Sunday, April 12, 2015

Hillary Announces...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Drama ended today. As if there really was any doubt, despite the signature coyness and occasional denials from the former First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State. Certainly the credentials are there to be a viable presidential candidate. Perhaps the only question is will her baggage (as well as hubby Bill's) be the detriments that will sink the Clinton aspiration for dynasty.

Given the lack of strong viable alternatives in the democratic party and the dismal array of potential republican candidates it is likely Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next president Of the USA. Yes, you can accept that as my 23016 prediction. That's just how BAD the republican field really is.

Meanwhile I for one am hoping against all hope for a strong dynamic third party candidate to emerge to challenge the light weights that now populate the major parties.

The New York Times - Ending two years of speculation and coy denials, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Sunday that she would seek the presidency for a second time, immediately establishing herself as the likely 2016 Democratic nominee.

“I’m running for president,” she said with a smile near the end of a two-minute video released just after 3 p.m.

“Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion,” Mrs. Clinton said. “So I’m hitting the road to earn your vote — because it’s your time. And I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”

The announcement came minutes after emails from John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, alerting donors and longtime Clinton associates to her candidacy.

Mr. Podesta said that Mrs. Clinton would meet soon with voters in Iowa and host a formal kickoff event some time next month.

The announcement effectively began what could be one of the least contested races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history — a stark contrast to the 2008 primaries, when Mrs. Clinton, the early front-runner, ended up in a long and expensive battle won by Barack Obama. It could also be the first time a woman captures a major party’s nomination.

Regardless of the outcome, Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign will open a new chapter in the extraordinary life of a public figure who has captivated and polarized the country since her husband, former President Bill Clinton, declared his intention to run for president in 1991. Mrs. Clinton was the co-star of the Clinton administration, the only first lady ever elected to the United States Senate and a globe-trotting diplomat who surprised her party by serving dutifully under the president who defeated her.

She will embark on her latest — and perhaps last — bid for the White House with nearly universal name recognition and a strong base of support, particularly among women. But in a campaign that will inevitably be about the future, Mrs. Clinton, 67, enters as a quintessential baby boomer, associated with the 1990s and with the drama of the Bill Clinton years.


Mrs. Clinton’s declaration on Sunday is to be followed by a series of intimate but critical campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire. She will use them to reintroduce herself to voters and begin to lay out the central theme of her candidacy: improving the economic fortunes of the middle class, with an emphasis on increasing wages and reducing income inequality.

Yuppers. it could shape up to be a real snoozer.

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum


“If they get to nominate Hillary Clinton, why don’t we get to nominate Dick Cheney?”

— Bill Kristol.

Now THAT folks would be a disaster!


  1. I'm sure Hillary's continuing evasions and bad answers will continue to lower your opinion of her, Les.

    However, Ted Cruz is more than up to the task at giving more bad answers and evading over the next year and a half too, as both of them race to the bottom.

  2. Perhaps, although it is highly improbable my option of Hillary could sink as low as my oopinion of Cruz and most of the republican likely entrants into the race.

    Someone should start a Draft Huntsman movement.

  3. I find it hard to expect Hillary to sail a smooth ship over these next months.

    But I do agree with you on Huntsman.

  4. The U.S. is waaay behind other countries that have had women as heads of state. Consider: Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, and the UK as examples. Inasmuch as men have mucked up things for millennia, perhaps it's time to put a woman in charge. So next year, I'll be supporting Melissa Mermaid for pres.

  5. Perhaps it is (O)CT(O)PUS, perhaps it is. I'm just not convinced Hillary is the right one. But I would vote for my massage therapist if she was running.

    1. I'd vote for that randy Zumba instructor that had a side job. :)

  6. “If they get to nominate Hillary Clinton, why don’t we get to nominate Dick Cheney?”

    — Bill Kristol.

    Now THAT folks would be a disaster!

    A disaster for the republican party anyway; cause we all know the dude could never win a general election for prez.

    1. I liked him better in "When Harry Met Sally", Les...

      Anyway, not sure what he is complaining about. Nothing stopping him from getting Cheney to run, or from Cheney deciding himself. Cheney would likely come in 3rd in New Hampshire. do a pterodactyl scream. and vanish into the murk again.

    2. IMO, a Cheney presidential campaign would demonstrate how effective the planned $1 billion
      Kock Inc program would do with a candidate starting at 13% popularity. "Dollars For Darth"
      ....who knows?

  7. Other candidates on my list:

    Angela Albacore
    Barbie Barracuda
    Cassandra Carp
    Goldie Goldfish
    Lulu Lamprey
    Misty Marlin
    Penelope Pike
    Talulla Tarpon
    Wanda Wahoo and …
    Yolanda Yellowfin

  8. (O)ct: Nice list there. I see you favor a big tent party. Tent as in tentacle.

    By the way, (O)ct and any readers. you might love this song if you like the worst puns imaginable:

    You will get soaked in bad jokes...

  9. Legs, any yellow dog as long as it is a democrat, right.

    Can anyone point out her accomplishments. Even her spokeswomen could not supply an answer when she was asked. She had a dismal record in the Senate, accomplished nothing as SS and now her claim to fame is bilking the taxpayer with he charity and deleting he emails that would prove her non-success as SS. She makes Lurch look good as her successor. The idea of voting just because we have never had a female president is ludicrous. Look how well that worked because we never had a black president, set us back decades and divided the country.

    I think a female would be a good change but it has to be someone who is credible and her only claim to fame is she is married to the former philanderer N thief.
    Agree that Cruz is a joke, Paul is to far out there and Rubio is not there yet. Huntsman is to smart to get involved although he is the best choice. How about Carly Fiorina, she is smart, has great accomplishments and not much baggage.

    1. Carly Fiorina's baggage, which lost her the CA election, was her business acumen. Armed
      with a degree in medieval history, a sales job at ATT and intense ambition, she became CEO
      at Lucent Tech and oversaw the dissolution of the fertile science group at Bell labs (30,000
      US jobs in all were lost). She took charge at Hewlett-Packard, another science based company. Her top down style disrupted the easy going tech culture and hundreds of top
      performers left and 35,000 US jobs were left when she was fired. She is essentially a case study for business schools in how to succeed while screwing up. While the GOP lags in producing potential high profile women candidates, Condi Rice, Kelly Ayotte and Nikki Haley might fill the bill. Better than some of the fellows they are currently offering, IMO.

  10. Good point but I wouldn't say any of the companies she fronted were science based. Tech industrial but little science. Lucent was a disaster in the making as was HP but you are correct, she didn't help.

    She lost Calif because she was a republican and they would rather put in a Governor who was a big part of the demise. Of course you have to wonder at any state that re-elects feinstein and madam botox and a poli sci degree is kin to liberal arts.

    Kelly Ayotte has far to much on the ball but is young and just getting her bearings around the political maze. Haley has some personal issues to overcome and the left would destroy her..

    If we only elect a president who has accomplished something we should put out a help wanted sign because the last three have little in the way of qualifications.

  11. Irrespective of your partisan bias skud Bill Clinton did have qualifications as did GWD via the executive experience each acquired as governors. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar ad GWB managed to graduate from college. Obama, undoubtedly lacked the executive experience of the other two however he did have experience in state government and a very short stint s a US Senator.

    Given the crop of malcontents, misfits, and uninspiring potential the GOP has to offer this time it would be hard to put up much worse.

    BTW, Hillary has acquired some credentials. Whether she is capable of using her experience to perform as president is another matter. One thing we do know, the nation will speak on Nov. 4th 2016.

  12. Frankly, democracy and political dynasty are not the most compatible bedfellows, IMO. When instant name recognition confers an almost automatic sense of entitlement, we do not get the best possible choices based on merit; we get to chose only what’s handed to us on a plate – usually the lesser of two evils.

    That’s why I am supporting Penelope Pike for President. Smart, dynamic and turbot-charged, she is the only one who will remain faithful to the principles set forth by the Founding Flounders. Best of all - once elected and turned upside down - the fecklessly faithful will think her initials stand for the anti-Christ.

  13. Your opinion is, IMO, certainly valid. The more qualified (and yes qualified has become hugely subjective) fish in the political sea the better.

    We do not need, nor should we want, an American Political Aristocracy.

    Calling Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

  14. Seems like everyone theses days has a partisan bias.
    Back to the question of what did hillary accomplish as senator and SS.
    I may not like any of the republican candidates but at least the party doesn't say , here is your candidate and we expect you to support her. The MSM is solidly behind her and and the lemmings are getting in line.

    1. Yuppers, seems so. Certainly you skudrunner are representative os partisan bias. In and of itself partisan bias is not a negative attribute. Except when it blinds ones ability to search out and recognize objective reality.

      Reality is there are many liberals who are cautiously wary of Clinton and do NOT want an automatic coronation of the former First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State.

      I am not convinced the MSM is solidly behind her. What I am comfortable saying is the MSM is solidly against the conservative/reactionary agenda. They have good reason for being so.


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.