Podesta Will Leave White House for Clinton Campaign

[onehandle]

Source: Political Wire

White House adviser John Podesta “will take on a senior advisory role in Hillary Clinton’s emerging presidential bid after he leaves the administration in February, three people familiar with the matter said. The move is one of the most definitive signs yet that Mrs. Clinton is building the apparatus to launch a 2016 campaign,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“Mrs. Clinton isn’t likely to announce her decision on whether to enter the race until the spring. But her advisers are making preparations for such a campaign, as evidenced by Mr. Podesta signing on.”

Read more: http://politicalwire.com/2015/01/13/podesta-will-leave-white-house-for-clinton-campaign/

[Fearless]

1. Could he advise her not to run?

[brooklynite]

4. Given her popularity, why should he?

I mean, of course, her popularity among Democrats, not DU members.

[riversedge]

6. +1

[Fearless]

12. Only popular until she speaks.

Less so when its shown that she is no friend of the middle class.

[Autumn]

10. That would be great advice.

Not only for her.

[mahina]

2. Didn't he publicly embarrass the president eight different ways

On purpose?

Aloha also means goodbye.

[tridim]

3. I think that was Leon Ponetta.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. lol. i think it means you are confused. nt

[mahina]

15. You're both right, I was wrong.

[merrily]

18. You were not that far off. Both Podesta and Panetta seem to support Hillary.

[tularetom]

5. That move should increase the IQ of both groups

[merrily]

19. Oh,

how I wish that Oh, snap! were still an acceptable thing to say.

[KamaAina]

7. But, but, but, but she's still deciding whether or not to run!

[merrily]

20. I know, right?

[Divernan]

26. Official candidates can't hide their income amounts and sources.

Still a lot of wheeling/dealing going on - gotta strongarm every single, non-reportable dollar she can from her Wall Street/One Percenter confreres while the grabbing's good and not subject to disclosure. Would love to know but have never found any revelation of her salary/luxury travel & other perks/consulting fees from the boutique, family controlled "non-profit". Similarly, we have no idea what $$$ Bill and Chelsea are collecting from the Foundation.

[KamaAina]

35. Good point.

[George II]

36. I don't think she's "still deciding", I think she's waiting for the appropriate time to announce.

[Xilantro]

8. good

[stevenleser]

9. Excellent! nt

[YOHABLO]

11. Oh please. Enough of the bull.

[rpannier]

14. The guy who thinks progressives are the same as the tea baggers

and said that Clinton benefited from the Democrats loses in 94

That'll play oh so well

[bigdarryl]

16. Yeah not a good sign she's going to listen to progressives

[merrily]

21. That is No Labels doctrine, which is that the "extremes" of both

of the two largest political parties are toxic. Meanwhile, one group of Democrats has been around (philosophically) since at least the New Deal, but another grop broke away from us to become "New" Democrats, aka more like Republicans, while the Tea Party recently broke away from the main body of the Republican Party.

If the Democratic Party has any counterpart to the Tea Party, it ain't the ones who have been around for almost a century.

[George II]

37. Why would the Democrats need a "counterpart" to the Tea Party? They don't threaten...

....Democrats, they threaten republicans. I'm perfectly happy watching the two fight it out.

[merrily]

41. Someone said that Democrats needed a counterpart to the Tea Party? Not I.

[George II]

42. Maybe I misinterpreted your last sentence.

[merrily]

43. Guess so. It sure doesn't say that Democrats need a counterpart to the Tea Party. IMO, no one needs

the Tea Party or ever did. unfortunately, the Koch brothers felt differently than I do.

Did you read the start of the subthread, rpannier's post? If you followed the entire discussion, I think the point of my post would have been clear.

[joshcryer]

24. Do you got links for those?

Though the Democratic losses in '94 is kind of supported by historians, I can't find anything where he likened progressives to tea baggers.

[rpannier]

30. I'll look it up

It stuck out because he was on Fox when he said it and I think I got the link from crooks and liars

[joshcryer]

31. Thanks a bunch.

I recently saw "The American Experience: Clinton's" and yeah... I know that 1994 was a pretty crazy time for the administration.

[rpannier]

32. Just wish there wasn't so much drivel on the net

It's amazing how many lunatic sites are out there

[George II]

38. Fox News hadn't been founded until two years after the 1994 elections

[rpannier]

44. He didn't say it 1994

I never said that he did
I said he said it was a good thing in an interview on Fox. The same interview he compared Progressives to the tea party

[joshcryer]

17. Podesta wants Clinton to distance herself from Obama.

Clinton won't do that by a long shot. She has no reason to. She will embrace Obama's achievements and call for better achievements.

[merrily]

22. Meh. She'll do whatever she thinks will benefit her most, just as Bubba did and just as

she did when she ran in 2008 and just as she has always done.

[joshcryer]

23. Sure.

It seems we've been in agreement on most everything tonight / this morning.

I'm just saying, if Podesta thinks he can waltz in there and call for distancing herself from Obama he's in for a rude awakening. She may not even let him on her team.

Her image will be 1) she isn't indecisive (this will be an insult leveled at her as a woman and she must shed it) and 2) she thinks Americans are too hard on themselves and can strive for and be better (the Millennials believe they have been screwed over and won't appreciate anyone who doesn't say it's true).

Podesta ruins 2 by saying she should distance herself from Obama, as that would be a contradiction, and if she chooses him (and later is forced to fire him because it's not working) then 1 rears its ugly head.

She isn't going to fall for that Mark Penn-esque trap, though Podesta is very likely hoping to get an easy payout by being her "first supporter." Podesta fails by saying she should distance herself from Obama. She won't.

And boy that ought to piss a lot of people off on the left and right respectively.

[merrily]

25. Yeah, no. I don't think we've been agreeing all morning. As for right now:

1) Of all the things Hillary HAS been accused of, I don't think anyone has accused her of being indecisive in general, apart from this game she's been playing about running or not running. She should be a lot more "indecisive," aka openminded, than she is.

2) Millennials are a talking point. 90% of us have been screwed over.

I'm just saying, if Podesta thinks he can waltz in there and call for distancing herself from Obama he's in for a rude awakening. She may not even let him on her team.

Huh? You post as though Podesta and Hillary have never been in communication about his joining her team, as though he just took it into his own head to resign the White House to work on her campaign and their first discussion will be when he arrives at wherever her campaign has been hiding until she is FINALLY ready to admit she's been running for POTUS for the past 20 years.

[joshcryer]

27. I don't recall a disagreement.

You may, because you don't see things in shades of gray, perhaps, I don't see it. I've agreed with you with merely a bit of nuance.

Podesta and Clinton are unlikely to be in agreement on anything or have discussed anything either privately or publicly. Clinton's team has already made it clear that she is still "considering" running. She wouldn't risk a Podesta relationship ruining that narrative. If it turned out she has been going to run all this time, she'd be sunk. You won't find a meeting, piece of paper, or discussion between now and when she decides to run.

Yes, she wants to run, and she has had it as an objective her entire life, that doesn't mean "plans" are being made, and especially after the 2008 fiasco, she's realized "plans" are a farce. Announce in 4-5 months, run, and see what happens, that's where she is now.

I don't equate "indecisive" with "openmindedness" as it concerns the "woman stereotype." Women are stereotyped, and as I predicted in 2007, cannot win because they are under much more scrutiny than men. It's just is what it is. It sucks. It's horrible. But I don't think that we as a culture are beyond stereotypes. If Clinton at once hired Podesta and had to fire him at any point in her candidacy, she'd be done for. Gone. Kaput. The media would destroy her. So she will have to pick someone who isn't contrary to her message, and Podesta by saying that she should distance herself from Obama already is. She won't make that intrinsic mistake.

Podesta is simple wrong, distancing ones self from the sitting President helps no one. Al Gore felt that the most of all.

[merrily]

28. "because you don't see things in shades of gray" LOL, you're way out of your depth there, Josh.

[joshcryer]

29. Right.

You missed the word "perhaps."

Perhaps you're projecting.

[merrily]

33. No, but you just doubled down on being out of your depth.

My posts with you so far have been my opinions about the 2016 Presidential race. My opinions are certainly not "out of my depth.:

I've made no attempt to tell you your worldview or to tell you whether you disagree with me or not, or to psychoanalyze you. Therefore, your using the projection meme when I say you are out of your depth on those topics doesn't even make any kind of sense.

"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others."

Like everyone, I have unpleasant impulses, but purporting to know that much about the personality and psyche of people I never met is not one of them.

[joshcryer]

34. Time will out.

Fortunately the timescale in question is quite short.

The assertion that Clinton will usher in a Republican, for instance. Easily tested.

[George II]

39. "She'll do whatever she thinks will benefit her most"

Isn't that the first priority of a politician, to get elected? She can't do anything by sitting on the sidelines after losing the election.

[merrily]

40. No, the priority should not be getting elected by any means.

Getting elected by saying what you actually believe in and actually intend to work hard to accomplish, sure. Go for it. Be my guest. Fight hard to convince American voters you are right and they want you.

Otherwise, you are simply a grifter, running a con the American people. Bait and switch, a crime. Fraud, also a crime.

That's nothing I want to condone from someone running for office, esp. high office.