Brian Schweitzer Suggests Hillary Clinton Might 'Shift Hard Right'

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

HUNTER WALKER – DECEMBER 17, 2013, 12:55 PM EST

Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has some concerns about a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

In an interview with the Weekly Standard published in the Dec. 23 issue, Schweitzer speculated Clinton might become a "hard right" politician.

"The question that we have is, will it be the Hillary that leads the progressives? Or is it the Hillary that says, 'I'm already going to win the Democratic nomination, and so I can shift hard right on Day 1,'" Schweitzer said. "We can't afford any more hard right. We had eight years of George Bush. Now we've had five years of Obama, [who], I would argue, in many cases has been a corporatist."

Schweitzer also admitted that he's potentially "interested" in making his own run for president. "I didn’t say I was going to run for president in 2016, did I?” Schweitzer said when asked if he harbored presidential ambitions. "I didn’t say I wouldn’t, but I didn’t say I was. But it’s something I’m interested in."

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/brian-schweitzer-suggest-hillary-might-shift-hard-right-after-white-house-win

[sharp_stick]

1. Having Schweitzer make a primary run

would be very interesting. He might be able to provide a pretty strong challenge.

[grasswire]

2. YES

My dream ticket is Dr. Dean/Schweitzer tho

[painesghost]

102. Mine Too!!! n/t

[billhicks76]

58. I agree 100%

I see Hillary as exactly like Bush Sr. I don't care that they have pushed today's repubs so far right they belong in a zoo. That was a tactic to move the center to get sell out Dems to be accepted by us. Won't work this time. Life's problems are just too real now. Clinton's and Bushes will be having each others kids in a decade.

[Warpy]

70. I think so, too, he's quite a character

and that's what it takes to win the heartland as a self proclaimed progressive.

I don't want another Third Way Democrat beholden to Wall Street.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Hillary is already too far to the right for me.

I agree with Schweitzer.

[newfie11]

4. And me

[yurbud]

7. when was she leader of progressives? When she was sitting on the board of Walmart?

[dchill]

38. Yes. She was the leader of ALL those progressives...

on the board of Walmart!

[yurbud]

84. a caucus of zero

[xxqqqzme]

9. I'm w/ you

on that assessment. And Democrats complain is Obama corporate owned. Remember Hillary is a founding member of the DLC.

[closeupready]

13. +1000. 'Isn't she ALREADY too right-wing?', was my first thought.

So not wanting her as the candidate.

[PassingFair]

69. Yeah...

My first thought was "and we could tell this how?"

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I was going to say the same. "Shift"? Both she and Obama are to the right.

They are a disappointment, and this is coming from me--someone who loves Obama.

[woodsprite]

39. me too!

and I will never forgive the DLC for NAFTA (or TPP, if it goes through).

[PatrynXX]

40. as I said in 2012

if it happened she became the nominee I won't vote for her. On principle she's to the right of me and Obama If I want a Bush Clone I'd vote for her. She's to the right of Mittens . Some of this might have happened after Bill messed around on her but I don't trust her and thats what it boils down to. Warren or Rice please. (Susan Rice)

[A Simple Game]

51. I won't vote for her either. No more voting for Republicans.

I don't care if they do have a (D) after their name. I know a Republican when I see one.

[dflprincess]

117. +1000

[olddad56]

53. If she is too far to the right for everyone..

Maybe you would prefer to have a demo candidate that can't win and then be stuck with another nutjob like GWB for 8 years.

[truebluegreen]

63. "demo" candidate? Really?

That aside, maybe if we wanted to inspire actual turnout we should pick a candidate who didn't sound like a slightly saner version of the same old policies.

And may I remind you that GWB didn't "win" that election.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

78. Thank you.

You said this much more clearly than I could have.

[truebluegreen]

79. My pleasure.

[olddad56]

82. good point, GWB didn't win in 2000. And if it hadn't been close....

he would not have even been able to steal it.

[truebluegreen]

87. True. Al Gore was a charter member of the DLC,

ran a lousy campaign, flailed during the recount and gave up when it mattered. But that was a different time. That was after a decade of growth, and although the dotcom boom was busted, plenty of other things were still going well, or so it seemed. That is not what we have now, is it?

Now a candidate who runs as an actual populist (for the people!) would, I think, win the closest thing to a landslide that current gerrymandering would permit. Passion for change, in this season of our discontent, would go a long way. "Not as sucky as the other guy" is not a campaign slogan.

As Harry Truman said, "given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

[painesghost]

104. I actual was won of those bad democrats that voted for Nader ;)

It was basically a protest vote, I just couldn't take anymore of the DLC's crap. If the Gore of today had been running back then I probably would of voted for him. If Clinton wins I'll probably hold my nose and vote for her. The thing is I have a feeling Christie will win the Republican nomination. The primary will come down to him and some social-conservative who the Tea Party will probably back. But in the end Christie will win. The problem with Christie is he isn't crazy right and he seems like a generally likable person. (I mean this in the same way that I mean Ronald Reagan was likable. He was very good at charming people.) If me, a democrat, is turned of by Clinton, how exactly is she going to do against a guy who is known to not only be good at winning over independents, but even winning over a lot of democrats. I think Schweitzer has what it takes to win, independents and maybe even some moderate Republicans.

[truebluegreen]

106. I voted for Nader too, although in Idaho I had to write his name in

and it didn't matter a whit.

I am not fond of Clinton but I think in a contest between her and Christie she would win. I don't think Christie's rough edges and bullying will play all that well outside NJ. Plus there is apparently a lot of dirt that can be dished on him that hasn't really come out yet (Romney didn't like his baggage or his potential health problems in the VP slot).

Why the national dems didn't bloody him during the governor's race is beyond me; far too often the party is just too stupid or lazy or complicit or whatever.

I do like Schweitzer--if he has gotten over his affection for "clean coal"--but I'd still rather have a Progressive, as opposed to a Montana Democrat.

[Ken Burch]

101. 2000 was close mainly because Gore blurred the differences.

2000 and 2004 proved once and for all that "tacking to the center" doesn't elect Democratic presidents anymore.

Voters don't trust a party that campaigns like it has already lost the argument and is ashamed of its core supporters-and THAT is what "tacking to the center" always means.

This is NOT a "center-right country" and we can't prosper as a party by pretending that it is. Those that want two conservative parties to be the choice will always choose the MORE conservative party.

[yurbud]

85. I would prefer someone with a little more daylight between them and the nutjobs

corporate Dems can barely muster fake outrage at Republicans so they can get elected, and then they kiss and make up as soon as possible after election day, and give the rest of us the back of their hand.

[yurbud]

86. What are you going to do when the GOP is so dead you can't shake its rotting corpse as a boogey man?

without some of the bones and putrid flesh falling off?

And if they are so scary, why do corporate Dems agree with them on so many things?

[Ken Burch]

100. Why do you assume that ONLY HRC can win?

The country is not in the right-wing dead zone it was in in 1992.

The voters no longer buy the argument that corporations should matter more than workers and the poor.

The voters are no longer Reagan-hawkish and are getting sick of our imperial posture in the world.

And the voters still want single-payer.

I hope that HRC doesn't take your seeming attitude that the Democratic party can only hold the White House if its candidate and platform treat the party's core values and core voters like they have to be disowned. That would be a sorry statement from a candidate who put footage of Bobby Kennedy in her 2008 campaign ads.

[Vincardog]

67. Agreed. "Might"? Hell Hillary helped negotiate the TPP. Death to all pro Corporate policies.

[dflprincess]

116. I'm with you n/t

[GoCubsGo]

118. Yep. I really, really hope he runs. n/t

[global1]

5. Help Me Here - If Hillary Thinks She's Already Going To Win The Dem Nomination - Why.....

would she have to shift hard right? Is it because she thinks she has to in order to win the Presidency or something else?

[Jackpine Radical]

8. She's in the running for the big Wall Street bux.

[Fuddnik]

17. Rupert Murdoch can throw another fund raiser for her.

[closeupready]

15. To help secure soft GOP voters.

[QuestForSense]

20. Hillary Clinton tells financiers she’s on their side

Money still talks louder than public opinion in Washington.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/12/12/hillary-clinton-tells-wall-street-she-believes-anti-wall-street-rhetoric-foolish/

[daleanime]

25. +1

[bvar22]

23. Like President Obama, Hillary knows that she has to "sound" like a Democrat...

... during the campaigns.

Shifting Hard Right happens after they sit down in the Oval Office.

The problem Hillary has is that when she tries to "sound" like a Democrat,
it comes across as being phony.

Everybody remembers the 2008 debate where both Hillary and Obama
promised to "immediately renegotiate NAFTA".
Of course, neither one was being honest,
but, unlike Hillary, most people actually believed Obama.

[fbc]

26. Because that's where her allegiances lie

She is a "new democrat" which means she stands for corporate interests and always trying to find the middle ground with republicans, no matter how far the right moves that middle ground.

I do not think she will move hard right on traditional "social issues", but it's time to stop pretending that economic equality is not a social issue.

[dreamnightwind]

49. If there's no threat to the left

you can move right and hope to capture center/left and center/right voters. Simple enough, and the corporatist Democrats have been doing exactly that to us for a long long time. Which is why we need a threat to the left, and a legitimate one.

I'm pretty sure that any moves left or right will have little effect on how a President Hillary Clinton would govern. She's already center or center/right, and corporatist to the core. No primary challenge is likely to change that, and for that reason I think we need to actually defeat her in the primary.

[djean111]

52. I think he meant that she could run as a progressive and then shift hard right on Day 1

of the presidency. Just worded awkwardly.
Gosh - who would do a thing like that?
I absolutely believe Hillary will make Progressive noises in order to win - and then proceed with the Third Way agenda.

[Maedhros]

60. Hillary doesn't HAVE to shift hard right...

...running for the Presidency gives her an opportunity to shift hard right.

Hard right = big $$$, and ostensibly Democratic voters have proven that they will accept any right-wing policy by Democratic Presidents - drone assassination, the TPP, blanket surveillance, indefinite detention, wars of choice - so there is no real cost to her for doing so.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Impossible...DUers think she will shift hard left!

[yurbud]

10. PIC: If Schweitzer wears this string tie, conservatives might vote for him

Also, given their reading skills, they might see the first couple of letters and think they're voting for Schw-arzenegger.

[DonCoquixote]

11. Oh crap no

If Hillary has a chance to beat the GOP, she will NOT do it by adapting the stance of "We are just like the GOP" that has been a FAILURE! If anything, she would need to act left to soothe the people that frankly are SICK of the centrist dems.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. Is there any indication that Hillary would shift hard right or is he just trying to

stir something up? I realize that many on this board already think she is too far right, but I'm not going to pay much attention to an unsupported statement.

[elleng]

14. I agree, Granny.

I'm kind of surprised he'd try to stir up this sort of thing.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. Maybe he's not trying to stir up anything...

Maybe he really means it.

[daleanime]

27. Very possible.

Sounds like something I would say.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. If this is a strategy to force her to the Left, then he's doing the right thing.

If he's just "stirring things up," then he has every right to.

Hillary Clinton is NOT entitled. She still has to run in a primary. She still has to win the primaries.

[Whisp]

42. force her to the left during the primaries, maybe,

when it's just talk - but it won't force her to do anything different than her ways of the Right if she wins.

Let's not forget she and Bill are seasoned liars that goes far above the campaign promises that sometime just can't be fulfilled. Full bore liars.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

77. Agreed, but only if people buy what she is selling. We all know Hillary Clinton is no liberal.

She is about as liberal as Barack Obama and that's not liberal.

So if we go beyond the rhetoric and look at her actual policy stances, will it make the difference?

To me, the biggest problem is the "evitability" theme. If people are convinced that she's already going to win, will they even be engaged in the primaries?

I think we're being set up BIG TIME!!

Read what I wrote below. The Corporate Media will heap praise on the Clintons as long as their is a schism between Obama and Hillary Democrats. They love to divide. They'll love the Clintons...for now.

But what happens when she faces Chris Christie? The Corporate Media adores him, just as they adored "W" and McCain.

They don't want Democrats to choose a more progressive candidate; it's not in their best interest.

[Whisp]

80. Obama is a Gandhi left compared to the Clintons

lol. On that we must disagree.

He speaks about the middle class and equity quite frequently, Hillary speaks to the Wall Streeters to comfort them in their times of great woe.

[Doctor_J]

36. Isn't she already hard right?

She's at least as corporatist as Obama, who is far to the right of Reagan.

[iamthebandfanman]

46. +1 n/t

[KamaAina]

71. Far to the right of Reagan?

Ron Reagan, Jr., maybe.

[Beacool]

41. No, just conjecture and speculation.

It also serves his narrative if he is indeed considering a run of his own in 2016. Nothing new around here, they post any negative article on Hillary that they can find. There seems to be several of those per week.

Meanwhile, the object of their scorn, hasn't even announced that she's running. There's also the little inconvenient fact that the vast majority of Democrats support her.

[karynnj]

59. Bea, I think it comes down to where the approval of the Obama administration is in early 2015

If it is high and things are going well domestically and internationally, I think Hillary Clinton will have the easiest run for the nomination and President of a non incumbent ever. (The only possible negative would be if Biden is seen as leading one or more extremely successful and important issues and if he runs. )

However, if there is (to use Carter's words) a malaise and BOTH Obama and Congress are very unpopular - more than Obama is now - then it may well be that an outside candidate will have greater appeal. Hillary, who has been in DC since 1992, really can not be given the image of a fresh face who will change things that need to changed.

I suspect that we will be between these 2 extremes. If the way I see this is true, Clinton who is in an incredible position now may be more impacted by what the government does than anything she does between now and 2015. For her, the BEST thing that can happen is for Obama to succeed on economic issues and for things to look at least somewhat better on foreign policy issues.

[Beacool]

83. I mostly agree, but I think that the state of the economy will affect any Democrat

running in 2016, whether it be Hillary or someone else. If enough people think that the country is going in the wrong direction we may end up with a Republican in the WH. As it is, it'll be hard enough to keep the WH. After 8 years of a party in the WH voters in the past have seemed ready for a change. It did work with Reagan and Bush Sr., but it hasn't worked too well for Democrats.

[karynnj]

90. Agree - when things are bad - the push is for change

It is very hard for the party in power to be a party of change. Consider that McCain DID try to argue that he was change and Bush did not attend the 2008 convention. Imagine how big a rejection that was from his own party.

Here, I was just saying that if things are awful - which obviously no one here should want - then it is possible that a "change" Democrat may win the primary. Needless to say that person would then be an underdog.

I would argue that Gore actually did win 2000 - very narrowly. The loss was partly as you stated a repudiation, but remember how brutal the media was to Gore -- and how they let Bush off the hook often. (I think they were even LESS fair in 2004 - had Kerry gotten anything like the media support of any major party nominee, GWB would have been a one term President.

I think Obama was actually lucky that the Republicans were AWFUL. He could easily have lost to a charming, well versed Republican - fortunately that does not describe Romney. Remember GWB nearly lost and his approval was 60% at the end of 2003. Obama was in the mid 40s.

What I hope is that things turn around more towards 2015 and we do have another Democrat. If the Obama administration is well regarded, there is little chance that a message - like the one Schweitzer has here resonates. It rejects Obama as much as Clinton.

In 2008, the Democrats - other than Hillary - had the very awkward need to - in a sense run against the last two term Democrat's accomplishments. I would think that in 2016, they might have to run against BOTH Obama and Clinton. It seems that might be hard to do in the Democratic primary. (You KNOW I prefer someone other than HRC, but I think if it is a reasonable year for Democrats, she likely gets it.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Is that bad?

The left is daring Hillary to swing any further right, and they think that she's vulnerable from that standpoint.

[warrior1]

18. but if she become the nominee

who will you vote for?

[Babel_17]

19. Grass roots love, not settling, will be needed by anyone seeking victory

If we can't be enthused by, and fully endorse, our candidate then we can't expect to win over the undecideds. HRC will need a groundswell of support to overcome the avalanche of hate that will be directed her way by the Republicans.

We all know that certain things need to be said by a candidate but we also know what a sellout looks and sounds like. I think the candidates will be watched as if by hawks and they'll have to run as true progressives in order to win.

[meegbear]

21. I hypothetical speculate Schweitzer is a dick ...

but I'm not "interested" in running in 2016, so I may be wrong.

[Octafish]

22. Ask Hondurans.

http://progressive.org/wx030510.html

[Whisp]

45. shhhh. That little thing is not to be talked about!

but it is one of the 'accomplishments' of her Secretary of State gig.

[fbc]

24. Hillary will be given the nomination by the media, and once again, democrats will take it away

I don't know who it will be yet, but someone will rise up and real democrats will get behind him or her.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Schweitzer, sadly, is right! He's right on both Hillary and Obama...

...and as much as I like Hillary and Obama, they both are basically moderate Republicans to be sure.

Schweitzer can win!! He can win because he speaks for true populists. He is a true progressive. He demonstrates that just because he comes from a RED state doesn't mean that he has to be an ultra-conservative Democrat.

[asjr]

31. This is crap! Hillary Clinton would never say

such a thing. This has the tenor of someone else who is dipping his toes in the water to see how hot or cold it is. CNN will take this way over the top.

[Beacool]

47. Bingo.

He's testing the waters to see what reaction he gets. If one were to read only this site, DailyKos and the other LW boards, one would assume that Hillary is disliked within the party. The reality is the reverse, she's so far ahead the Democrat who comes second in popularity (Biden) that her advantage over him is around 58%.

[dreamnightwind]

50. Would never say such a thing?

Nothing implying that in the OP. I haven't read the full article, if there's an implication she said something in there, you should clarify. It's a statement by Schweitzer, not Clinton. So unless I'm missing something you're slapping down a straw man.

[asjr]

55. Yes it is a statement by Schweitzer suggesting she might say such

a thing. But I do not think Hillary would say such a thing.

[dreamnightwind]

74. So your remark was in response to this statement...

"The question that we have is, will it be the Hillary that leads the progressives? Or is it the Hillary that says, 'I'm already going to win the Democratic nomination, and so I can shift hard right on Day 1,'" Schweitzer said.

?

If so, you're either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing Schweitzer's remark. The "Hillary says" is not meant literally, it's meant to present a hypothetical course of action (not a public statement) that she might take, meaning she might move right. And you call it crap because she would never say such a thing? You could call it crap if you think she would never DO such a thing, personally I think she might.

[asjr]

88. Grow up.

[dreamnightwind]

91. Whatever you say

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Er.

Harder right.

[RC]

34. Gotta agree with ya there.

What is so hard to understand about that (D), does not necessarily mean Democrat or Liberal or even Left of center. Nixon made a better Liberal than Hillary.

[lobodons]

33. DEMS do NOT F up 2016!!

Jesus f'n christ, DEMS do NOT F up 2016!! The balance of the SCOTUS will shift for the next generation by whoever wins in 2016. The party who wins in 2016 (and hopefully 2020) will enter into 2024 with a 6-3 majority. I know sure as shit, I would prefer Hillary's or any other DINO's picks to Christie's, Ryan, Cruz, or any of the other GOP clown car rider SCOTUS picks.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

35. Love this guy.

And I remember people trying to call HIM a blue dog conservative a few months ago (on this site). He supports universal single payer health care and organized labor. He is a real progressive.

[montanacowboy]

37. Brian Schweitzer is the REAL Deal

He takes no shit from the Right and is a real straight shooter

This country will do very well having him as President - he has my support 100%

[karynnj]

44. Thanks for the Montana perspective

It does mean something when you say he is a real straight shooter as many politicians are afraid to be.

It sounds like he is exploring whether he could fit as a candidate on her left, but more than left - a populist. (I think left/right may be too simplistic ) If Warren does not run, I would guess he could fill the same space. Given the approval numbers of both Obama and the Congress, it may be better to have someone not connected to the federal government. (Oddly, I could see him as a very different version of change in 2016 - and it usually can't be the party in power that owns change.

I remember when Kerry visited him when Kerry took a vacation and traveled through the west in 2005. Schweitzer had just been elected then. Looking for something on that, I found this 2005 thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2039686 It was created in support of a Schweitzer group. Interesting as it has a snapshot of where he was then. Few things impress me more than a politician who shows the same values year after year.

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. And Fox and Rush will help her along to that hard right

Just the way they did with Obama. Just like they did with CNN. They will be screaming day and night about how much of a pinko liberal hippie she is. And, like Obama, once elected she will feel forced to "prove" that she's no commie and offer the right everything they want on a platter, (to which they will no doubt reject and ask for even more). And she has a double high hurdle as she will also feel pressured into proving being a woman she can be just as tough as a man. I wonder what country she is anticipating invading?

The only time we get to even hear about a more progressive view is during the Democratic primaries. I hope he runs. Because after the election we are nothing but annoying "fucking retards".

[Whisp]

48. 'corporatist' Obama had to deal with Bill's fuck ups

from the 90s that gave the farms away to Wall Street.

and now Hillary is schmoozing with them and jamming cash in her jeans like her husband showed her.

There is a very huge large big difference between how Obama and how the Clintons view Wall street.

[Tikki]

54. Oh I don't know…like being pro-gun and anti Affordable Care Act...

geez...



Tikki

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Has Hilary been talking to McAuliffe again?

The idea of shifting to the hard right while the country is going the other way is so stupid one would suspect McAuliffe of thinking of it.

I agree that we can't afford any more hard right. In fact, we might need a leader in 2016 who will defy the TPP, and there nothing in Mrs. Clinton's past to encourage me that she's going to do anything like that. What could be more hard right that handing over the country, indeed the world, to an industrial/financial aristocracy that doesn't promise to be any less self-interested. oppressive or in need of a French haircut than landed aristocracies of the past.

I hope Governor Schweitzer is just floating a trial balloon for his own presidential ambitions.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

57. Four words on why I'll never trust the Clintons: Lani Davis, Dick Morris

Anyone who willingly associates with those two and took their advice should never be trusted.

[Whisp]

66. Lanny Davis, Honduras coup...

business as usual for the Clintons, like the Reagan ways a nice little coup on some brown people to help jam a little more cash and favours in your jeans.

[DeSwiss]

61. Makes little difference to me.

I'm through with Clintons for the duration. They've already given taken enough of for themselves to from this country.

Besides, I'm fast coming to the opinion that we'd be better off by only letting politicians remain in office for a year or two. It'd limit the amount of theft and damage they can do. And we could require a Bonding Company with actual assets to secure them against losses before we'd let them take the oath of office.

- They could do 'em up as Campaign Bond Derivatives, just like all those other worthless derivatives floating around out there in the virtual investment banking world. It would actually be a move up for the Republicans to be classed as high as a junk bond........

[Phlem]

65. I'm liking this.

-p

[november3rd]

62. His problem

His problem would be the same as hers: the National Security State and the Financial Industry would force him to turn a hard right, too, if he were elected.

[Phlem]

64. She's way to "Turdway" for me.

But I suspect the choice will either be her or a Republican. Cause you know, no else is more qualified than her.

A lose, lose scenario.

And the 1% win again.

-p

[ancianita]

68. He damned well should be interested in a run. Schweitzer/Castro in 2016!

[KamaAina]

72. The teabaggers would demand to see Raul's long-form birth certificate.

Of course you mean Julian Castro (or maybe Joaquin?).

[ancianita]

73. Joaqin, no?

[jberryhill]

76. That's why we need to see the birth certificate

Of these supposed "brothers"

[jmowreader]

98. At which point we demand to see Rafael Cruz' long-form birth certificate

It should be 100-percent legal to take any birther who supports Ted Cruz - there are a lot of them - and kick him in the ass so hard he has to take off his pants to answer the phone.

[KamaAina]

99. He has one!

But it's Canadian.

[jmowreader]

105. I know he has one, and that's the problem

The teabaggers, birthers and other assorted anti-Obama hangers-on are Dead Set Convinced the Democratic president was born outside the United States to a communist father and, by damn, President Obama had better produce a birth certificate Right Fucking Now to prove his American birthplace. (And when they see the birth certificate, they pronounce it fake.)

This fuckin' guy, he actually WAS born outside the United States to a communist father, and they think he'd be the most wonderful president.

And speaking of Canadian fuckin' guys...

[Enthusiast]

75. She's too far right already.

She cannot be the candidate. She just can't.

[BlueStreak]

89. I don't see how a Clinton move to the right could be called a "shift"

I'd call it, "What the hell did you expect from DLCers?"

[Whisp]

81. I sure hope Schweitzer ends up running.

If he, Warren and Biden are part of the debate it would be a pleasure to watch and listen.

And especially more pleasurable if Hillary decides to run, wowsa, entertaining times ahead. The Gaffe Queen will have to earn her title after all and not just waltz into an empty throne.

[joshcryer]

92. Absurdity.

She will claim to be more progressive than Obama and her vote and actions on most issues would indicate that she actually ... is.

Of course Schweitzer should run and I'd support him over Hillary but this is absolute hyperbole and flies completely in the face of Hillary's Silent Candidacy so far.

[DemocraticWing]

93. Schweitzer/Warren '16?

Oh we can dream, at least.

[mikekohr]

110. If you dream it, it will come true.

The dream team.

[area51]

94. She started out political life as a republican.

HRC is pro-offshoring and wants anyone applying for a job to prove that they have health insurance; "papers, please."

[karynnj]

108. Warren voted for Reagan -- and that changes nothing about her stance today against the banks

People can change. In Clinton's case, she changed from the views shared with her parents in high school to more liberal ones in college. I think about HALF the people I met at IU when we were freshmen did the same. (I came from one of the few Democratic parts of the state.) This was 3 years after HRC started.

[rosesaylavee]

95. It was Hilary Clinton's State Dept that recommended the Keystone Pipeline

I don't care what party she heads or how she swings. If she doesn't recognize how detrimental that Pipeline is to our future and the climate, she will not have my vote.

I am so disappointed that Climate Change is STILL not being discussed in terms of candidates.

[jmowreader]

97. Schweitzer could win the hearts and votes of a LOT of Republican voters with one utterance

"Gun control? Are you crazy? You think I'm gonna sign something that would take away my guns?"

Follow that up with...

"Hell no I ain't raising taxes on regular folks. I balanced eight budgets in Montana without ever raising taxes...hell, I even cut 'em a couple of times. Why in God's name would I start raising taxes on regular folks now?"

and...

"Take God out of the public square? I'll have to ask my minister what he thinks about that."

Once the GOP loses "he's going to take away your guns," "he's going to raise your taxes" and "he's going to get rid of Jesus," they have to campaign on The Issues. The problem with that, from the GOP's viewpoint, is they have no issues.

The debates could be entertaining...you have Brian Schweitzer on the Democratic side and one of the heads of the Conservative Hydra on the GOP side. When the hydra pulls out one of their tried-and-true ideas like "you can stimulate growth by cutting taxes," Schweitzer will immediately respond, "now hold on there a minute, pardner. We've been doing that for the last 35 years and it hasn't worked once. What makes you think it's gonna work this time?"

People would vote for Schweitzer just for entertainment value. The fact he's one of the smartest men in politics is a bonus.

[mikekohr]

111. Governor Schweitzer is the ideal candidate to reach deep into Red State America and CRUSH the GOP

put Warren, or Castro or Booker as his VP and it will be a massive wave election.

[jmowreader]

112. And that's what the "it's Hillary!" people don't understand

I like Hillary Clinton. She's very smart, she has a great resume...she'd be a great president.

Thing is this: she can't get elected president because every professional right winger in America knows exactly how to attack her. By the time they finished Hillary would have visible horns and a tail. Come on: do we really want Rand Paul or Louie Gohmert as president?

Schweitzer lost his first election for governor, so he did something none of us could have stomached: he tuned the radios in his barn, his pickup and his tractor to the local AM talk station and he studied their insiduous ways. By the time the next election came around he knew how to respond to these assholes.

There's a funny one: a person from Montana can't win the presidency. They probably said the same thing about Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Iowa and Louisiana, and those five states account for seven presidents.

[mikekohr]

113. I'd Rec. this post a million times if I could nt

[Laelth]

103. Interesting. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Kurska]

107. Brian Schweitzer is right now the number one contender for my primary vote n/t

[Jester Messiah]

109. Well, she did start out as a Goldwater Girl, as she said.

Her natural home is on the right. If the Repubs and 'Baggers hadn't taken a running jump off the deep end she'd probably be a Republican today. I don't think she's got any business being our nominee when Elizabeth Warren is available.

[Beacool]

114. Again with that nonsense?

She was 17 years old. Warren was in her mid forties when she changed parties.

[Zorro]

115. An interview published in Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard?

Yeah, they have no interest in promoting Democratic dissension to a possible Clinton candidacy.