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

[TomC]

Works for me!

[sentinel]

Didn't support Hillary the first time, would support her the second time over all the others.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Clinton 2016!

[Donerail]

Yet you just said you supported John Edwards in the primary despite him first being a vocal supporter of the war. That makes sense.

Edwards apologized for his support of the war though and Clinton never did. In the primaries Clinton supported the war well Edwards had long renounced his support for it.

I was a tad uninformed over four years ago (on account of not being in high school), and when looking in the newspaper and knowing that I wanted to stop the war, the one that seemed to take the strongest stance against the war was John Edwards, and not the one who said "if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from".

So you agree that John Edwards was not fit for the presidency?

I'd be happy to admit that I voted for the wrong person in the primaries and GE; if I could do it over again, I would vote Gravel in the primary and Barr in the GE with the benefit of hindsight.

[Oakvale]

Awesome news.

Reported for slander.

Funny that me, Kalwejt and Eraserhead will be the only people desperately running from the Hillary 2016 bandwagon. She's a terrible person and an awful politician and would make a very bad President. Her disgusting race-baiting 2008 campaign is but the tip of the iceberg.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Awesome news.

Reported for slander.

Funny that me, Kalwejt and Eraserhead will be the only people desperately running from the Hillary 2016 bandwagon. She's a terrible person and an awful politician and would make a very bad President. Her disgusting race-baiting 2008 campaign is but the tip of the iceberg.

What if comes down to Hillary and Cuomo? What then, good sir?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Awesome news.

Wonderful news! Clinton/Schweitzer 2016!

I'd prefer if the GOP won in 2016. I think there is a recession on the horizon that might give Democrats another 1992.

And get to replace Scalia and Kennedy with Louie Gohmert and Jeff Sessions?  No thanks.

[Oakvale]

Awesome news.

Reported for slander.

Funny that me, Kalwejt and Eraserhead will be the only people desperately running from the Hillary 2016 bandwagon. She's a terrible person and an awful politician and would make a very bad President. Her disgusting race-baiting 2008 campaign is but the tip of the iceberg.

What if comes down to Hillary and Cuomo? What then, good sir?

I'd be very thankful that that's not a choice I'd have to make. If someone put the proverbial gun to my head I'd probably go for Cuomo.

[Beet]

This is great news! I supported Hillary in 2008 and would again. I think she's a passionate progressive and has been since the late '60s; she worked on the McGovern campaign and did groundbreaking work on childrens' rights before marrying Bill. She's in no way less capable than him, and if she had been born a man she would have every bit as much potential as he. It's well past time the Democratic party nominated a passionate feminist, and Hillary is in the best position to be that leader.

As I've said before, I am interested to see where she wants to go as far as messaging if she does run. I think her campaign would be very different from the one she ran in 2008.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Awesome news.

Reported for slander.

Funny that me, Kalwejt and Eraserhead will be the only people desperately running from the Hillary 2016 bandwagon. She's a terrible person and an awful politician and would make a very bad President. Her disgusting race-baiting 2008 campaign is but the tip of the iceberg.

What if comes down to Hillary and Cuomo? What then, good sir?

Cuomo wouldn't dare challenge Clinton.

[Lupo]

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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Awesome news.

People disagree with me so i'm gonna make it seem like they don't

In case you haven't noticed, it's basically Democrats saying "YAY!" and Republicans saying "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" (Vader-style).

Nope. I'm a Democrat. I oppose Clinton because she is utterly unqualified for the office of President of the United States.

I thought you supported Obama in 2008? If so, it's awfully strange that you'd say Hillary is unqualified to be president.

Edwards in the primary.

Hillary would probably be the most qualified presidential candidate in a long, long time. Great news for Democrats if she runs, great news for Republicans if she doesn't.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, who voted for the war on October 11 is fit to be President. The decision to go to war is extremely important, and anyone, particularly the Democrats who crossed over to support the Republicans when they controlled the Senate, is someone who placed political concerns over morality to the detriment of the American people and is wholly unfit for the Presidency.

What melodramatic nonsense...

[RogueBeaver]

Awesome news.

People disagree with me so i'm gonna make it seem like they don't

In case you haven't noticed, it's basically Democrats saying "YAY!" and Republicans saying "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" (Vader-style).

Nope. I'm a Democrat. I oppose Clinton because she is utterly unqualified for the office of President of the United States.

I thought you supported Obama in 2008? If so, it's awfully strange that you'd say Hillary is unqualified to be president.

Edwards in the primary.

Hillary would probably be the most qualified presidential candidate in a long, long time. Great news for Democrats if she runs, great news for Republicans if she doesn't.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, who voted for the war on October 11 is fit to be President. The decision to go to war is extremely important, and anyone, particularly the Democrats who crossed over to support the Republicans when they controlled the Senate, is someone who placed political concerns over morality to the detriment of the American people and is wholly unfit for the Presidency.

What melodramatic nonsense...

[Beet]

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.

[badgate]

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

But maybe she will reform education so that your children will learn the difference between "their" and "there."

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

Arguably?

[badgate]

^Seriously. This is the first time I've ever agreed with you. ARGUABLY?!

[Paul Kemp]

Yea, I'm an Obama supporter and was in '08 and even I find that preposterous.

[Cryptic]

Sounds promising, but she's likely just keeping her options open.  Not going to get too excited yet. That said, I hope she runs.  She's practically guaranteed to win if she does. 

[Oakvale]

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.

Arguably?

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. Obama had more political experience than Hillary.

It's also inarguable that Hillary's electoral history has been successful largely because her name is Clinton. Does anyone else think a lawyer from Arkansas would be a top-tier Senate candidate in New York if she wasn't, I don't know, married to the President?

[MasterJedi]

She's trying to get out of the Obama WH to seperate herself from what will happen in the next four years which is likely to be lots of gridlock with nothing getting done and sinking Obama approval ratings. She's getting away from it to set herself up for another run it seems. She has more experience then Obama does and if she runs it's a likely possiblity that the Dems can have the WH for another 4-8 years.

[Beet]

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.

Arguably?

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. Obama had more political experience than Hillary.

It's also inarguable that Hillary's electoral history has been successful largely because her name is Clinton. Does anyone else think a lawyer from Arkansas would be a top-tier Senate candidate in New York if she wasn't, I don't know, married to the President?

Unknown lawyers become top-tier Senate candidates all the time, though. Kirsten Gillibrand was an unknown lawyer in 2005. Prior to their marriage, there is every evidence that Hillary was just as smart as Bill, and had just as much potential as he. But she was born a few years too early in an era where being a woman, meant that she had a better chance of reaching the top of politics married to Bill, and I think she ultimately made her decision with that in mind. I would say women born beginning around 1954 or 1955 had roughly equal opportunities as men.

As far as actually being helped by being a Clinton, well yes, but it's not as if other candidates don't receive help in other ways. John Kennedy would never have been president if his father had not been rich. Ted Kennedy would never have been who he was without his brothers. George Bush Jr. or Jeb Bush would never have been who he was without his father. Obama received critical help from certain large Chicago-based donors and political advisers, without many of which he would never have been Senator or president. Heck, who knows where he would be without Michelle?

As president Clinton said in his DNC speech, "every voter wants to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself", but it just ain't so. No one is an island. Clinton was only helped by her name in a way more visible than other politicians. And she had a good reason for doing so, which is that the traditional paths in politics weren't yet open for her at that time (1970s). Keep in mind that she wanted to keep her name, Hillary Rodham, until Bill's loss in the 1980 gubernatorial election, their advisers convinced them that if she changed her name to Hillary Clinton, that would make him more palatable to voters.

[Asian Nazi]

Well this will be one boring Democratic primary. 

[sentinel]

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

But maybe she will reform education so that your children will learn the difference between "their" and "there."

Hahaha, that is great. Badgate wins.

[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.