Hillary Clinton

Why Won't Anyone Challenge Hillary?

Despite the generous treatment she's received from the media, Hillary has never been an especially electrifying or potent political power.


Though it's unsettling to imagine such a scenario, both the republic and the Democratic Party would likely survive if Hillary Clinton were not to become president.

Now, if the Clintons have proved anything over the years, it's that they are resilient in the face of scandal. So in all likelihood, Hillary hangs tight on the State Department email fiasco and waits for Democrats to rally behind her. And judging from the trial balloons—"if you were a man today, would all this fuss being made be made?"—I imagine it ends with liberals generating a political melodrama that casts Hillary as the victim of the hyper-partisan He-Man Women Haters Club.

It's nearly unthinkable that after all this time, work, and scheming, Hillary would simply abandon her quest—unless some unforeseen wrongdoing emerges that makes her unpalatable for Democrats. But if we suspend our disbelief for a moment and imagine that unethical behavior could catch up with her, the result would hardly be the tragedy many liberals would envision or the boon many conservatives would anticipate.

Many Democrats probably feel as if there's no other viable choice. But despite the generous treatment she's received from the media, Hillary has never been an especially electrifying or potent political power. She badly fumbled her first preordained presidential nomination to Barack Obama—falling into every trap imaginable along the way. Nearly every high-profile project she took on during her husband's administration turned into a disaster. Her time as secretary of state is now riddled with questions. And she has never effectively rallied grass-roots activists to her cause—probably because her only real cause is Hillary.

Or put it this way: Even Martin O'Malley would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton.

The fact that Hillary has been running in an open election as if she were the incumbent is fairly unprecedented in modern politics. Considering her history, it's astonishing that no one has primaried the former first lady. One problem with coronations is that candidates are not tested. (Obama improved during his own primary.) The other problem is that sometimes you coronate the wrong person. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton emerged with relatively low name recognition and slim chances to win. For a party, it can also be tremendously risky, especially when the lucky candidate comes with serious ethical struggles, which can pop up at any time.

In a recent Gallup poll, Americans say the most positive thing about a second Clinton presidency would be having the first female president. Hillary, it should be noted, is not the only woman in America. She's not even close to being the most competent woman in America. Or let's just say: Elizabeth Warren would surely be a candidate who would represent the concerns of liberals far better than Hillary Clinton.

In some ways, Hillary is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party. And without an idealistic core, she will be a significant political downgrade from Obama, whose oratory skills worked at a historically opportune moment for leftist populism. That moment is gone. And his legacy, like it or not, is packed with executive and regulatory controls that can be undone. This project needs to be managed. With her propensity to swing to the most expedient positions, do progressives believe she's the one to do it?

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 86 percent of Democratic primary voters say they can envision themselves voting for Hillary. What choice do they really have? For those who believe only Clinton can win, it might be pointed out that Democrats have a "structural" Electoral College advantage. Mark Warner would probably end up relatively high on that map simply by being a Democrat.

The unease among many of Washington's politicos, especially after this latest peek into what a Clinton presidency would look like, is growing. The Washington Post reports that a number of senior Democrats are beginning to fret that Clinton may not be ready to run for president, fearing that the "clumsy and insular handling" of the email scandal portends things to come.

Many Democrats who want Clinton to succeed lament that she has stepped back into the political arena in a defensive posture, reminding voters of what they disliked about the Clinton scandals of the 1990s. "This begins her campaign in a bad place. It's the gateway drug to her past," said one Democratic strategist and presidential campaign veteran, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.

Hillary may well win the presidency for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with her charisma or acumen. But the next four to eight years would be about the drama surrounding Hillary. She's not even officially running yet, and it's already all about Hillary. (Even much of the liberal punditry has acknowledged that her troubles are mostly self-inflicted.) It would almost surely be four to eight years of putting out fires that have nothing to do with policy. Democrats may ask themselves whether that could work. What they should be asking themselves is whether it would be worth it.

Just as in 2008, activists and donors wouldn't find it difficult to support and fund more idealistic or competent alternatives if they emerged. There are many ambitious senators and governors in this country. November 2016 is a long way off. Do it.

NEXT: Silk Road: New Trial Requested by Ross Ulbricht's Attorney [UPDATED with Comment from Lyn Ulbricht]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is the best the dems have? Someone even moderate dems have to hold their nose for?

    Pathetic. BO certainly has the reverse Midas touch. He has destroyed their party.

    They have no one to blame but themselves.

    1. Suthenboy — What do you mean when you say Obama “has destroyed their party” ? Who do you believe will beat Hillary? And if not Hillary then Warren? Certainly not any republican.

      Quite the opposite. The Democrat Party has never been stronger. Just look how Obama is running rough shod over a GOP controlled congress getting everything he demands.

      IT’S ALL OVER COMRADES! And the socialists won!

      1. Can’t tell if serious.

        1. The Democrats will rebound for the same reason they have and the GOP has in the past–because the other major party will piss off enough voters.

          However, right now, the party is in retreat and in disarray far beyond anything we’ve seen in the modern era. It’s absolutely stunning that they aren’t running a wide open primary. I mean, think about it, how awful is it for the party that an inept, unpleasant, dishonest, and not very experienced old lady is their only possible candidate? There are plenty of viable candidates, of course, but the fact that the party is letting Clinton own the show is telling of some very fundamental problems.

          At this point, the GOP will easily win the White House, despite its best efforts to piss off people. It has a number of experienced candidates, including a few that have a broad appeal. No sane person thinks that Clinton has that. Or Warren, for that matter, who is laughingly referred to as the next best alternative.

          1. Michael Barone piece leaves me with the same impression.

          2. ProLib — If as you say, “the GOP will easily win the White House,” please explain why Hillary is destroying EVERY prospective republican candidate in the polls.

            Please NAME even one of the so-called “number of experienced candidates” you claim the GOP has who can beat Hillary or Warren.

            The same people who voted for Obama so they could be part of history by electing the first black man will also be voting for Clinton or Warren to be the first female candidate.

            You obviously checked your sanity at the door before posting your comments.

            1. Well, I suppose if you find polls more significant than electoral results. The Democrats are at a historical low, across the board, except for the Senate, which they also don’t control. Early polls are almost useless, as many of the prospective candidates, including Clinton, haven’t even declared, let alone conducted any formal campaigning.

              I’ll go even further. Even without this scandal, I don’t think Clinton would’ve been nominated. There are other people planning to run for the nomination, and she’s not exactly beloved. All the anointing and money in the world doesn’t guarantee that people will vote for you.

              1. Pro Lib — Besides the polls, which EVERY politician lives and dies by, I’m going by 50 years experience of political analysis. Can’t you read the tea leafs any better than this?

                I believe you’re just one of those gung-ho republicans who ALWAYS believes everything the GOP leadership crams down your throat. You’re their little cheerleader incapable of making up you own mind unless a Bush tells you what to think.

                And you actually believe this little thing with Hillary and her personal server is a “scandal”? You have a lot to learn dear. This is NOTHING. Watch and learn. It’s going to be either Hillary or Warren.

            2. So black America will turn out in record numbers to support a frumpy, old white lady the way they did for a youthful and charismatic member of their own community? I really doubt it. And the Dems are in bad shape below the national level, which I suspect is a primary motivator for their desire to turn every policy argument into a federal issue.

              Polls this early are worthless. All they show is who has the best name recognition amongst the uninterested masses. It isn’t until the end of primary season that comparison polls begin to mean anything.

              1. KDN — It wasn’t ONLY black Americans who turned out to vote for Obama — it was mostly the white vote as it will be this time.

                Please explain to me how is the GOP going to defeat the main stream media, the unions, the bureaucrats, academia, the 47% of slackers on the government tit, the Hollywood elite, the stupid youth vote, the black vote, the Latino vote, the gay vote, the women vote which the GOP hasn’t won since 1988 and the socialist vote. The GOP couldn’t do it in 2008 or 2012 and I will go even further and state that the GOP will never win another presidential election in our lifetime.

                If you’re looking for someone to blame?blame it on the evangelical/religious right who have been waging a war on women, gays and drugs for the last 40+ years. The GOP has latched onto these social issues and they going down the tubes as we speak because of these social issues.

                IT’S ALL OVER COMRADES! And the socialists won!

                1. Obama last ran a campaign that excited his base and Romney ran one that depressed his while motivating certain Democratic leaning blocs to vote against him rather than stay home. The Latino vote is likely to not be as heavily Democratic , the black vote is due to be less pronounced, the gay vote is inconsequential seeing as most of it is lost in other demographic considerations, and the white vote is likely to be more strongly Republican. The Democrats have headwinds in this election.

                  1. KDN — What makes you say “the Democrats have headwinds in this election.” I see smooth sailing ahead for them. Hell, they have two prospective FEMALE candidates. Mean while the GOP is continuing to wage their losing War on Women. The GOP hasn’t won the female vote in a presidential election since 1988!

                    1. Well then there’s nothing to worry about! Let’s meet up again in 20 months and compare notes.

                    2. MJ — I’m not worried about a thing. See you in 20.

                2. The Religious Right is in decline… in fact if current trends keep up into the future there will soon be a Religious Left…

                  1. Keto — You are correct but, the decline isn’t happening fast enough that any GOP candidate would dare come out in favor a woman having the right to choose what she will or will not allow to have growing in her body. Thus the GOP War on Women will continue in 2016 and into the future helping Hillary or Warren into the White House.

            3. Well, ETGOP, for months now, I’ve been repeating that ‘an electorate stupid enough to put Obama in the WH TWICE is probably dumb enough to put Hillary there, too.’

              But I would like to take a different tack here… Let’s play Sherlock Holmes with this issue…

              What if there is some Hidden Agenda being run on us with all this “nobody but Hillary” BS flooding the MSM everywhere? What would happen if, for some unknown reason, she dropped out? Is this a ploy to get the possibly even more-socialist Warren into the WH (if anything to the left of Hillary is even possible…) Or some other weird plan nobody’s even dreamed of yet?

              Mulder was right… Trust No One, and Hillary is at the top of my list today.
              Like watching “The Good Wife”… ‘just when you think nothing worse could happen…’ it does.

              With OR without Hillary… “what could go wrong?”

        2. Do trolls get up this early?

          1. I’m writing it off as another hard-working, god-fearing reason regular with a troll account.

            You people need better hobbies.

            1. Dweeb — You’re obviously scared shitless of opposing view points, huh? You don’t quite have the intellectual capacity to debate someone who’s not on your band wagon. Keep posting your fluff comments. No need to worry about someone challenging you.

              1. See, definitely a troll account. It can’t possibly think that people are ‘scared’ of its largely emotional hysteria (or that said hysteria is actually intellectual in any way).

              2. EndTheGOP|3.13.15 @ 11:34AM|#
                “Dweeb — You’re obviously scared shitless of opposing view points, huh?”

                Ya know, it takes a certain (high) level of stupidity to show up and accuse people of things of which they are obviously not guilty.
                So we’ll presume you’re trying for the ‘stupid award’ for Friday the 13th?

                1. Sevo — Still can’t debate me on the issues, huh? Continue with your fluff then.

          2. T&T — Is that all you’ve got?ha, ha, ha. Why waste your time and everyone else’s with your NOTHINGNESS?

            1. Is that ALL you GOT? HA ha HA HA ha ha HA. Why WASTE your time AND everyone else’s with RANDOM ALL CAPS?

              1. private ass — I only use CAPS when I need to get through numb skulls such as yours.

                Now have you got anything to debate me on or are you intellectually challenged like most of the others posting comments on this thread today. Just as I thought.

        3. WTF|3.13.15 @ 7:31AM|#
          “Can’t tell if serious.”

          Used to be a troll who claimed to be l’b’t’n, but ended every post with “THE GOP MUST DIE”. When he finally answered why only the GOP, it turns out he was a lefty under a false flag.
          Dunno is this is the same party, but it smells that way.

          1. Sevo — NOT the “same party”. Not “a lefty” I was Libertarian before their was a Libertarian Party.

            Now do you have some point you would like to debate me on or are you one of those ‘unintellectual types?’

            1. Debate what?
              You state an opinion and back it with cherry-picked data; I’m supposed to respond to that or I’m ‘unintellectual’?
              Buzz off, twit.

              1. Sevo — What do you disagree with me on? Can you think of a question? Come on, you can do it. Go ask one of your neighbors if they have something you can ask me, ha, ha.

                I don’t think this blog is quite for you, dude.

                1. EndTheGOP|3.13.15 @ 12:01PM|#
                  “Sevo — What do you disagree with me on? ”

                  That you are worth debating; you’re an ignoramus. Go away.

            2. My favourite trolls are the ones that openly declare they’re not, and then proceed to immediately begin acting like massive childish cunts throwing around names and declaring themselves superior.

              Yep, not a troll at all.

              1. Johnny boy — Please, I beg you, debate me! Oh, that’s right. You don’t have the balls or the intellectual capacity to do that, do you?

                I have made dozens of comments in this thread. Pick one, take a stand and bring it on. We’ll see who the real cunt is, won’t we?

                I’m the only REAL Libertarian on this entire blog! The rest of you are the actual trolls.

                1. Whoever’s doing this sockpuppet, nice job, but you need to tone it down a little bit. Declaring yourself ‘the only REAL libertarian on this entire blog’ is a pretty obvious shot at Bo and pretty much destroys the illusion of your act.

                  1. Johnny boy — STILL afraid to debate me. Good choice.

                    I hate to see grown boys cry.

                    1. See, the random childish insults are good, really highlight the immaturity and the underlying self esteem problems of trolls. More of this.

                    2. Johnny boy — You’re the one who introduced “cunt” into the argument and you call me childish and immature.

                      The challenge stands. Pick one of my many comments and debate me. You haven’t got the balls. Go away little girl.

                    3. ETG-boy — fuck off.

                    4. Sevo — Can’t match me intellectually so your pea brain naturally goes to the gutter from where you came. Continue with your profanity

                  2. Is this troll a) Craigfrommass or b) OntheroadtoMandalay?

                    1. Ooh, it does sound a lot like Mandalay. But unless he lost his password, I don’t know why he’d post under another name. He was fearless in posting incoherent shit.

                    2. Or it might be Mike Hihn, after getting tire of being handed his hat under his earlier handle.
                      Regardless, it’s some worn-out POS we’ve all seen before regardless of the handle.

        4. I second your motion, WTF

          1. jay — Are you even capable of even making a motion of your own or do you just sit around waiting to second motions posted by one of your fellow dubya-heads? I think the latter.

            1. J W are my initials you fucking goof. The blind accusation that Im a republican supporter is laughable. Ive never been accused of bein a Bush supporter so Im not sure how to respond so, get fucked? I guess? I was responding to a comment that had nothing to do with you.

    2. BO certainly has the reverse Midas touch.

      I agree that everything Bo touches turns to shit.

      1. He’s like the anti-Quantum Zeno Effect — he turns everything to shit merely by focusing his attention upon it.

  2. “if you were a man today, would all this fuss being made be made?”

    Ugh. Which journalist/stenographer tossed this softball? Yeah, she’s going to have ample cover from the press once she’s past the primary.

    1. Answer: yes, both the fuss from the press to defend the Team member, and from everyone else, fed up with the blatant *insert favorite Clinton character flaw here*.

    2. Hey, she should be President because VAGINA! And any criticism of her is because MISOGYNY. hth

      1. So during the debates I get to look forward to her responding to each question by lifting her skirt over her head and shouting “BY THE POWER OF GRAYVAGINA!!!”

        1. *turns green, looks for barf bag*

          1. Pegged the Gaze-O-Meter, eh? Right to the barf bag, past any attempt to narrow your gaze?

            Too bad Henry Waxman won’t run against her in the primary. He’d be the perfect stand in for Skelator.

            1. During the debate, Waxman would simply inhale her, then sneeze her back upon the stage, and it’d be like the birth of Fatphrodite from Zeus’ head.

              Then he would say, “You want some more of that?”

              And Shrillery, with her pantsuit now dripping with snot, nose hairs, and mysterious intranasal crustaceans, would simply crawl off stage.

              The next day, Rev. Michael Phlegar will be out in force again, shouting on behalf of Hillary. “Oh damn! Where did YOU come from?!?”

        2. GRAVYGINA, with biscuits, mmmm.

          1. Whisker biscuits?

            1. Cathead

      2. Are you implying it’s a woman? Why am I the last one to learn these things?

    3. “if you were a man today, would all this fuss being made be made?”

      If she were a man he would already be toast. The only reason she isn’t is because she is a woman. It isn’t just a softball, it is passive-aggressive shilling.

      1. If she were a man with an ‘R’ after his name he would already be toast.

        The media would still run cover for a fellow Democrat.

        1. My mistake. You are correct.

        2. This. The media will cover for a Democrats past. Obama was mixed up in Chicago politics for years. There’s obviously dirt there. But the media refuse to explore it. They’ll probably do the same for O’Malley even though it’s well known he was dirty when he was mixed up in local Baltimore politics.

          Scott Walker, meanwhile, has been exposed for the horrible college dropout that he is, so it makes sense to ambush him with irrelevant gotcha questions in hotel lobbies…

      2. I’m perfectly fine voting for a woman who I think would make a good president and who shares at least some of my views about limited government.

        1. Margaret Thatcher, of course, wasn’t a real woman.

          1. Why won’t Margaret Thatcher wear a mini-skirt?

            She doesn’t want you to see her balls.

        2. Janice Rogers Brown isn’t running.

          1. I’d love for her to be on the Supreme Court, but I don’t know if she has any non-judicial ambitions.

      3. Tyranny, expectations, the lowness thereof.

    4. All the criticism of Thatcher was because she was a woman, right? Right?

      1. No, because since she was a conservative she wasn’t authentically female. Kind of like how Condi Rice wasn’t authentically black.

    5. some dumbass from Turkey, where women’s rights are exemplary.

  3. Her main accomplishment is marrying a guy that became President. Such a great role model for women.

    1. Marrying a guy that became President, and then running cover for all his transgressions against women. Yeah, great feminist role model.

    2. A couple of years back, I responded to somebody displaying his smug superiority over his more virtuous food choices by referring to this video of a woman whose claim to fame is sleeping with a prominent elected official going on national TV and bullying an Olympic gold medallist over the gold medallist’s food choices.

      People were, unsurprisingly, shocked that I’d describe it that way. Amd most people have no problem with the sort of bullying in that video, mostly because of who’s doing it, I’d think.

      1. With out looking at the video I’d assume a athlete would need far more calories then other people.When I was younger,and grouse were plentiful in Ohio I worked behind the chair as a barber 50 hours a week and hunted 2 days a week.Grouse hunting all day in the hills of SE Ohio is very demanding.The season ran almost 5 months and I also hunted duck,geese,quail and pheasant. I ate lots of ‘unhealthy’ food to keep my energy up.Plus beer after the hunt.

        1. Its especially bad in that the food she was talking about wasn’t even an every day thing. The Olympian was telling the host about how she went out for a celebratory meal after winning the gold medal.

  4. Hillary, it should be noted, is not the only woman in America.

    Imagine a world where she were. Morning nut punch for you.

    1. Imagine her in black leather in the Avengers. Now I need a drink.

      1. The color is black, the material is leather, the seduction is beauty, the justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy, the fantasy is death.

        1. So you are saying death is an option!? DONE!

        2. Thanks IFH,

          Because of your quote I found a parallel between Clinton and the loathsome yet similarly popularized Riefenstahl:

          “Part of the impetus behind Riefenstahl’s recent promotion to the status of a cultural monument surely owes to the fact that she is a woman.”

  5. The Lord Oligarchs and High Cronies have reviewed the qualifications of 340 million human americans and “Hillary’s the One”.

    Only HILLARY! can provide the leadership and strong pimp hand that America needs to heal the chaos and civil strife of the Obama regime.

    … also, she has lady parts.

    1. If you don’t agree, you’re a misogynist who fears ‘strong women’.

    2. Isn’t it crazy? They have literally hundreds of experienced politicians, tens of millions of party members, yet they act like someone with a history of failures and scandals is the Neo of their party. Unbelievable, and I personally wonder what kind of group sickness is going on that this is being accepted.

      1. It’s gotta be another Bush or another Clinton! Nobody else will do!

        I’m wondering if the media is hoping for Jeb to run, because the name recognition factor will probably work doubly in Clinton’s favor in that match up.

        1. You doubt that the Stupid Party is above nominating Bush3 or Perry?

  6. Near as I can tell, the left wing of the Ruling Party doesn’t want to tangle with Hillary because they know that she’s fucking vicious, and that she’s rolling in extorted money. Obama only got away with running against her because he had more victim cards than she does.


    1. As for Fluffy the Ambulance Chaser, it would not surprise me at all to learn that the whore he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife with was actually a Clinton operative.


      1. At first I thought you were referring to Newt Gingrich.

        1. *splutters coffee across desk*


          1. Don’t you have a gaze to narrow or something?

        2. No, I was referring to Amanda Marcotte’s former employer.


    2. John — You are EXACTLY correct! Which is why Hillary will win everything this time around — she has more “victim cards” than anyone else in the two fields.

      1. FauxCaHontas is also an underpaid educator

    3. that’s exactly what I think. Anyone who runs against her, like Martin O’Malley, has essentially been groomed as her dance partner. If you step on her toes, you’re dead.

  7. Why won’t anyone challenge Hillary? Couldn’t have
    anything to do with all the dirt she and Bill dug up on
    everyone during their time in office now, can it? 🙂

    1. FBI files? What FBI files?!

      1. I’d totally forgotten about that, under the weight of all their other scandals. Now that you mention it, the single most irresponsible thing that the teleprompter-in-chief has done is let Hillary have a top secret clearance.


  8. Although I can’t at the moment think of any Republican women I’d vote for, I think it would be incredibly hilarious if the Republicans were to put the first woman in the White House. Simply for all of the heartburn it would give the progs.

    1. It’d be especially delicious if she were Mia Love, say, or Condoleezza Rice.

      1. Does Rice have political views outside the realm of international relations? Are they “Republican” views?

        1. absolutely. She gave an amazing speech about education at Romney’s acceptance thingy.

      2. “It’d be especially delicious if she were Mia Love, say, or Condoleezza Rice.”

        Something, something, delicious Mia Love, something, something.

        I know, I know. I’m officially outed as a Cro-Magnon now.

      3. Or Nikki Haley. Or Susana Martinez.

    2. Kind of like the UK and Canada, where the first female PM was from a party that’s putatively not of the left.

      1. “a party that’s putatively not of the left”

        Excellent classification.

    3. Nikki Haley. I’d love to get her in the Oval Office.

      1. Go on?

      2. I’ve not heard that euphemism before.

  9. I keep hearing about how the media will cover for the Democrats. They are Democrats so it’s pure propaganda most outlets are pushing. Asking the media to be unbiased is like asking a troll not to troll.

    1. Good thing we have conservative alternative The New York Times to completely fuck Hillary’s campaign roll-out.

        1. The power of Murdoch’s empire is greater than the combined might of his 10 closest competitors.

          1. But you know KORPARASHUNS shouldn’t be allowed to have political opinions!

  10. They won’t challenge her because they don’t want to get “white watered”.

    1. Of course, Vince Foster shows that you don’t even have to threaten to speak up to be silenced.


    2. Right, anyone who challenges Hillary knows that all the Clintonistas will attack then with all the tools at their disposal. If they have any baggage, it will be found and published. If they are involved in any business (likely crony crapitalism business), then those Clintonistas in government will start siccing government on that business. And really, how many D politicians have a clean record of no crony crapitalism?

      The Clinton machine will destroy anyone who challenges them or their power. It will take years to get them out of government.

  11. The ‘inevitability’ of a Clinton candidacy is probably just another reason why she’d likely lose. No one likes to be told about the ‘inevitability’ of a candidate, and everyone likes an underdog. Obama’s early candidacy was all about capitalizing on that in light of the determinism surrounding Clinton, for example.

  12. A Warren candidacy would be a total win-win – either she gets drubbed a la McGovern or Mondale, and likely sets back the emergence of another truly leftist candidate for ~20 yrs.; or she wins and promptly brings the apocalypse.

    1. The thing I don’t like about a Warren candidacy is that she’ll move the center even more Leftard than it currently is. The first time you hear a candidate talking about radical redistribution, a large segment of the population will wholeheartedly reject it. But after that, it becomes more normal, and much less controversial, and those who oppose it will be maligned by the media as old fashioned, hating the poor, etc.

      For example, Hillarycare went down in flames, but Obamacare managed to sneak through.

    2. Huh. My parents (im 37 so theyre old) warned that the Clinton presidency (Bill) would bring about the apocalypse, as he was most likely the Anti-Christ. In 2008, I was warned Obama was the antichrist, in 2012 i was warned he is the antichrist and needed to be re-elected to bring about the new world order. Now im told its Hillary Clinton.
      Im starting to think my parents are full of shit.

  13. before I looked at the paycheck that said $4103 , I have faith …that…my brothers friend was like actualie bringing in money part-time on their apple laptop. . there moms best frend started doing this 4 less than 21 months and as of now cleard the mortgage on their home and bought BMW 5-series . why not look here……….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

    1. For real? Actualie?

  14. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,


  15. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,


    1. Can you also make $1000 into $100,000 in cattle futures?

  16. it’s astonishing that no one has primaried the former first lady.

    Was I supposed to set my calendar ahead a year last Sun.?

  17. Do this mean we get Bill Clinton back in the White House as first dude?

  18. Buckyball magnets Balls not only Magnetic Toys but also Puzzle Decompression Toys. Buy now free shipping.

  19. Sadly, the only candidate that I think would have a chance against Hillary in the general election is Jeb Bush, who I think is the favorite for the GOP. Biggest thing is not pissing off Hispanics which Jeb Bush doesn’t do. Any other GOP candidate would lose due to the map.

    1. You obviously aren’t thinking clearly. Bush is a candidate likely to lose to Hillary, when voters don’t show up to vote like they did for Bush senior, Dole, McCain, or Romney. After all it was GW Bush whose administration led to Obama’s election, and Democratic control of the House and Senate. People don’t want another big government RINO. Jeb is also leading in contributions from the 1%, showing he’ll sell us out as well.

      Rand Paul has the best chance of beating Hillary, because he’ll draw votes from:

      Conservatives fed up with big government (and they’ll show up to vote for him)
      Democrats that support legalization of pot
      Democrats fed up with war that just makes things worse

      As for immigration, I don’t see Paul losing the Hispanic vote: http://www.ontheissues.org/201…..ration.htm

  20. I am simply flabbergasted by the amount of sheep-baying to the effect that Hillary Clinton already has it in the bag, and by the ignorance necessitated by such a claim. The Dems are unpopular, their policies are in shambles, blacks are going to sit this one out, and there is no way in hell that the women of this country are going to put a woman in the White House. Everyone seems to take it for granted that all the women are going to run out and create Hillarymania, I’m here to tell you that they won’t; Hillary is unlikeable, and sane women know that a woman has no place being the President of the United States.

    As much as the left has managed to ruin and mob-ize the people of this country, they still retain enough dignity to not put Hillary Clinton in the WH.

  21. Hillary can be challenged, but it had better happen soon. I’m intrigued by Jim Webb, so I hope Reason will push him to flesh out the superficial positions on his website.

  22. WHO? Every other possible Democratic candidate is so far to the left they have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected. Why do you think Dems are in panic/protection mode? Democrats know if Hillary cannot or does not run, they lose the White House because the left wing of the party will push for Elizabeth Warren and it will be 1984 and Walter Mondale all over again. Warren is a self proclaimed socialist and unpopular outside of the progressive movement. Everything she stands for is the opposite of a majority of the US. No Hillary, Dems lose in 2016. They already lost both Houses of Congress and if they lose the WH in ’16, the chance of dramatically changing or replacing Obamacare becomes very real. That is what they are really scared of because Obamacare is the first step in the Progressive transformation of the US from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist state.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.