Comments (43) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Absalom57 said, 5 months ago

   No, there is not. Hillary won’t run in 2016. She’s 65 now and would be 69 in 2016. Dems do not vote for older people for the president, unless that person is already the Pres.Obama will appoint his successor during the 2014 cycle. Someone who is in lock step with his statist ideals.
2. 

   Dycel said, 5 months ago

   Wait and see.
   The repubbys will just have to roll over and be dead if she does.
3. 

   Stipple said, 5 months ago

   Women live soooo much longer than men. Age is not the factor is was with Reagan.
4. 

   Richard S. Russell said, 5 months ago

   Didn’t we fight a revolution back in 1776 so we didn’t HAVE to deal with hereditary dynasties? Didn’t we learn all over again in 2000 why they were bad ideas? In a nation of 313,000,000 people, do we truly have only 2 families whom we trust to lead us? What’s next, York vs. Lancaster? Chelsea vs. Jenna? Barney vs. Socks?
5. 

   AlexanderTheGoodEnough said, 5 months ago

   Back in Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-four, a woman was running as a Vice Presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro. At the time, I worked for a fellow who had for decades hung with and was a consultant to the likes of the Rockefellers and Armand Hammer, and who liked to ruminate about things political. One day I had a bright idea and asked him, in the context of Ferraro’s candidacy, what he thought of the idea of woman President. “Ruthless!” was the immediate reply. “Huh?” says I. He explained. At the time, there had been three women heads of state of western-style democracies post WWII, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. Each one of them had successfully prosecuted a war and were themselves the roughest, toughest politicians in countries where politics was all but a blood sport. They were more formidable than any man of their place, day and time. Ruthless. QED. And Hillary certainly measures up. Imagine poor Boehner going up against her! (Myself, I imagine poor Bill. She’d bite the head off a railroad spike if you put it in her mouth…) GO HILLARY!!
6. 

   saywhatwhat said, 5 months ago

   @Absalom57

   What Democrats don’t do is blindly vote for anyone “appointed” by an outgoing President. It might actually be better if they would. 1968 and 2000 come to mind.
7. 

   ronald rini said, 5 months ago

   First ask her if she or her husband paid back any of that 6 million dollars that the people sent in to pay for the legal expenses. Second I thinking you are going to hear more from chelse(sorry for spelling) Bill did not push obama for nothing.
8. 

   JmcaRice said, 5 months ago

   today’s comic is not very critical nor insightful. what gives Oliphant ?
9. 

   Ms. Ima said, 5 months ago

   She should have run against O this year. She probably would have won.
10. 

    Gary Kleppe said, 5 months ago

    @saywhatwhat

    The voters did choose Al Gore in 2000. It was the Supreme Court who chose otherwise.
11. 

    masterskrain said, 5 months ago

    @Ms. Ima

    So, what you are saying is that Hillary would have kicked Romney’s butt even worse then Obama did?
    Maybe have won by a margin of 60% to 40%, rather then 53% to 47%?
    Maybe 450 Electoral College votes instead of the 323 that Obama got?
    Maybe, just maybe…
12. 

    Clark Kent said, 5 months ago

    @Stipple, age was not the factor in the raygun misadministration, alzheimers was.
13. 

    masterskrain said, 5 months ago

    @Clark Kent

    As Gallagher once asked; “If Reagan developed Alzheimer’s Disease, how could you tell??”
14. 

    Simon_Jester said, 5 months ago

    @Richard S. Russell

    Uhhh, just one little problem. Hillary is related to Bill Clinton by marriage, not by blood, so it’s NOT hereditary,

    Personally, I’d like to see Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer take shot at it
15. 

    capndunzzl said, 5 months ago

    …we knew it would happen.
16. Load the rest of the comments (28).