From U.S. News & World Report, and now apparently all over the internets:
Word on Capitol Hill is that Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee with a well-worn passport to the world's hot spots, is in the mix to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who's been hinting of an exit before the end of President Obama's first term.
I don't think this comes as a shock to anyone. She will either replace Obama as the 2012 candidate or more likely be his VP replacement.
Looks like Biden is out of the picture completely, unless he accepts an appointment as dog walker or something.
http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/09/15/kerry-in-line-to-replace-clinton-at-state
http://www.theonion.com/articles/biden-to-cool-his-heels-in-mexico-for-a-while,17996/
Quote from: Gaspar on September 15, 2010, 04:44:25 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/biden-to-cool-his-heels-in-mexico-for-a-while,17996/
Gaspar, come on. You're citing "The Onion"? Really?
Please tell me you know that's a joke, please.
Quote from: swake on September 15, 2010, 04:51:12 PM
Gaspar, come on. You're citing "The Onion"? Really?
Please tell me you know that's a joke, please.
Uh, yeah dude. The US News article is however not. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on September 15, 2010, 04:53:43 PM
Uh, yeah dude. The US News article is however not. :D
But it says nothing about Hillary running for anything or replacing Biden. It's doesn't mention Biden at all.
Quote from: swake on September 15, 2010, 06:02:49 PM
But it says nothing about Hillary running for anything or replacing Biden. It's doesn't mention Biden at all.
No wonder Jon Stewart mercilessly ridicules the right.
VP's being replaced at the second term is a persistant rumor.
If the economy is still sluggish by this time next year, look for Hillary to run to help the Dems keep the White House and to satisfy her own ambition, otherwise, I don't think she'd run.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 16, 2010, 09:15:55 AM
VP's being replaced at the second term is a persistant rumor.
If the economy is still sluggish by this time next year, look for Hillary to run to help the Dems keep the White House and to satisfy her own ambition, otherwise, I don't think she'd run.
A persistent rumor with whom? FauxNews?
Quote from: swake on September 16, 2010, 09:26:23 AM
A persistent rumor with whom? FauxNews?
It was rumored Gaffe Master Bush I would be dropped in '84, Quayle in '90, Cheney in '04 (due to his health), and seems like there were rumors about Algore leaving after Clinton's first term.
The rumors of Biden stepping down for health reasons started about three months before the election by right wing bloggers. They said he was for sure going to step dowm on October 5th, one month before the election to be replaced by Hillary so Obama could win the female vote.
A small number of right wingers (like on this forum) keep saying it because they want to continue to undermine all things democrat.
If being stupid is a health issue then those rumors are very plausible......Hillary is going to run alright but not for V.P......
You're right, this is all speculation. They will never drop Biden, and Hillary will not leave her post as Sec State.
In fact, I'm sure she has no ambition to run with or against Obama. How could she ever mount any type of campaign against this Juggernaut of success.
I can't believe I fell prey to such outlandish speculation.
:D
Quote from: Gaspar on September 16, 2010, 12:59:39 PM
You're right, this is all speculation. They will never drop Biden, and Hillary will not leave her post as Sec State.
In fact, I'm sure she has no ambition to run with or against Obama. How could she ever mount any type of campaign against this Juggernaut of success.
I can't believe I fell prey to such outlandish speculation.
:D
Just because you can conceive of it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Why would you think this is plausible? Why would a member of the President's cabinet -- who up till now has, by all reports, served him willingly and with aligned interests -- suddenly drop out to challenge him directly?
Quote from: we vs us on September 16, 2010, 01:44:17 PM
Just because you can conceive of it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Why would you think this is plausible? Why would a member of the President's cabinet -- who up till now has, by all reports, served him willingly and with aligned interests -- suddenly drop out to challenge him directly?
It's the Hillary way.
Highly unlikely and not real popular challenging an incumbent President but if not for the little Chappaquiddick problem, there's a good liklihood Ted Kennedy would have wound up running against Reagan in 1980. Leaving the cabinet to do so would probably be a first, wouldn't it?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 16, 2010, 01:49:56 PM
It's the Hillary way.
Highly unlikely and not real popular challenging an incumbent President but if not for the little Chappaquiddick problem, there's a good liklihood Ted Kennedy would have wound up running against Reagan in 1980. Leaving the cabinet to do so would probably be a first, wouldn't it?
Well a Kennedy v Reagan thing would have made sense, given that whole Democrat v Republican thing. It's a different deal when it's from within.
Hillary's ambitious but she doesn't have quite the will to power you or Gassy want to ascribe to her.
Read this, it will add fuel to the fire.
http://newsflavor.com/opinions/white-house-insider-on-obama-the-president-is-losing-it/
The President dislikes Biden.
Watches ESPN on TV all the time.
Respects but is afraid of Hillary.
Is having marital problems.
Loves the thrill of a campaign, but not into the details of being President.
Bill Clinton runs circles around him from an intellectual stand point.
Is a lazy President.
Quote from: unreliablesource on September 16, 2010, 07:34:07 PM
Read this, it will add fuel to the fire.
http://newsflavor.com/opinions/white-house-insider-on-obama-the-president-is-losing-it/
The President dislikes Biden.
Watches ESPN on TV all the time.
Respects but is afraid of Hillary.
Is having marital problems.
Loves the thrill of a campaign, but not into the details of being President.
Bill Clinton runs circles around him from an intellectual stand point.
Is a lazy President.
I'm in no way am I an Obama fan (even though I have given him props on occasion), but that article is nothing anyone should hang their hat on.
No former advisor to the President would call it the "Democrat nomination," or "the Democrat Party." In both cases, the correct usage is "Democratic," and only hardcore rightie partisans use that construction. It's a small and crucial detail.
Oh, aside from all that "watching ESPN all the time" bullshit.
Quote from: we vs us on September 16, 2010, 03:56:43 PM
Well a Kennedy v Reagan thing would have made sense, given that whole Democrat v Republican thing. It's a different deal when it's from within.
Hillary's ambitious but she doesn't have quite the will to power you or Gassy want to ascribe to her.
I was referring to Kennedy's primary challenge of Carter
Quote from: we vs us on September 16, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
In both cases, the correct usage is "Democratic," and only hardcore rightie partisans use that construction. It's a small and crucial detail.
Well, maybe it's crucial to you.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 16, 2010, 09:51:01 PM
Well, maybe it's crucial to you.
Crucial in the sense that it disproves (to me) that the story is honest in the least.
It's written in much the same style celebrity gossip rags are written.
"An insider tells us..."
This insider didn't sound very connected nor close to President Obama. He/she is conveying a message though that many of us are seeing- a great campaigner who may not be very well-suited to the job and doesn't appear overly engaged at times.
Quote from: we vs us on September 16, 2010, 10:12:48 PM
Crucial in the sense that it disproves (to me) that the story is honest in the least.
I take it as just another grammar error, nothing more.
Quote from: we vs us on September 16, 2010, 03:56:43 PM
Well a Kennedy v Reagan thing would have made sense, given that whole Democrat v Republican thing. It's a different deal when it's from within.
Hillary's ambitious but she doesn't have quite the will to power you or Gassy want to ascribe to her.
I bet they figured she was going to be the Dem nominee too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 17, 2010, 07:53:50 AM
I take it as just another grammar error, nothing more.
Normally I'd agree, but the usage pops up again and again, and in very specific places.
It's intentional.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 17, 2010, 07:53:50 AM
I take it as just another grammar error, nothing more.
Er, uh... no.
Democrat Party http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=democrat+party
QuoteIgnorant misnomer for Democratic Party, used by uneducated rubes and by certain cynical politicians who recognize their constituency to be made up largely of uneducated rubes.
"We must win," Sarah Palin said, "because Ohio, the far-left wing of the Democrat Party, not mainstream Democrat ideology, the values, the planks in the platform of the Democrat Party. It's the far-left wing of the party is getting ready to take over the entire federal government."
It's because the Democrat party is full of all those darn socialists and communists, nothing democratic about it. ;)
Long time no see Jeff, welcome back!
Quote from: JeffM on September 17, 2010, 09:52:36 AM
Er, uh... no.
Er, uh.... so what. If that's the biggest thing you have to worry about, you're lucky.
Or...
A lot of people (myself included) get picky about the incorrect use of words. I'll tell you what I was told here...
Get over it.
Take your choice.