world

Hillary Clinton in Iowa stirs 2016 speculation

25 Comments
By KEN THOMAS

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

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

Sen. Sanders from VT (independent) was there too showing his interest running for 2016 campaign. He is a serious contender. I like his voting records.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Speculation? Who's kidding who? She's running.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A lot of people will vote for her just because she'd be the first female President.

Too bad GOP are not likely to find a viable female candidate any time soon.

Thought Herman Cain was headed for the White House, but his campaign tanked after sexual misconduct allegations.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

H. Clinton is totally unqualified, ignorant of major issues and without a doubt the most laughable female candidate since Palin for either party in the USA. I am appalled that anyone might think of considering her for the role of President, she is coarse, crude, and callous, ignored important even critical issues when she was our laughable Secretary of State, she made the USA the laughingstock of the entire world during that role, and now she is trying to drag herself back into the public eye. Her book was laughed off of the shelves and talk shows very fast, and she will fall into obscurity very fast as will the joke of an idiot who is currently in the White House. Both are examples of how the american system can totally fail to filter out incompetence for the highest offices. What a joke.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I think she'll probably win it. Obama won, and look at his resume'. Media quite ready to pump up whoever the blue mantle is bestowed upon by the DNC and Democratic primaries, ignore all his faults, weakness of his accomplishments, etc.

In general I think someone starting as senator instead of governor is weak. They couldn't make governor, managed only a senatorial staff, and now they're shooting for governor? Obama was a freshman senator, first term not even done with, right? And Hilary was in second term, the primary she tried for?

People too impatient for minority and female presidents will vote in anybody matching their preferences. Herman Cain's managerial experience greatly exceeded Obama's, unfortunately he got caught out.

Looking over Cain's wikipedia entries, he didn't do anything Bill Clinton wasn't accused of. But Clinton got a pass and Cain didn't. It's right Cain didn't make it to the presidency but Clinton should have lost his second election as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

The Pew Research Center reported that, of the Republican candidates, "Herman Cain was the most covered candidate in 2011".[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012#Sexual_misconduct_accusations

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sad but true turbosat. The media will convince the drones again.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

JTDanManSep. 16, 2014 - 01:00AM JST

Speculation? Who's kidding who? She's running.

Yep, She is running.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No Democrat who supported the Iraq invasion should be allowed to run for the White House.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

H. Clinton is totally unqualified, ignorant of major issues and without a doubt the most laughable female candidate since Palin for either party in the USA. I am appalled that anyone might think of considering her for the role of President, she is coarse, crude, and callous, ignored important even critical issues when she was our laughable Secretary of State, she made the USA the laughingstock of the entire world during that role, and now she is trying to drag herself back into the public eye. Her book was laughed off of the shelves and talk shows very fast, and she will fall into obscurity very fast as will the joke of an idiot who is currently in the White House. Both are examples of how the american system can totally fail to filter out incompetence for the highest offices. What a joke.

I agree with you on just one point, Palin ginned up the base, she's popular with a lot of women and soccer moms and pisses off the left so much and now she took that popularity and yes, her prospects of being president is just NOT in the cards, but now she recently started her own TV network, having said that, Hilary should equally as well just stay on the sidelines and just perhaps get her own channel. She can do a lot of positive things for the Democratic party, running for president is NOT one of them, but as you clearly pointed out and you hit the nail perfectly on the head. She's got an uphill battle that's for sure, but the 2 main obstacles that will be in her way are one Benghazi and the other, she needs to really distance herself from Obama. There is no way she can run on his record and run as president on an Obama continuation platform. That would be suicidal. But the way things are going now at this moment and they keep up, the Democrats and Hilary have a very slim chance of reaching the White House because Democrats will be so toxic. 8 years of a progressive Obama and 4 years of another Democrat, I think after the mess that will have been made by then will make it (for the next cycle or two) virtually for any Democrat to win.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

JeffLee: No Democrat who supported the Iraq invasion should be allowed to run for the White House.

You don't really think they're going to throw themselves on their swords for you, do you?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No Democrat who supported the Iraq invasion should be allowed to run for the White House.

Agreed, but it should also include Republicans.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No Democrat who supported the Iraq invasion should be allowed to run for the White House.

Agreed, but it should also include Republicans.

And none of the ordinary idiots who were so supportive of the invasion should be allowed to vote?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Bush administration deliberately spread lies and propaganda that 9/11 was connected to Saddam and had WMD. It was an illegal war. If people knew the truths then they wouldn't have supported the invasion.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The real question is, who will the republicans hate more, a black president, or a woman president.

If the Dems nominated a black woman, I think that the Pubs would start a civil war.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What nonsense! If the candidate is qualified and meets all standards for the voters (that would be in the U.S.) then who gives a fig what the outside world thinks.

The real question is, who will the republicans hate more, a black president, or a woman president.

If the Dems nominated a black woman, I think that the Pubs would start a civil war.

Hilary does meet the qualifications, the problem is, she is tied to Obama and that is a death sentence for her. She cannot run on the same platform and she is NOT a radical to the Ueber looney left, they would never vote for her at best, she could get the moderate Democrats, she does have way, way, way more experience than Obama. Obama's lack of experience has literally destroyed this country, problem is, do many Americans want another Clinton again in the White House and with all the baggage that she has, will she be attractive as a candidate, the Benghazi issue still unanswered, if Hilary wants to run, she has to be vetted and stand to answer so many unanswered questions if she even wants to be considered as a running candidate. And all the talk about the war on women and hating the Black man is so out of touch with reality. Bush appointed and had more women working in his admin. than Obama did, not to mention Blacks. So if anyone has a problem with Women and Blacks, it's not the Republicans.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

LOL look at where the "tough America" policy has gotten America: to total self-destruction. For the record, I don't support Obama or Hilary, they're no different than Bush. Being "tough" on terrorists work just as well as being "tough" on drugs, ala "War on Drugs". It doesn't work.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bass

She's got an uphill battle that's for sure

A friendly question for you. Which of these Republicans can't she defeat: Mike Huckabee / Rand Paul / Paul Ryan / Mike Pence / Rick Perry / Ted Cruz / Chris Christie / Marco Rubio / Jeb Bush / Mitt Romney.

I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I can't see any of the above beating her. The most realistic shots are Bush, Ryan, and Rubio -- but I'm still doubtful.

As someone who still doesn't think 'liberal' or 'socialist' are dirty words, I'm all for Bernie Sanders, even though he doesn't stand a chance. Not in today's America.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

LOL look at where the "tough America" policy has gotten America: to total self-destruction. For the record, I don't support Obama or Hilary, they're no different than Bush. Being "tough" on terrorists work just as WELL as being "tough" on drugs, ala "War on Drugs". It doesn't work.

The ONLY thing I like about Hilary is that without a doubt, she would carpet bomb these Jihadists back to the stone age and as long as we have a factory and can resupply the troops, planes and drones and just not let up, that would work just as fine for me. The Surge worked, if she listens to get Generals, it could equally work as well to decimate the Jihadists, you can't take away their ideology, but you can keep on killing them where the enemy will lose their moral and I think on that, Hilary would do well.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yeah, so Hilary is a hawk. And again, look at where that has gotten us: Even more terrorists than before due to a state of total anarchy in the Middle East, since Bush was stupid enough to remove their governments without thinking ahead.

You can NOT "eradicate" terrorists, just as much as you can't eradicate criminals. The only thing that you can try to do is to minimize them. And you don't make less terrorists by bombing them, that'll only make them want to become terrorists even more, which is exactly what happened.

War on Terror had been a total disaster. Case in point: America spends $3 per military personel on security, while it only spends $1 per person back home. So basically, America is even MORE INSECURE than before!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A friendly question for you. Which of these Republicans can't she defeat: Mike Huckabee / Rand Paul / Paul Ryan / Mike Pence / Rick Perry / Ted Cruz / Chris Christie / Marco Rubio / Jeb Bush / Mitt Romney.

Difficult to say, I would love for either Romney or Huckabee to get the nomination, but that is just my opinion.

I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I can't see any of the above beating her. The most realistic shots are Bush, Ryan, and Rubio -- but I'm still doubtful.

I'm not sure, I do think at this point and time, not to mention, we still have 2 more years of Obama, I think Romney (if he runs) stands the best chance out of all of them. In the state that the country is in, we need someone that can get the US back in its feet and to stop this bleeding of overspending domestically.

As someone who still doesn't think 'liberal' or 'socialist' are dirty words, I'm all for Bernie Sanders, even though he doesn't stand a chance. Not in today's America.

Bernie Sanders?????? ROFL Plastic, on that note, I'll just refrain from making ANY laughable comments.

@enough

You can NOT "eradicate" terrorists, just as much as you can't eradicate criminals. The only thing that you can try to do is to minimize them.

I agree, but you can't even do that if you have a president that is not fully committed to the mission. Everyone knows you can't eradicate the Jihadists, but you can make it more difficult. That's just like saying, flying is safer, but there is always a chance, always a chance.

And you don't make less terrorists by bombing them, that'll only make them want to become terrorists even more, which is exactly what happened.

So what do you suggest, invite them over for a game of Scrabble and make a cup of tea?

War on Terror had been a total disaster. Case in point: America spends $3 per military personel on security, while it only spends $1 per person back home. So basically, America is even MORE INSECURE than before!

I believe in a strong military and I think and I hope the next president will increase the military budget. The war on terror wasn't a disaster, when Bush was in office, like him or not, people were very careful not to cross him, with Obama, they just don't stop coming. Laugh at him, take complete advantage of him, he's been an embarrassment for our enemies as well as our allies.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Strangerland: The real question is, who will the republicans hate more, a black president, or a woman president. If the Dems nominated a black woman, I think that the Pubs would start a civil war.

GOP was all set to elect African-American candidate Herman Cain. He was polling good until women started accusing him of past sexual harassment.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What are you talking about? I don't know if you are just too young to remember, or using selective memory, but Saddam was complying with all the UN demands.

No, I'm not too young, but thank you anyway. And No, Saddam did NOT comply with all the UN demands, he often stonewalled, hindered, blocked the UN inspectors from going around to do their jobs time and time again.

The weapons inspectors were being given unfettered access wherever and whenever they wanted. But the US was so sure that Saddam had WMDs, that they misdiagnosed their inability to find them as meaning that Saddam was hiding them. So they invaded, because he wasn't producing the WMDs fast enough.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

June 23-28, 1991 - Iraqis fire warning shots at inspectors to prevent them from intercepting vehicles suspected of carrying nuclear equipment

June 23-28, 1991 - Iraqis fire warning shots at inspectors to prevent them from intercepting vehicles suspected of carrying nuclear equipment.

September 6, 1991 - Iraq blocks the use of helicopters by UNSCOM teams.

September 21-30, 1991 - IAEA inspectors discover documents relating to Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Iraqi officials prevent the inspectors from leaving the site for four days.

August 5, 1998 - Iraq decides to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM until its demands for an end to the embargo and a reorganization of UNSCOM are met. September 9, 1998 - The U.N. Security Council passes SCR 1194, condemning Iraq's lack of cooperation.

Well we all know that to be a lie now.

Which Saddam admitted. But to say that Saddam complied is utterly false, there is a partial time line of Saddam's constant violations and after the first bombings, he later got scared and decided to comply unconditionally.

They didn't find the WMDs because he had gotten rid of them all years previously, and there were none to be found. But the war mongerers wanted war, and war they got - and they only had to destroy a sovereign nation to do so.

Of course he had them.

Fast-forward 13 years later, and you have an entire generation of Iraqis who has never known anything but war in their home country -,

Give thanks to the NON-Stop sectarian Sunnia and Shia fighting for that.

all because of an invasion based on lies. If terrorists that hate America are going to come out of any group, it will be this generation. So while the war on Iraq was supposedly a war on terror, all it really did was increase the likelihood of future terrorism.

Well, it wasn't based on lies just to lie, but of Saddam that did oppose a existential threat to the United States and it's a good thing he's gone. No one misses him.

But hey, what does Bush care - he got his 8 years as president, someone else can clean up the mess.

Obama is the one that doesn't care, for 4 years what did he do? He did absolutely nothing and now he wants to put a coalition together and NO Arab state wants to join in or trust Obama for that matter. The man is weak, a lame duck and worries more about the next election than radical jihadists, which can't even bring himself to admit and acknowledge that.

If Hilary were president, I think she does care and would take preemptive and decisive action against the jihadists. She has the knowledge the tenacity and the fortitude. At least with her, we know where we stand with the terrorists.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I probably would have voted for him, if not for the accusations.

Obama, Hillary, weak resumes, little chance to exercise or display management skills before the general election. Cain's experience beat theirs if I remember correctly.

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