Literally called the “Stop Hillary Clinton Political Action Committee,” the Stop Hillary PAC is being organized far in advance by conservatives who have assumed the former Secretary of State will wind of being the Democratic nominee in 2016. Their goal is to hound Clinton and respond wherever she pops up in the political arena between now and the 2016 election.

Report from

Some conservatives have already begun efforts “Stop Hillary” Clinton from winning the 2016 presidential election, even though the former first lady, senator and Secretary of State has not officially declared her intention to run.

The Stop Hillary political action committee, incorporated in May, has declared its intention to counter every campaign move Clinton may make, according to Newser.

“We’re supporting anything that is the opposite of Hillary,” said Garrett Marquis, an adviser to John McCain during his 2008 presidential run. “We will play however needed, wherever Hillary is playing. If she endorses in the Virginia governor’s race, we will go there. Assuming she is active in Iowa, we will be there, too, and we will make some considerable noise.”

This week some of the group’s organizers have begun stepping into public view. CNN reported that Ted Harvey, a conservative state senator from Colorado is heading up Stop Hillary’s leadership team. Other members include Alex Shively, a former aide to Georgia Rep. Tom Price; Jacob Leis, a Colorado-based political strategist; and Dan Backer, a Washington attorney and lobbyist.

These names are not exactly prominent, but the group is not concerned with star power. Stop Hillary hopes to appeal to grassroots conservatives and low dollar contributors, not traditional big donors.

Clearly on the right, the presumed nominee is Hillary Clinton. Is this a result of media inevitability or simply that there are no other names in Democratic politics right now to challenge the Clinton juggernaut?


  1. This sounds like the “Establishment” Republicans are just “appealing for money” by USING AND PIMPING the Conservatives and Libertarians within the Party. REMEMBER what they did to us at the Convention in Tampa! WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN!

    If the Conservatives and/or Libertarians are TRULY behind this “Stop Hillary” PAC, then the PAC should be renamed and it’s Mission should be to “toss out” and “kick-to-the-curb” the Establishment Republicans who are dictated by and controlled by the Neocon Nazis.

    • REMEMBER what they did to us at the Convention in Tampa! WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN!

      Right on, a GOP police state all the way. No thanks GOP if this is you vision of America.

  2. If Re[publicans continue to dwell on the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice, issue then anyone who runs for President on the Democratic side will win. All women should be entitiled to individual freedom as are men!

  3. Back to Hillary. . .

    I don’t think the anti-Hillary movement is about the fact that she’s the front-runner. It’s about the fact that she’s pretty much a NeoCon, especially when it comes to having us be Israel’s puppet.

    Her tenure as Secretary of State was on a short leash. She wanted us to go into Syria,for instance. She had to get out so that she could stop trying to “restart” with anybody.

    The real significance of the anti-Hillary movement is that the GOP knows that she could appeal to hawks on the right. And she’s seen as a centrist,so she could grab independents. And as a woman, she can probably rely on a strong liberal and women’s vote.

    They’re not trying to “Stop Hillary” because she’s the presumed candidate. If that were the case, Nixon’s people wouldn’t have helped get McGovern nominated. You don’t try to stop a candidate because they might win the nomination–you try to stop them because they can pull YOUR votes.

    • You may be on to something. I know of enough Republicans who, when they compare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, see her to Obama’s right and act almost nostalgic that they wish she would have won in 2008.

    • The Republicans might have a “slim chance” if they expose Hillary as the Cruella De Vil that she really is. But most won’t because they lack spine (like Cruella’s man servant in this clip). But I’m sure most women wouldn’t want to be portrayed in that light – let alone her shadow.

      • It depends on whether the GOP is out to win at any cost, or if they want what they think is good for the country. As Nate notes above, many Republicans realize if Hillary had won in 2008, much of their domestic wish list would have been fulfilled–plus, we’d still be in Iraq, certainly in Syria (she wrote about that), most likely have attacked Iran, and would have been publicly complicit in the overthrow of Morsi, among other things.

        But if your goal is only to “win,” then you do everything you can to knock her down, hoping you can maneuver Dems into picking another McGovern or Dikakis.

        SO–if you want to win, you (a) try to knock down Hillary, and (b) start a whispering campaign to draft a leftist governor of the most liberal state, Massachusetts. And, voila, ladies and gentlemen: the “buzz” about Devol Patrick, who has the added drawback of being black after 8 years of a black president.

  4. I’m not sure that H. Clinton has ever had an original thought of her own. First was B. Clinton and his demand on her actions – as Senator she was always co-joined by others, under Obama she dutifully carried out his orders, and always in all instances – putting forth the declared Party line.

    Semi-conservative article opens some questions about Hillary:

    How the MSM will portray her – and hence the general public will adore and elect her:

    Not matter what tho, there are millions of vets and actives that hold her as co-responsible for the deaths at Benghazi and the statement, “What difference does it make” !!

Comments are closed.