world

Clinton recruiting Obama veterans for expected campaign

51 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

I doubt she'll win, she hasn't learned any lessons from 2008, she's still running to the right of everybody. If we wanted a republican we'd vote for a republican.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I also doubt she'll win. She has minimal accomplishments and uber liberal. The nation will have hade enough in 22 months.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I doubt she'll win.

Been saying the same thing for years.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

the dirt on her has not even been dug up. She is not squeeky clean. Her resume is lacking, the again so was Obama's, and many of her worste comments can be aired in a 60 second commercial and she will sink fast.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I've had enough of Clinton's and Bushs in the White House. There are many other candidates to choose from on both sides.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The USA is similar to China; it admires and treasures dynasties; the Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy Bush, Clinton and many other families have always controlled the presidency. Nothing new here, and nothing new for the advisory panels, cabinet members, and appointees. What is the difference between the dynasties in the USA and China or NK? Supposedly they are elected in free elections, and the particular country is a decision the reader can make.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

many of her worste comments can be aired in a 60 second commercial

Ooh. What a shocker.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

She would run with name and gender only. Nothing shining otherwise.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

'I doubt she'll win.

Been saying the same thing for years.'

You also said Romney would win. Pardon me for not sprinting to the bookies with your famously non-partisan predictions in mind. I hope to see no Clinton and no Bush, but I certainly wouldn't bet on that.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

You also said Romney would win.

I never said, Romney would win, I thought he should have won with his resume, but Romney didn't fight as nasty as hard as Obama did. He didn't know how to use Chicago street politics.

But nice try.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

If this race ends up being Clinton v Bush that will be all we need to know about how distorted the original vision of the Founding Fathers has become

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Democrats' dream ticket, H. Clinton + M. Obama, or vice versa.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'Romney didn't fight as nasty as hard as Obama did. He didn't know how to use Chicago street politics.'

Aw, too pure for those big nasty democrats, was he? Saint Mitt is the political genius who wrote off almost half the electorate in the space of a few sentences while telling us he was the poor's best bet. Dig up another clown like that and Hilary Clinton's pet gerbil could get elected.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Aw, too pure for those big nasty democrats, was he? Saint Mitt is the political genius who wrote off almost half the electorate in the space of a few sentences while telling us he was the poor's best bet. Dig up another clown like that and Hilary Clinton's pet gerbil could get elected.

Silly me, as in true liberal fashion, only libs walk on water and are the chosen intellectual elite (or so they say) they never, ever make mistakes and were born perfect. Lol, keep dreaming, Jim. As for the 47% comment, he was totally right. Why on Earth should he concentrate on a voting section group of people in a certain economic bracket that would vote Democratic anyway? These people are usually monolithic in their votes anyway, so just move on and concentrate on the people you know you could get votes from.

Seems pretty clear and pretty self-explanatory to me.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Bass

'As for the 47% comment, he was totally right. Why on Earth should he concentrate on a voting section group of people in a certain economic bracket that would vote Democratic anyway? These people are usually monolithic in their votes anyway, so just move on and concentrate on the people you know you could get votes from.'

Got it. Your party had lost 4 out of 5 elections on the popular vote and so you write off 47% of the electorate while telling them you are their best hope. This from a multi-millionaire who was already carrying around the tag of a vulture capitalist four years after the speculators had crashed the world economy and destroyed the lives of not just the less-well off. Genius.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As for the 47% comment, he was totally right.

Nope; actually, closer to 49% of Americans receive some type of government benefit. The largest number is retirees, who receive Social Security and Medicare (but of course, they paid for those); another large group is the more than 2 million veterans who served in Bush's wars and have begun claiming promised health-care and education benefits (and you could say that they paid for these, too). Meanwhile, while "food stamp" beneficiary numbers soared due to the recession, the average monthly receipt is $133 - not something you'd quit your job for.

Romney was also wrong in writing off this group. Do you think coal miners in West Virginia or phone bank workers in Alabama don't receive government assistance? - They do to a great extent, and most of them vote Republican. Just read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" to understand how voters vote against their own economic interests.

I'd rather not see Hillary in the White House, but better her than any Republican who's expressed interest.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Got it. Your party had lost 4 out of 5 elections on the popular vote and so you write off 47% of the electorate while telling them you are their best hope.

That was then, this is now. Also, time has passed, and Though the economy has been on the up tick and things are improving, overall, many Americans still spending and feeling the change. For the upper class, it's not affecting them one way or another. So for the lower and middle income bracket,cthe you are the ones that are still struggling.

This from a multi-millionaire who was already carrying around the tag of a vulture capitalist four years after the speculators had crashed the world economy and destroyed the lives of not just the less-well off. Genius.

Hey, then you must really hate the Clinton's because they aren't exactly poor and Billy boy gets about a million a pop for speaking, that ain't NO chump change. And I don't see Hilary and many of the wealthy Dems reaching out for the poor. Say, whatever happened to the caring John Edwards?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Madame President, get used to it !

0 ( +2 / -2 )

you must really hate the Clinton's because they aren't exactly poor and Billy boy gets about a million a pop for speaking

Personally, yes (and I know the post was not directed at me). But my father taught me that when you vote, sometimes you've got to hold your nose. What an unfortunate situation. My father is a lifelong Republican who hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan's first election. My dad is an old school Eisenhower Republican who can't give up what he sees as a true conservative vision, and at the same time can't find it in any recent GOP candidate.

I am a Democrat and I do not particularly like Hillary Clinton. I do not like her hawkish foreign policy nor her coziness with Wall Street. The current Democratic Party is not the party of the worker. I find Hillary to be phony, opportunistic, and shrill. And I detest the idea that she is the default choice for the Democratic ticket because she happens to be married to Bill Clinton (who was a good president).

Nonetheless, I find her preferable overall to any of the current GOP candidates. Personally, that makes me very sad.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It does not matter who the GOP select to represent them.

As with the last 2 elections, the only thing the GOP can guarantee us (besides guaranteed failure) is a lineup of inept fools who will once again turn the GOP into a global laughing stock.

I say 'Bring. It. On!' :-)

The key to the Right's ongoing electoral defeats is education, or should I say lack of it.

But they want to cut funding for that, too, which will only guarantee their own ongoing electoral failure. 

Add to that, the current and upcoming fistfights Congress will have with the WH will only serve to underline how much the GOP wants to bury middle-class America.  

Conservatives could learn, but luckily for the rest of us, they NEVER do.

Equally enjoyable is being lectured to by American conservatives about US politics while I continually prove them wrong and massively out of touch. :-)

Loving it. :-)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Looks like /clinton must be thinking Romeny will capture GOP nomination, Nevadans are waiting to whom Adwlaon will sonsoate his money to which GOP hopeful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in reference 47% of the population

Just out of curiosity, did the American Civil War ever actually end? If so, did the losers ever admit their defeat?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Madame President, get used to it !

Yeah, I remember when the same gang here were shouting the Republicans would never get back into power, that's twice you guys were wrong. Let's go for a third, shall we? At the rate his majesty is going, he'll bring everyone down with him, one can only pray.

It does not matter who the GOP select to represent them. As with the last 2 elections, the only thing the GOP can guarantee us (besides guaranteed failure) is a lineup of inept fools who will once again turn the GOP into a global laughing stock.

Obama is and has already done that, but we don't want to stop him now, do we honestly?

I say 'Bring. It. On!' :-) The key to the Right's ongoing electoral defeats is education, or should I say lack of it.

His majesty is the smartest person on the entire planet, I keep forgetting, he invented the wheel as well.

But they want to cut funding for that, too, which will only guarantee their own ongoing electoral failure.

Ahem...2010 and 2014 Where were you????

Add to that, the current and upcoming fistfights Congress will have with the WH will only serve to underline how much the GOP wants to bury middle-class America.

Funny, the people were thinking that about this administration, that's why they fired the Democrats. Where I come from we call that a message.

Conservatives could learn, but luckily for the rest of us, they NEVER do.

Really, so what about 2010 and 2014? ;-)

Equally enjoyable is being lectured to by American conservatives about US politics while I continually prove them wrong and massively out of touch. :-)

What? ROFL! Uh....riiiight....

The funny thing about libs is, they just can't deal with reality, if they did, they would leave the personal ad hom attacks, but it's just something in DNA that just compels them to foolishly lash out. Signs of serious distress.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

HonestDictators: I've had enough of Clinton's and Bushs in the White House. There are many other candidates to choose from on both sides.

That's pretty much how I feel about it.

Laguna: Nope; actually, closer to 49% of Americans receive some type of government benefit. The largest number is retirees, who receive Social Security and Medicare (but of course, they paid for those); another large group is the more than 2 million veterans who served in Bush's wars and have begun claiming promised health-care and education benefits (and you could say that they paid for these, too).

Romney's biggest gaffe was showing the world how Republicans talk to each other. A glimpse inside the bubble, if you will. His exact words were "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Not only does he believe that military members will never take personal responsibility, he says that he's not even going to try. A man like that shouldn't be President.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As a Truman Democrat, I see it like this

Clinton is not my first, second, or even third choice. I prefer Brown, Biden, Warren (though I know she ain't running in '16) and even Sanders - who would have to change parties -- to Clinton.

I think, though, she has a very good change to win in the general election. And, I think, with a strong challenge from the left, she could be dragged left after reading the tea leaves.

So here is my plan:

Fight like hell for my candidate in the primary. Then, fight like hell for the Democrat in the general election.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

His exact words were "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Not only does he believe that military members will never take personal responsibility, he says that he's not even going to try. A man like that shouldn't be President.

Then why not hold Clinton to the same standard? That is, if you are NOT a partisan. After the Ambassador and 3 others were murdered in Banghazi and she was questioned at the congressional hearings and said that infamous statement "At this point, what difference does it make?" as to what, who, why or how they died, equally doesn't deserve to take the oath and to occupy the presidency.

I think, though, she has a very good change to win in the general election.

That's a possible, but this time around with all the mess that Obama has created and with the sound choices the GOP has this time around, you will need at least a billion dollars to raise for this upcoming election and Bush and Romney are the best choices and at this point the only ones that match Clinton financially with ease.

And, I think, with a strong challenge from the left, she could be dragged left after reading the tea leaves.

Like I said, if "Biden, Warren or even Sanders" run, it's over, completely over for the Democrats. After Obama if you think the country would go through 4 let alone 8 years of EVEN more and FAR LEFT progressive governing think again, won't happen, if Clinton doesn't win, the rest don't have a chance in hell.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

the rest don't have a chance in hell.

Oh really? Willing to bet on that, Republican. 'Cause I am.

I bet whoever Team Democrat nominates will win the general election. If I win, you agree to not post at this site for six months under any handle. If I lose, I will not post on this site for six months.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh really? Willing to bet on that, Republican. 'Cause I am.

Sure. Unlike you guys, I'm a realist and I will say for the record that for ANY Democrat to win after Obama won't be a shoe in, Hilary has a chance, but no guarantee, but the others, NOT a chance!

I bet whoever Team Democrat nominates will win the general election. If I win, you agree to not post at this site for six months under any handle. If I lose, I will not post on this site for six months.

How about 90 days, but sure.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nope. Six months.

I am that confident. Looks like you are not.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Unlike you guys, I'm a realist

GOP™ -- "We except reality."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

bass4funk: After the Ambassador and 3 others were murdered in Banghazi and she was questioned

Only Republicans in the bubble care about Benghazi. But I do hope you make it a central issue in the election. To be honest with you, I thought the case had concluded. It's not still going on, is it?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@JT

I am that confident. Looks like you are not.

Oh, I am, very! But 6 months is too long, so I'll do 90 days, if you don't like it, then don't go for it.

@super

Only Republicans in the bubble care about Benghazi.

And only libs care about the 47% comment.

But I do hope you make it a central issue in the election. To be honest with you, I thought the case had concluded.

How can it, the issue will be concluded once the familes get some answers, but as we all know this IS apparently, THE MOST transparent administration EVER. Funny, and it's not even April 1st, yet.

It's not still going on, is it?

I sure hope so.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I bet whoever Team Democrat nominates will win the general election. If I win, you agree to not post at this site for six months under any handle. If I lose, I will not post on this site for six months.

@bass

I'll join JTDanMan in this bet. If a Republican wins the general election in 2016, I'll also not post on this site for six months.

I am, very! But 6 months is too long, so I'll do 90 days, if you don't like it, then don't go for it.

Too long? Come on, put your commitment where your confidence is. You're sure that America is fed up, that like a prodigal son it has learned the errors of its ways and will return to the warm hearth of the GOP in 2016. Right? But it's 6 months off for you if for some really weird reason America decides to elect another far left socialist elitist America-hating smarty-pants liberal Democrat.

Agreed?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'll join JTDanMan in this bet. If a Republican wins the general election in 2016, I'll also not post on this site for six months.

Given you guys track record in politics previously has shown you were wrong twice. Again, unlike you guys, I'm a realist, It's have no idea who will be the next president, but thinking that Hilary will win hands down is just stupid. There is NO guarantee. But I will say this, Obama is not helping her or his party.

Too long? Come on, put your commitment where your confidence is.

I made my offer, that's good enough, so why don't you take my offer, it's just as good and long enough. 90 days.

Take it or leave it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Given you guys track record in politics previously has shown you were wrong twice.

Hmm. What two predictions of mine were wrong? I haven't publicly predicted any election outcome in recent years. I think you're confusing me with someone else. Privately, I predicted the Republicans would take both the Senate and the House in 2014. And I was right.

This time I'm predicting a Democrat, probably Hillary Clinton. As I've said, I'm not too happy about that. However, there simply is no Republican candidate who has a wide enough appeal. With every candidate trying to outdo the other in 'conservative' purity, they've painted the GOP into a corner. (I put 'conservative' in quotes because I don't find anything conservative about climate change denial, opposition to living wages, blocking access to affordable health care, or allowing banks to run the country into financial ruin for their own enrichment. None of these positions help to conserve a healthy, stable society.)

It's have no idea who will be the next president, but thinking that Hilary will win hands down is just stupid. There is NO guarantee.

You're equivocating now. You sound less certain.

I made my offer, that's good enough, so why don't you take my offer, it's just as good and long enough. 90 days.

OK, I understand that it would be tough for you not to whine about a Democratic president for 6 months, so 90 days it is. If any Democrat wins the presidency, bass4funk not posting on this site for 90 days, starting from when the result is called. If any Republican wins the presidency, plasticmonkey is not posting on this site for 90 days, starting from when the result is called.

Mark it on your calendar or todo list.

JTDanMan?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I vote for 90 days. Please, we need the comic relief after the inevitable 3 months drought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Given you guys track record in politics previously has shown you were wrong twice. Hmm. What two predictions of mine were wrong?

Meaning you, as in you guys on JT.

I haven't publicly predicted any election outcome in recent years. I think you're confusing me with someone else. Privately, I predicted the Republicans would take both the Senate and the House in 2014. And I was right.

And I feel the same in 2016 about the Republicans as well.

This time I'm predicting a Democrat, probably Hillary Clinton. As I've said, I'm not too happy about that.

I doubt it, she has too much baggage, she has a very steep mountain to climb, not to mention, she can't jump on Romney about being too rich once you look at her massive and impressive portfolio.

However, there simply is no Republican candidate who has a wide enough appeal.

Not true, maybe for the Democrats and I will submit to you, Mitt and Jeb have the best shot, both were popular with both parties, maybe moderate, but I can deal with that. Romney is a master when it comes to creating Jobs, including HIGH paying jobs, Jeb left office with a very high approval rating, also Jeb is NOT GW, brothers yes, but that's about it.

With every candidate trying to outdo the other in 'conservative' purity, they've painted the GOP into a corner. (I put 'conservative' in quotes because I don't find anything conservative about climate change denial, opposition to living wages, blocking access to affordable health care, or allowing banks to run the country into financial ruin for their own enrichment. None of these positions help to conserve a healthy, stable society.)

There are some people that believe the Climate change debacle is a big money making hoax, I'm one of the skeptics and that is because My best friend who is a Meteorologist on a CBS affiliate in Nevada. We talk about, he's a very smart guy and from talking to him, it just started making sense that at least for me, it is all a big hoax. They are not blocking access to Affordable healthcare, I know the Libs are just using that with the racism rant are trying to scare people, as far as the banks are concerned, I'm not complaining about a reasonable increase in the minimum wage department, but it have a much better idea, how about Obama for once try to get out and help create high paying jobs? If he did that, more people could rely on better paying jobs than a low paying job with crappy pay. It was the Dems that ran them into the ground "Chris Dodd and Barney Frank" giving the green light to the banks and to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out loans to people that couldn't and shouldn't have been able to afford certain homes and by the way, they are back in business again and doing the exact same thing that ran the country in the ground in the first place. And as for their enrichment, how do you Romney got all that money to pay for Romneycare? Ted Kennedy had an over $50 million slush fund that he had and that was money used to fund it, which we don't have for the entire country and most of these Dems hide their money in their freezers or one daughter of a famous politician who lives in NYC bought a $2 million Penthouse, but tells the media, she doesn't have so much money. As I recall John Edwards has a house almost as big as Romney's and his neighbors complained that he was a selfish arrogant jerk and really looked down on the homeless near his residence. Don't give me this crap that Republicans don't care, I can give you a litany list of disgraceful Dems that are the most selfish jerks in the world and care about no one but themselves and all the while trying to make people think they are the champions of the poor, what a load of BS!

You're equivocating now. You sound less certain.

Because unlike you guys, I like to deal with reality and this could go either way. I seriously doubt she'll win, but you never know. There is nothing wrong with being overtly cautious.

OK, I understand that it would be tough for you not to whine about a Democratic president for 6 months, so 90 days it is.

No more than it would be for you guys to do the exact opposite.

I vote for 90 days. Please, we need the comic relief after the inevitable 3 months drought.

You beat me to the quick, I was about the say the same thing about you guys. Darn it!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Meaning you, as in you guys on JT.

Thanks for lumping everyone together. It makes things so much easier for you.

how about Obama for once try to get out and help create high paying jobs?

I didn't know you thought that was the role of government, creating high paying jobs. Isn't that socialism? And by the way, which US president created your high paying job?

how do you Romney got all that money to pay for Romneycare? Ted Kennedy had an over $50 million slush fund that he had and that was money used to fund it, which we don't have for the entire country and most of these Dems hide their money in their freezers or one daughter of a famous politician who lives in NYC

I love your Jack Kerouac. Groovy.

John Edwards has a house almost as big as Romney's and his neighbors complained that he was a selfish arrogant jerk and really looked down on the homeless near his residence. Don't give me this crap that Republicans don't care

Please don't put words in my mouth. I was talking about banks. Obama, Hillary, and other Democrat bigwigs are in bed with Wall Street people. I've never denied it and I've never liked it.

unlike you guys, I like to deal with reality

I know, you except reality more then libs, who NEVER admit there wrong.

No more than it would be for you guys to do the exact opposite.

Thanks again for grouping everyone who doesn't share your opinion into one collective.

Anyway, game on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It could be Hillary vs Mitt. OMG...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You beat me to the quick, I was about the say the same thing about you guys. Darn it!

Very sporting of you, b4f. Good man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, I am, very! But 6 months is too long, so I'll do 90 days,

There you go. All talk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for lumping everyone together. It makes things so much easier for you.

Hey, I'm just going by the overall general history. I don't cherry pick.

I didn't know you thought that was the role of government, creating high paying jobs. Isn't that socialism?

No, But Obama could stand aside and allow big businesses to flourish and cut taxes, so that there is more money to hire people, expand and pay better and offer higher salaries, allow the system to work. That would and should be his part in helping big business. As far as the hiring is concerned, if these people want better jobs, better pay, get a skill, harness it, apply it and everything else will fall into place and if you can and have the finances, go back to school and get a degree.

And by the way, which US president created your high paying job?

Definitely NOT Obama.

I love your Jack Kerouac. Groovy.

If the shoe fits...

Please don't put words in my mouth. I was talking about banks. Obama, Hillary, and other Democrat bigwigs are in bed with Wall Street people. I've never denied it and I've never liked it.

Then don't make it or insinuate it as if the Republicans are the only party in bed with the banks, the Dems as much as they like to talk they are against it are anything but!

I know, you except reality more then libs, who NEVER admit there wrong.

I have yet to meet a lib that isn't partisan here and level-headed.

Thanks again for grouping everyone who doesn't share your opinion into one collective.

Anyway, game on.

Share my collective??? LMAO You guys are a total crack up.

There you go. All talk.

No, I made the bet, doesn't have to be the way you want it. 90 days is more than fair.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

JTDanMan?

You and the Republican have a bet, so I'll save my chit for the next lemming.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Then don't make it or insinuate it as if the Republicans are the only party in bed with the banks,

I didn't. Further up this thread I said that I dislike Hillary's "coziness with Wall Street".

Share my collective??? LMAO You guys are a total crack up.

Another non sequitur. As a journalist you should know that it's better to read other people's words carefully before crafting your own response.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I didn't. Further up this thread I said that I dislike Hillary's "coziness with Wall Street".

Your past posts have proven otherwise and I wasn't ONLY talking about Hilary.

Another non sequitur. As a journalist you should know that it's better to read other people's words carefully before crafting your own response.

Now you're confusing journalism and law? If I were a lawyer, you'd have a point, but I'm not.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If I were a lawyer, you'd have a point, but I'm not.

If you think journalists have no responsibility for their own words, you're in the wrong profession. Which is why nobody on this site believes you are a real journalist anyway.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you think journalists have no responsibility for their own words, you're in the wrong profession. Which is why nobody on this site believes you are a real journalist anyway.

Sorry, when I'm on JT, I'm not at work. I am just writing and blogging on my off days. Also, you are entitled to believe what you want. It makes NO difference to me. I know what I am, what I do in my private life and that's all that matters. I think you are taking all this a bit too seriously. It's all in good fun and that's how it should be. Enjoy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But Clinton needs to distance her from Obama's current money spending and education reform policy that are unpopular in many states. //she probably will decide in spring and nominated. Dem is not worrying Mitt. This time Adelson might not contribute his millions to Mitt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites