Home / General / Cleek’s revenge

Cleek’s revenge

Comments
/
/
/
259 Views

I woke up this morning, and I wanted Hillary to run.

This is:

(a) The worst first line for a blues song ever.

(b) Every RWNJ’s least lurid fantasy involving Hillary Clinton.

(c) The actual mental state of your faithful correspondent.

I don’t know about the other two, but (c) is a true and correct answer.

I want Hillary to run because I have come to viscerally hate the right wing in this country, and Hillary running (and winning — this could be tricky I guess) would make them the maddest and the saddest of all the possible 2020 outcomes.

True confession.

Now I don’t even like Hillary Clinton. Never have. I don’t like her centrist inclinations, her deep affection for the status quo, her often lousy political instincts, etc. etc. etc.

But what I like even less is the rampant sexism that is so obviously driving the hysterical reactions among both leftier than thou types and plenty of mainstream liberals to Clinton’s decision not to exile herself permanently from public life. Apparently, that she has the temerity to continue to participate in contemporary politics, by commenting on current events and so forth, is just too much for these people.

Combine that with the veritable fact that a Clinton presidency in 2021 would fill the entire right wing in this country with rage and despair to a degree that’s almost unimaginable, and that’s good enough for me.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Tom in BK

    I’d happily vote for her again. Both for policy reasons, and for the RW freak-out if she won.

    • Merkwürdigliebe

      Wasn’t somebody complaining quite recently that GOP’s stance can now be reduced to identity politics and resentment of liberals?

      Nobody would defend Obama by saying “at least he pissed conservatives off!”

      Well, so much for that…

      • aturner339

        I’d suggest that a key lesson of this cycle is that dreaded phrase “all politics is identity politics” because really… it is..

      • Tom in BK

        if you can show me where i commented on that post, or endorsed its conclusions, that’d be great.

        as for your “gotcha,” what part of “policy reasons” don’t you understand?

        • Merkwürdigliebe

          I merely latched on to your comment as an example of the general mood. I did not intend to imply that you necessarily endorsed the linked article (which is, ultimately, an even worse stance).

      • Rob in CT

        Paul has reached the “I welcome their hatred” stage. It can happen to anyone. It’s been happening to more and more Americans, basically the entire span of my life. We’ve sorted into (fairly) ideologically coherent tribes, and increasingly we flat out hate each other.

        This is not a good thing for anyone, but it’s also a very difficult thing to avoid. We’re in a negative feedback loop. Or, as others have noted, we’re basically in an abusive relationship.

        • AlanInSF

          I say let’s elect Kamala Harris and show them what a real she-bat from hell looks like.

        • Merkwürdigliebe

          Yes, pretty much. And it’s a really scary thing to behold.

          • sibusisodan

            I’m not scared of hatred which is capable of justification. That can be reasoned with.

            I am scared of hatred which is (mis)founded on zero-sum self-preservation.

            Side A hates side B because of how they govern.

            Side B hates side A because side A exists.

            • Merkwürdigliebe

              Justification is completely irrelevant in these circumstances. The practical effect on both sides is that negating and suppressing the other becomes the highest priority.

              The right may be further down this path, but once the dynamic is established, it all just goes downhill. You can’t have working democracy in a country where the two political camps consider each other fundamentally illegitimate.

              • sibusisodan

                > You can’t have working democracy in a country where the two political camps consider each other fundamentally illegitimate.

                The practical effect of asking my side to stop all this hating is to give the other side all the power.

                Since that won’t satisfy the other side (note, that’s not true in reverse), it’s not any kind of useful strategy.

                • Merkwürdigliebe

                  Non sequitur. How does not picking candidates out of pure spite “give the other side all the power?”

                • sibusisodan

                  Nobody in this thread is suggesting the D team should pick candidates out of _pure_ spite.

                  I assumed you were responding to Rob in CTs comment about two tribes hating each other.

                • so-in-so

                  “Non sequitur. How does not picking candidates out of pure spite “give the other side all the power?””

                  Besides the mis-placed “not”, I guess you missed the day-dream aspect, as well as the “she’d be good President” part?

                  Also, I’m not sure democracy works when ONE side sees the other as always illegitimate.

                • Merkwürdigliebe

                  Picking candidates out of pure spite is the core idea of the post. And one of the more obvious symptoms of the mutual hatred death spiral.

                  There are some concrete steps I can understand – e.g. blocking Sessions at all costs is reasonable under these circumstances. But the calls for total war against everything GOP are simply corrosive to any form of political coexistence. (I remember a while back how someone claimed DeVos was an extremist because she “wanted to hand over an even larger share of our education to big business.” That’s just not an extreme position. That’s entirely mainstream Republicanism.)

                • so-in-so

                  “That’s just not an extreme position. That’s entirely mainstream Republicanism.)”

                  Yes, and? Mainstream Republicanism now includes all forms of extremism, including the idea that any Democrat is illegitimate. Withholding even hearings on a president’s SCOTUS appointment from February of his final year (and probably for a full term if HRC had won) is now mainstream Republicanism!

                • Rob in CT

                  That’s just not an extreme position. That’s entirely mainstream Republicanism

                  Ah, I see the source of your confusion.

                  Dude, wake the fuck up. Mainstream Republicans are extreme nowadays. DeVos may be one of the weaker examples of this, I’ll grant.

                • Merkwürdigliebe

                  It has been a mainstream republican position roughly since the 1970s…? You know, the idea that a higher proportion of services should be provided by private contractors?

                  I don’t share the view but it doesn’t strike me as something outside of acceptable political spectrum.

                • tsam

                  I think we’re losing sight of the smaller picture here–the OP is a revenge fantasy, and is meant for a little cathartic side discussion. Let’s not get too riled up over it.

                • Murc

                  Picking candidates out of pure spite is the core idea of the post.

                  No. It isn’t. You are wrong. The post itself contradicts this assertion, for god’s sake.

                  This is like saying that someone who fantasizes about emptying their savings account to buy that amazing boat they’ve always wanted, but won’t actually do it because that would be irresponsible so they’ll send their kids to college with that money instead, is being grotesquely fiscally irresponsible for merely thinking about doing a very satisfying thing they’re not about to actually do.

                • twbb

                  “Nobody in this thread is suggesting the D team should pick candidates out of _pure_ spite.”

                  I’d be fine with that.

          • Rob in CT

            Yes it is. It’s also not symmetrical, but that might be besides the point.

            The big question is how can we reverse the feedback, short of you know, civil war?

            I honestly do not know.

            • so-in-so

              Taming the RW noise machine would help, if reinstating the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provoke a civil war on it’s own.

              Problem is that the internet can’t really be placed under the doctrine, so the feedback will continue somewhat in any case. Even most old white men can do email and web sites now.

              • efgoldman

                if reinstating the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provoke a civil war on it’s own.

                1) It’s not going to happen, probably ever. Stick it in the fantasy bucket along with doing away with the electoral college.
                2) Even if by some miracle it did, it did not and would not apply to cable-only (or, as you say, the toobz), which Fox News is. There’s existing SCOTUS case law that says so.

            • Pat

              Dave Hopkins (http://www.honestgraft.com/2017/06/the-price-of-resentment-politics-is.html) has a great article today on how the politics of resentment yield lousy policy results.

              • Rob in CT

                I mean, obviously it does. I don’t need someone to tell me that.

                I do need someone to clearly lay out what we can do to reverse the ever-worsening tribal divide.

                I mean, hell, Obama was a pretty gifted politician and that was his schtick. And it failed miserably. Not, IMO, because of him, but it failed nonetheless.

                This has to change, or eventually we’ll crack up. Likely with violence.

            • mongolia

              beat them in elections until they lose their based to old age.

        • NewishLawyer

          I think a lot of us have reached that stage or some variant of it a while ago.

          I like HRC and have no desire to see her run again but like Paul, I am rather tired of how eggshell and insecure all these WWC people seem to be about the “elites.” Elites in this case being anyone who graduated college with some degree of bourgeois cultural tastes. I’m tired of well-paid pundits decrying adjunct professors and their elitish snobbery while claiming to be champions of the salt of the earth. The damn pundits are much more elite than any adjunct professor (no matter how snobby).

          But we have reached a time when group identity seems to trump all and a lot of my instincts in defending could very well be because I see adjunct professors and retail workers as being more of my tribe than I see a West Virginia coal miner.

          • muddy

            I make 30 cents over minimum wage, and never graduated college. But I have a lot of books in my house. I know a number of people who think this shows my elitism. I have pointed out to this crew that the value of their gun “collections” is much more than my used books. Well, in dollars anyway.

            But reading, so elitist! I keep telling them, it’s free and it will make you free as well. Honestly I think they are afraid to read and look things up because they might read something that makes them questioners.

            • Jackov

              Stupid proles

              They should despise college educated whites because a majority of that group has voted for the Republican in every presidential election since at least 1972.

              If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican.
              – Andrew Gelman

          • Linnaeus

            We should consider the availability heuristic here – the pundits writing about said resentment may make it seem more widespread, and of a deeper nature, than it actually is.

  • As to (a), with the minor tweak “(I) woke up this morning, (and I) wanted Hill to run” it would be a much better blues intro.

    But I don’t think it ends well.

    • West of the Cascades

      If it were a country song, she’d probably end up taking your pickup truck and your hound dog and breaking your heart.

      • Woke up this morning, wanted Hill to run,
        She already took my dawg an’ truck,
        I’m gonna let her grab my gun!

    • Thom

      Woke up this morning,
      Looked ’round for my shoes,
      Lord I had them CDS blues

      • Origami Isopod

        My mama got the CDS
        And my daddy got it too
        Said, my mama got the CDS
        And my daddy got it too
        That’s what happens when you watch too much Fox News.

        • rea

          I woke up this morning, I had them Hillary Blues,
          I woke up this morning, had them Hillary Blues.
          Well, I looked over in the corner, and Grandpa seemed to have them too.

    • Mellano

      Not blues, but when I read the first line of the OP it was “Chelsea Morning” that started playing in my head.

    • Jordan

      I’m pretty sure someone(s) more talented than I could tweak those lyrics to fit the Soprano’s theme and put together a fun youtube video based off it.

      • You woke up this morning
        And got Hillary to run,
        DWS always said she’d be
        The Chosen One.

        She said: You’re one in a million
        You’ve got to burn to shine,
        But she was born under a bad sign,
        With a blue moon in her eyes.

        You woke up this morning
        All the love had gone,
        Cillizza never told you
        About proper protocol.

        But you’re looking good, baby,
        I believe you’re feeling fine, (shame about it)
        Born under a bad sign
        With a blue moon in your eyes.

        So sing it now
        Woke up this morning
        Got a blue moon
        Got a blue moon in your eyes, yeah
        Woke up this morning

        You woke up this morning
        The world turned upside down (lord above)
        Thing’s ain’t been the same
        Since the Trump walked into town.

        But she’s one in a million
        She’s got that CDS shine (shame about it)
        Born under a bad sign,
        With a blue moon in her eyes.

        When you woke up this morning,
        and convinced Hillary to run.
        and convinced hillary to run.
        and convinced Hillary to run.

        source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/tvthemes/thesopranoslyrics.html

        • Jordan

          and there it is! :)

          (and hell ya, gg)

  • John F

    “(and winning — this could be tricky I guess)”

    Yeah, this part just scares me too much… but I know what you’re feeling.

    Personally I’d love for POTUS Gillibrand to name Obama to the SCOTUS just to drive RWNJs batty.

    • twbb

      While we’re asking for ponies, I would love to see a multi-decade run of SCOTUS majority opinions signed by Justices Clinton, Obama, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Warren.

      • farin

        Justices Clinton, Obama

        Unfortunately, despite all her degrees Chelsea doesn’t have a JD. Of course there’s no formal requirement for one, and a case could be made that the insularity of justices’ backgrounds limits their ability to handle cases with non-legal technicalities. Confirmation might be unnecessarily difficult, is all.

        But who knows if Malia is even interested in law?

        • so-in-so

          Nice!

        • twbb

          Haha, good one.

          I don’t think not having a JD would be the hardest part of confirming Chelsea Clinton.

    • BiloSagdiyev

      I was thinking, “Obama on the ticket in the VP slot” last week, just to get them all effin’ wound up and crying. No, we’re not saying he would be president. If she dies, he won’t be able to be president. But why not VP, eh?

      • rea

        Because the VP has to be eligible to be president.

        • sibusisodan

          Eligible to serve, or eligible to be elected? I thought this hadn’t been settled.

          • Just_Dropping_By

            It’s not settled in the sense that no one has ever brought a court case over it, but it’s always struck me as depending on way too cute of a reading of the 22nd and 12th Amendments.

      • How about Michelle as VP?

        • tsam

          She can have whatever job she wants.

      • Donalbain

        Obama runs for Congress in the next midterms. Dems take the house, make Obama the next Speaker. Trump and Pence are both simultaneously impeached. Boom! President Obama names Hillary to the Supreme Court.

        • Wapiti

          There’s a twist I’d never considered bypassing the term limits thru the House. You’d have to take the Senate, though, to successfully impeach the two odious ones.

          • jmauro

            It would only work if there are less than 2 years left in the current term. Else it would go to the Senate President Pro Tempore, currently Hatch.

            • Donalbain

              Why do you think that. The line of succession has no time limits on it.

              • Colin Day

                But eligibility to be President does (see Amendment XXII)

                • Donalbain

                  No. Only eligibility for being ELECTED. It says nothing about assuming the office any other way.

        • pylon

          I was thinking about this. Also works with Hillary as Speaker and Obama on SCOTUS.

        • sam

          You do not need to be a sitting member of Congress to be elected Speaker of the House. They can pick anyone for that role.

          This has been part of my earlier fantasy 2018 Clinton presidency scenario – She gets the speakership in 2018, and then Trump and Pence are both impeached/removed.

      • randy khan

        There’s definitely some doubt as to whether Obama (or G.W. Bush, for that matter) could be Vice President, but it’s worth noting the specific language of the 12th and 22nd amendments related to this question:

        12th: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

        22nd: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

        The 22nd Amendment does not limit eligibility to be President; it simply limits eligibility to be elected President. So, as suggested above, someone who becomes President by virtue of succession, rather than election, cannot be precluded from sitting by the 22nd Amendment (but might not be able to run for re-election). That takes in the Speaker of the House scenario. I think it’s also a better reading to say that the 22nd Amendment did not change the eligibility requirements to be elected Vice President, since it does not mention the Vice President at all, and the 12th Amendment already set the VP requirements.

  • twbb

    I would love for her to win, but I would hate for her to run.

    I would, however, love for her to suggest for the next 4 years that she’s going to run, fundraise, etc.., then at the last minute step aside and endorse Gillibrand or Brown or Warner, then laugh uproariously at the RWNJs as they realize their latest 4 years of smearing was pointless.

    • D. C. Sessions

      Oh, so very much this.

      Let the word be quietly spread among the serious Democratic potential candidates and let them bravely oppose her on the grounds cited. Then, come time for the primaries, Clinton drops out and plays Grandma.

    • Wapiti

      Aye, providing top cover and sucking all of the oxygen out of the RWNJ bloviating.

    • Matt McIrvin

      She actually doesn’t even need to suggest this; people are going to insist that she’s running even if she spends the next four years vehemently denying it. Maybe especially then. This is a pattern that’s appeared before.

    • efgoldman

      I would, however, love for her to suggest for the next 4 years that she’s going to run, fundraise, etc..,

      Theoretically, to follow on Paul’s point, sure, what fun.
      Realistically, it would suck a lot of necessary attention, time, and money from the “real” candidates.

      • twbb

        I don’t want the “real” candidates being paid too much attention; the less time the RWNJ fake news has to concoct idiotic conspiracy theories, and the less time the hacks at the NY Times have to concoct idiotic bothsidesdoitshadowscloudsquestions stories, the better.

        Though I definitely don’t want her sucking the money. Maybe convince people donate to the I’m With Her SuperPAC, then have all that money eventually go to Sherrod Brown or whoever.

        • Rob in CT

          You know, I hadn’t thought of this before…

          Huh. If we assume that political “oxygen” is a thing that can be sucked out of a room, perhaps it would be good for Hillary to remain the chew-toy of the Right until close to the election. Draw their fire, Hillary!

          ;)

          • Hogan

            Take one for the team! I mean, yet another one, in addition to the ones you’ve already taken.

  • Incontinentia Buttocks

    I really don’t want her to run, both because I think there’ll be stronger candidates for 2020 and because another Clinton candidacy would tear the Democratic Party apart.

    But I know exactly where you’re coming from here. Especially regarding hysterical reactions to her refusal to just disappear.

    • My feelings, too.

    • kvs

      I know where he’s coming from but I disagree wholeheartedly. We don’t need a more spiteful politics.

      • Origami Isopod

        Nah. We all need to take off the damn kid gloves already.

        • so-in-so

          Getting out of the defensive crouch/compromising with people who won’t compromise is key. I don’t think we will get to the point of nominating an incompetent idiot like Dump just to piss off the RWers. We don’t have to, any competent Democrat will do the job nicely.

          • Origami Isopod

            Well, yes.

            Personally I don’t think it’d be a good idea for HRC to run again, for a variety of reasons. I’d actually dread the campaign season, not enjoy it, because all the misogyny last year wore me down. But I see where Campos is coming from, I really do.

            • Matt McIrvin

              Yeah. As it is, I’m already worried that Kirsten Gillibrand will be fatally impeded by being too reminiscent of Hillary Clinton.

              • Rob in CT

                Sorta kinda protégé, therefore really just a younger Hitlery, therefore frothing hatred.

                Plausible.

        • kvs

          Sure. But there’s a difference between playing hardball and being motivated solely or primarily by a desire to antagonize.

      • Chetsky

        We most assuredly do, until the Nazis learn their lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article

        • kvs

          Taking direct action against Nazis is different than choosing a political leader just because they’ll piss off our political opponents.

  • McAllen

    I’m choosing to focus this kind of energy on Gillibrand, who has a lot of Clinton’s advantages in the pettiness department, but is also a much stronger candidate for 2020.

  • Sebastian_h

    We learned from Trump that name recognition alone can suck up the oxygen from other potential candidates.

    She lost lots of key ground in key constituencies–white blue collar workers especially. She lost a little ground in other key constituencies–black people and Hispanics. She lost a little in turnout.

    She failed against the most disliked Republican candidate in decades. And made it close enough that something like Comey could make a difference.

    Right at the time when we need to be discovering and fostering our new progressive leaders she is sucking up any media time they might possibly get.

    That has nothing to do with ‘tradition’ or ‘women’. It has to do with realizing you have to win if you want to govern.

    • Right at the time when we need to be discovering and fostering our new progressive leaders she is sucking up any media time they might possibly get.

      This really just isn’t true.

      • sibusisodan

        Has anyone seen a woman taking this line on LGM? Or a man saying it about Sanders?

        • Shantanu Saha

          I’m a man, and I have taken this line on Sanders since he lost the primary around this time last year.

          • Matt McIrvin

            The Sanders 2020 movement terrifies me. Especially since it seems to be tied up with the Young Turks/DemExit movement to destroy the Democratic Party.

            • efgoldman

              The Sanders 2020 movement terrifies me.

              Whatever Bernie or his anointed successor tries to do, they’re going to have to do it outside the apparatus of the Democratic party.
              I don’t think he’s running again, for reasons outlined many times. I DEFINITELY don’t think the Bernie-ites will have any significant number of primary votes or influence. They will be loud, they may be scary, but they will end up as a fringe third party irritant, like the Steiniacs.

              • Murc

                Whatever Bernie or his anointed successor tries to do, they’re going to have to do it outside the apparatus of the Democratic party.

                This seems unlikely.

          • Murc

            And you’re just as wrong as the people who want Clinton to shut up and slink away into the shadows.

      • Rob in CT

        I’m also uncertain regarding the “we” in that post. If this is the same Sebastian I think it is…

        • Ronan

          was bout to say the same. Seb H is a conservative/libertarian afaik(not saying that disparagingly, but that’s always been his schtick)

          • Sebastian_h

            I’ve voted for Democrats all of the last three cycles and registered as one since sometime mid-Obama.

            I’m open to seeing the government capture critique when it does stupid things for the sake of industries that pay to play. Which admittedly is the strongest libertarian critique.

            I think there sometimes are wrong ways to do things even with good intentions.

            So yes I’m a conservative temperament Democratic voter (also gay enough to get chased by thugs (white thugs) who appeared to want to beat the crap out of me in the middle of the night during a weekend when there were at least three incidents of gay bashing nearby in the 90s if we need to flesh out identity politics).

            I think we would be better served (in the sense of the country doing better by electing effective Democrats) by focusing on effective leaders of the future, not spending political time/energy/media space on ineffective leaders of the past. If that “we” isn’t good enough for you, great I guess. Purity politics for the win?

            As a practical matter, leaders don’t usually just emerge, often they are fostered. The Democratic Party in general, and the Clinton wing of it in particular, has done an abysmal job of fostering future leaders. I’m not sure exactly why this is so, though I have some semi-informed guesses.

            Focus isn’t an infinite resource. We are currently focusing a weird amount of attention on someone who isn’t going to be very helpful in getting out of this mess.

            • liberal

              Agree. It’s amusing how if you point this out, you must worship Bernie, or be a right-wing troll, or…

            • Rob in CT

              I’d rather you be with us than against us.

            • mpowell

              A lot of left-liberal types are not 100% sure whether they want to win more elections or move the party further left. Sometimes they convince themselves they can do both at the same time. They tend not to be very welcoming to your type, which you already know. They tend to really hate it when the center-left points out that moving towards the center is almost always the best path to winning more elections.

              • Ronan

                well on my part I thought Id explicitly seen Seb H call himself a conservative libertarian in the past and (I guess assumed) he was rep.
                I stand corrected though.

              • Rob in CT

                What’s funny about this is that I’m typically accused (not without some justification) of being one of those center-left types.

                Glad to have Sebastian aboard. I haven’t interacted with him (much? at all?) in years, though, likely dating back to before he was a Dem (note: mid-Obama years).

                I’m a convert too (albeit about a decade earlier), so I’m not throwing stones. That’s fine. But last I knew, Sebastian was a both sides do it libertarian type.

              • Murc

                They tend to really hate it when the center-left points out that moving towards the center is almost always the best path to winning more elections.

                The Republicans have proven definitively that you absolutely do not need to move to the center to win elections about half the time, which is, historically, an extremely good average.

                This casts doubt on the premise we need to pivot to the center ever. It will have an effect at the margins but not doing so won’t cost us a statistically significant amount of power, I don’t think, and the tradeoff would be that when we did get power we’d get much better policy.

              • Sebastian_h

                I’m not really saying that the Democratic Party needs to move to the center or the left or whatever. That is a totally different question which sort of depends on what you think is ‘left’ and ‘center’ depending on the topic. I’m saying that we need to move on from Clinton.

            • Ronan

              “If that “we” isn’t good enough for you, great I guess. Purity politics for the win?”

              No. i don’t care as it (1) doesn’t effect me (2) i wouldn’t care anyway. I was just surprised to see you identify as Dem.(and at least implicitly as a progressive)

              • Rob in CT

                Right.

      • randy khan

        Yeah, it’s not like Gillibrand didn’t get a big cover story in a quasi-national magazine (New York, but it’s got national scope in the Internet age) just a couple of months ago.

    • Tom in BK

      Yay for you, for providing the stupidest commentary imaginable so early in the thread.

    • Murc

      We learned from Trump that name recognition alone can suck up the oxygen from other potential candidates.

      We learned no such thing, unless you’re making the banal point “name recognition can be a big help in getting your foot in the door.”

      Right at the time when we need to be discovering and fostering our new progressive leaders she is sucking up any media time they might possibly get.

      By continuing to exist and to speak out on issues of importance to her! HOW DARE SHE.

      If you’re not good enough to get a foothold in Democratic politics despite the presence of party elder statesmen, you don’t have the political skills required to become president, period. It would be different if you were actively being repressed, kept down, but “these other people continue to exist and do what they do” is a poor reason.

      • CP

        If you’re not good enough to get a foothold in Democratic politics despite the presence of party elder statesmen, you don’t have the political skills required to become president, period.

        This.

        All the whining about the Clinton Machine and its stranglehold on the party that’s been done for the last two years ignored the fact that all the advantages she supposedly got as an “establishment,” “insider,” “elder stateswoman” of the Democratic Party didn’t prevent her from getting her ass handed to her in 2008 by Barack Obama, who was even more of an outsider than Bernie Sanders.

        • liberal

          Yeah, that’s because (1) Obama had a brilliant team, at least at the time, (2) she’s a crappy politician. Just because she lost in 2008 doesn’t mean the Clinton machine didn’t have a huge influence (if not stranglehold).

          • randy khan

            I understand the need to say she’s a lousy politician, but that’s basically just projection on her because she lost. You are not a lousy politician if you come within a whisker of getting nominated for President in one election and get nominated pretty handily and win the popular vote in another.

            • Sebastian_h

              There are lots of different political skills. I think she is brilliant at intra-party machine politics. That could work great when running in a clearly Democratic state, or when she never has to deal with Republican leaning voters (see for example NY, which is why she chose it despite never having any real connection there).

              She is terrible at dealing with people who don’t already agree with her.

              • randy khan

                Which is why she received about 2/3 of the vote in her Senate re-election campaign, since she couldn’t get anyone who wasn’t already a Dem to vote for her. She actually spent a huge amount of time in New York reaching out to people who weren’t her natural constituents, and it worked. Not to mention that the polling data showed that she actually connected very well with people when in unfiltered contexts like the debates and her DNC speech. (My top criticism of the campaign actually is that they should have spent more time on objectively pro-Hillary advertising – her talking about what she wanted to do and why people matter to her – to break through the media noise.)

                But leaving that aside, in the current environment at the national level, pretty much no candidate gets a lot of people who don’t already agree with the candidate.

      • tsam

        Yeah, a lot of people still buy into the myth of some naif coming out of nowhere and winning the presidency, and a national health plan happening right away. It’s kind of maddening. The gatekeeping and bullshit that the elder statesmen pull can be frustrating too, but it’s always been part of the process.

    • CP

      Right at the time when we need to be discovering and fostering our new progressive leaders she is sucking up any media time they might possibly get.

      No, she didn’t. She’s given, what, two interviews? And spoken at a graduation ceremony once. That’s it. That’s all she’s done since losing the election. Everything that’s been spun out of that has been done by a media so neurotically obsessed with Clinton-bashing that they’ve been turning Chelsea Clinton writing a children’s book into proof that she’s going to run for office.

      If you’re saying that the topic of Hillary Clinton is sucking up media time that might otherwise be going to new talent, I won’t necessarily disagree, but that’s not on her. It’s on a media that simply won’t let go of its favorite chew toy even after it’s patently obvious that there’s nothing left to chew on.

      • q-tip

        “No, she didn’t. She’s given, what, two interviews? And spoken at a graduation ceremony once. That’s it.”
        EXACTLY. This “Hilary go away” stuff has jumped the gun.

    • tsam

      Where is this O2 deprivation narrative coming from? It appears coordinated, and is quite obviously bullshit.

      Get the fuck off Hillary Clinton’s goddamn back ya fucking pricks.

      • N__B

        Where is this O2 deprivation narrative coming from?

        Autoerotic asphyxiation among the chattering classes.

        • tsam

          Don’t they know that’s dangerous? I mean, I got no issue with kinks, but get some discrete help, FFS.

          • N__B

            If Chris Cilizza were to accidentally hang himself while jerking, it would be a sad day. In no way would a smile flit across my face.

            • tsam

              It wouldn’t be the giganticest, most apt metaphor for his career that ever existed either.

          • Colin Day

            I’m pretty sure they need continuous help.

    • DAS

      “She failed against the most disliked Republican candidate in decades.” Most disliked by whom? Disliked by the majority of Americans to be sure, but many people were excited to vote for a candidate who said the quiet part out loud.

  • SV

    YES. In fact, all other things being equal, I would prefer a female candidate over a male, a POC over a white person, etc. Just because it’s been so long with 95% white guys.
    But also they would likely have more empathy than the privileged wankers who have always had everything and think it’s because they’re better.

    • kped

      Also…the last couple of white male Presidents (Trump, Bush) show that us white guys need a time out from that office.

      • Lurking Canadian

        I’m increasingly of the opinion that white men need a time out from voting. Not sure if it should be about 90 years (Constitution to 15th Amendment), about 140 years (Constitution to 19th Amendment) or about 185 years (Constitution to VRA), but I think it’s only fair to give women and minorities a turn at running the show without help.

        • Nepos

          Y’know, I’d gladly support this idea. Living in a red state, my vote is basically irrelevant, so giving it up in return for stripping white men of the franchise would totally be worth it.

    • SatanicPanic

      Kamala Harris! Oh they would hate her.

    • Slothrop2

      This is just silly. She’s not some kind of feminist. She is a white-man war monger trapped inside the body of a woman.

      For everyone who voted for her during the primaries, you suck.

      • sibusisodan

        > This is just silly: She’s not some kind of feminist.

        FTFY.

        • Slothrop2

          By this logic, Jeanne Kirkpatrick all the way!

          No, HRC is a woman, but her politics are straight-up boys club. It’s like trying to figure out the difference between a plate of slimehead or orange roughy.

          • Justin Runia

            Ah, the sweet strains of virgin / whore feminism, it’s been a while since I’ve heard your call.

      • Origami Isopod

        Gender essentialism, of course, is the feminist-iest thing to ever feminist.

      • liberal

        Agree about the war monger comment.

        Problem is that many people here think turning Libya into a fucking no-state shithole is a positive.

        She has foreign policy CRED!!1!

        • Bootsie

          > Problem is that many people here think turning Libya into a fucking no-state shithole is a positive.

          Ah yes, the great puppet master Hillary CLinton who forced Gaddafi to start shooting protesters and start a civil war.

          • JMP

            And of course joining a coalition to help the existing revolution being lead by France? That was all Hillary Clinton’s fault.

            Really, attacks on her based on Libya prove the derangement of the person making the attacks, considering how tangential a role the US had there.

      • JMP

        Oh do fuck off with the stupid disproven talking points. Clinton has a long history of feminism, plus the misogyny reeking from the “she’s a white man trapped in the body of a woman” comment kind of proves that to be completely disingenuous, and the ridiculous lie that she’s a “war monger” is just ridiculous bullshit thrown by the fauxgressive Greenwald crowd to try and hide the real reason they hated her, because she dared to be a woman.

        • Slothrop2

          Oh do fuck off and read feministing.

          • randy khan

            I dealt with these stupid talking points from Bernistas on Facebook all spring and summer, and they’re still stupid. And to be really blunt, essentially nobody chooses who to vote for based on foreign policy (not to mention that anyone who did so in 2016 would have been insane to vote for Trump).

            • Slothrop2

              Sanders was at least a way out of the wilderness of identity politics by focusing on socioeconomic divisions/class consciousness. But no, we had to have the politician who nobody liked. Brilliant.

              • randy khan

                This talking point is as silly as the earlier ones.

                Sanders was a guy who couldn’t figure out that the Democratic coalition’s most reliable members are people of color, and who spent a surprising amount of the campaign arguing that addressing class issues was essentially the only issue that mattered, which was not music to their ears. Meanwhile, Clinton managed to take positions that addressed both socioeconomic/class and racial issues, so it obviously was not impossible.

                Also, I’d really prefer it if people who claim to be progressive didn’t adopt the nomenclature of the opposition. It’s not that hard, you know.

  • Murc

    Right?

    I’ve been saying for months that my lizard brain wants this. Hillary in 2020: surprise, MAGAs! I bet you thought you’d seen the last of me!

    Other things it wants: Michelle and/or Barack Obama taking down Rauner in Illinois. Chuck Schumer refusing to ever say “President Trump” without making air quotes with his hands.

    Some of those things wouldn’t be a good idea or would be counter-productive, but man would they send a thrill up my leg.

    • Rob in CT

      Oh, for sure.

      My lizard brain wants to rub their* noses in it.

      * – a very broad category, sadly.

      It’s not productive, but hey that’s what fantasies are for, amirite?

    • kvs

      Politics as scripted by Linda and Vince McMahon.

      • Origami Isopod

        Naughty, naughty liberals. How dare we express any vindictive fantasies on a mid-level political blog after decades of vindictive conservative behavior. We are lowering the tone. Hand me my smelling salts, Jeeves.

        • kvs

          No, this isn’t about tone or being naughty.

          This is just hypocrisy.

          • Origami Isopod

            It would be if Campos were seriously suggesting it. Not stating outright that it’s just a fantasy and heavily indicating that this is not how he chooses to do politics IRL.

            • kvs

              No, that doesn’t resolve the hypocrisy. That’s just the political equivalent of repressing fetish desire because it’s taboo.

              • Murc

                So basically, it doesn’t matter what we do, only how pure our innermost soul is.

                Gotcha.

              • JMP

                So we’re not even allowed to have impure thoughts. Really, fuck that shit.

                • randy khan

                  Even if we admit to lust in our hearts?

                • Murc

                  I don’t know about you, but my lust is located about a foot below my heart.

                  If you know what I mean.

                  (i mean my junk)

  • Jhoosier

    I guess we haven’t had a 400+ post in a while.

    Also, agreed on all accounts.

  • Brien Jackson

    I get the feeling. I’m settling for the recognition that Clinton is pretty quickly going to settle into the elder statesperson role and fairly quickly go down as one of the most admired, respected, and beloved political figures in American history. And that will drive her haters BONKERS.

    • Ronan

      This is even more unlikely than the OP.

      • Tom in BK

        I’d say in 20 years, that’s the likely narrative. If we’re still here, of course.

        • Ronan

          ‘one of the most admired, respected, and beloved political figures in American history..’

          Maybe, she will be remembered fondly enough. That seems reasonable.

      • humanoid.panda

        Is it? When she left State, this was exactly what she was..

        • Ronan

          Well, Ill eat my words come the initiation of Hillary Day .

        • Mellano

          Her reputation is guaranteed to go up among future generations, if we have any, because a lot of what drove her unpopularity won’t make sense outside of an active political battlefield.

          You can put her work as a First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and Democratic nominee in history books. If/when a female President is elected, Clinton’s “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” line will be replayed a gazillion times. Etc. Yeah, there will be negatives — AUMA, cough cough — but the right wing noise machine has relied on innuendo and name calling to drive her unpopularity. They’ll be busy smearing other people in the future.

          Plus, in a just world, conventional wisdom (outside of the raving right-wing base) will settle on the 2016 election as bizarre and/or criminal circumstances allowed an indefensible incompetent into the White House. So there’ll be the “what might have been” factor with a Hillary Clinton administration.

          • Domino

            While I agree with most of what you wrote, except this:

            So there’ll be the “what might have been” factor with a Hillary Clinton administration.

            If we’re being honest, it would go exactly like how Obama’s 2nd term went – a Congress that doesn’t want to work with her, will constantly state that the only things preventing the GOP from giving Americans the greatest healthcare bill ever is her reluctance to agree to charging people with pre-existing conditions more money.

            I agree with Chait’s article from a couple of months ago – at the end of Trump, the GOP is likely going to have wised Hillary actually won the election.

            • Mellano

              Oh absolutely, it would have been a knife fight for four years, at least.

              I just meant that once there’s some distance — and assuming Trump’s administration has nowhere to go but down from its current depths — the comparison of a hypothetical Clinton administration with the actual clusterf–k we got will further burnish Hillary’s reputation down the road, sort of the way Kennedy can be remembered as the glamorous figure who was going to pull the U.S. out of Vietnam before things went south.

    • liberal

      …fairly quickly go down as one of the most admired, respected, and beloved political figures in American history.

      LOL. Yeah…she had one of the most amazing records in the Senate, and her yes vote on the Iraqi AUMF and her role in destroying Libya will surely go down in history as a tale of amazing courage and insight.

      • Shantanu Saha

        Because, as we know, she was the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. And she encouraged Qaddafi to start murdering his entire population just so she could get four Americans killed in Benghazi. The horror!

      • JMP

        Sigh. She was one of the majority of Democratic Senators to vote for the authorization, yet you keep pretending she was the only one; and the US was barely in the Libyan civil war, so to try and claim that was entirely the fault of the US Secretary of State is proof of pure Clinton Derangement Syndrome, not to mention the belief that no other countries have agency and the US is responsible for that happens in the world. Not to mention the implication that Ghaddafi’s dictatorship was somehow positive.

        Seriously, this is fucking deranged lunacy here to justify pre-existing hatred of a very talented, intelligent, honest and ethical public servant.

        • so-in-so

          You are on a roll here JMP – good work!

          Oh yeah, “liberal” probably hates ALL Democrats, so HRC being part of the majority doesn’t matter a bit.

    • Murc

      I’m settling for the recognition that Clinton is pretty quickly going to settle into the elder statesperson role and fairly quickly go down as one of the most admired, respected, and beloved political figures in American history.

      This… this seems very unlikely. The justification for it seems next to nonexistent. “One of the most admired, respect, and beloved figures in American history” is of course a subjective category, but it includes people like Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. I don’t think Clinton has any chance of breaking into that club.

      She’s “merely” going to be a well-regarded former First Lady, Senator, and SecState. That’s more than most of us get. And of course her place in the history books is assured because she was a major party presidential nominee.

      • randy khan

        There’s no way to tell for sure, but it’s really not hard to imagine her getting to, oh, Eleanor Roosevelt levels of admiration.

  • DrDick

    I heartily endorse this post.

    • politicalfootball

      Yup. Count me in. Next time, I could even see myself supporting her over a Bernie-type candidate.

      Hillary’s shortcomings were trivial compared to other forces, most obviously the insanely corrupt media. Literally any time the media could be disintermediated, Hillary crushed it. Great convention. Three knockout debate performances. And ultimately, a nearly 3 million-vote edge.

      Campos exhibits right-wing style ressentiment here, and I’m onboard with that. But what we also need is rightwing style loathing for the media. You can be as clever as you like strategically, but if the refs are against you, you’re screwed.

      • randy khan

        It’s fascinating how people gloss over these facts – as you say, literally any time the media were disintermediated, she was successful.

  • SatanicPanic

    At this point the gloves are off for me. The right has shown themselves to be rotten with stupidity and bad faith. So I hope the next Democratic president finds a spot for her in their admin. Maybe a SCOTUS seat. Because the right is horrible and they deserve to be miserable after inflicting two straight disastrous admins on America.

    • N__B

      So I hope the next Democratic president finds a spot for her in their admin. Maybe a SCOTUS seat.

      Since we’re fantasizing, I’d like her to take a job that’s obviously beneath her and serve as President Gillibrand’s or Harris’s press secretary for, say, six months. Half the RWNJ’s will be dead of strokes.

      • UncleEbeneezer

        President Harris: I’d like to introduce you to my Special Prosecutor…

        • N__B

          That works, too.

        • SatanicPanic

          I endorse every part of this.

        • BubbaDave

          I have to go take a cold shower now.

        • Aaron Morrow

          MY GAWD, THAT’S CLINTON’S MUSIC!!!

    • Murc

      Maybe a SCOTUS seat.

      Far too old.

      • SatanicPanic

        We’re talking about Hillary running again just to troll the RWNJs, but putting her on SCOTUS is a bridge too far for this daydream session? I want my money back!

        • Rob in CT

          I have dealbreakers vis-à-vis suspension of disbelief like this in movies/books all the time. Like, ok, there’s magic and this and that and the other thing I’m with that, but COME ON…

          ;)

          • N__B

            Wonder Woman and Steve what’s-his-face fall asleep in a sailboat in the Aegean and wake up the next morning in the Thames. Good movie overall, but c’mon.

            • tsam

              It’s not in the Aegean. It’s obviously in the English Channel because how did Steve what-his-beak get there in a tiny fighter he stole from Belgium???

              • N__B

                The base where he stole the plane was in Turkey. He blew it up with a grenade tossed out the plane, so the super-sekret gas production moved to Belgium.

                • tsam

                  Oh. Well then forget everything I just said, k?

                • N__B

                  OTOH, I’ve got to say that going to war sitting in a box kite with an engine takes …something… that I’ve not got.

                • tsam

                  Having seen a plane of that vintage up close (more or less a fabric stretched over a skeleton), I’m gonna hafta go ahead and agree with you on that.

                • Lurking Canadian

                  OTOH, I’ve got to say that going to war sitting in a box kite with an engine takes …something… that I’ve not got.

                  Especially before they got the interrupter gear working. Bad enough the other guy is shooting at you without (1) shooting your own propeller to bits or (2) shooting while hoping your newly armored propeller won’t reflect the bullet back into your face.

                • Rob in CT

                  Right!?

                  Or, alternatively, shooting a gun that is mounted on the wing, necessitating that you stand up to fire it…

                  Also, you’re most likely flying a plane powered by a rotary engine, producing a constant pull down & to the right, which you must counteract with rudder/flaps.

                  Don’t dive too step or the wings will break. Don’t bank too hard either, same problem. You probably don’t have a parachute or, if you do, much chance of using it.

                  And so on.

                • tsam

                  Those pilots were still in better shape than guys who had duty in those early tanks, and even the M60s of WWII era. Fucking deathtraps, and horrible speed and agility. I think I’d take my chances with the motorized kite over being burned alive or suffocated by fumes, or deaf and blind, or stuck in a muddy ditch under siege until you surrender or die.

                • so-in-so

                  Actually, tsam, many of those kite pilots had the choice of burning to death or falling to their death – the kites burned easily. The WWII tank was the M3 and M4, Lee and Sherman, and they fixed the burning problem by mid-war (as much as any WWII tank, there was no Abrams style fire suppression of course).

                • tsam

                  Strictly from a pick-your-poison from the comfort of your armchair, I feel like I’d take my chances with the airplane. But then maybe not–being 1000 feet up and on fire is like double-plus bad.

                • so-in-so

                  Then there was the WWII era Willie and Joe cartoon, two infantry men digging a fox hole while a Sherman tank rolls by. One says to the other “I dunno Joe, I’d rather dig. A movin’ fox hole attracts the eye.”

            • NonyNony

              I just assumed that the magical island of the Amazons was located in some other world and where they got dumped out didn’t match the spot where Trevor came in. After all it can’t really be in the Aegean because by WWI many people would have bumped into it accidentally over the years if it was that easy to pierce its cover.

              Maybe it could have used a spot of exposition there to cover it, but then again maybe not. Most people seem to be willing to just roll with the mythical aspects of it and ignore it, so why clutter it up with exposition? (Admittedly I’m used to Themyscira working that way as a long-term comics reader so I didn’t even realize it was potentially an issue until a friend who is not a comics reader mentioned it).

              • N__B

                It didn’t really bother me that much. It just seemed like relying on magic for no reason, as opposed to the large chunks of plot that require magic to make sense.

              • tsam

                I just went with it and loved the whole movie. It was pretty fucking awesome.

                • N__B

                  Yup.

                  Except for that damned sailboat.

              • Dave Empey

                Couldn’t you just assume that it took them 3 weeks (or however long it would have taken) to sail to London?

              • llennhoff

                I assumed that the magic that hid the Island completely was greatly reduced in effectiveness when Diana first did her power blast thing. The fact that the first men ever to find Paradise Island did so immediately afterwards was a tip off.

                The big logic hole to me is what happened to everyone on the German ship that didn’t attack the island? I assume it just pulled back and went off to report, but we don’t see any consequences. I see daves09 also asked this question.

                I agree with those who say that where you leave the Island may have little to do with where you entered.

            • daves09

              My big question: what happened to the battle cruiser that chases Steve to the island?

              • rea

                battle cruisers tended to blow up.

            • Just_Dropping_By

              I haven’t seen the movie, but in the comics Themyscira is usually shown as existing outside of normal space/time and, depending on the requirements of the plot, can be reached from just about anywhere on Earth in short order.

          • Hogan

            Everybody has a flying snowman.

        • Lurking Canadian

          Not a bridge too far. The goal is to piss off the right. Putting H. Clinton on the Supreme Court is a problem because it doesn’t piss the conservatives off ENOUGH. She’ll die too soon.

          If you want to piss them off by appointing justices they won’t like, you need to pick Lena Dunham.

          • SatanicPanic

            Oh I love that idea. How about we expand my daydream so that when Hillary and Lena are nominated we have a compliant Senate and president that is packing the SCOTUS. So Hillary and Lena are justices ten and eleven. For justices twelve through fifteen I’d nominate John Podesta, Rachel Maddow and, I dunno, does George Soros have any kids?

          • so-in-so

            A pity there is no ministry of culture. Maybe they can create one and make Dunham the first minister?

            Oh – make her head of the FCC!

    • D. C. Sessions

      SCOTUS? Please, no.

      For that we need someone who has both the hours and the years to devote to the job.

      On the other hand, she has an amazing network and superlative information on damn near everyone. If I were heading for the general election I can’t imagine anyone I’d like better to head the transition team and propose candidates for judgeships — including SCOTUS.

      • Donalbain

        Let her sit on the Court for three years and then retire so President Whoever cam stick Michelle there for the next 30 years.

  • tsam

    Oh shit. Buckle your seatbelt

  • tsam

    But what I like even less is the rampant sexism that is so obviously driving the hysterical reactions among both leftier than thou types and plenty of mainstream liberals to Clinton’s decision not to exile herself permanently from public life.

    Take this statement as true
    Add the right’s deranged hatred of her
    Add the center’s hatred for her because the media feeds the right’s hatred and the dynasty narrative
    Add voter suppression
    Add (x for unknown factors like Russian interference)
    Add rising political violence.

    All unfair, but all factors that hamstring her chances of winning.

  • Hayden Arse

    As long as we are being unrealistic, for RWNJ trolling at it’s best, Murdoch’s kids should replace Hannity with Hillary.

  • Thrax

    Yeah, no. She’d be a good president, but at this point, fairly or unfairly–mostly the latter–there’s too much baggage for her to run a successful campaign. Would vote for Warren, Gillibrand, or Klobuchar over Clinton without thinking twice.

    • Rob in CT

      Oh sure, so would I. This is purely emotional.

      • Thrax

        If it helps, I’m guessing that electing Warren would cause just as much angst and rage on the right as electing Clinton. And by the time the campaign is done and all the tribal hatreds have been stoked, electing Gillibrand, Klobuchar, or pretty much any other qualified woman would probably achieve the same end. (I do think that electing a woman–particularly a tough, outspoken one–would push buttons on the right that electing a man would not, even if the man had exactly the same policy positions.)

        • Rob in CT

          For me, this isn’t really about pissing off the Right.

          It’s more about getting something right, after having it go so wrong. Rubbing some noses in it is secondary for me.

          After 9/11, my preferred response was to refuse to panic and to rebuild the Twin Towers exactly as they were (with the exception of structural upgrades to make them tougher to bring down/safer in general). I think this reaction is somewhat similar.

    • liberal

      She’d be a good president…

      Well, considering what’s on offer, yes.

      But she’s way too hawkish to have been a good president.

      • Murc

        By this rubric we have never had a good president.

        • Q.E.Dumbass

          But this is different because she totally would’ve started a war with Russia, see?

  • so-in-so

    I don’t know that I actually want her to run again, I do really wish she were in the WH right now.

    And that all GOP pols would die in a fire.

  • aturner339

    I can’t say I hate the out and out right wing. They certainly don’t work my nerves as much as the concern trolls. On the whole I find being manipulative more disgusting than being anti egalitarian. A matter of taste. I don’t have any particular desire to see Hillary run but the nonsense over her “oxygen hogging” is pure concern trolling.

    What I’d really like to see is an end to the eternal search for the reasonable conservative. This is them being reasonable. They just have irreconcilable aims for the county.

    • tsam

      I can’t say I hate the out and out right wing.

      You’re a better person than I am. They used to at least pretend to be shocked and horrified by white supremacist violence. They’re absolutely embracing and encouraging it now. Honestly, I’d as soon haul out about 100 of them and put them down as trying to beat back their bullshit and watch my brothers and sisters live in fear of them.

      • aturner339

        Helps to be from Birmingham. They never really pretended all that well.

        • tsam

          Ah–makes sense. I live in the whitest of white places, so I never really witnessed much of that during my formative years. But having my eyes opened to how bad it really is has got me itching for a fight, which I admit is stupid, but that’s where I am.

    • Origami Isopod

      I can’t say I hate the out and out right wing. They certainly don’t work my nerves as much as the concern trolls.

      I hate them both, but it’s different kinds of hate. The far-right scares me and motivates me politically. The concern/civility trolls just infuriate me. They’re supposedly on my side, but the only side they’re on is their preening self-regard as avatars of reasonability and respectability.

  • Fortunado

    I’m sure someone has made this observation before I had a chance to hit Publish, but the attitude you described here is the exact one that sent people out in droves to vote for Trump.

    After all, what policies is he going to pursue that will actually make their lives better? It was about sticking it to the liberals/feminists/minorities that they despise.

    • sigaba

      I think the title of the post acknowledges this.

    • Brad Nailer

      There’s a big difference between using a brainless lout like Trump to stick it to the libs, and using a Hillary-type actual politician to stick it to the wingers–which would only be value added, given that Democrats tend to concentrate on actual public policy improvements and try not to fuck things up on purpose.

    • Rob in CT

      Um, yeah. Hence the Cleek’s law reference.

      Difference being that HRC would’ve been a solid President, whereas their tribal irritable gesture resulted in know-nothing conman in the oval office.

      • Fortunado

        I’m about 50/50 on Campos references and this one flew over my head. Googling the title didn’t even yield anything.

        • cleek

          google?

          i’m right here!

          http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?page_id=18788

          • Chetsky

            Can I throw in a pitch for the pie filter, Fortunado? Used to be, I’d be forced to at least skim past slothrop2/NMAC/shithead, and it would enrage me to the point of feeding the troll. Now, they’re blocked, and every now and then when somebody has a witty comeback to one of their trolling comments, I will look at the instigating comment. But typically, I skip right on by.

            Makes reading this blog -so- much more pleasant.

            P.S. And of course, molto grazie, cleek!

            • cleek

              prego!

    • Matt McIrvin

      And he won. So…

  • sigaba

    I dispute that this is the most RNWJ-enraging outcome. They would throw themselves with gusto into investigations and nonsense, Hillary Clinton confirms too many of their priors.

    The thing that would probably piss them off the most is if someone like Susan Collins won, and then in her inaugural speech announced she was switching parties and would soon be nominating Merrick Garland.

  • Morse Code for J

    I’d vote for Hillary Clinton again with a song in my heart, but it’s a hell of a lot to ask of her.

    I don’t have any favorites among the known personalities, but I know that I do want the next Democratic nominee to bring not peace, but a sword. I want her to run on election reforms that preclude all the bullshit we’ve come to expect in Republican states and districts. I want her to run on her Attorney General indicting and convicting anybody from this administration who reached out to a foreign power to fix the past election. I want her to run on expanding the Court to 17 members, and nominate 8 3Ls to fill those seats. I want her to run on never giving an inch on any Democratic priority for comity’s sake.

    And I want any future FBI director to be more worried about what the Democrats would do to him for leaking bullshit than the fucking House Republicans.

    • BloodyGranuaile

      I agree completely.

  • socraticsilence

    Given the latest embarrassment: our President just tossed a problematic but major US ally (and basing site) under the bus on Twitter at the behest of the Saudis, I think we need to start seriously looking at the Constitutional options to remove him from office before the next election regardless of the political cost in doing so.

    • Redwood Rhiadra

      There are exactly two Constitutional options. Both of which (impeachment and the 25th Amendment removal process) MUST be initiated by Republicans. (Because Ryan determines whether any impeachment motion even gets a vote, and Pence is the one who has to declare the POTUS incapacitated.)

      There are NO Constitutional options for Democrats to remove Trump from office. NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZIP.

      And neither Ryan nor Pence is going to do SHIT, regardless of what happens.

  • tsam100

    Are we changing to Discus?

    • NonyNony

      I was going to ask the same thing. I wanted to read the 50 comments that are apparently hidden on this post too!

      • tsam

        And as quickly as that happened, it changed back. Ghost in the machine.

  • Slothrop2

    “hysterical reactions among both leftier than thou types.”

    Well well, the personal is the political and tribal politics for everyone.

    Stop being so fucking hysterical.

  • cleek

    the cleek’s Law Foundation does not official endorse this dilution of the Law’s potency.

    • NonyNony

      I wish you’d made this as a Marshall McLuhan reference.

  • Karen24

    At this point I’m all in favor of a Clinton/ RuPaul ticket. In fact, anything that makes the RW furious I endorse.

    • kvs

      Anything the Democrats do other than marching in synchronized goosestep with the GOP will make conservatives furious. While we shouldn’t avoid angering the right, since it’s as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, we also shouldn’t let goading right-wing animus be our motivation.

      These fantasies don’t serve or reflect well on anyone.

      • Origami Isopod

        Are you done waggling your finger yet? It must be getting quite tired.

        • kvs

          It’s probably less exhausting to wag my finger and tut at these masturbatory fantasies than it is to get off on them.

          I’m sure glad this community supports engaging in these fantasies and critiquing the right for doing the same.

      • Gator90

        Who the hell spends their time policing other people’s fantasies?

        I have a fantasy involving DJT’s nuts and a rabid wolverine. Fucking sue me.

        • Origami Isopod

          What did that poor wolverine ever do to you?!

  • liberal

    But what I like even less is the rampant sexism that is so obviously driving the hysterical reactions among both leftier than thou types and plenty of mainstream liberals to Clinton’s decision not to exile herself permanently from public life.

    Yawn.

    I know there’s lots of misogyny, particularly on the right, but IMHO you’re ignoring the fact that many of us resent the nepotism.

    • kvs

      Nepotism is Trump appointing his daughter and her husband to administration roles. It is not Hillary winning a Senate seat, being appointed Secretary of State by Barack not-a-Clinton Obama, and winning the party nomination through a series of primary elections and caucuses.

      • so-in-so

        Thank you! Plus “I’m not a misogynist, I hate the family connections” is the fake-leftist version of the RW’s “I’m not racist, I hate Obama’s white side too.”.

    • SatanicPanic

      I feel like your comment makes the opposite point of the point you’re trying to make.

    • Chetsky

      It’s not nepotism, and you’re not a liberal, sweet cheeks.

      When WJC was just a governor, Hillz was one of the best lawyers in America. When WJC ran for Prez, we all knew Hillz was the smarter one, and we all liked that we’d be getting her too. Here’s a joke from 1993:

      Q: What’s the difference between GWHB and WJC?
      A: WJC married Hillary.

      So kindly take that nepotism and stuff it someplace dark.

      • Bootsie

        > and you’re not a liberal

        Of course he’s not. He’s a -leftist-.

      • Nepos

        Anyone who feels the need to put “liberal” in their username almost certainly isn’t one. After all, if they were actually liberal, it would be obvious from their posts.

        • Origami Isopod

          See also: ProgressiveLiberal

          • Nepos

            That particular user name reminds me of Voltaire’s observation about the Holy Roman Empire.

            • Q.E.Dumbass

              At least as expositive is that — without any prompting– he pooh-poohs the idea that sexism on the left could be a nontrivial factor in anti-Clinton pearl-clutching.

              And relevant.

    • Aaron Morrow

      So, your argument is that you want us to ignore, or even to absolve your misogyny?

      Uh, no.

      Yawn

      Even you’re bored of your hate reflexes!

  • Joe_JP

    Do great in 2018 elections.

    Impeach Trump and Pence. (Twists can include Trump resigning, evidence coming out implicating Pence leading him resigning etc.).

    Eventually the Speaker of the House … now Nancy Pelosi … is POTUS.

    • Rob in CT

      And she’s almost as much of a RW hate object as Hillary is.

  • NonyNony

    I love how many people on this thread don’t get the joke.

    Especially the ones who the joke is aimed at who are very upset at the very idea of it all. Their responses are hysterically funny all up and down this thread.

    I see that so far Dilan has not posted. I wonder if its because he’s not been by the site yet, or if he realizes that there is no way to respond to this thread without looking like he’s been punked.

    • Q.E.Dumbass

      That’s because his much dumber counterpart (who’s two subthreads/comments above yours) has done Dilan’s work for him. How often has Dilan complained about “nepotism,” by-the-by?

      • Dilan Esper

        I have complained about it, but it’s not near my main issue with the Clintons. Honestly, if we were talking about a left wing anti-corporate, anti-war political family, I still wouldn’t like the dynastic aspects of it, but I wouldn’t oppose them with any vehemence.

        The future leaders of the Democratic Party need to come from the left, not the center. And they need to be younger-Sanders and Biden and Warren should not be nominated either.

        • Q.E.Dumbass

          Well the point I was trying to make (in an intentionally neutral post wrt you) was that, unlike the other guy, you at least will/can defend a post/argument beyond the initial post/”neener neener”/bare assertion level.

          • Dilan Esper

            Thanks. :)

    • JMP

      They’re so vain, they probably think this post is about them.

    • Dilan Esper

      I posted once. I think my points have been repeatedly aired and debated, and I frankly don’t understand why I am being invoked here. The post didn’t mention me.

    • Daglock

      Yep. The learned professor has a little bit of the troll in him today.

  • Hondo

    As pessimistic as I am, and as much as I agree with the OP, and others here in my visceral hatred of the right-wing, think Hillary’s time has passed due to her age, if for no other reason.
    And I think it’s way too early to be talking about a particular current politician who would be the best democratic candidate for 2020.
    During the next several years, and the intervening mid-terms, leaders will emerge from the democratic party during the continuing fight against the republicans. Who has the best ideas? Who presents them in a way that fires us all up and reminds us how important it is to keep fighting? By now, I would think the democrats in congress would have already proposed a bill to fix and improve the PPACA. We know it goes no where, but it still gets shopped around the country by every dem in congress, along with various economists to sell it to democratic voters. During this process, the leaders would hopefully emerge. This is just one example, there are many. Everything the republicans do is reprehensible and an opportunity to fight and show how bad their ideas are. This amounts to preaching to the choir. If some people who usually vote republican decide to come over to us, great. The others, fuck em. They are dead to us. They are an enemy to be largely ignored and defeated. One step at a time.

    • Rob in CT

      I really don’t think this is to be taken literally. It’s a feeling, not a plan.

  • ASV

    The thing is, any Democrat elected in 2020 will piss them off this much.

    • I used to think that, and maybe it’s so – maybe the right wing’s rage just gets ratcheted further up every four years without ever leveling off or subsiding, but it does seem to me that Hillary-hate is especially incandescent and illogical and specific to her.

      • so-in-so

        They have just been practicing longer. I remember hearing bits of Rushbo’s ranting during Bush the Lesser’s period of GOP congressional majority – incandescent rage that the Democrats didn’t roll over and agree at every point!

      • Rob in CT

        The key question is whether independents/swing voters feel the hate too. If they do, we lose. If they instead give the Repubs side-eye and wonder why they’re being so weird, we win.

      • muddy

        How many years ago did she speak of the “vast right wing conspiracy”? Hell her name ought to be Cassandra.

        It’s my thinking that she mainly lost because the outcome seemed to be a foregone conclusion. So protest votes seem okay. Or the person is busy or whatever and just doesn’t make that extra stop to vote. Or just wants to preserve their right to whine and say “well I didn’t vote for her”.

        Like the Brexit vote, I think people seemed surprised at the outcome, even though they had made these choices. People think, MY vote doesn’t count, why bother? But when enough people are doing the same, it does count. It’s like herd immunity.

        • Thom

          “How many years ago did she speak of the “vast right wing conspiracy”? Hell her name ought to be Cassandra.”

          19 years ago.

    • CaptServo

      I was about to post something similar. There is a level of saturation that is quickly reached in our increasingly polarized electorate. Whoever disposes of their ‘God-Emperor’ will face saturated rage. Chris Murphy would piss them off as much as Kamala Harris or Clinton.

      • Mellano

        “That g-damn socialist Joe Manchin wants to take away my guns!”

    • NonyNony

      any Democrat elected in 2020 will piss them off this much

      I think that somehow this is both true and false. Yes any competent Democrat that follows Trump to clean up his mess will make them infinitely angry, but also if that Democrat were Clinton it would make them somehow more infinitely angry.

      They are bottomless wells of rage against Democrats. Infinite reservoirs of anger and hate. The real joke about Paul’s proposal is that there’s no real way it would work – there is no way that my hatred for them can ever match their hatred for me because hate and anger exhaust me and I can’t keep them up for long, but the bulk of the right wing seems to be energized by their hatred and their anger like weird perpetual motion machines.

  • kped

    While I understand the sentiment…no, not a good idea. Have one of those up and coming people run next time, Gillerbrand or Harris especially. But Hillary will still have the same baggage, and those same “scandals” will hover. Just start fresh next time.

    • Q.E.Dumbass

      Can we compromise on an NY governorship and a thylacine burger?

  • msdc

    I have come to respect Hillary Clinton almost as much as I now respect Paul’s hatred. But no. No.

    Now Gillibrand, on the other hand…

    • cleek

      careful, too much early support and the Pure Leftists will start to think Gillibrand has been pre-chosen by the party Elite as The One.

  • petesh

    I wish HRC a very long life, with ever-increasing respect. Once Trump is interred in the ashcan of history, which cannot come too soon, this will be possible. I want buildings named for her, scholarships granted in her name, hagiographies and movies with uplifting messages. I want to hear her infectious laugh more and more; she giggles well. I completely understand the OP, but I don’t want anyone over the age of, well, me, running for President. And I’m younger than her by a couple of years.

    Incidentally, more site weirdness: until I reloaded the page i could reply but not initiate comment.

  • stonetools

    I think it’s very likely that no matter what Gillebrand does between now and 2020, she will be attacked from the right as being Clinton II. Because I am a cynical cuss., I expect a similar attack on her from the left.
    I think Klobucher, Harris and Warren may escape this , but I expect the Republicans to try to try that on them. None of the last 3 will be ore enough for the left, either-even Warren.
    And there will be some sort of fake scandal for the right to obsess over and the media to incessantly cover. Why not? It worked in 2016 and the media has told us that it covered Clinton perfectly.

  • Woke up this morning
    Wanted Hillary to run
    You may ask me why
    I’ll say it would be fun

    To see her enemies wailing
    And gnashing all their teeth
    And impotently railing
    In rage and disbelief

    Sweet revenge
    My sweet tooth for it never ends
    It could be bad for me
    But leave me with my fantasy
    Imagining a sequel
    Called “Revenge of Hillary”

  • revrick

    The late Juan Linz predicted this outcome back in 1981 in his monograph on The Perils of Presidentialism. He noted that Presidential democracies are inherently unstable.

    • Just_Dropping_By

      I’m trying to figure out what “outcome” is described in Campos’ post could have been predicted in 1981. That people will eventually vote for presidential candidates just for the sake of annoying other people?

  • Aaron Morrow

    I support giving Clinton the SCOTUS seat and having her celebrate by taking a big swig of the Fountain of Youth.

It is main inner container footer text