Lest we forget,

[MadHound]

There's been some serious buzz around and about concerning Hillary as the Democratic nominee in '16. The same Hillary Clinton who voted for the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War Resolution.

Which means that she either agrees with the need to get the US into needless wars, or she was dumb enough to be fooled by Bushboy.

Either way, that simply doesn't make her a fit candidate for the office of the President.

[JoePhilly]

1. Better get your alternative off his / her ass then.

Otherwise, you'll probably be spending 2016-2020 complaining about President Hillary Clinton.

[MadHound]

2. So, do you think that such blunders on her part make her a fit candidate for the office? n/t

[JoePhilly]

3. Let's see ... if she had beat Obama in the primaries, I'd have voted for her.

And unless there is a better alternative in 2016, and she runs, she'll get my vote against the Republican alternative.

And so again ... where is your alternative so that I might compare??

[ananda]

4. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

I knew Obama would swing to the right from the getgo, and he's done exactly that.

I didn't think Clinton would go that far right and I still don't.

[JoePhilly]

6. I think she's actually to Obama's right, and far more hawkish, but that's irrelevant.

Obama won't be running in 2016.

Hillary might be running in 2016, and the OP is about her, and whether she is an acceptable candidate.

Unless some better Dem alternative comes along (and I don't really see one stepping forward yet) she'll get my vote.

Pretty simple.

[MadHound]

8. So you're essentially saying that you'll vote for anybody,

No matter how far to the right they are, just so long as they have a D behind their name. Not terribly discriminating are you?

Hypothetical, say Romney switched parties, became a Democrat, got the nomination, would you vote for him in the general?

[JoePhilly]

18. So you've have no alternative, got it.

Which is why you just built that lame (hypothetical) straw-man.

I'll be voting for the candidate that I think is the best candidate of the actual alternatives. I can't imagine a scenario, not even hypothetical, where that would be Romney.

And apparently, you'll be spending 2016-2020 complaining.

[MadHound]

20. You stated that you thought that Hillary was to the right of Obama,

That implies that you're nor necessarily voting on issues, but simply on the D behind somebody's name, hence the hypothetical about Romney.

Not so hypothetical then, Charlie Crist recently became a Democrat, would you vote for him?

[JoePhilly]

23. You make a lot of assumptions.

I do think Hilary was to Obama's right, but not by a large margin, and not by a large enough margin that I would disqualify her.

Their positions on most issues were pretty close.

You would not vote for Hillary, which means you probably also did not vote for Obama. Would not be a surprise given the tone and structure of most of your OPs.

If you don't want a President Hillary Clinton in 2016, you might want to spend more time trying to put forward real alternatives, rather than putting forward people to Clinton's RIGHT. If she runs against the people you mentioned, she gets my vote. Although I doubt any of the people you have mentioned so far will be running at all.

So again ... you need to find an alternative, or you'll be spending 2016-2020 complaining. Which might be your preferred outcome.

[MadHound]

24. Speaking of assumptions, you make quite a few yourself,

Despite the fact that I had a fairly active post concerning my vote for Obama(one in which you participated in, if I remember correctly).

But that aside, you're dodging the question. Crist is a Democrat, recently converted from a Republican. Since you have already stated that you would vote for somebody to the right of Obama, would you also vote for Crist? Or Romney, if he became a Democrat? Are you voting on issues and people, or simply the D behind the name?

[JoePhilly]

31. I think I already explained how I vote up thread. Maybe you missed it.

What I have learned is that you have no alternative that you'd like to put forward.

If Crist or Romney ran, I'd review their positions on a wide array of issues, and compare them to the alternatives. I can not see a situation in which either of them would get my vote.

I am quite confident that when 2016 gets here, I'll have alternatives that are to the LEFT of Crist and Romney.

You have a tougher problem. You have no alternative to Hillary.

Better get busy.

[MadHound]

33. You've explained it quite clearly,

Perhaps more clearly than you intended.

[JoePhilly]

37. Yes, as I explained, you have no alternative.

[MadHound]

38. LOL, there's always alternatives,

The best alternative is not to vote for somebody simply because of the letter behind their name. Instead, focus on the issues at hand.

[JoePhilly]

40. The good news is that others in the thread have actually proposed a few alternatives.

Something you seem incapable of doing.

[MadHound]

7. Really?

This is somebody who supported her husband as he gutted our manufacturing sector, deregulated the financial sector, and shredded our social safety net. How can you say that she is to the left of Obama?

Not to mention, again, that she supported the Patriot Act and the IWR.

[MadHound]

5. What is your opinion of a better alternative?

Mine starts with somebody who didn't vote for the Patriot Act of the IWR.

[JoePhilly]

10. Since I'm not a one issue voter, I'd be comparing across a very broad landscape of issues.

Which means that I might actually perfer an alternative who holds a few positions I disagree with, if, in total, I find them to be a better alternative.

To be able to make such a comparison, I need an actual alternative.

And complaining about Hillary is not an alternative.

[theKed]

36. Possible options

(disclaimer - I don't know if any of these have said yay or nay to the idea, just some names i've seen bandied about on the matter)

Gavin Newsom (CA Lt-Gov)
Cory Booker (Newark NJ Mayor)
Elizabeth Warren (MA Sen)
Joe Biden (VP)
Andrew Cuomo (NY Gov)
Beau Biden (Delaware Att-Gen)
Martin O'Malley (Maryland Gov)
Deval Patrick (MA Gov)

[JoePhilly]

39. I like your list, at least you are trying.

I think that most of those, from what I know of them, represent viable alternatives. Well, I might drop the younger Biden from that list because he's still a rather unknown quantity.

Other than that, all of the others get consideration.

Each brings something to the table, although other than Joe Biden, I don't think we know much about the foreign policy positions this group would take.

Of the group, if I had to select a front runner, O'Malley might be the stronges overall, and there are rumors that he's interested.

But I'd consider all of these folks, even including the younger Biden.

Who is your pick from that group?

[theKed]

44. The biggest issue

with many of them is a lack of national-level exposure and experience. O'Malley, Cuomo, and Patrick have the most of that - though I *think* Patrick said he's not running (who knows if that'll hold up, though).

I feel like Warren is a bit too unknown on policies thus far, though she seems very able to fire up the masses. Beau Biden seems charismatic, too, though I dont know a lot about him yet (Biden/Biden 2016? lol?) Cuomo might come on a bit strong with some of his politics, and scare off the undecideds.

I like Newsom's personality and politics a lot and he might be my #1 at this point. He does have experience as San Fran mayor, in addition to the lt gov spot.

Whoever is nominated and (hopefully) wins needs to make an effort to cultivate the lower ranks and add some depth to the national field of politicians.

[JoePhilly]

45. I'd agree with all of that. nt.

[el_bryanto]

9. That doesn't answer the question does it?

Who else is there? I mean Hillary Clinton isn't my favorite candidate, and I'd much prefer to support someone else (and probably will) in the primaries. But right now she seems like the front runner, and unless someone serious challenges her she may be the nominee, at which point I'll support her against whoever the Republicans throw up.

Bryant

[MadHound]

15. Don't know yet,

And Hillary hasn't thrown her hat in the ring yet either. Yet somehow she is already being pushed as a fate accompli in many circles, why?

So you'll support somebody who was either dumb enough to get fooled by Bush, or agreed with him? That seems a bit foolish, don't you think.

[JoePhilly]

21. Its your OP, you brought up Hillary, making whether she has "thrown her hat in the ring"

irrelevant.

[MadHound]

22. How many pundits are out there pushing somebody else besides Hillary?

None. Yet pundits seem to be lined up around the block trying to force Hillary on us already. That makes the fact that she hasn't thrown her hat in the ring quite relevant.

[JoePhilly]

26. See, here's how it works ...

When the current President can't run again, people start to talk about who, from the President's party, might run in the next election.

The current VP is an obvious person to discuss. As is a recent successful Secretary of State, former Senator, and wife of a former President. Not sure why anyone paying attention to politics for more than 10 minutes would be surprised that her name would be discussed by pundits.

Now clearly, you dislike her. Fine. You need an alternative, and you clearly don't have one.

I've suggested many times that you, or others who are dissatisfied with Obama (or even Hillary) need to get busy and find that alternative.

Without an alternative, you're destined to find yourself just as disgruntled in 2016 as you seem to be now.

[MadHound]

29. Ooo, such a nice condescending tone you've got there,

Even better, you keep trying to deflect the hard questions, and hard criticisms by stating I need to have an alternative. Why is that?

Never mind, we already know, you've made it perfectly clear. But have fun continuing to set up your straw men.

[JoePhilly]

41. I set my tone to match the person I'm responding to.

And I have made it clear. I select the candidate that I prefer on a broad set of issues, and you have no alternative to Hillary Clinton in mind.

[el_bryanto]

28. Yes I will support someone dumb enough to get fooled by Bush or agree with him

Let me say that categorically. I've already done it when I supported Kerry in 2004. If that's the person on the ticket and it's a choice between that person and a Romney or a Bush or a Rubio or a Ryan - of course I'll support Clinton or Kerry or any number of people.

Bryant

[MadHound]

32. Then you're not terribly discriminating, are you?

Supporting somebody who either agreed with Bush or was fooled by him, yet you still think that makes them fit for office.

No wonder this country is going downhill, voting has become about the letter behind the name, not issues, not qualifications, not the people.

Sad, truly sad.

So, if you'll vote for Hillary, despite all these red flags, I don't think you'll have much room to complain when she decides to invade Iran.

[el_bryanto]

35. Who did you vote for in 2004?

Do you think there's no difference between Hillary Clinton and, say, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio?

Bryant

[JoePhilly]

42. And ...

you called me condescending.

[RandiFan1290]

11. Rah Rah Rah!!

[Lex]

12. Who will you be working to get elected?

[MadHound]

13. Certainly not Hillary. n/t

[Lex]

16. I'll look for that one on the ballot.

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

[JoePhilly]

19. There is no one named "Not Hillary".

[spanone]

14. good luck.

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. I reckon most don't care, they are just rooting for the party

And they see HC as being a sure fire win, some might like her, but are aloof to her policy decisions and her votes.

[WilliamPitt]

25. 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014

The fuck I give about who's running for president in 2016 is so small, it cannot be measured by any means known to science. The fuck I give is so small, it only exists in theory, like a quark or a superstring.

2014, people. Get your fucking heads in the game.

99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the reason shit is so fucked up right now is because everyone - well-meaning people, too - get all "Ermahgerd, presidential race!" and completely forget that almost all the government we have to deal with gets elected during the midterms...and 30% turnout (with 80% of that coming from far-righties who ALWAYS VOTE) = the current miserable situation in the House of Representatives.

Fuck 2016.

All politics is local, and happening next year.

Heads in the game, folks.

[Lex]

27. Amen, Will.

[woo me with science]

30. The way the system is currently structured,

we get two more corporate/neocon/police state candidates no matter what. If it's not Hillary on the Democratic side, it will be a clone of Hillary.

Until we get the corporate money and control out of the system, no other type of candidate can be selected or compete.

What we need is a mass national protest to clean our elections and government of corporate influence before 2016. Until we do that, nothing else will change.

[OldDem2012]

34. Lest we forget, the 2014 midterms are what we should all be focused on....not 2016. nt.

[JoePhilly]

43. Actually, we need to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Obama can't run again and we will need a candidate for President.

The OP would like us all to discard Hillary Clinton now, but proposes no alternatives to her. If the plan is to discard Hillary, then the alternative candidates need to get busy now.

Jeb Bush won't be waiting around. Nor will Chris Christie. There will be efforts going on to build up organizations around those guys.

I don't think we can ignore that.