if it wasn't for her husband?

[BluegrassBlueVote]

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

More like she manages to become our first female President DESPITE everything that's gone on with her husband. She really became beloved in New York on her own, and then all her work as Secretary of State over the last 4 years.

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

This is such sexist and silly nonsense, that assumes Clinton never accomplished anything on her own. She's already accomplished more than a lot of presidential nominees, including arguably Obama when he won the nomination.

Do you really think she would've been able to run for the U.S. Senate in New York if it wasn't for her husband?

Do you really think the George H.W. Bush and his children would have had successful careers in politics if it wasn't for Prescott?

A ton of politicians owe family for their early accomplishments. Hillary became her own brand a long time ago.

[Mr.Phips]

12+ years of a Democratic White House? I'm OK with this.

Are you also OK with Democrats blowing the fourth redistricting cycle in a row by losing the crucial 2018 midterms?  Democrats have been hosed in redistricting in three straight cycles now(1991, 2001, and 2011).  This ties the GOP string of getting hosed in 1961, 1971, and 1981.  Isnt it about time Democrats finally win a redistricting cycle again?

[Frodo]

12+ years of a Democratic White House? I'm OK with this.

Are you also OK with Democrats blowing the fourth redistricting cycle in a row by losing the crucial 2018 midterms?  Democrats have been hosed in redistricting in three straight cycles now(1991, 2001, and 2011).  This ties the GOP string of getting hosed in 1961, 1971, and 1981.  Isnt it about time Democrats finally win a redistricting cycle again?

--------------------------

You know what guys, Mr. Phips is -as usual- right on.  Maybe we should take him out on his implied suggestion, and sit out 2016.  Let's go find some sacrificial lamb who would be willing to take one for the team.    

Yeah!

[badgate]

Shouldn't it be 2020 that matters for redistricting? By your logic since 2008 was a Dem sweep we won the last redistricting cycle

[morgieb]

Shouldn't it be 2020 that matters for redistricting? By your logic since 2008 was a Dem sweep we won the last redistricting cycle

Most statewide offices are decided in 2018 IIRC.

[politicallefty]

Most statewide offices may be decided in 2018, but the legislatures are not immune from whatever happens in 2020. Incumbent governors tend to win reelection though. Only Ehrlich went down in 2006 and Strickland and Culver in 2010. If a Democratic candidate wins in 2016. there's nothing to say that the first midterm will necessarily be disastrous like it was with Clinton or Obama.

[Mr.Phips]

Shouldn't it be 2020 that matters for redistricting? By your logic since 2008 was a Dem sweep we won the last redistricting cycle

Most statewide offices are decided in 2018 IIRC.

Exactly. 

[Mr.Phips]

Most statewide offices may be decided in 2018, but the legislatures are not immune from whatever happens in 2020. Incumbent governors tend to win reelection though. Only Ehrlich went down in 2006 and Strickland and Culver in 2010. If a Democratic candidate wins in 2016. there's nothing to say that the first midterm will necessarily be disastrous like it was with Clinton or Obama.

There are many state legislatures that were drawn by Republicans to be unwinnable for Democrats, while a state itself cant be gerrymandered.  Even if 2020 is a huge Dem wave, the Ohio legislature isnt flipping, so having a Dem governor elected in 2018 would allow them to be there in 2021 to veto a GOP gerrymander and force fair maps.  Same is the case in Pennsylvania and Michigan.  Democrats getting fair maps in those states alone would probably net them 12 or more House seats. 

[Beet]

I know this is a little bit O/T, but is there any way to overturn the gerrymandering at the state legislative level? I just can't get past the fact that the Reps have the hat trick (Gov., State Sen., State House) in a bunch of big purple states:

Ohio
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Missouri
North Carolina
Florida
Virginia

The reason this is so important is that these are states where having a Dem veto-point would have been decisive in preventing extreme conservative legislation, like Michigan's right-to-work. In solid blue states, or solid red states, having one party control state government doesn't matter so much because there are certain things state government will or will not do regardless. But in these big purple states, the stakes are huge, and the Republicans just sweep the board. I heard somewhere that the Democrats actually won a majority in the Michigan state legislative elections in 2012, but failed to gain control due to gerrymandering. That would make sense-- an electoral that goes to Obama by a 10 point margin and easily reelected Debbie Stabenow, elects a majority of anti-union Republican legislators at the state level? It just defies belief.

[Donerail]

I know this is a little bit O/T, but is there any way to overturn the gerrymandering at the state legislative level? I just can't get past the fact that the Reps have the hat trick (Gov., State Sen., State House) in a bunch of big purple states:

Ohio
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Missouri
North Carolina
Florida
Virginia

The reason this is so important is that these are states where having a Dem veto-point would have been decisive in preventing extreme conservative legislation, like Michigan's right-to-work. In solid blue states, or solid red states, having one party control state government doesn't matter so much because there are certain things state government will or will not do regardless. But in these big purple states, the stakes are huge, and the Republicans just sweep the board. I heard somewhere that the Democrats actually won a majority in the Michigan state legislative elections in 2012, but failed to gain control due to gerrymandering. That would make sense-- an electoral that goes to Obama by a 10 point margin and easily reelected Debbie Stabenow, elects a majority of anti-union Republican legislators at the state level? It just defies belief.

Speaking for Florida: a Democratic veto wouldn't have helped last session; the Rs had a supermajority in both chambers. The way to do it (and the way the Rs dropped several seats this last cycle) is stuff like Fair Districts. A well-organized opposition party is typically helpful as well (which Florida lacks).

[Lupo]

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

More like she manages to become our first female President DESPITE everything that's gone on with her husband. She really became beloved in New York on her own, and then all her work as Secretary of State over the last 4 years.

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

This is such sexist and silly nonsense, that assumes Clinton never accomplished anything on her own. She's already accomplished more than a lot of presidential nominees, including arguably Obama when he won the nomination.

Do you really think she would've been able to run for the U.S. Senate in New York if it wasn't for her husband?

Do you really think the George H.W. Bush and his children would have had successful careers in politics if it wasn't for Prescott?

A ton of politicians owe family for their early accomplishments. Hillary became her own brand a long time ago.

I agree with you.  I just think it would be a shame that such a momentous occurrence would be due significantly to whom she is married.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

More like she manages to become our first female President DESPITE everything that's gone on with her husband. She really became beloved in New York on her own, and then all her work as Secretary of State over the last 4 years.

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

This is such sexist and silly nonsense, that assumes Clinton never accomplished anything on her own. She's already accomplished more than a lot of presidential nominees, including arguably Obama when he won the nomination.

Do you really think she would've been able to run for the U.S. Senate in New York if it wasn't for her husband?

Do you really think the George H.W. Bush and his children would have had successful careers in politics if it wasn't for Prescott?

A ton of politicians owe family for their early accomplishments. Hillary became her own brand a long time ago.

I agree with you.  I just think it would be a shame that such a momentous occurrence would be due significantly to whom she is married.

I would agree with this a lot more if she won in 2008 than 2016. Like I said, she's her own brand and the most popular politician in the world.

[Beet]

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

More like she manages to become our first female President DESPITE everything that's gone on with her husband. She really became beloved in New York on her own, and then all her work as Secretary of State over the last 4 years.

It would be sad if our first female President was one who got their on the coattails of her husband.

This is such sexist and silly nonsense, that assumes Clinton never accomplished anything on her own. She's already accomplished more than a lot of presidential nominees, including arguably Obama when he won the nomination.

Do you really think she would've been able to run for the U.S. Senate in New York if it wasn't for her husband?

Do you really think the George H.W. Bush and his children would have had successful careers in politics if it wasn't for Prescott?

A ton of politicians owe family for their early accomplishments. Hillary became her own brand a long time ago.

I agree with you.  I just think it would be a shame that such a momentous occurrence would be due significantly to whom she is married.

Well if you agree with BluegrassBlue's point, then you see it's substantively the same as so many other things. In other words it's only shameful if you make it into something shameful. There's nothing shameful about being helped by your spouse. If it was a wife who helped her husband's career, we wouldn't think anything of it.

[Donerail]

I would agree with this a lot more if she won in 2008 than 2016. Like I said, she's her own brand and the most popular politician in the world.

lolno

[BluegrassBlueVote]

I would agree with this a lot more if she won in 2008 than 2016. Like I said, she's her own brand and the most popular politician in the world.

lolno

Who is more popular? She's universally respected by all foreign dignitaries and is more popular than the president at home.

[Donerail]

I would agree with this a lot more if she won in 2008 than 2016. Like I said, she's her own brand and the most popular politician in the world.

lolno

Who is more popular? She's universally respected by all foreign dignitaries and is more popular than the president at home.

More popular in their home country: Kim Jong-un
More popular internationally: Nelson Mandela? The Dalai Lama?

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Mandela hasn't held office in over 12 years. LOL at the Dalai Lama.