KUHNER: Impeach the president?

[dandi]

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.

Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

snip

Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

snip

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/


Ladies and gentlemen, the "I" word has now officially been used...

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I've been saying "impeach" since Chavez v2.0 started abrogating affirmed contract law to **** primary lien holders out of their legal rights to pad the coffers of the UAW during the GM takeover.

Nice to see the so-called smart people finally start to catch up.

[Chris_]

I've been saying "impeach" since Chavez v2.0 started abrogating affirmed contract law to **** primary lien holders out of their legal rights to pad the coffers of the UAW during the GM takeover.

Nice to see the so-called smart people finally start to catch up.

With the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives (where Articles of Impeachment must originate).......does anyone actually think this can happen? 

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

With the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives (where Articles of Impeachment must originate).......does anyone actually think this can happen? 

doc

Not until 2011.

[Linda]

You know with the open and transparent government we have now it will start about as soon as they get all their other ethics violators taken care of...any moment now...

[dandi]

With the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives (where Articles of Impeachment must originate).......does anyone actually think this can happen? 

doc

I do.  They'll be the ones to take him down.

[Chris_]

I do.  They'll be the ones to take him down.

If they can't be relied upon to vote against a bill that a large majority of Americans don't want......expecting them to impeach the president is beyond political reality.......they know full well that this HCR bill is leading them off a cliff, and they don't seem to care whether they keep their jobs in ANovember or not......I just don't see it.

Democrats are too self-serving and corrupt.......ain't gonna happen.

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

The Dems are too invested in this travesty to ever look back, the only fix is to sweep their asses out.

[dandi]

If they can't be relied upon to vote against a bill that a large majority of Americans don't want......expecting them to impeach the president is beyond political reality.......they know full well that this HCR bill is leading them off a cliff, and they don't seem to care whether they keep their jobs in ANovember or not......I just don't see it.

Democrats are too self-serving and corrupt.......ain't gonna happen.

doc

Think about this:  Many dems fell on their swords for Clinton.  And, why not?  He was charming, likable, popular, and knew how to move towards the center when he had to. 

Hussein is abrasive, popularity in free fall, and tremendously stupid.  He is, at this point, ordering them to hold hands and jump off of the cliff while san fran nan is holding a gun at their backs. 

Hussein has all of the ego but none of the Clinton charm and political savvy. 

While the Clintons looked to enrich themselves, they also looked out for the party.  Hussein just doesn't give a damn.  He is blatantly in your face and without a clue.  A typical Chicago street thug who doesn't care about how far down he takes the party or the country.  He will drag them all into oblivion if it means he will get a monument to himself.  And that is all this is; a monument to hussein's ego and totalitarian control.  What he's doing is telling a bunch of career politicrats that they need to make themselves a sacrifice to him.  He is being their god and telling them that committing political suicide is a great thing.

Look at all of the arm twisting and bribery that has gone on with this debacle.  He's making his appeal to them to sacrifice themselves to save his image and his presidency, no matter what is being said on tv.  It's not about the party, or the country, or the citizens, or even political rule; it's all about him.

The hard leftists don't like him because he's not hard left enough.  The centrists don't like him because he's too far left.  The blacks don't like him because he's not doing enough for them.  The unions are getting pissed off at him because card check is more or less dead and he's not moving fast enough to satisfy them.  The teachers are now getting pissed off at him because he didn't come sweeping in and save the jobs in CT.

Do you know who has been very oddly silent through all of this hell care garbage?  Hillary.  She has been going about the world, getting humiliated by damn near every "leader" she has to deal with, all in the name of hussein.  This was her signature issue, why is she so quiet?  Does anyone think she just went away after being humiliated by this rookie and the establishment DC types that she used to own?  Oh no, she is very quietly sharpening her knives and making her lists (Pelosi being at the top) and waiting for the shit-storm to finally erupt.

Remember, it was her campaign that was raising questions about his eligibility and his citizenship, not the right.  If the "I" word has been officially thrown in the media, you can bet the SOS is waiting for the right time to take out the president (hussein), the vice president (plugs), the speaker of the house (san fran nan), and the senate president pro tempore (sheets byrd). 

She's next in line (http://usinfo.org/enus/government/branches/ben_succession.html) and I would be willing to bet that she is loving this mess he's creating so she can ride in and save the day.  Hillary found out the hard way that there cannot be two liberal messiahs and she was forced to take a seat. 

Mark my words, when this bill and the chicanery going along with it fails (and it will), they will turn on him with a savage fury.  Not because he's hurting the country or even the party, but because he will be perceived as a complete weakling with a long trail of blood behind him in the water.  Leftists are never unified, they are a fragile coalition of egos that shatter apart when the shit really hits the fan and the time has come where the shit is hitting the fan.  Hussein is too weak to hold the coalition together like Clinton did and it will come flying apart.  The socialist devils have long memories and will not likely forget all of the ****ings they received at his hands.

I have never believed the Republicans will take down hussein, and I still don't.  If they're smart, they'll sit back and watch the show while the libs do all of the work for them.

[Doc]

All of your points are good ones, however, I still don't see it happening......Obama is too ego-driven to understand (or care) what he is doing to either the party, or the country.....he sees this as his "legacy", which in a way....it is.....the  rest of the Dems are between a rock and a hard place.......the "rock" being Obama, and the "hard place" being the lefty base and voters......from "inside the Beltway" they only understand what effects them from day to day.....driven by the media.

The House Dems are betting (erroneously) that the public will allow this to be passed against their wishes, and by November there will be a new "shiny object" to distract them from this debacle.......

Hillary will be lucky to last the year as SoS, and I doubt if she has any further political ambitions at her age....

doc

[dandi]

All of your points are good ones, however, I still don't see it happening......Obama is too ego-driven to understand (or care) what he is doing to either the party, or the country.....he sees this as his "legacy", which in a way....it is.....the  rest of the Dems are between a rock and a hard place.......the "rock" being Obama, and the "hard place" being the lefty base and voters......from "inside the Beltway" they only understand what effects them from day to day.....driven by the media.

The House Dems are betting (erreoneously) that the public will allow this to be passed against their wishes, and by November there will be a new "shiny object" to distract them from this debacle.......

Hillary will be lucky to last the year as SoS, and I doubt if she has any further political ambitions at her age....

doc

Doc, I think you may be looking at this through the prism of a normal, non brain-damaged, rational thinking individual.  We both know that the demos in DC are none of those things.

Some of the house dems may be thinking the public will just take it, but most of them are smarter than that and know what is coming.

Hussein didn't want Hillary as his SOS, she just kinda piped up that he chose her after he was elected and he went with it as opposed to making waves.  At this point, any time she goes somewhere, she's humiliated left and right; hussein damn sure isn't going to allow Hillary to do anything other than fall on her face.  You know as well as I do that she's not going to stand for that, especially not from him.

And if you think that Hillary doesn't have any political ambitions after this, think again.  She's wanted to be president so bad she can't stand it and she's had to play second fiddle to another man. 

Again.

She's seething and (I believe) cannot wait to get her opportunity to take him down.  As the fourth in line, she could take hussein and pelosi out with the eligibility question and convince plugs and sheets to step down due to "health conditions".

[Eupher]

Concur with wasp69 vis a vis Hillary.

No way in hell is she politically "done". Her own ego is just as massive as Lord Zero's and she can't stand sitting backstage while all the bows are going on.

She's quietly sharpening her knives, as wasp says, and waiting for "her moment."

[docstew]

just one question: I fully expect Hillary's thrust, if it comes, to be a certified copy of 0bama's long form birth certificate.  What eligibility questions hover over Nancy?

[Doc]

Concur with wasp69 vis a vis Hillary.

No way in hell is she politically "done". Her own ego is just as massive as Lord Zero's and she can't stand sitting backstage while all the bows are going on.

She's quietly sharpening her knives, as wasp says, and waiting for "her moment."

It would be fun to watch Hillary launch a primary battle with Obama in 2012, but the political realities are that is is seldom done......and even more remotely successful. If she doesn't make a move in 2012, her next opportunity will be in 2016, and she will then be pushing 70 (I'll address this later).

Further realities are that although a zealot.....just like Obama, she is looking at the same "tea leaves" that everyone else in Washington is looking at, and those are telling her that there is a massive wave of rebellion arising in the country against liberalism.......and she's still a liberal, regardless of how much she attempts to paint herself as a centrist.....nobody is going to buy it.......

The next piece is that her level of experience in an executive capacity is only slightly better than Obama.....she was "First Lady" (big deal), she held a Senate seat for part of a term (just like Obama), and now she has been SoS for a few years.......none of which really enhance her resume' for POTUS, plus as SoS, she has absolutely NO accomplishments to campaign on, due mostly to her liberal (read non existant) approach to foreign policy, and further, to the fact that Obama has been careful to keep her in the backwash of his largely ego-driven administration........

The next political reality is that part of the groundswell among the electorate is.....as unfortunate as it may be......against any "minority" in the top spot......I think that Obama has created the environment that will make it very problematic for a black (or to a lesser degree a woman) to be elected president, for several decades at least.....for the politically correct among us, that will be tough for you to swallow, but based on what I see among voters, they are not in the mood to "experiment" with assuaging their "white (or male) guilt" any further.....did it once, and it didn't work out so well.

The final piece......and I believe the most important......is her age, and appearance......she is getting old, and ugly. She does not present herself in public in a manner that will appeal to voters......Lady Margaret Thatcher managed to age with grace and a reserved, latent elegance, but Hillary is rapidly moving in the direction of simply being an old crone.....much of Obama's appeal, particularly to younger voters was his appearance, and his ability to identify with them on the campaign trail, and the youth vote is largely what put him over the top in the election......Hillary has neither of these, and the younger voters will simply not be motivated to turn out for her. she, in essence, is becoming a liberal female version of John McCain.......just another old "retread".

I believe that after her term as SoS.....and I think that it will be brief.....she will concentrate on capitalizing on her political stripes to make money......I fully expect her to get involved in some liberal "think tank", write books that won't sell, and go on the lecture circuit like her husband, focusing on lefty women's causes......just cash in......it would be, by far, the best and smartest move for her.......and for all of her foibles.....she is not stupid......

doc

[debk]

I just realized after reading these posts....haven't heard much from Bill Clinton the last couple of weeks ....or have I just missed it?

For a while there, he was speaking in favor of the HCB....but then he went into the hospital, and I haven't heard anything from him since.

RE: impeachment.

The only way for the Dems to save their seats if this passes...would be to start impeachment proceedings.

[Chris_]

I just realized after reading these posts....haven't heard much from Bill Clinton the last couple of weeks ....or have I just missed it?

For a while there, he was speaking in favor of the HCB....but then he went into the hospital, and I haven't heard anything from him since.

RE: impeachment.

The only way for the Dems to save their seats if this passes...would be to start impeachment proceedings.

The problem with this is that the discussion.......here on this board.......paints us very much like the DUmmies, inasmuch as they spent the entire eight years of GWB's presidency screaming.... "Impeach!.....Impeach!"......and we sat over here and laughed at them......why?  Because GWB never during his term, ever committed an act that would meet the Constitutional test of "high crimes and misdemeanors"......it didn't happen then, and, so far, Obama hasn't committed such an act either......

Ramming through legislation that is unpopular both on this board, and with the public at large.....is not an "impeachable offense".....and the more we whine about it, the more like the DUmmies we appear to the outside world.......

It would be my suggestion that we deal with the realities in an adult, mature manner, and fight the good fight.....discussions of impeachment, regardless of how "warm and fuzzy" they may make us feel, are just hyperbole.....and make us look ridiculous......

YMMV

doc

[debk]

There have been several people on Fox this morning saying that some of these processes that the Dems are talking about using are un-constitutional.

If Obama signs the bill that was done against the Constitution....what then?




YMMV =?

[Chris_]

There have been several people on Fox this morning saying that some of these processes that the Dems are talking about using are unconstitutional.

If Obama signs the bill that was done against the Constitution....what then?




YMMV =?

In that event.....we are speaking of a congressional action, not an illegal act by the president.......it would be up to the courts to decide whether it was "unconstitutional" or not.......

And even if it (or portions of it) are declared unconstitutional, the law will simply be nullified.  The act of passage of a law, that is ultimately found to be unconstitutional.....does not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors", it is simply the separation of powers working in the manner that the founders envisioned.....

doc

[debk]

In that event.....we are speaking of a congressional action, not an illegal act by the president.......it would be up to the courts to decide whether it was "unconstitutional" or not.......

And even if it (or portions of it) are declared unconstitutional, the law will simply be nullified.  The act of passage of a law, that is ultimately found to be unconstitutional.....does not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors", it is simply the separation of powers working in the manner that the founders envisioned.....

doc

I didn't think anything, so far, fit into that category.

My comment regarding impeachment proceedings was only with regard to Dem congress critters keeping their seats...would be to start impeachment proceedings to molify their constituents into re-electing them.

I don't think many people would actually realize that to initiate investigation into impeachment would not actually mean that the act itself would ever occur, that it's two separate processes. And that's what the politicians would be counting on.....

[Chris_]

I didn't think anything, so far, fit into that category.

My comment regarding impeachment proceedings was only with regard to Dem congress critters keeping their seats...would be to start impeachment proceedings to molify their constituents into re-electing them.

I don't think many people would actually realize that to initiate investigation into impeachment would not actually mean that the act itself would ever occur, that it's two separate processes. And that's what the politicians would be counting on.....

Again, that pesky Constitution gets in the way......impeachment requires "cause", and "cause" requires an offense.....so if there is no offense, therefore there is no "cause".....

Starting an "investigation" id a totally different animal, and congress can investigate anything they want to......and there are hundreds going on as we speak, but I doubt they will have any effect on the president, as most of them are focused on making the Republicans look bad.....

doc

[debk]

Again, that pesky Constitution gets in the way......impeachment requires "cause", and "cause" requires an offense.....so if there is no offense, therefore there is no "cause".....

Starting an "investigation" id a totally different animal, and congress can investigate anything they want to......and there are hundreds going on as we speak, but I doubt they will have any effect on the president, as most of them are focused on making the Republicans look bad.....

doc

I mispoke as you pointed out, I should have said start an investigation regarding possible impeachment proceedings may be enough to make their constituents reelect them....

Personally....I don't think there is anything that will get this president out of office, until 2012 when the people elect someone else.

[docstew]

The problem with this is that the discussion.......here on this board.......paints us very much like the DUmmies, inasmuch as they spent the entire eight years of GWB's presidency screaming.... "Impeach!.....Impeach!"......and we sat over here and laughed at them......why?  Because GWB never during his term, ever committed an act that would meet the Constitutional test of "high crimes and misdemeanors"......it didn't happen then, and, so far, Obama hasn't committed such an act either......

Ramming through legislation that is unpopular both on this board, and with the public at large.....is not an "impeachable offense".....and the more we whine about it, the more like the DUmmies we appear to the outside world.......

It would be my suggestion that we deal with the realities in an adult, mature manner, and fight the good fight.....discussions of impeachment, regardless of how "warm and fuzzy" they may make us feel, are just hyperbole.....and make us look ridiculous......

YMMV

doc

Firing Inspectors General without required notice in contravention of Federal Law?  Offering a federal job to Rep Sestak to protect Specter?  These are crimes, that's all they need...

[Doc]

Firing Inspectors General without required notice in contravention of Federal Law?  Offering a federal job to Rep Sestak to protect Specter?  These are crimes, that's all they need...

I would hazard that both are "technicalities".......and I doubt that a court would convict if charges were brought.......and that would be required.....

If you remember the Clinton impeachment, the only way that a Republican controlled congress (forget one controlled by the president's own party), managed to get an impeachment movement started was when a Federal Judge held him in "Contempt of Court", for lying under oath......ergo a "crime"

So......in order for this to happen, Eric Holder (remember him, the guy that wants to try terrorists in US criminal courts) would have to have one of his Justice Department lawyers (appointed by either Holder or Obama) to bring charges against the president for one of these "crimes", and obtain a conviction.......when one thinks about it........really THINKS about it.......it ain't happening.....

doc

[Eupher]

It would be fun to watch Hillary launch a primary battle with Obama in 2012, but the political realities are that is is seldom done......and even more remotely successful. If she doesn't make a move in 2012, her next opportunity will be in 2016, and she will then be pushing 70 (I'll address this later).

Further realities are that although a zealot.....just like Obama, she is looking at the same "tea leaves" that everyone else in Washington is looking at, and those are telling her that there is a massive wave of rebellion arising in the country against liberalism.......and she's still a liberal, regardless of how much she attempts to paint herself as a centrist.....nobody is going to buy it.......

The next piece is that her level of experience in an executive capacity is only slightly better than Obama.....she was "First Lady" (big deal), she held a Senate seat for part of a term (just like Obama), and now she has been SoS for a few years.......none of which really enhance her resume' for POTUS, plus as SoS, she has absolutely NO accomplishments to campaign on, due mostly to her liberal (read non existant) approach to foreign policy, and further, to the fact that Obama has been careful to keep her in the backwash of his largely ego-driven administration........

The next political reality is that part of the groundswell among the electorate is.....as unfortunate as it may be......against any "minority" in the top spot......I think that Obama has created the environment that will make it very problematic for a black (or to a lesser degree a woman) to be elected president, for several decades at least.....for the politically correct among us, that will be tough for you to swallow, but based on what I see among voters, they are not in the mood to "experiment" with assuaging their "white (or male) guilt" any further.....did it once, and it didn't work out so well.

The final piece......and I believe the most important......is her age, and appearance......she is getting old, and ugly. She does not present herself in public in a manner that will appeal to voters......Lady Margaret Thatcher managed to age with grace and a reserved, latent elegance, but Hillary is rapidly moving in the direction of simply being an old crone.....much of Obama's appeal, particularly to younger voters was his appearance, and his ability to identify with them on the campaign trail, and the youth vote is largely what put him over the top in the election......Hillary has neither of these, and the younger voters will simply not be motivated to turn out for her. she, in essence, is becoming a liberal female version of John McCain.......just another old "retread".

I believe that after her term as SoS.....and I think that it will be brief.....she will concentrate on capitalizing on her political stripes to make money......I fully expect her to get involved in some liberal "think tank", write books that won't sell, and go on the lecture circuit like her husband, focusing on lefty women's causes......just cash in......it would be, by far, the best and smartest move for her.......and for all of her foibles.....she is not stupid......

doc

Doc, as always, a thoughtful intuitive analysis. I agree with most everything you've said.

I wasn't altogether clear in my own thoughts, apparently. Insofar as Hillary "sharpening her knives", I don't necessarily mean that she'll go up against Obama in 2012. More on that in a minute.

But Hillary is not afraid of breaking "tradition" as it were and for her supporters and fans who did a credible job in trying to get her the Dem nomination in 08, I'm fairly certain after the HCR abortion is passed and the country/economy continues to tank, I would not at all be surprised to see her run again. That would have to be predicated on a bunch of things happening and for the stars to align and the heavens to open, but it's possible.

To go along with your argument a bit, though -

Ousting a sitting president from his own party's nomination hasn't been done since 1856 when Franklin Pierce (another notorious drunk, btw) was dropped in favor of John Fremont. This political reality would certainly weigh on Hillary and likely get her to toss in the towel, but there's that massive ego of hers to contend with....

Yep, she's gettin' long in the tooth and her campaign voice makes a LOT of people cringe. She became known as "Shrillary" for good reason.

And the longer she stays as SoS, the less likely she'd run. In fact, I'm really surprised to see her stay this long -- I figured she'd be out after a year.

So I dunno....I think her fans keep her energized and with the right machinations behind her coupled with an early "I'm outta here, Barack, GFYS" and his own plummeting approval ratings, I'd say anything is possible.

She just might be touted as the new "Teh Wun" after Lord Zero fails utterly in his first term, aided nobly by Bela Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The Dems just might surprise us all.

All that said, she could be of enormous benefit to her party in much the same way that Sarah Palin benefits the Repubs. Staying on the sidelines, not beholden to the political game, Hillary can endorse candidates, stump for them, and otherwise get her own supporters once again fired up. That's what I mean about "sharpening knives". She may not necessarily run for Prez, but if she does, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Chris_]

But Hillary is not afraid of breaking "tradition" as it were and for her supporters and fans who did a credible job in trying to get her the Dem nomination in 08, I'm fairly certain after the HCR abortion is passed and the country/economy continues to tank, I would not at all be surprised to see her run again. That would have to be predicated on a bunch of things happening and for the stars to align and the heavens to open, but it's possible.

I would agree that it is remotely possible......the problem that she is up against is that the groundswell among the voters is anti-DEMOCRAT......so she would have a steep uphill climb, regardless of circumstances.....and when you couple this with the fact that Obama isn't done pissing off the electorate yet....."Amnesty" is next, followed immediately by "Cap & Trade"..........by the time November gets here, I suspect that a Democrat couldn't be elected dog catcher in the vast majority of states and districts in the country......based simply on what I hear from my contacts in DC, a bloodbath of biblical proportions is shaping up......and most of the insiders know it......which is why many of them have opted to press ahead........they know that either way, they are screwed.....

Ousting a sitting president from his own party's nomination hasn't been done since 1856 when Franklin Pierce (another notorious drunk, btw) was dropped in favor of John Fremont. This political reality would certainly weigh on Hillary and likely get her to toss in the towel, but there's that massive ego of hers to contend with....

Yep, she's gettin' long in the tooth and her campaign voice makes a LOT of people cringe. She became known as "Shrillary" for good reason.

And the longer she stays as SoS, the less likely she'd run. In fact, I'm really surprised to see her stay this long -- I figured she'd be out after a year.

I'm also surprised that she has lasted this long........considering that Obama has basically placed her in political "exile"....

So I dunno....I think her fans keep her energized and with the right machinations behind her coupled with an early "I'm outta here, Barack, GFYS" and his own plummeting approval ratings, I'd say anything is possible.

She just might be touted as the new "Teh Wun" after Lord Zero fails utterly in his first term, aided nobly by Bela Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Here's where we diverge.....her "fans" (the "PUMA's) have largely merged with the "Tea Party Movement", and are rapidly being assimilated into the more conservative side of the political spectrum......I don't think she has, any longer, a significant grassroots voter backing.

All that said, she could be of enormous benefit to her party in much the same way that Sarah Palin benefits the Repubs. Staying on the sidelines, not beholden to the political game, Hillary can endorse candidates, stump for them, and otherwise get her own supporters once again fired up. That's what I mean about "sharpening knives". She may not necessarily run for Prez, but if she does, it wouldn't surprise me.

This IS possible, however, she's no Sarah Palin, and since she has little political clout any longer, I wonder how effective she would be as a "kingmaker", particularly considering her negatives.......remember, during the past presidential cycle, her negatives were the problem that she ran into in state primary after state primary.....she had a cadre of supporters, but did not have a broad voter appeal.  Most of what she had is now gone.......

doc