Most of the buzz on the Democratic side of the aisle has surrounding Hillary Clinton’s decision on whether she would pursue the party’s nomination in 2016. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s name has also been on a short list but it appears the Governor has seen the uphill writing on the wall and says he will not run if Clinton decides to.

Report from the New York Post:

Gov. Cuomo has quietly told associates that he is resigned to the fact that he can’t run for president in 2016 if Hillary Rodham Clinton enters the race, as is widely expected, sources told The Post.

“The governor has told people in recent weeks that there’s not a chance for him to run if Hillary gets in the race because she’ll easily wrap up the Democratic nomination,’’ said a Cuomo administration insider with direct knowledge of the situation.

“He knows that and he accepts that, and so he won’t even be thinking at all in those terms — unless Hillary decides not to run, which seems unlikely,’’ the source continued.

Who does that leave to challenge Hillary Clinton? Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has been mentioned but I don’t think he’d make it off the Eastern Shore.


  1. That’s such BS. The reason Cuomo won’t run is because is Poll Numbers TANKED after he RAMMED through his “Tyrannical” Anti-Gun Legislation down the throats of New Yorkers.

  2. That is odd. Generally, if someone is considered a “candidate,” they get more attention, and more importantly, influence. That’s why non-candidates usually wait as long as they can to drop out. Look at last year’s Republican candidates. Within days of quitting, people forgot Michelle What’s–Her-Name and couldn’t remember that Texas guy who couldn’t remember.

    Likewise, serious candidates wait as long as they can before announcing candidacy, and usually do so in a multi-stage process, to drag it out and get headlines.

    For Cuomo to “drop out” this early would usually mean that he would be actively courting her as her Veep, but that can’t be the case, since the Constitution won’t allow president and vice president to be from the same state.

    The only explanation that I can think of is that this really DID mean this to be a “quiet” announcement to a few close friends, to let them know that they shouldn’t be pushing his candidacy. But pros know that there’s no such thing as “quiet” in politics.

    Maybe this is reverse psychology. Maybe he thinks no one seemed interested because they thought, if Clinton falls, Cuomo would just take over. If they think he’s out, maybe more candidates will run, forcing Clinton to fight it out? And then, of course, like Bobby Kennedy in 1968, once the path is clear, he could appear.

    • The “same state” exclusion is a misunderstanding of the 12th Amendment, although it is almost guaranteed to happen that way from a practical standpoint. The 12th only says that any given individual elector (which is tied to a state, of course) cannot vote for both a President and a Vice-President candidate that are both from the same state AS THAT ELECTOR. In practice, if both candidates were from a large-population state like California or Texas or New York, it would be a problem, but there are workable (if far-fetched) electoral scenarios even then. If they were both from Rhode Island or Alaska, then they might be willing to just concede that state anyway.

      • You are correct. That’s one of the amendments we think we know, and take it for granted. Thanks for the correction. If I had stopped to read the very FIRST sentence of the Amendment, I would have remembered that. Anyway, as you say, since we’re talking New York, Clinton would lose the entire state if she chose Cuomo. However, the Republicans could both be from New York, since they’re not likely to win the state, anyway.

  3. We can only pray that Hillary will run in 201. The ‘mad men and women radicals’ need more time to atrophy. And as we are seeing the damage done to this country by G. W. Bush is being forgotten all ready. Are we ‘juveniles?, The players of his ill-advised Presidency are waiting in the wings to return to the Hill. Which reminds me that Cheney may never expire–neither heaven or hell will welcome him.

  4. Corey Booker, if he wins his senate seat, or Duval Patrick, if he wins re-election , could beat Hillary.

    the black vote is a huge block in dem primaries

    • Cindy: I don’t think so. Patrick is an impressive politician, but the United States of America is NOT going to elect two Black presidents in a row, no matter what party. Likewise Booker. Likewise Carson. Ain’t gonna happen.

      Also, while Black voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic, they are still only about 1/9 of the population, and in most elections, Black voters don’t bother. If there’s a black candidate, and if he or she shakes them up, they might vote. AND if many whites agree, well, they may have a chance. But I still don’t believe it could happen.

      • America is really post-racial. We have been for a long time now. Any person who presents an understandable case to the American public will win, regardless of gender or race. People think there is a real racial problem in the USA, as far as elections go, but there isn’t. Like stupidity, you will always have some people who are racist, probably because the two are like Siamese twins, but by and large America is post racial.

        • Josh: We’d like to think so, but it just ain’t so. Anything Obama says or does is interpreted through a racial lens, when clearly, it has not been the case. Look at when Cain ran. Everybody made a big deal about the Black guy who was ALSO a conservative, as if her were an escapee from some zoo. And, of course, if Bush had not been so deeply unpopular on both sides of the aisle, I doubt that Obama would have had a chance in 2008.

            • Billy: I think it was just too soon for Hillary. She had been First Lady in the immediately prior presidency, and it seemed “banana republic” to elect a wife–just for having been there. Now that time has passed, and she has built up her bona fides, she can be taken seriously.

            • Time will tell but I don’t think so. She won’t get the black vote out like Obama did and if the GOP can put in a no name, they got it. Well that is unless Obama can indeed turn thing around

            • Obama got 7.6 million few votes the 2nd time around and the black turn out was down 1.5 million fewer. But the GOP numbers were far worse for voter turnout. Yeah baggage hurts. And Hillary has baggage now that she didn’t have the 1st time around.

            • Billy – I did mean it as a joke, but it is a possibility. If Obama and Clinton can wiggle out of responsibility for Benghazi and the Republican congressional investigation, then all Clinton will need to do is distance herself from Obama and create a game plan that makes even the minute sense and she will carry the Party and the Liberal MSM. She can pick a VP to maximize the vote. The Pub party is still completely fractured. The Liberation party doesn’t have enough Money to truly market itself and a candidate (a few $$B), and no one is going to create a third party, market it with $$$B and find a leader. Big biz is semi satisfied with status quo. If no conservative buys one of the big three TV and Obama DOESN’T try a martial law show, then it is easy to see a path for Clinton..

        • Its only interpreted through racial lenses when a majority of people disagree with a given Obama policy, and only interpreted as racial by people who aren’t racist themselves, but just ‘believe’ others to be, or know they can use the race card as a weapon. A lot of times when Obama couldn’t get people on his side on a given issue, people would be trotted out to say…the only reason you are against this is because you’re a racist and Obama is black. A lot of people would quickly get defensive and back down. Why? 2 reasons:

          1. Their reasons had no race base, but were policy, or politically based
          2. Being labeled as a racist is a bad thing politically, why…because America is post racial.

          The race card as a weapon is evidence of America’s post-racial state. If America wasn’t post racial, then the race card would be meaningless.

          People liked a Cain candidate partly because he IS black, same as Obama Why? America IS post racial and wants to prove it.

          In his first presidential campaign Obama was doing well, but started tanking when people heard him say to Joe The Plumber, ‘…i’m glad that you’re succeeding, but i’m for helping the people behind you who want to succeed. I think things are better when you *spread the wealth around*’ People knew this was a socialist/communist mentality and his numbers started tanking. He started doing better when the economy tanked in late 2007, so people lost confidence in the republican ticket. Similar thing with Reagan and Carter. Reagan probably would have won anyway, but the economy tanking like it was didn’t help Carter at all.

          • Josh: Again, it would be nice, but it’s just not so. Humans are tribal animals. We are always looking for our tribe members–our friends–our allies–and we are suspicious of people who are “different” in any way. And race is the most obvious way to tell someone is “not like us,” so whether you want to admit it or not, you feel differently about a person who is Black, oriental, middle eastern, Indian, or Mexican.

            I agree with you that the thing that elected Obama, more than anything, was when the economy tanked in 2008–right in the middle of the election season. McCain was saying things like “the fundamentals are good,” and Obama was saying something had to be done to avoid a Great Depression.

            As for Joe the Plumber, you should read the full transcript, in which Obama talks about boosting small business, and the fact that if Joe had not had to pay so much taxes in the 15 years he’d been a “plumber,” he could have started his own business sooner–instead of subsidizing big business. Here’s the full text–I’m sure it will surprise you that he was so patient with the guy, and his answer was not at ALL as was portrayed by the media:


            Anyway, I was not even talking about policy. There was the Henry Louis Gates episode. It was clear that Obama was saying the “state” should not have hassled an individual in his own home, but instead of being reported as the President defending property rights and individual rights, the media turned it into a racial circus. Responding to that, they had the silly “beer summit,” but it was a silly response to media silliness.

            Likewise, when there was the shootings at Newtown, Obama said those could have been his kids. There was no way that the media could turn that into a racial issue, but when Obama said that Trayvon Martin could have been one of his kids, the media swooped in and made it a racial issue. I’m not saying anything at all about the shooting, itself. I’m just saying that the media tried to make Obama’s response sound racist, whereas, as evidenced by his Newtown response, it was just his own personal sense of loss at the death of young people.

        • Josh – i believe we were post-racial until about Obama’s 2nd year. i also believe his divisiveness drove the US back to about 1970 racially. his command of the Democrats party and liberal MSM has worked exceptionally hard and well to divide us into many different factions and cover up any negativity regarding Blacks, Muslim Extremists, and illegals (mostly Mexican). i lived in Northern CA in the 90’s – the CA ethnic split was about 30% Euro, 25% Asian, 25% Latino, & 20% Black, It seemed liked everyone whined about everyone else but there was no real racism or prejudice. Today in both CA and CO i hear a great many UNDERtones of ethnic racism and hate, but P.C. prevents surfacing.

  5. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Most Americans do not want the United States to intervene in Syria’s civil war even if the government there uses chemical weapons, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Wednesday, in a clear message to the White House as it considers how to respond to the worsening crisis.

    Only 10 percent of those surveyed in the online poll said the United States should become involved in the fighting. Sixty-one percent opposed getting involved.

    • You got to put a little spin on the question to get the desired answer. Like in Vietnam were were fighting the Russians? So just get the Muslim word into the equation and the message could change.

      • Billy: I’m not so sure. They did get a little higher support if they said, “what if Assad were shown to have used massive chemical weapons?” But using the “Muslim” word would make no difference, since even the stupidest American would know there are Muslims in Syria.

        And the smarter Americans know that the rebels are more dangerous to us than Assad, whose family has run the place as a secular state.

        I think we’re in an era of “fool me once,” in which Americans don’t want any more war, especially in that area.

        • Sure they do. Doves are on the endangered species list. Do you want to fight the radical Muslims on the streets of Boston or in Syria. WE have clear and convincing evidence that Syria trained those responsible for Benghazi. All spin aka lies.

          • Billy: But you’re proving my point. It gets back to the basic argument you and I always have over whether Americans love war. I will stipulate that Americans love to WIN a war, and even love to fight back, if attacked. But Americans have never liked or want war, per se.

            All of Europe was itching for a fight before WWI, but it was almost over before we got sucked in. And even knowing what Hitler was about, it once again took us years to get directly involved. And before the Iraq war, polls showed 70% of us did NOT want that war–until we had boots on the ground–and only BECAUSE we had boots on the ground.

            Now then, I will also stipulate that Americans can be fooled. We have been repeatedly deceived by reports of staged and even fictitious attacks. Having believed our own government, yes, the American people have fired up for war.

            But to be duped into war is not the same as “loving war.”

            • But the impact is the same, dead bodies and heavy debt so a few get richer than they already are. Many must die so a few can become richer. The story of every war ever fought.

            • Exactly, and as usual, we are agreeing on the horrible waste and insanity of war, but disagreeing simply because you say “Americans love war,” whereas the nature of the American people is actually peaceful and live-and-let-live.

              The media like to use the term, “war weary,” to suggest that we love war, but we’re bored. A better phrase would be, “coming to our senses” about the senselessness of unending war.

            • Goethe and Billy – I don’t know a single person who would want to put any boots on the ground anywhere in the middle east, let alone Syria. I don’t know how much the MSM has talked about the Syria situation but if they have spent any time on it, I think the general public looks at Syria as it’s own in-fighting and not the bigger picture. I also don;t think the public relates the Boston event to a greater organized al Qaeda sponsored attack so they wouldn’t associate Boston and the same Muslim extremist connection. (which i believe is simply some dumb youngun’s listening to radical Imam’s against America and the kids thinking that Boston is actually Kyrgyzstan.)

              Everyone i know just wants us out of the middle east and don’t really care how they go about their internal wars. I can’t answer for everyone but those i know right and left and retired / active military want to be quit of the middle east and war except to better protect our border, and if al Qaeda starts again deal with them using remote weapons.

              Obama’s red-line for Syria is a joke and he is showing his butt. there is too much feeling against intervening especially when we aren’t even out Afghan yet

            • God, I hate to agree with Sam, but I also believe that most people here don’t think there are any good guys in Syria, on either side, and the only reason we are getting sucked in to it is that Israel loves the thought of internal strife among its neighbors, and wants to encourage it. Remember that the “report” of the use of chemical weapons came from Israel and only afterward via Britain (from Israel).

              As for Obama’s “red line,” it was spoken at a time when McCain and other NeoCons were trying to get us involved over there. Obama’s response was, basically, “no,” but of course, no US President can be seen as disagreeing with Israel, so he added that if there were “widespread” use of chemical weapons, that would be a “game-changer.” What he meant, was a change from “no” to “let’s take a look at this.” But it was clearly not a quid-pro-quo, and as much as the NeoCons will try to drag us into Syria, I don’t see it happening.

            • Gee Sam I think we got boots on the ground in over 100 countries and it don’t much matter what the people want as they let them politicians run up a 17 trillion dollar debt and put us in wars we had no business getting into. It would seem the worse they are treated the better they like it.

            • Billy, we control the seas and i don’t see us giving that up, so a lot of “boots on the ground” are in support of that. i don’t think it’s a 100 countries but i’ve never checked or cared but you have a point in politicians supporting lobbyists of bi government contractors -as you say- follow the money. i’ll give you that about 3 of the 17 tetra bucks is due to war (starting back with Afghan in 2002) but the rest is split between what the General fund owes SSA and fattening government bureaucracy, bailouts, supporting the rest of the world, and other crap.

              As i said before, i don’t know anyone who wants another war (any more boots on foreign ground) – and any politician who supports it better not be up for election in ’14.

              I think Obama still has the goal to spend us into bankruptcy and as Bernacke keeps printing 85 new giga bucks per month and the dollar continues to devalue it’s gonna be sooner than later. Obama is runnin’ many different brandin’ irons to steal our money and guns and turn us into the USSA and the people still lick his boots and the Liberal MSM is in lock step.

  6. Banksters–episode 312:

    Government investigators have found that JPMorgan Chase devised “manipulative schemes” that transformed “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,” and that one of its most senior executives gave “false and misleading statements” under oath.

    The findings appear in a confidential government document, reviewed by The New York Times, that was sent to the bank in March, warning of a potential crackdown by the regulator of the nation’s energy markets.

  7. Goethe – i was referring to your statement of: “the United States of America is NOT going to elect two Black presidents in a row, no matter what party. ”

    This statement is about *America’s* racism. The points you brought up about the media were questions about *President Obama* and whether he is a racist. A post racial country will be concerned about whether their president is a racist. A racist country would not care about their president being racist…because their racism would drive them to elect someone who reflects their racism. So in a way, the points you brought up are actually evidence of America’s post racial state. Why? Because America elected a black president, and then wondered if he favored black people over non-black people – the Beer Summit was about a white cop and a black professor while the Trayvon was a hispanic man shootiing a black teenager.

    So America (majority white) was wondering if the black president they chose was favoring black people over other races. Why? because by and large America is post racial and wants everyone treated the same.

    • Josh: I don’t know how you think the way you do. Perhaps you never see anyone of a different race. Maybe you’ve watched too many after-school-movies. You obviously don’t see how people react to one another, how they think about one another.

      As Billy and I said, the ONLY reason Obama was elected in 2008 was that people were so disgusted and distraught by the wars and economy that they wanted the most drastic change possible–to the point that the two main candidates were a woman and a Black man. I’ll go even farther:

      The irony is that there were several MORE attractive Black prospects in 2008. Harold Ford and Jesse Jackson, Jr. were both HOLLYWOOD-style candidates, real male models and stars–as opposed to Mr. Big Ears.

      I think Obama was favored specifically BECAUSE he was not a typical Black man. His father was NOT a child of slavery. He was a foreigner, directly from modern Africa. Because of that, Obama was NOT seen as a “Black man,” but rather, as exotic and unique. The question of slavery, and even racism, seemed irrelevant–because while he was “not like us,” he also was “not like them.”

      And the points I brought up were NOT whether Obama is racist. It was the ANALYSIS and INTERPRETATION of what he said that was racist. You might argue that the media are racist, and none of the viewers/listeners are, but I mean, really?

      As I said, Obama said basically the same thing about Newtown and Trayvon Martin, yet the media made a big racial thing about the one that they could. It was not about Obama at all. As noted above, with a white mother and foreign father, Obama is not really “Black” at all.

      I’m not saying White people are bad. I’m not saying Black people are bad. I’m saying we have preconceived notions and stereotypes that we cannot escape. Tribal mentality. We can sing “Kumbaya, My Lord” all day long, but it won’t change who we are.

      • Actually, racism was not my point.

        One of America’s greatest strengths is that we are always dissatisfied. We always want something different. And that was what I was really talking about.

        I am not saying we are racist, but race is a component. After eight years of an African-American leader, I just do not believe that we will want another one right away. As Barbara Bush said, we’ve had enough Bush’s. . .I think we’ve also had enough Clintons and Kennedys. And THAT was the real reason Hillary didn’t win in 2008.

        • My mom got into a fight with the next door neighbors one time (verbal) and sold out house to a nice black single mom with 5 kids. I called that racism. Now that was back in the days of “block busters” so we got top dollar for our house but I don’t think the neighbor did as well.

      • Guess what you are saying is the Bush was not exactly a tough act to follow. But Obama had to beat Hillary and she did have name recognition. She was white and times were good when the Clintons were in the White House.

        • Billy: Yeah, but her name recognition was from being “wife” and worse, “betrayed wife.” And we only knew her as the author of Hillarycare. Now she is very admired in the Senate, and has respect among serious people for her non-stop energy and dedication as Secretary of State.

          Both Dem candidates in 2008 lacked gravitas. Obama won because he was able to convey a vision–and he lost his mandate when he lost his focus.

          • her non-stop energy and dedication as Secretary of State.? ? ? Seemed to sputter a bit on Benghazi & you can bet Fox has every frame on video on that. Just not going to get the GOP to cross party lines for sure.

            • Billy, this is another example of your being disagreeable, not just disagreeing. Someone tries to have a genuine discussion, and you play ambushing games. In this case YOU were the one who was singing the praises of Hillary and how you could NOT understand why she didn’t beat Barry, because she was so wonderful and when Clinton was in office, everything was so perfect.

              I said I figured there was Clinton-Bush fatigue, and besides, she had not racked up enough bona fides. There is no question that she gained across-the-board respect for her untiring EFFORT as Sec of State. You could argue substance, but if so, it’s that Obama was micromanaging. That is not her fault–and was not my argument. My point was the energy and DEDICATION she put into it, which HAS BEEN praised across-the-board.

              As for party lines, I think you’re dead wrong. Maybe it was because of low expectations, but it is undeniable that she extracted respect from senators of all stripes. And she did not hesitate to go on Fox to state her case, and earned grudging respect, even from O’Reilly. As I’ve said elsewhere, Americans love an in-your-face leader

              Our discussion was not on her merits. It was on (a) the gravitas she gained fro the energy and drive she put into her work, AND (b) the fact that she is no longer seen as Monica Lewinski’s boyfriend’s wife. You can flip-flop and prevaricate as much as you want, but those were the two points in question, and the conclusion that she is now in an entirely different league than she was in 2008 is undeniable.

            • Look. like Hillary and no matter what the explanation I will never figure out how she lost to a black politician from Chicago. I go along with Jessie Jackson in that in order to be equal a black man has to be better and Obama ain’t.

            • Billy – Hillary’s dedication was to the Democrats party and delivering Obama’s game plan. She did absolutely nothing independent of Obama. She fell on her sword numerous time to protect Obama and the Party throughout her tenure, AND Goethe, as for Clinton having respect ACROSS the board,i completely disagree – that’s like saying Pelosi or Feinstein has respect across the board.

              As the Benghazi probe by the Republications in the House moves forward, Obama, Clinton, the Democrats Party and the liberal Mass Media will close ranks and the Pubs + FOX and other conservative media won’t have enough power to get through to the general public that it was Obama himself who gave the “Stand Down” order and Clinton was just following orders. The same way she pulled protection from Benghazi and then hired al Qaeda to protect the Gun running event that got the Americans killed.

              The saddest thing is neither one – Obama or Clinton has done virtually nothing in the interest of furthering growth, security, and common good FOR ALL in the U.S., simply strengthening the Democrats party and their power and control over the U.S. We work for them in their minds.

            • I agree 100% – the GOP, Tea, Libertarian, or any other party will never became congealed, marketed, or make the general public aware enough to overcome the brainwashing of the Democrats and the Liberal Mass Media. Once we are in full Communism / Socialism and people like me are in concentration camps, there will be a wake-up call but far too late to do anything about it. Remember, just several days ago that the Florida Palm Beach Sheriff got $1M for his Crime Prevention Unit and expectations of Neighbors to call in dissidents such as myself. It’s comin’ Billy

            • Billy – I recently received an email from a friend, “Rob mentioned he attended a local/neighborhood meeting (Franktown, CO) last night that had one of the neighbors, a Dept of Homeland Security guy, there who is a Patriot and this fellow said the DOHS staff are being told to watch for these types of stickers and apparel – and are designating the wearers/bearers as Terrorists!”

              backing this up:

              But: The flag we know today as the first Navy Jack (sometimes known as the “Culpepper Flag”) is believed to have flown aboard the Alfred, flagship of the newly commissioned Continental fleet, in January, 1776. American ships used this flag, or one of its variations, throughout the Revolutionary War. This powerful American symbol was used by the Continental Navy in 1776 and is being used again by the U.S. Navy in the War on Terrorism.

            • That last thing the government wants is its citizens joining together in any form of a common bond. If its more than three it is labeled as subversive.

    • This guy knows well what side his bread is buttered on. Seems like the only votes he loses are the ones that would not vote for him no matter what.

Comments are closed.