Heck, why not. Trump’s already the oldest president ever. Jerry Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Biden – bring 'em on!
Although of the entire Democratic field, honestly Franken looks better and better to me. Trump broke open the ‘TV personalities can be President’ thing, and Franken’s actually a smart TV personality who seems to have read the Constitution at some point.
We got the extremes because our middle failed.
Biden is not running in 2020. He’s just doing the coulda-shoulda-woulda all politicians do when they’re out to pasture.
I mean Biden is right
She was a terrible candidate and would have made a really good president. Problem is, bad candidates don’t get to be any sort of president.
Before we get all misty eyed about Uncle Joe, let’s not forget he’s a proven terrible candidate himself. He got squished by Hillary in 2008* and Michael Dukakis in 1988 - both of whom are supposed to have been terrible candidates.
*And Obama, of course. But Biden was to the right of Obama and Clinton, so he was mainly running against her.
Biden was just too goofy and open. Prone to gaffes and stupidity. So, in other words, a perfect candidate apparently.
Trump’s angle was that he was actually Joe Biden. You can’t out Everyman Joe Fucking Biden as a dude who literally shits on a gold toilet.
Normally, Joe was a bad candidate because normally being a walking gaffe machine is a bad thing.
I think he might. Every Dem in the sun is going to try running, but to win you’re going to have to have support from Berniecrats and Hillarycrats. Biden’s feistiness and ability to play populist will play well with the former group, and his track record will win support from the latter.
I don’t see any other Dem outside of Warren who could win over both sides like that.
If Biden doesn’t run the Dem civil war with be in full swing, which is probably healthier for the party in the long term, especially with the Ogre of Trump preventing a Bernie or Bust situation. Whoever the Dems pick in 2020, even if it’s someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Cory Booker (very very unlikely, but picking names that would cause revolt from one side or the other) will get a unified party behind them because of what the Republicans are doing.
The only younger Dems I could see having the same appeal are Tammy Duckworth, who supposedly is not a very dynamic candidate, or Kamala Harris.
As a native Chicagoan I approve of having Illinois Senators taking the lead.
That said, despite gladly voting for her, she doesn’t exude the same charm or charisma you saw from Obama, or even gag Trumpster Fire.
But she has a few exemplary recommendations and she couldn’t be accused of being weak or anti military.
I’ve heard she was a little charismatically challenged, but no idea how bad it is. She seemed to be pretty badass the few times I saw her though- but I tend to be charmed easily by war veteran types (I would have voted Webb over Bernie)
I often find myself thinking if it had been me losing to Trump, or if I had been Hillary, the humiliation would have been so great I could never find the courage or resiliency to face the public ever again. Yet Clinton faces up to it.
With that, a very long piece in New York magazine. I found it especially powerful.
We have fought over unanswerable questions, like whether Sanders would have won and whether Clinton was particularly mismatched to this political moment, and about badly framed conflicts between identity politics and economic issues. But postmortems offering rational explanations for how a pussy-grabbing goblin managed to gain the White House over an experienced woman have mostly glossed over one of the well-worn dynamics in play: A competent woman losing a job to an incompetent man is not an anomalous Election Day surprise; it is Tuesday in America.
The unusually prolonged pummeling is partly because Clinton’s Election Day loss was not just hers but the nation’s; her defeat this time left us not with an Obama presidency but with an out-of-control administration led by a man so inept — and so reviled — that even (some) Republicans are voicing concerns. The nation is grasping for a way to understand how we got here, and blaming Clinton wholly and neatly takes the heat off everyone else who contributed: from the critics who derided her supporters as empty-headed shills to those supporters who were cowed into secret Facebook groups; from the journalists who treated Trump as a ratings-pumping sideshow and Clinton as the suspiciously presumptive president to all of us who permitted cheerful stories about America’s progress on gender and race to blot out the real and lingering inequities in this country.
The campaign was sometimes frustrated by the fact that Clinton couldn’t play the same game as her opponents. “Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both excelled at channeling people’s anger,” says Schwerin. “And there was a way in which this anger was read as authentic. But there’s a reason why male candidates can shout and are called passionate, and if a woman candidate raises her voice to whip up a crowd, she’s screeching and yelling.” Clinton understood this, says Schwerin. “So she’s controlled. She doesn’t rant and rave, she’s careful. And then that’s read as inauthentic; it means that she doesn’t understand how upset people are, or the pain people are in, because she’s not angry in the way those guys are angry. So she must be okay with the status quo because she’s not angry.”
From here on WaPo:
Hillary Clinton’s book is due out next week. And judging by a page that was just tweeted by one of her staunchest supporters — not to mention plenty of other evidence — it’s likely to include a heaping dose of score-settling.
That includes with Bernie Sanders.
In the passage that was tweeted out Monday evening by Tom Watson, Clinton attacks some of Sanders’s supporters for being “sexist” and suggests the Vermont senator doesn’t have the Democratic Party’s true interests at heart. Most notably, she also intimates that he may not have even cared that his underhanded (in her opinion) attacks on her helped Donald Trump become president.
“When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything,” she wrote. “Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.
“I don’t know if that bothered Bernie or not.”
Clinton continues: “He certainly shared my horror at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President, and I appreciate that he campaigned for me in the general election. But he isn’t a Democrat — that’s not a smear, that’s what he says. He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”
Jesus … “everyone was to blame but meeeeee.” As someone that voted for Bernie in the primary, he stood for more of democratic values we needed, versus the centrist stand she took. She still got my vote for President, but only for the party, not because she sold me on her democratic chops.
Sour grapes much, Hillary?
I believe in her democratic chops (small d). Not sure about Democratic. But as in 2016 it felt like democracy, rather than Democrat-ness, was potentially on the line, I was glad and proud to give her my vote.
That’s just ridiculous. Republicans can somehow slug it out between 18 difference clown-car candidates for nearly two years, saying the most horrible things to each other and still unify behind Donald Trump, but Bernie Sanders somehow derails the Democratic party single-handedly?
You’ve read perhaps .5% of the book, and from that you assume that the balance of it absolves her from any responsibility? I don’t think it will. She had some tremendous flaws as a candidate, and I’m sure she’s aware of them.
Also, what she said is accurate.
I love how Clinton and her supporters are still blaming Bernie.
So embarrassing.
I’m not throwing her status as Secretary of State, Senator or First Lady under the bus. She has chops as a public servant and representative of the party. That doesn’t mean her stance on things held with values that the party has moved to. The Clintons were slow to accept marriage equality. They are on shaky ground with income and wealth inequality (aka do as I say, not as I do.) She didn’t seem to want to embrace socialized health care, aka Medicare for all, in the way that Bernie led with that.
So she had democratic values, just not the ones I had listed as my voting choices.
I will when it’s out. I want to hear her side. But for fucks sake, don’t throw out voters within the party if they didn’t vote for you during a primary. I mean …
Clinton attacks some of Sanders’s supporters for being “sexist” and suggests the Vermont senator doesn’t have the Democratic Party’s true interests at heart. Most notably, she also intimates that he may not have even cared that his underhanded (in her opinion) attacks on her helped Donald Trump become president.
Really? I’m sexist because I didn’t vote for her in the Primary?
EDIT: I’ll take on the fact that I own my issues with her as being personal when she attacks Bernie or his supporters. That doesn’t negate my statements, however.
“Some of.”
Clinton attacks some of Sanders’s supporters for being “sexist”
I think the key there is “some” rather than assuming all Bernie voters were sexist.
Yep, noted in my edit, somewhat. Still rubs me the wrong way.