Discussion:

One thing is sure, HRC is divisive enough,

aka LWV LivingWhileVagina’ed.

…a pre-existing condition.

I very much enjoyed this post, particularly the theory that so many of these so-called authors are simply holding up a mirror to their own twisted psyches. It’s quite astonishing that one woman could elicit such a reaction, but I would suggest that indicates her strength, not her weakness. No, she won’t be the perfect candidate, but lest we forget, don’t let the Perfect become the enemy of the Good. I’ll gladly cast a vote for Mrs. Clinton in 2016 if she is a candidate for office. I’m not prepared to go out on a limb and say the same thing about any of the occupants of the clown car lining up on the other side. Nope, nope, nope. The “rebranding” is a myth.

I respect your opinion and that of Little Girl Blue, but I disagree about Elizabeth Warren. I also disagree that there are a lot of republican women who would pull the lever for her, just because she’s a woman. I come from a republican family - full of women, and they all hate her. Elizabeth Warren was virtually an unknown when she ran and from what I have seen of her of late, she has a way of speaking to the masses in language they understand = a very populist message - one that Hillary has yet to convey.

I would hold my nose and vote for her if she is the party’s nominee, but I am not convinced by any stretch that she is a shoo-in

I enjoyed reading this article, as it is surely a precursor to the venom we will hear from the Right Wing if/when Clinton runs in 2016.

And as we are already hearing from the delusional (and faux) liberals who would have us chase an elusive Warren-or-bust candidacy – you know these folks; they’re the more-liberal-than-thou and holier-than-thou who nevertheless don’t have anything good to say about an actual, living Democrat.

They operate pretty much like ratf*ckers in that they invariably try to lead Democrats and liberals into blind alleys and strategic dead-ends.

To those that are sometimes called firebaggers, I say elect a liberal Congress and that would ensure that Hillary Clinton becomes a liberal president. Because without a liberal Congress, she would be limited in what she could do.

And yes, if she were nominated in 2016 I would vote for her.

Also, I had to read half-way through this article before I discovered why the headline refers to Hillary as “Deformed” and not “Defamed.”

That’s an awfully big ax you’re grinding there.

Perhaps if you put it down for a while, you might be able to deal with this factually instead of through the prism of your inchoate anger and hatred.

(edited to correct typos.)

Hillary is far from my favorite person or candidate.

That being said, she is eminently qualified, and very electable.

Those who continue to maintain that she is exactly the same as she was in the 80s or the 90s—or even in 2008—are either seriously drunk or so blinded by their dislike of her that they do not allow for the possibility that she has changed her mind on assorted issues and that she hasn’t grown as a woman and as a candidate.
That kind of “thinking” is just stupid.

The House will very likely remain in Republican hands in 2016 (unless there is a wave election—again) but the GOP will be defending 24 Senate seats, versus 9 for the Democrats.
So it is highly possible that the Senate will revert to Democratic control.

If Hillary is nudged in the right way, she’ll become more of a populist and more liberal.
She wants to win, and she wants to be President.

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren is that Clinton is driven by personal ambition, Warren by social conscience. That’s why I will never vote for HRC for President. Clinton’s positions on issues are determined by how they will benefit her, not how they will benefit the country. She embraces corporations and military contractors, because that’s where the money is. The late Christopher Hitchens was right about the Clintons. Not only aren’t they liberals, they are greatly responsible for the destruction of liberalism in America.

Dios Mio!!! Caramba!!

However the river twists and turns on these forums, exchanges, articles and posts dealing with who we run for President, for ***k’s sake do NOT let the river raft wash ashore with a REPUBLIKKKAN whom some people would call “electable”.

I am not talking about the Clown Car of Cruz, Rubio or Carson. I am talking about people who appear “reasonable” to too many people. People like Bush, Paul and, yes, Christie. Last night I heard my daughter tell me that she hoped Christie would run and that she might vote for him in 2016 if he were a candidate.

There are people with functioning brain cells who still do not understand the Mafia-type vibe of the Republican Party. Who do not understand that Clarence Thomas came to us by way of Bush #41. The same Bush #41 who is thought of as a “moderate Republican”.

Whomever the Democrats nominate in 2016, he or she HAD BETTER win. .

Each invents his own personal Hillary

Also enjoyed the read…
These guys should just close their eyes and imagine the sex dreams they’ll have after she’s elected…

How can there be an article on men who hate Hillary Clinton and not mention Roger Stone?

Yup.

Bill gave us NAFTA, and Hillary worked very hard on the TPP while doing her stint as SOS, the next destructive “trade” act. Just one of the reasons Wall Street cares not a whit whether Jeb Bush or Hillary wins.

Well you certainly know how to win friends and influence people. Yikes.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. You guys are so scared shitless she’s going to win, you invent all sorts of ideas and theories, all of which say everything about the idiocy and desperate flailing of the inventors and nothing about the reality of Ms. Clinton. Other than, she has you wetting your pants in abject fear.

The name of the game is to lead. Winning at any price is loosing.
Anyway, Hillary will lose in the general election. Just watch.

Hating someone is like drinking poison hoping they will die. Please proceed haters.

I’m actually from the same party, although I suspect only because she decided that’s where to votes were. The reality of Clinton is that she ran an entire primary campaign without even knowing how democratic primaries work (despite every news network constantly blaring it so that even idiots would understand delegates), jumped on policies that never made any sense if you stop and think about it (endorsed a “legalize the Irish” rally for offering amnesty to white illegal immigrants and said video games are neither speech nor art because children children family values children, for the most flagrant examples that I remember), and then kept throwing racist attacks at Obama months after she’d lost because she cared more about the one percent chance of still getting that brass ring than about how the country would be run if not run by her.

Geez, I will never forget that ridiculous woman at the McCain rally holding a Hilary sign with the name crossed out and changed to McCain. That dumbass was so very proud of herself, sitting up there with her old ass and her chest out, acting like she was doing something. Ugh, she was gross.

How so?
I am in favor of supporting an electable Democrat to the White House and Congress, and I have little patience for the fools who told us in 2010 and this past year that “both sides are to blame” and that voting doesn’t make a difference.
If turnout in 2010 and 2014 wouldn’t have plunged like they did in comparison to 2008 and 2012 levels, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now in. There would have been job-creating bills passed, many more people back to work in good paying jobs, we would not have lost our triple-A credit rating, and so many of our states would have enjoyed enhanced access to healthcare coverage.

Oh, and we wouldn’t be saddled at the state level with all the bills that were passed since 2011 that restricted voting rights and abortion rights.

You must be one of those people who didn’t vote in 2010 because the ACA or Dodd-Frank wasn’t perfect enough, or because Obama didn’t jail Bush and Cheney, close Gitmo, or smash Goldman Sachs into a million tiny pieces.

Look, I have a lot of respect for Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders, but if you think they would survive the type of vicious and relentless attacks they would be subjected to as presidential candidates you are delusional.

We’re not going to “win friends and influence people” by mounting a quixotic wannabee campaign fronted by a little-known freshman Senator from Massachusetts or a self-described socialist from Vermont. As admirable as those two are in the stances they have taken, they do not have the ability to galvanize a majority of voters, or attract the necessary funding, as Mrs. Clinton does.

In addition, Clinton is a figure that enjoys broad support and iconic stature both nationally and internationally, and she would likely provide the coat-tails to sweep additional Democrats running in down-ticket campaigns into office.

Notice that I haven’t attacked any Democrats here; I am just being realistic: When the Republicans were able to raise billions of dollars in the 2014 midterm elections, and managed to outraise Obama supporters in 2012 – the first time a sitting president running for re-election has ever been outraised – you’d better believe I am going to be strategic, realistic and sanguine about who should be our nominee, and the fact is I don’t see any other Democrat who can prevail in 2016. Wishful thinking doesn’t cut it.

OK, Clinton isn’t a perfect candidate, I will admit, but having seen what the Republicans are capable of these past six years, how can you be less than pleased with the closest we have to an electable candidate?

This isn’t about you, me or any other personalities. This is about winning.

Get over yourself.