Skip to content

Fair and Balanced

Jen Sorensen
© Jen Sorensen

I have to admit that I was never a big fan of Bill Clinton, and in 2008 I supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. But I think I actually feel better about Clinton being president now. I saw her speak and answer questions a few months ago, and was more impressed. I think her experience in the Senate and in Obama’s administration made her more relaxed and realistic.

Of course it helps that the only alternative will be someone who survives the “stupider than thou” Republican primary. I also think Hillary Clinton has more experience dealing with the Party of No. Her and Bill’s ability to triangulate might just stand a chance of breaking apart the Republican unholy coalition of social conservatives and greedy corporations, even if just by winning over the greedy corporations.

And as this comic puts it, she is the only realistic choice.



  1. Dave TN wrote:

    how do you feel about Elizabeth Warren, she is popular among the progressives and could extend her fan base with a little push. If for nothing but to watch conservatives head implode, if she were a candidate with a real chance would be interesting.;_ylt=A0LEVjSezC9VSzkAlGAnnIlQ

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:58 am | Permalink
  2. Hassan wrote:

    Its given that I have ideological differences with many mainstream democrats, so Hillary is no exception. So I always assess person based on what they are claiming to be, not that I want them to be.

    My biggest most recent concern with Hillary is email-gate. For democrats who champion openness and transparency, and who claim to be champion of science, I still cannot understand her answer that she used personal email because she did not want to carry two phones. So she and her tech savy team could not figure out how to configure multiple emails in one phone?

    Also who in this day and age runs server at home? Everything is in cloud. Of course there can be risk in security, which is more in server at home then the cloud. And at least you can be off the hook politically if God forbid someone hacks into your account in cloud, but not at home. Ideally she should have used government run secure servers.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 9:04 am | Permalink
  3. Hassan wrote:

    Should it be cause of concern for democrats that they have no bench strength? I see no one coming close to Hillary. Anyone else who declares to run, will be trying to convince for VP position.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 9:06 am | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    Dave, I like Elizabeth Warren, a LOT. But she is not a candidate.

    As the article you linked to points out, sometimes, someone can have more influence when they are not a candidate for a specific office.

    See also

    As for Hillary using a personal email server, yes, that is inexplicable. She didn’t break any laws, but it was still stupid. However, if that is the worst thing Clinton has done it is pretty tame.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:04 am | Permalink
  5. Hassan wrote:

    Yes I do have issue with future president and her team not knowing how to configure multiple emails on a smart phone.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
  6. Just me wrote:

    Government & corporate servers get hacked all the time these days. Why would a hacker ever know or even think to hack into a private one? It could be that she took the more secure route.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
  7. Hassan wrote:

    JUST ME, we are talking about two separate issues here. Having a separate email because she could not configure two emails in one phone (as she says). Secondly the fact that second email was running on server in her home.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
  8. Iron Knee wrote:

    I’ve configured mail servers for various small businesses I’ve run. It isn’t that big a deal as long as you keep up with updates to keep it secure.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
  9. just me wrote:

    I understand Hassan. My point is this… perhaps it was a cover, because you don’t really want to broadcast to hackers that you are using a server that is not the expected option.

    Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 11:12 pm | Permalink
  10. ralph wrote:

    There’s always been something about her that doesn’t quite pass the “smell test” and comes across as too slickly produced, detached and even evasive.

    This email mini-scandal is just another example. Her justification was that she thought it would be simpler to just carry around one device instead of two. And yet during an interview a couple weeks earlier, she was taped describing all the devices she normally lugged around…”let’s see, there’s an i-Pad, the i-Pad mini, an i-phone, a blackberry.”

    Her current trip to Iowa to meet with the “common folk” is yet another. The photos of her purportedly having lunch with some of the locals was apparently staged and included several people picked and vetted beforehand from her campaign staff (we can’t have some Republican operative or maverick throwing curveballs and mussing up the event). I’m left feeling like this is just another duplicitous politician who is totally staged and so can’t ever really get to know, and would feel like voting for her would be a huge leap of faith. She certainly knows how to play the game (I’m sure she learned much from Bill) and is one tough cookie and negotiator, I’ll give her that much.

    IK – I am also deeply disappointed Elizabeth Warren will not run and I don’t see anyone else on the horizon that can challenge Clinton. Jim Webb perhaps?

    Friday, April 17, 2015 at 6:53 am | Permalink
  11. PATRIOTSGT wrote:

    Just say no to Hillary! If you want big lobbies out of politicians pockets, then you can’t want Hillary. If you want foreign governments out of our elections then you can’t say yes to Hillary.

    I agree with Ralph, everything she does is calculated and triangulated to meet with the least voter resistance. From what I’ve seen in her Iowa tour, everything is staged, planned and rehearsed foor publicity purposes and to rebrand her into an average Jane who understands the average Joe. Her life over the last 30 years is anything but that.

    We need fresh blood to lead, same with the republicans. Both parties are stale. I saw a very interesting article by Gary Hart in time that sums it up:

    No to Jeb and No to Hillary.

    For Democrats look to someone like Martin O’Malley. He’s to the left of Clinton and has always been. I know him, and regular readers can attest that I don’t swoon over progressive candidates, but I voted for him.
    He is a good man. I can tell you from personal experience he is genuine and cares. On my last deployment he personally called every family on Christmas day while we were over seas to thank them and tell them there were resources available if they needed anything. Yes, he called personally (I supplied him all the Soldier’s families #’s). Not an aid, not a robo letter. When the unit got home he invited all of them to the Governors mansion for dinner. But it was he and his wife’s actions that caught my attention. He came around to each table, sat down and talked to Soldiers and spouses, unhurried and non political. He and his wife personally gave us all a tour of the mansion explaining it’s history and key points. He spent an entire afternoon and early evening entertaining us like a friend. He never once asked for anything, not even a vote.
    I didn’t agree with everything he did as Governor, no 2 people can agree on everything. But as a man, he is top of the line, and I proudly tell people I voted for him and will again when he runs.

    Friday, April 17, 2015 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
  12. Iron Knee wrote:

    PSgt, I don’t understand. Are you saying that one of the current Republicans would be a better choice than Hillary? The reason we have big lobbies and BIG money in politics now is because we elected Republicans as president and they appointed nut-case ideologues to the Supreme Court, who decided that corporations are people and money is free speech.

    I’m pleased that you actually like a progressive politician like Martin O’Malley, but I haven’t heard anything about him running for president. Would he make a good vice president?

    Friday, April 17, 2015 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
  13. PATRIOTSGT wrote:

    No IK, I don’t want a brand name Republican any more then I want Hillary. I’d certainly consider a moderate conservative or a fiscally conservative Democrat. In my mind the biggest issue in our countries future are financial and jobs. The social issues I believe are settled or settling, thanks in part to leaders like O’Malley (Maryland was one of the first few states to allow same sex marriage), because he unabashedly championed the cause.

    Except for the party affiliations I don’t see a difference between the Clintons and the Bush’s when it comes to big money and money in politics. I don’t want either. Unfortunately, the Clintons and Bush’s can out raise any candidate in the world today, essentially buying an election.

    Don’t you find it shocking that there are no challengers to Clinton? Have they all been bought off, or muzzled?

    O’Malley will run, it’s just a matter if anyone will hear him over the Clinton paparazzi media blitz. In his public service career, he was elected and served on the Baltimore City council for 9 years, served as Mayor of Baltimore for 2 terms, and as Governor for 2 terms. He is more then qualified domestically, although he’ll have a tough sell on foreign policy against Madam Secretary. But she doesn’t have the down in the trenches experience with average Joes that O’Malley has.

    Here’s some tidbits on O’Malley some lengthy, with pros and cons, but they give you a sense of the man:

    Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 8:14 am | Permalink
  14. Iron Knee wrote:

    Yeah, I’ve read about O’Malley. I’m even more impressed about his support for gay marriage because he is Catholic, and his church even tried to talk him out of supporting it.

    No, I don’t find it shocking that there are no challengers to Clinton. First of all, it isn’t true. Both Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee have formed exploratory committees. If Clinton could buy off or muzzle potential rivals, don’t you think she would have done that to Obama in 2008?

    Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 3:41 pm | Permalink