Clinton Says Again She's Not Running

[DonViejo]

Source: Political Wire

Clinton Says Again She's Not Running

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Marie Claire magazine in a wide-ranging interview that she will not run for president in 2016.

Said Clinton: "I have been on this high wire of national and international politics and leadership for 20 years. It has been an absolutely extraordinary personal honor and experience. But I really want to just have my own time back. I want to just be my own person."

-30-

Link to article in Marie Claire Magazine:
http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/inspirational-women/hillary-clinton-farewell


Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/19/clinton_says_again_shes_not_running.html

[longship]

1. She has been saying this for some time now.

HRC is one of the best SOS in my lifetime. But what I have understood about her recently is that she's basically had enough of it all and wants to spend her last years doing other things.

I think we will all be hearing from her again, but apparently not in politics.

BTW, I am still a fan.

[Kolesar]

4. Best SOS indeed

She has had to deal with the biggest challenges I have ever seen. Every SOS who gave us Vietnam has to be scored as a fraud.

[DU9598]

2. Long time to decide

If - heaven forbid - Romney wins and the rights of women have been rescinded and lost I can easily see her change her mind. Maybe a one-term venture to lead the charge of women to get their rights back.

[Politicalboi]

53. Getting women's rights back

I can see it now. Rmoney wins and gets to appoint 2 Supreme Court Justices. Let's see, Todd Akin perhaps, and Steven King. I don't think it would ever be possible to right their wrong.

[demgrrrll]

3. I think a big factor may be Bill's health.

[KoKo]

8. He's fine...why do you think he has a health problem. Open heart surgery doesn't mean what

it used to. Once he went back in and got what the surgeons fixed, he's been fine. Look at that speech he gave at the DNC!

[BVictor1]

11. Sometimes his hands seem shaky.

Have you ever noticed that?

When he's speaking and uses hand gestured, it's seems like there's a slight twitch.

[KoKo]

14. Lot's of people his age have "genetic tremor" ....and not heart related...just is what it is, though

[Bigredhunk]

16. Shaky Hands Could Be A Medication Thing Too

Not sure what meds he's on or if any of them have side effects like that. Just a thought.

Essential tremor does cause shaking hands. It's 20 times more common than Parkinson's, and there's no underlying disease associated with it. You just get a little shaky.

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA326661/why-are-my-hands-shaking.html

[olddad56]

48. could just be that he whacked off to much as a youngster

[demgrrrll]

37. I don't know anymore than you do. Just something I feel.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Then again, maybe they just want to enjoy life on their own time while they can....

The Clintons strike me as being the types to have a bucket list.

You know, for her it might be Paris...



...and for him French Polynesia....

[James48]

5. Damn. n/t

[dmr]

6. Whatever she decides, I support her.

I really can't blame her. I'd want my private life back, and be able to enjoy my family.

Maybe Chelsea will have a baby. How wonderful that would be for both Hillary and Bill.

[mopinko]

36. projecting a little there?

hmmmmm?
yes

[Chemisse]

67. LOL!

[flamingdem]

7. Why would she when the Rethugs would attack her and drag every bit of the past back

into the present? Plus Bill's misdeeds?

No. She is NOT going to run.

[KoKo]

20. Bill is 69% in Polls...one of the most popular Current Presidents of the USA!

And Hillary has high poll numbers for her stint as SOS.

I haven't seen a peep from RW about Clinton's speech at DNC or his high poll numbers ...yet the Repugs won't even mention the BUSH I and II. They dwell on Reagan..

[condoleeza]

61. I agree

Seriously, why would she even consider jumping into this shitpile that American politics has become. She's done her time, I hope she stays on in Obama's next 4 years, but she'd be nuts to risk her life to run in 2016.

[boingboinh]

9. LOL! You do realize strategically she has to say that, right?

It would not be in her best interest to say yes she is running in 2016 right now.

[onehandle]

22. Yep. nt

[we can do it]

10. Let's just win this election first, OK?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Yes. Not quite "in the bag," but gettin closer.

[xxqqqzme]

12. She has more than

earned the time to be her 'own person'. I hope she does as she says and the media suspend the questions.

[KoKo]

13. NY Magazine just did a HUGE article: "Bill and Hillary Forever" She's running a former aide says.

...an Obama find a way to dismember Romney so artfully, joyfully, and thoroughly? Upon the answer may hang the outcome of the election—and no doubt Clinton, for the good of the country, hopes he will. Yet in strictly personal and political terms, the 2012 election is for Clinton a no-lose proposition. If Obama prevails, a decent hunk of the credit will accrue to Clinton, and precious little pleases him more than plaudits. But if Obama is defeated, the resulting objurgation will be heaped squarely on 44, and the only thing Clinton enjoys more than being credited is being blameless.

In either case, the outcome will likely have close to zero impact on what comes next for him, for that will be determined by his wife’s decision about 2016. To date, Hillary has been adamant, privately and publicly, in her refusal to broach the topic. She isn’t planning, isn’t deliberating, isn’t so much as contemplating another run for the White House, or so she says—though some of her former aides scoff at that. (“It’s a lie,” says one. “It’s always a lie.”)

But whatever the reality, this will not be a stance she’ll be able to maintain for long. Within months of her departure from the State Department early next year, the pressure for a yea or nay will begin to mount. And it will only be made more severe by the fact that Obama, in the words of one Democratic panjandrum, “couldn’t possibly be more disengaged from the question of party succession—he just doesn’t give a shit.”


The operating premise among most Democrats is that if Hillary does choose to dive in, the nomination will more than be hers for the taking: It will be handed to her on a silver salver, accorded her almost by acclamation. Yes, she was supposed to be inevitable in 2008. But this is four years later—four years in which she has been a ringingly successful secretary of State. Now that we’ve nominated and elected an African-American, goes the thinking in the party, the time is ripe for a woman. And she has earned it. And this will be her last chance. And she is … Hillary.

Given the mammoth scale of the dysfunction that afflicted her operation the last time around, one question about this scenario is what her campaign might look like. Certainly, it is a question of burning interest in Clintonworld. Would Hillary, for instance, bring back Mark Penn? For many of the sharpest and most skillful Clintonistas, doing so would be a poison pill. (“Everyone hopes she’d have more sense,” says a longtime FOB, “but Penn was there in the suite in Charlotte with her husband, which isn’t exactly reassuring.”)

An equally pertinent question revolves around the role that Bill himself would play. In 2008, his engagement was bipolar, borderline schizoid: at first, not involved enough, and then involved way too much. “It doesn’t necessarily need to be crazy town,” says a veteran of that campaign. “What helped drive him crazy was being locked out for all those months, so maybe if it’s a world where he is fully integrated, it would be much better.”

http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/bill-hillary-clinton-2012-10/index6.html

[madrchsod]

15. she`s to old to run...

she`s the same age as i am and i sure in the hell do`t want someone my age running for president in 4 years.

one has to live every second when the days grow shorter. she has a daughter and a husband to fill the rest of her life.

[KoKo]

21. Wouldn't she be close to Reagan's age, though?

I'll have to Google that one...

[loyalsister]

64. And his Alzheimers was kicking in at the end of his 2nd term

Better to groom a younger candidate.

[graham4anything]

29. Do you know- Elizabeth warren is the SAME AGE as Hillary

ageism is the same as racism and sexism and anti-semitism

[randome]

33. Warren is not personable. And Hillary LOOKS old.

You can parse all the 'realities' you want but one reality that remains is that, in the TV and Internet Age, looks matter. If nothing else, to inspire confidence.

It doesn't have to be 'right' or 'fair' because it's Reality.

[graham4anything]

34. Michelle46 after Hillary45

your stereotyping means I won't answer any more posts by you.
they are highly offensive and sexist.

A woman will be the next president. Only one woman is the single most qualified, and she will be the challenger to Jeb next time. That person is Hillary

(and here's hoping Hillary45 names Obama44 to SCOTUS).

btw-How old was Golda?
Perhaps the single greatest elected world leader that was female ever. imho

it ain't gonna be andrew. Not after what they did to Ed Koch.

[randome]

40. Hey, I agree with you on a personal level. But politics is conducted via camera these days.

I really, really wish a woman would become the next President. It's far past time for that to happen.

But right now it looks like Julian Castro is being groomed for the position. Give him a woman vice-president who will take over after his 8 years is up and we will be well on the road to a truly diverse nation.

[graham4anything]

42. You mean Texas Gov. Castro so that Texas will turn blue and make LBJ smile!

Gov. Castro could follow Hillary. But he is more needed making, then keeping Texas blue.
imho
Making Texas blue will mean every major state is democratic, and is needed to be in office and have Texas bluer during the 2020 census to redistrict the now redistricing.
And also to make sure Texas has no draconian laws to restrict citizenship after amnesty is granted in the next year or so.

If the dems give the repubs an opening to nominate a woman, it would end up being a major tactical error.

[randome]

46. Yeah, I agree with you about letting the Republicans be the first party to nominate a woman.

But I don't see that they have any viable choices in line, either. I would have no problem voting for either Clinton or Warren but I don't think they're the best choices in political terms.

Politics isn't fair, is it? Jennifer Granholm has passion but she's not eligible. Who else do we have in line if Clinton stays true to her word and steps out of politics after 2012?

[graham4anything]

58. It has to be Hillary. Single strongest choice

John McCain made his fatal mistake in 2008 thinking someone younger would be an equal replacement. No, Sarah was not Hillary. (and I don't believe the Puma's were real.)

Hillary/Castro would make a great ticket. (Chicago/NY/Texas)
Hillary/Crist would also make a good ticket. (Chicago/NY/Florida)

That would be similiar to JFK/LBJ though I really think Castro and America would be better
the next period in history getting then keeping Texas blue.
Don't get me wrong- I would enthusiastically support him were he the candidate.
But we need him in the Gov. mansion In 2024, he will only be 50.

Granholm isn't eligible, however, on their side, that meant Arnold at the height of his popularity couldn't become one either.

Deval Patrick would be a good choice, but I really think neither party will nominate anyone from Mass. He too would make a good Supreme Court choice.

I want to go with the strongest candidate, because in some ways, with Obama's reelection, 2016 is even more important than 2012.

And she can beat Jeb. Bill defeated his father, and she is even stronger than Bill was.
With Castro as Texas Gov, and the demographic shift, she can win a landslide of epic proportions and without Texas, there is no viable path for a republican.

I picture Jeb/Portman or Jeb/Christie(assuming he is still a viable candidate for them, which would probably mean he couldn't run for reelection in NJ, because I think he would lose and then that would end his national ticket chance.)
I picture Obama's win against Mitt/Ryan will have Mitt blaming Ryan and he will be reduced to nothing.(same with the entire teaparty wing of the repubs.

and again, Hillary while SOS can't be political, and she don't need to say she is running out loud til 2014(though she might do it earlier to clear the field, but officially announcing is a big disadvantage early on for a strong candidate who doesn't need to introduce themselves to America. No serious democrat who became the nominee in modern time announced early on.

and a word about dirt- every piece of dirt is already known and discarded about Hillary.
It's all old news.

Whereas Jeb's history is not fully known, and Hillary can play the political game well when it comes down to it.

We need to win the governorships back though in all the states that they won in 2008 and 2010. One thing Rove did better was the governors.
We gotta put up great candidates (like Castro) and then GOTV in 2014 unlike 2010.

[nsd]

60. A little off topic, but why do people keep bringing up Julian Castro?

He might have a bright future ... or maybe not. He's only 38 years old and hasn't actually done all that much. He's not governor of Texas nor has he ever held a statewide office. Why is he our hope for the future?

Why not Mark Warner? Not only was he 2008's DNC keynote speaker, but he's been a governor, a senator, a successful businessman, and a popular figure in an important purple state.

[graham4anything]

62. now, I am just gonna say this demographically speaking, meaning no ill words here-

IMHO the democrats need to be the party of everyone and every single group that has never attained the White House before.
It is what sets democrats apart from republicans.

So without saying it, you know what I am saying.

In the past though, keynote speakers tend to be considered for the national ticket (either president or vp) in the next race, or the one after(if it isn't an incumbent running), or the one after that.

Warner would be another VP choice, though some would say he is too middle of the road IMHO
same with the MD governor.

As I don't expect today's republicantealibertarians to stray from the same old/ same old, again, it is up to the democrats to go forward demographically.

Again-no prejudice here, just speaking matter of factly by the numbers in how to keep attaining victory in the democratic party which has enough trouble winning the office due to the republicantealibertarians racism/sexism/homophobia/religious wars, etc.

[nsd]

63. I appreciate the need to be inclusive, but that only goes so far.

I supported Barack Obama in 2008 not because he would open up things demographically, but because I thought his mix of background, experience, personal attributes, advisers and allies, and raw political talent matched the moment. He was the candidate the year 2008 demanded. That is, I supported (and continue to support) Obama as an individual, not solely -- or even primarily -- as a member of a particular demographic. It would diminish him -- and, in my opinion, cheapen what we did in 2008 -- to define him that way.

Now, Julian Castro may have special personal attributes and qualifications. I don't know enough about him to say, but I suspect that some of the people touting him at DU don't know enough either. So I don't get why he shows up in so many posts. He's not a statewide official. And his keynote address, while pretty good, was not in the same league as Obama's in 2004 or Mario Cuomo's in 1984.

[graham4anything]

65. We must elect a woman president in 2016. Possibly 2024 for then Gov. Castro.

I kept saying Hillary

I personaly think he should be GOV.Castro til after 2020, that way when the census comes
we have a BLUE democrat and we can redistrict the redistricting.

Hillary is the strongest.

I have a major problem with Andrew Cuomo, and I am from and was living in NYC at the time Mario (his father) ran against Ed Koch, who was NYC Mayor for governor.

There was an awful whisper campaign that year that was saying to
Vote for Cuomo not the Homo. IT WAS DISGUSTING in my opinion.

And the thought back then was that Mario's campaign, which was led by his son Andrew did it.I CANNOT FORGIVE HIM for that. It was a homophobic slur and sorry, it is out there and known (Frank Rich this week brought it up in his Jeb article.)

That phrase alone to me is a disqualification.

Without that phrase, Andrew would be very strong caniddate. But with that event, sorry, to me he is out.
(And even more so- it is because that will be used by Jeb in 2016 and it will mean major democratic problems, so why go there to start?

As said, we need the 1st woman as President. It is time. We are the party of diversity and a woman is in president terms a minority that has never been President.
We must elect a woman president. (and it helps that Hillary is the single most qualified candidate of any type and she is a democrat (thankfully for us.)

And she knows what would be needed to defeat a Bush.

Hillary45 2016. Then reelect Hilary 2020.
and being President or VP makes one immortal.
being SOS,any other position, or first lady no matter how great (except for Eleanor Roosevelt) makes a person forgotten in a few decades. Hillary will go for immortality, and for history sake.

[wordpix]

72. yeah, the stoopids want a pres to look like a movie star but I'll take experienced & smart any day

[wordpix]

71. That's YOUR opinion and YOUR reality. I think Warren is personable & perhaps Hilary

looks old b/c she's working her ass off. I get compliments on my looks every time I end a vacation when I can sleep in as late as I want. OTOH, I have bags under my eyes and an old, tired look when I work hard and don't get enough sleep.

Try living Hilary's life and get back to me about her looks and your own afterward.

[randome]

78. I'm not the only one who thinks Warren lacks personality.

She is passionate and intelligent but there is something missing -an X-factor- that makes people look twice at her.

It's been discussed on DU before.

I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat. But she has said she isn't running and I don't see why anyone doesn't want to take her at her word. She isn't being coy, she's being honest.

It doesn't, in the end, matter how smart and energetic she might be, she isn't running. And looks DO matter to the undecided voters. That's reality. Obama has reset the board. We need young, fresh outlooks on the world. If Hillary had that fresh outlook, I would say go for it. But she is from the old school of politics.

It's a new game today.

[otohara]

77. Bully Mentality

Randomey

[Ter]

56. I wouldn't say it's the same

I mean, her age is fine but I wouldn't want a 90 year old running for President. That's the same as racism/anti-Semitism?

[zbdent]

17. here we go again ...

in 1991, when Bill threw his hat into the ring ... the Repugs were saying that she really was the one running for Pres.

In 2000, they said that she was really running for Senate just to position herself for the 2004 run ... her opponent demanded that she promise to serve out her term (she served out her term ... Guess Josh Mandel in Ohio isn't so honest).

In 2007, 16 years after the Repugs started the rumor that she was running for President ... she finally made them "right".

[bucolic_frolic]

18. She will only change her mind and serve

if her country faces a crisis of unprecedented magnitude

and she is convinced she is the only prominent politician who can fix it

and she is just about dragged into it kicking and screaming.

I suspect one loses one's stomach for the left-right brawl of the last 20 years.

The landscape would have to shift for her to be enticed again.

And I don't think she would have governed with a move matching Obama's
move toward the center and compromise.

Some of her issues - women, environment - have been decided.

That's my opinion anyway.

God bless her. I think she'll be remembered in American politics
with as prominent a position as Abigail Adams.

[KoKo]

23. Her time may come if Romney get's Elected, though. And, that's why she would run...

If Obama wins the American Public might feel it's time to swing back Repug. It seems to be the pattern in our US History and in that case it would be Jeb Bush.

[fadedrose]

24. Such a long time to be on pins and needles . . .

Watch what you say, watch what you don't say, don't look cross, don't smile at the wrong time.....finally had enough, huh, Kid.....

You deserve a rest, just stick around close enough so that when they need you, you're there dear lady ....

And the hardest job was probably one that you weren't elected to - the President's wife, the First Lady. I don't envy any lady that title. And if you don't want to bake cookies, just don't bake them. Ah the freedom...

[Canuckistanian]

25. PUMA propaganda

Just kidding!

[shireen]

26. i'd like to know if she's remaining as SOS after Obama is re-elected

She's worked so hard for a very long time. Whatever she chooses to do, I totally support her decision and will cheer her on.

[Purveyor]

28. Nope. She has already indicated a while back that she was leaving after this term. eom

[DeeDeeNY]

27. These nut-jobs are planning on it

http://www.hillaryis44.org

[graham4anything]

30. NO ONE announces they will run 4 years in advance, everyone denies it

Hillary 45 2017-24
Michelle 46 2025-2033

Hillary45 don't need to enter til 2014 fall

being that no one in either party is as qualified as she is

(and if Andrew Cuomo runs, people will be reminded of the anti-gay smear that they used against Ed Koch)

[Dems to Win]

43. message to girls: you can grow up to be president, just find and marry a man who will be president

first!

I'm not wild about the first lady to president career path. Not my ideal choice for the first woman president, let alone the first and second.

[wordpix]

70. r-i-g-h-t - Hilary has done NOTHING on her own (sarcasm) - how about senator and Sec of State?

Not to mention she was Bill's equal albeit non-elected partner in the WH.

[davidpdx]

49. You might want to take note that neither Michelle Obama or Elisabeth Warren

were mentioned in this thread until you brought it up. You think you know what you are talking about, but you are really quite clueless. There is no coronation for the presidency like you constantly state there is. If Obama wins (and I strongly believe he will) this year, then the 2016 presidential primary on both sides will be an OPEN contest. No one is forced to support anyone.

You think you are a bad ass bully, well think again.

[antigop]

73. "There is no coronation for the presidency". Thank you, David. +1000000 n/t

[56miSSie]

31. SCOTUS appointment?

If not the presidency, I'd love to see her on the Court.

[hrmjustin]

32. They only pick people in their 50's now for SCOTUS.

I hope she runs too. Welcome to DU.

[graham4anything]

35. Justice Barack Obama picked by Hillary45 the 2rd year in her first term

[56miSSie]

41. Obama follows the footsteps of Taft

Your scenario works for me!

[56miSSie]

39. Thanks...

...used to be here as missie56

[davidpdx]

50. True, they are picking younger people for SCOTUS

not because of ageism, but for strategical purposes to keep the person on the court as long as they can. I think most of the recent nominees have been fairly young, meaning they could be on the bench for 30 years. If that trend holds then once the older justices step down or pass away it could be years if not decades before another appointment becomes available.

[hughee99]

54. I honestly don't think she'd have any chance at making it through the Senate.

Even if the Senate had 60 Dems, I'm not sure she'd get confirmed.

[Arugula Latte]

38. Good! Keep it thus.

[antigop]

75. +1000000 n/t

[DonCoquixote]

44. Honestly, neither we not she knows the answer.

A lot will depend on where the nation and party is come 2016. Let's have no illusions, even if Obama wins, the GOP will do it's best to do damage on the way down. If Mitt steals this, then the call will be louder still.

[UTUSN]

47. I feel like making a video like the Britney SPEARS fan: "Leave her aLONE!1" n/t

[truebluegreen]

51. Good.

All due respect to HRC (and that's a lot) but we don't need dynasties. And we need actual progressives. Just my opinion.

Edited to add: I might make a dynastic exception for Michelle Obama, if not in 2016 then later on.

[antigop]

52. we don't need dynasties and we don't need the DLC, Third Way,etc. DLC has done enough damage. n/t

[Julien Sorel]

55. Michelle Obama counts as a progressive?

But Hillary Clinton doesn't? Since Obama has governed to the right of Bill Clinton, and Michelle herself has never held any political position or run for office on her own behalf in her life, I wonder what information people draw on to make these judgments.

[AtomicKitten]

66. Information.

First of all, it's silly for anyone to promote Michelle O for political office. She's been quite clear she's not interested and I believe her. I'm not so convinced of a similar declaration from Hillary. Secondly, it's a bold statement saying Obama has governed to the right of Bill Clinton. I'm having a hard time on balance seeing that. Bill Clinton had many successes on his watch, but off the top of my head there's also NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, welfare reform, DOMA, Telecom Act of 1996, DADT, China MFN trade status, favoring the Keystone Pipeline, and schmoozing with Paul Ryan on and promoting "entitlement" reform (youtube below), none of which could by any stretch of the imagination be called liberal.

[Julien Sorel]

79. Instead of cherry picking a bunch of stuff,

look at some academic research on the subject:

http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317


Here's the money quotation:

Indeed, as seen below, President Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since the end of World War II...


There's nothing "bold" about it. Obama has been to the right of Clinton, and more to the point, it was UNNECESSARY. He CHOSE to govern that way.

As for Michelle running, I agree it's crazy talk. The point isn't Michelle running; it's that people simply assume things about her, and Hillary and (in your case) Bill Clinton, and Obama himself, that simply aren't true. If Obama is your, or anyone else's idea, of a "progressive," then progressivism is dead in the water. Every time someone says something stupid about ideology, it ought to be challenged -- if you actually care about ideology, that is.

[DonCoquixote]

81. Glass Steagall,Telecommuncations act

Threatening to obliterate Iran,

Of course, Hillary is a progressive, right.

Now,donot get me worng, in 2016 I am voting for her, but to put a pin on your sdignature, it would be "at least she is not Jeb Bush."

[AtomicKitten]

82. I have re-read a few articles this morning,

this one in particular by Nate Silver http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/how-liberal-is-president-obama/ questioning the DW-NOMINATE rating of presidents. Of note, DW-NOMINATE also rated Obama more liberal albeit slightly than HClinton. http://voteview.com/Clinton_and_Obama.htm To believe one analysis and not the other from the same source is what cherry-picking looks like.

On point, nowhere in my post did I make the assertion that Obama is a progressive, although your shall we say kneejerk response in that regard is revealing. Secondly, I did not make assumptions about BClinton. In point of fact, I listed several of the policies enacted on his watch that stand in stark contrast to your assertion that he was a more liberal president.

FTR, I believe O's presidency is a work in progress and so are the analyses.

[Julien Sorel]

83. Ahem,

Choosing something from 2008, when both were senators, and Obama had only been a senator for two years, is hardly a reliable gage, although it is certainly cherry picking data points to bolster a position (one you claim you aren't taking, BTW). Obama has been president for four years, and he has been much more conservative as president than he was as a senator, and, more to the point, more conservative than Bill Clinton. As for whether what you said about Bill Clinton was making an "assumption" (I assume you meant "assertion&quot , I'll leave it to other folks to read over your original post and draw their own conclusions.

Nothing in Silver's post represents a clear contradiction of the DW-Nominate work. He does, though, include this dry little gem: "He (Obama) typically leaves some room to his left." Just a little.

[AtomicKitten]

84. Okay, so cherry-picking it is for you.

That "overlap" is the data chosen by the source you are hanging your hat on to make the call they made regarding HClinton (interestingly, you cherry-pick a bit from the same article to attack O; I have included the full passage below). You will have a much tougher time arguing that HClinton is more liberal than O, but you are more then welcome to give it a shot. You have already seen and should expect some pushback here on that.

Your ASSERTION (yes, that is precisely what I meant) that BClinton governed as more of a liberal will also face some tough challenges based on ACTUAL policies enacted on his watch.

The WHOLE comment from Nate's analysis referencing NW-NOMINATE:

According to the system, the score for the average Democrat in the 111th Congress was -0.382 (negative 0.382), although there was a fairly significant range, from very liberal Democrats like Dennis J. Kucinich (-0.612) and Barbara Lee (-0.743) to moderates like Heath Shuler (-0.100) and Ben Nelson (-0.030).

Mr. Obama’s score of -0.399 was very close to the average, splitting the difference between his party’s liberal and moderate wings. He typically leaves some room to his left. On initiatives ranging from health care to financial regulation, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as many liberal bloggers, thinkers and activists, have complained that his positions concede too much to the Republicans. But Mr. Obama’s positions also generally draw some complaints from moderate, Blue Dog Democrats, and do not always win their votes.

Mr. Obama’s positions are also broadly in line with the median Democratic voter. According to polling conducted by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm, 70 percent of Democrats think Mr. Obama’s positions are “about right”, and those who disagreed were about as likely to say he was too conservative (12 percent) as too liberal (14 percent).

Again, O's presidency is still a work in progress and so are the analyses. I will reserve judgment until the end of his second term when his governance can be viewed as a whole.

It has been said in political circles that there are three political parties: The GOP, Democrats, and the Clinton Party. You have tipped your hand on which you belong to which is fine but revealing.

Have a great day.

[Cha]

88. You have no idea what you're talking about. You "belong

to the anti-Obama party" and are spreading ignorance on DU in a Presidential Election time on DU.

[antigop]

80. don't forget Commodity Futures Modernization Act. n/t

[ProudProgressiveNow]

57. Hillary has been to hell and back.

and has done us all proud. I respect whatever decision she makes.

[wordpix]

74. me, too +1000

[Jennicut]

59. She has gained my respect.

She was became First Lady when I was 16 and twenty years later I have grown to admire her strength and intelligence. She has a long time to decide but if she wants to be done with politics I don't blame her. She has been doing this a really long time.

I supported and voted for Obama in the primaries but Dems had two great people running in 2008. I wish her good luck and good health with whatever she decides.

[Chemisse]

68. "I just want to be my own person" - I can respect that.

Some people want to spend their last years in life enjoying the pinnacle of success they have built up, with career coming first until the bitter end. I think that kind of person defines themselves by what they do for work.

Others - like Hilary apparently - want to have time to reflect, to do other things, to really just do whatever the F they feel like doing. I think that is the way I would like to spend my last decade or two, and it shows she has depth of character far beyond her exhilarating professional life.

I suspect Bill has other ideas - lol.

[_ed_]

69. Corporate Media - CNN/MSNBC/FOX - are already

hyping up 2016. It's much easier than doing real reporting.

[antigop]

76. So when is DLC Hillary going to explain the "advantages" of outsourcing to the Sensata workers?

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

Hillary Clinton: So you are talking about the outsourcing of US jobs to India. We know it's been going on for many years now and it's part of our economic relationship with India and I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefitted many parts of our country and there are disadvantages that go to the need to improve the job fields of our own people and create a better economic environment so it's like anything like the pluses and minuses.

Yes, Hillary, please, do explain what jobs outsourced workers (especially IT people and engineers) are supposed to train for.

[Wernothelpless]

87. How many women spend their entire life giving and giving ...

only to wake up fifty years later and find they've lost themselves ... good for her ...