General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat if we don't want Hillary Clinton as Democratic candidate?
I sure as hell don't. I think it is time to take this country to a more progressive ideal and Hillary is not that person to do it. I think that she is the most incredible person ever, but, I really want to see an actual change (Not a poster) and I know that she is not it.
I want a candidate that:
Does not support "free trade agreements"
Will begin to pressure Congress over tax avoidance
Supports, and is willing to take the steps necessary, to end Corporate Personhood.
Will takes steps to end the war on drugs, especially cannabis
Desires to cut military spending by 1/3 or more
And that ain't Hillary. Or Obama. or the other Clinton (Bill).
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
spanone
(141,609 posts)
PADemD
(4,482 posts)
BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)Did you forget the sarcasm simile? I live in O'Malleyland. When you look up tax and spend liberal in the dictionary, you get his picture.
The problem is, like most taxes, the hurt the average earners and the poor the most. He is also the king of crony capitalism. He is the last Dem I would want. In fact, the first and only time I voted republican was for Earlich.
ForgoTheConsequence
(5,186 posts)Have any other right wing jabs you want to use? Maybe you can drop the "socialist" card and call Obama a Kenyan too. Ehrlich supported banning gay adoptions, supported legislation banning gay marriage, and voted against raising the minimum wage. You'd have to be some sort of asshole to support someone like that in good conscience.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)
But I live in Wisconsin.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I think not.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Sounds like your center right, a republican that doesn't like how looney your party has gotten. Instead of putting down our candidates you should go back home and try to fix up your house.
My two cents
You can keep the change. Lol
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
Renew Deal
(85,151 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)People of the persuasion that ordinary people, the rule of law and the constitution are worth fighting for!
lark
(26,081 posts)He's awesome. I would of course, support any of the 4 and be really happy about it too.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Bernie is to slick and slippery and prone to stab progressives in the back, when push comes to shove.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)lark
(26,081 posts)I've never seen this, but maybe I missed something? Everything I've seen him do and support has been spot-on.
Thanks,
lark
Myrina
(12,296 posts)
Let's see if anyone in the Senate or at the state governor's level emerges from the pack as a true progressive leader of the people, aye?
customerserviceguy
(25,406 posts)of someone defeating Hillary for the nomination is if only one alternative emerges. That's how Mittens got the nomination, he had all kinds of rivals, each taking their turn bobbing to the top of the lava lamp, only to cool off rapidly and sink to the bottom. Hillary's going to hope she has the same luck.
Most Democratic presidential wannabes are not going to get involved in 2016 speculation, but if one, and only one worthy challenger emerges, he or she has a shot at denying Hillary the nomination, the way Barack Obama did.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)to be made will insure that Hillary is your candidate should she agree to run.
intheflow
(30,179 posts)
juajen
(8,515 posts)We have to play it or get out of the game. Working for change has to start at the schoolhouse door, not the White House door.
antigop
(12,778 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)We need to run more than one real dem, like the socalled new dems do.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)She can accomplish a lot more where she is 
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)by appointing people like Secretary of Treasury and the Federal Reserve Chairman. Think of how we were screwed because Obama appointed rubinist bankers to those to positions.
calimary
(90,021 posts)I will support her because I want those brains in the Oval Office.
And yes, that said, I AM still bothered that that formidable brainpower still allowed her to swallow whatever bush/cheney was force-feeding everyone about the Iraq War.
But O'Malley and everyone else here would not have a chance against the momentum of a chris christie or a rand paul or - Heaven FORBID - jeb bush. O'Malley and the others need more time to gain a national identity. They can't yet compete the way she can. AND she might have the wind at her back because she's another ground-breaker. A LOT of people voted for Barack Obama the first time because they wanted to be part of that historical first. They wanted to be able to tell their grandchildren that they helped elect the first African American president. Even if they didn't like him. We might well have another round of that in 2016, assuming she does run. Who would not want to be able to tell their grandchildren that THEY were on the leading edge of THAT ground-breaking historical achievement, too? I think THAT might be what propels her to victory, too. Now that Americans have had a taste of a black President, one of the few categories left to break through that White-Boys-Only Club is the woman's contingent. She might have a tougher time going for a second term, but I think she'll clinch it the first time she tries it, from this point.
I'm thinking SHEER RUTHLESS STRATEGY here. O'Malley and people like Corey Booker and/or the Castro brothers in Texas, and YES! Elizabeth Warren, and the like are an EXCELLENT farm team. Remember, Elizabeth Warren JUST GOT THERE. But we've got some good bench strength and by the time President Obama leaves office, we'd have some really strong prospects for the future. They just need some more time to add to their own luster and national name recognition. If one of them were her Vice President, we might well be setting ourselves up for a LONG run in the Oval Office!
As long as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is so old and frail, it is URGENT that Democrats hold onto the White House. By any means necessary. Otherwise, we're finished as a nation because the next Supreme Court justice will come from the scalia-wannabe crowd.
Hillary Clinton may be imperfect. Certainly. She has a lot of baggage from the 90s that you can feel sure the bad guys will dredge up. All that Vince Foster and Whitewater crap yet again. And it won't really hold a lot of interest because that's such old news. But they'll bring it up. And she voted for the war, allowed herself to fall for it. Nevertheless, I think she's our best prospect. And it's more important to have a DEM in there - and KEEP the White House BLUE. At least until we can change the nature of the majority on the Supreme Court.
EYES ON THE PRIZE, GUYS!!!!! Who's got the best chance to WIN???? I think it's Hillary. I love Joe Biden, but he'd have more trouble trouncing people like chris christie and the rest of those jerks.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)She also lobbied for Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan. And she was behind the not very good strategy in N. Korea that was based on the assumption that once Jong Il was dead their gov. would fall apart and N. Korea would fall into chaos. Instead, we have Jong Un, and have trashed the progress that had been made prior to W.
I had hoped her appearance of hawkishness was something she needed to do to be a serious candidate. Instead, she seems by her choices to be very, very hawkish.
As much as I want a woman in the white house, she was my 2nd to last choice to run. Obama, due to his inexperience, was my last choice. Chris Richardson was my 1st choice and the 1% very clearly had no intention of letting him be the candidate. All the more reason to believe he was the real deal.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)He was so tarnished that he had to step down when Obama nominated him for Secretary of Commerce. In addition, he wiped the voting machines in NM before they could see if there was fraud in 2004. There were Native American areas where no Democratic votes for President registered - which is suspicious as most voted Democratic for all other races and were recorded NOT VOTING for President.
Weren't you one of the Edwards supporters? If so, your reasons are likely consistent with your current believes. Edwards was a very flawed messenger of what has been a long time Democratic message. Look up the convention speech (I think 1992) given by Mario Cuomo, whose record actually matched his words. (Apologies if I have your name mixed up with someone else.
2008 was a year where an unusual percent of people backed candidates they thought were exceptional once in a life time choices that inspired them - some Hillary, some Obama for the most part. I was unusual, because I was incredibly inspired by the 2004 nominee and in 2008 backed the one I did not rule out. (I had reasons I did not want either Hillary, Biden, Richardson or Edwards. Dodd was terminally uninteresting when I saw him on talk shows - that left Obama, who was inspiring, but with a very short record. However, on examination, the record short as it was - was good. I think he has been an outstanding President in an extremely difficult time. I really don't think anyone could have achieved more.
As to 2016, if more than half primary voting Democrats unite behind ONE alternative - that person will be the nominee. That was essentially the dynamic in 2008. It may be that Clinton coming out with hints of running this early is designed to either clear the field or to prevent any stealth candidate gradually becoming the obvious alternative. If the real field is larger than two candidates, I think Hillary wins.
gussmith
(280 posts)Do you mean that political hanger-on, Bill?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)
juajen
(8,515 posts)dotymed
(5,610 posts)to cut SS and medicare (chained CPI), Democrats will have a very hard time retaining the WH.
America is ready to forgo having "our" candidates picked for us anyway. We are tired of being screwed.
We desperately need some real choices for Presidential elections. 3-4 viable parties (like it used to be, remember Eugene Debbs...).
I hope that this time around, Americans are given the real choice of replacing our current capitalistic society. We do not have a democracy and everyone should shout this at every opportunity. We have an oligarchy. Democracy has been destroyed by capitalism.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)She ain't no prize and neither is Obama. They have done nothin I am interested in individually or collectively.
sellitman
(11,745 posts)Nothing?
That sounds like a pretty broad statement no?
meti57b
(3,584 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)meti57b
(3,584 posts)That is what my comment was intended to indicate.
sellitman
(11,745 posts)His plan really justsaying attacks those with money. Not those poor.
cali
(114,904 posts)That is not a comment about her readiness to be President, but it is a reality. People say oh she has a much experience as Obama did, but that's factually untrue. He spent years in politics, running, building a national base and a power base of donors. He was a star in a way she isn't. Does that sound trivial? Indeed, as far as substance goes, it is. It is not trivial in the world of national politics. Not to mention that Warren ran a less than great campaign for Senate. It wasn't awful, but it sure wasn't stellar.
randome
(34,845 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)Howard Dean is focusing DFA on flipping state legislatures from red to blue, so I like him right where he is at the moment.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And once their voices were heard, the American people would be enthralled.
Warren could argue the stripes off a tiger, and Grayson can frame the issues so that people get it.
That would be a winning team no matter how much money the other side threw at them.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)In either order.
I do not understand why so many here on DU are so ga-ga over Hillary. Her time is past. We need fresh people, new ideas, NOT same-old same-old which is exactly what Hillary Clinton represents.
Plus, all this nonsense about the nomination is hers if she wants it. I have some sort of vague recollection of something similar being said back in 2007. Remind me again who is our President.
I sure don't understand why either. Lot of people must be looking to be on her payroll if she gets elected....
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Even if elected, they would need Senators and Representatives with a big (D) after their names.
With Obama's efforts to cut SS and Medicare (yes, that's part of it), the (D) designation is going to be more suspect than before.
juajen
(8,515 posts)We really need that man in a place where he can knock heads and collect names. He's a wonder!
MADem
(135,425 posts)She isn't terribly ideological, you know--she's just into fairness.
She used to be a .... gasp!... Republican. Really. In some corners that would disqualify her from the job she holds now!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/189657--liberal-favorite-elizabeth-warren-admits-she-was-a-republican
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)but we encouraged her and she did it. The needs of the country should take priority over one state. The Country needs someone like Liz Warren. We would be so much better off now if Obama was more like her. The economy would be back on track.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She had her eye on the Senate from early days, right after her temporary appointment didn't become permanent. One door closes, another opens. It may not have been her first idea, but once she wrapped her head around the concept and understood the extraordinary level of support she'd get in the candidacy process, she didn't need any more pushing. She wanted to go after Wall Street, and she knew a lot of senators VERY well before she threw her hat in the ring. She understood the scope of the position probably better than most candidates in history.
Harry Reid flat-out adores her. She knew what her committee assignment would be if she won.
I think, quite honestly, that a lot of people who are claiming to LUUUUUUV Liz would be saying the same nasty things about her six years into any imaginary Warren presidency that they're saying about Obama. Go back in the DU archives, and read some of the 2008 stuff that people said about POTUS--he is the way and the light, he can do no wrong, he's gonna do This/That and The Other! Some of these same people are now trashing him like he's Barack Bush, or something. They're so angry that he's Barack Obama, dealing with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate that has more than a few DINOs in it, and not them...or a king.
People tend to project THEIR views on candidates who have good personalities and are intelligent and share some of our bedrock views. Sometimes, though, politicians have different ideas, or they compromise because of political expediency or flat-out necessity, or what-have-you.
If it were all that easy, anyone could do the job.
This isn't a reluctant candidate--this is someone who's in it to win it!
If she decides to run, we'll know it soon enough--she'll start polishing her "foreign diplomacy" credentials within the next year and a half with a few well-timed and highly publicized trips abroad that are as much a photo op as substantive. That's usually the first signal. To date, though, I think she's sticking to her own To-Do list...
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)In today's political context, that makes you a "left-wing extremist."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)but I want to welcome you anyway. Thanks.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)Hillary Clinton also used to be a republican.
MADem
(135,425 posts)At Yale Law School, however, she completed her transformation from Goldwater Republican to liberal Democrat. At Yale, she met Marian Wright Edelman and helped in her investigations of the Nixon administration. She also met Bill Clinton, and in 1972 joined him in Austin, Texas, where they both worked for George McGovern’s campaign. There, she writes, "I quickly made some of the best friends I’ve ever had" (page 58).
She's been a Dem a bit longer than EW and I'm betting she didn't vote for Reagan!
Not that it matters--people can and do change their minds.
Trent Lott was once a Democrat, he doesn't get a "pass" for that.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Hillary was a kid when she was a Republican. Her dad was a staunch Republican, but her mom was a Democrat. And of course she didn't vote for Reagan.
Renew Deal
(85,151 posts)again
juajen
(8,515 posts)So Hillary accepts SOS and proves to everybody, dems especially, that she has guts, intelligence and more than enough experience, and she is still not good enough.
We have an opportunity to get a democratic woman in the highest office in the land, and we still have smirkers! Shame on you all!. We have no other candidate that can win the next election other than Hillary. You don't want her, you get the alternative from republican land. There is no winning without a lot of independent votes, and believing that a "progressive" will get those votes is just a fairy tale.
I am really sick of the Hillary haters. The Clinton years were very good years. Remember the crying dems saying goodbye to them, and their refrain, "We'll be back!"? Well, they are. Many things could happen before the next election. There are no guarantees, but, at this moment in time, she is our very best bet. Her name recognition, brilliance and popularity put her way above the pack in both parties.
Sheez, "Rejoice and be glad in it!" We could not have a more splendid candidate. Yes, she will probably rule from the middle. So did Bill. She will not, however, just be a repeat of her husband. She is one independent lady.
antigop
(12,778 posts)and the DLC/Third Way have caused.
juajen
(8,515 posts)You do, however, have a perfect right to be "sick of me". Get used to it. I certainly have had my share of being in the minority. Like it or not, her time has come, finally.
antigop
(12,778 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)the cabinet. He is too progressive to be elected the top job. I love him. I wish things were different.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)I am sick and tired of seeing progressive ideas tossed to the wayside, if they are considered at all, and Hillary is not the person to bring the sort of governance I want to see to our nation. I think that it is vital that we begin to tax wealth and much more importantly to stop the dynastic accumulation of wealth we see today. By the way, I'm not all that found of dynastic politics either.
demwing
(16,916 posts)It's time for TPTB to allow us a female President.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)She has the greatest name recognition, that's for sure. But it raises as many hackles as cheers of joy. I agree its time for a woman but I just do not see who (on our side) is at all placed to run. Maybe it has something to do with some kind of massive public attention deficit that limits our knowledge of politicians to just a very small handful of names that have been repeated in the news for years. Still, Hillary is no spring chicken and its a long time (in political years) tween here and 2016.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Women have life expectancies that are greater then a man's by about 106%. She'll be 69, but if you do the math, that's only 64.5 in dude years, younger than Reagan, Harrison, and Buchanan, and very nearly the same (within a few months) age as Bush the elder when he was elected.
MADem
(135,425 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And Hillary gets tired.
Once you get over 50, age is a very individual thing.
A president has to have enormous energy and can't get cross or tired.
Further, Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her closet in addition to her vote on the Iraq War that could make her unelectable.
She was the only female on the Walmart board at a time when Walmart was assiduously discriminating against women.
She has ties to bankers and some shady characters in big business that could get her into trouble. Remember, powerful people like bankers do not support you or your campaign without first claiming their territory, spraying you with their scent so that they can hunt you down later.
That's Obama's problem right there. He is the claimed territory of the bankers and some very self-important types.
The criminal-business types don't go near Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson. That's because the philosophies, the ideas of Warren and Grayson stink to the greedy and repel their approaches.
So I'd go Warren (in spite of her age) and Grayson (young to make up for Warren's age).
MADem
(135,425 posts)She could do five, but she doesn't want to 'push' herself too much, and she needs time for her other activities!
I don't think Hillary gets especially "tired." SECSTATE has a way more grueling schedule than POTUS, at least in terms of time zones and travel and having to hunker down on an issue in excruciating detail. Hillary has way more miles on her odometer than POTUS. And POTUS gets the Executive Summary; SECSTATE has to write the doggone thing and do all the homework.
You've got the GOP talking points down, though--I'll give you that. Clinton was a glass-ceiling breaker on the WALMART board. She pushed the company to be more environmentally friendly. You do know that WALMART is HQ'd in Arkansas....and her husband was governor of .... where? All politics is local!
She has "ties to bankers..." and I challenge you to show us any successful presidential candidate who doesn't. Banking is a major sector in the US economy.
We'll see who runs, and we'll see who gets the nom. I'll vote for the D nominee--whosoever it might be.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)...that she is the "DLC" brand of Democrat. I love Hillary, but I could not support her unless she makes an equivocal statement of departure from the DLC. That she explain what has happened to the Democratic Party, because I bet you the majority of the Democratic voting populace out there in America has no idea what the DLC even is!
I say we need a list of DLC "Democrats" (er Republicans). Most of us can tell who is and isn't by the policies they support, i.e. when they open their mouths and speak. But some of them stump even the most seasoned Liberal Progressive Democrats. It's high time we know who's who in the Democratic Party, once and for all. IMHO...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Click Here
Support the Back to Work Budget!
Add your E-mail Address to Join the Team.
Caucus Members
Co-Chairs
Keith Ellison
Raúl Grijalva
Vice Chairs
Judy Chu
David Cicilline
Michael Honda
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Jan Schakowsky
Whip
Barbara Lee
Senate Member
Bernie Sanders
House Members
Karen Bass
Xavier Becerra
Earl Blumenauer
Suzanne Bonamici
Corrine Brown
Michael Capuano
Andre Carson
Matt Cartwright
Donna Christensen
Yvette Clarke
William “Lacy” Clay
Emanuel Cleaver
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Rosa DeLauro
Donna Edwards
Sam Farr
Chaka Fattah
Lois Frankel
Marcia Fudge
Alan Grayson
Luis Gutierrez
Janice Hahn
Rush Holt
Michael Honda
Steven Horsford
Jared Huffman
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hakeem Jeffries
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Hank Johnson
Marcy Kaptur
Joe Kennedy III
Ann McLane Kuster
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
David Loebsack
Ben Ray Lujan
Carolyn Maloney
Ed Markey
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
George Miller
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Rick Nolan
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Frank Pallone
Ed Pastor
Chellie Pingree
Mark Pocan
Jared Polis
Charles Rangel
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Linda Sanchez
Jose Serrano
Louise Slaughter
Mark Takano
Bennie Thompson
John Tierney
Nydia Velazquez
Maxine Waters
Mel Watt
Peter Welch
ReRe
(12,189 posts)...That's a good start. I counted about 68 in the House...68 REAL Democrats, i.e. 
demwing
(16,916 posts)more likely to suffer from Alzheimer's
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)Reagan was senile in his second term. Buchanan is universally regarded as one of our worst presidents. Harrison died a month after he was inaugurated. How age affects people is variable. There's a reasonable chance thar HRC could hold up through a term or two terms, but there's no way to be sure.
demwing
(16,916 posts)that age was not a political liability for several Presidents, as old or older than Hillary.
randome
(34,845 posts)That by itself doesn't mean anything but it should make people wary of her health.
peacebird
(14,195 posts) demwing
(16,916 posts)I didn't frame that...240 years of the "men's only" club at the White House framed it.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)what's that got to do with whether Hillary will be the first female president?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
mimi85
(1,805 posts)we choose someone because of their qualifications, not just because they're a woman. I'm still exhausted from the last election, it's only been a year since the clown car came to town. I'd rather wait and see what's up in another year.
Maybe Kamala Harris! 
mimi85
(1,805 posts)
juajen
(8,515 posts)country, who all have their own ideas on how this country should be run. We have to choose the one who has the best chance of being elected. BTW, she does not have a drop of Clinton blood in her. I'm sure she would love go by Hillary Rodham. Dynasty, my ass!
Iggo
(49,927 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,960 posts)and recommend
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)Has good executive skills; is experienced in governing; has a good track record of liberal policies, and damn he's HOT!!
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)We could still enjoy his hotness.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)face it Hillary is Republican Lite, like Bill. She probably would not even consider him. However, what if E. Warren ran? They are pretty much on the same page policy wise and they would make a good running mate for each other regardless of who ran for Prez.
Frankly, I'm just tired of the same old recycled Washington insiders. We need fresh faces.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Too 'gay friendly' for the Sanctified Obama.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)that one. When did that happen?
madville
(7,847 posts)He's gotten past it though. I still find it pretty low to be having an affair with a friend and an employee's wife.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)and a fellow New Dem, and an austerian. It is like offering lentil soup instead of pea soup.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)when he was mayor.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)not economically progressive. He has cut the budget on social services repeatedly. Nearly all dems including the sellouts are social liberals, but the New Dems are mean to the Poor where as New Dealers still are good to minorities.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)the Schwarzengroper, had refused to raise tax revenue even when the Assembly voted for it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Where have I heard that before. Oh yeah now I remember. Rush Limbaugh.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)n/t
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)I have no investment in her personal success. I am for Warren.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Remind me where I am. For a moment I thought I was at Free Republic.
If she runs, vote for Hillary or don't vote for Hillary. I don't really give a damn.
But, on a progressive site RW talking points are out of place.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)One it presumes only right wingers use it, and it assumes Hillary to be of the left.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)you should refrain from calling Democrats by RW names.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
Good lord.Beacool
(30,518 posts) pnwmom
(110,261 posts)being another female north easterner.
I love her though.
MADem
(135,425 posts)substantive qualifications!
Cue the Perpetual Outrage Machine!! Deploy the Team of Nitpicking Scolds!! You Must Be Punished for NOTICING the physical attractiveness of a public figure!!!!
At least....that's what my TV, my newspaper, and an overlong thread here told me the other day!!
Reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014445145
Cleita
(75,480 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Be it Obama about Kamela or you about Gavin.
Plus on the issue of sexiness, has America lost its sense of humor?
We have, sadly, come a long long ways from that one glorious moment in political "sex scandal" history. The RW Republicans thought that they could scare JFK out of running for the WH by showing him the photos they had of him with his arms around some bathing suit beauty. He asked to see the photos. Then he gave a wide grinned smile and say, "Yea I remember her. She was fabulous!"
That was the end of their ploy.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)to deflect the bullies, because that is all they are, just bullies.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)I would love to see Hillary run and she is pretty popular with the "we" that includes me.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)they are very loud, but just a small minority.
I am part of the WE you are in.
I do believe 95% of President Obama's core supporters (like myself) And 100% of Hillary supporters firmly want Hillary
and I believe in Nov. 2016, the person they cite the most, Elizabeth Warren will be side by side at the convention with Hillary.
after all, they do Elizabeth Warren a great diservice not realizing she is part of the same team
and not separate nor would she run third party
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)As his wouldn't be the biggest ball of suck of a campaign to go down in history.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Someone who IS a Democrat unlike DLC Hillary.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Response to graham4anything (Reply #54)
Post removed
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Here is what she says.
Home • Ask FactCheck • Hillary Worked for Goldwater?
Hillary Worked for Goldwater?
Posted on March 27, 2008
Q: Did Hillary Clinton work for Goldwater?
A: She was a high-school Young Republican and "Goldwater Girl" in 1964 but swung to supporting Democrat Eugene McCarthy’s campaign in 1968 and George McGovern’s in 1972.
FULL ANSWER
"I wasn’t born a Democrat," Hillary Rodham Clinton writes on page one of her autobiography, "Living History."
She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., a Republican suburb of Chicago, and describes her father, Hugh Rodham Jr., as a "rock-ribbed, up-by-your-bootstraps, conservative Republican and proud of it" (page 11). Her 9th-grade history teacher was also a very conservative Republican who encouraged her to read Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, "Conscience of a Conservative," which inspired Clinton to write a term paper on the American conservative movement.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/
Link to the rest].
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)She was an adult
Hillary wrote a paper when she was 14 and her teacher was an arch conservative.
one learns to try and please a teacher while in junior high school.
Quite a difference.
John Lindsay didn't start out as a democratic candidate, but became the single most liberal democratic candidate who got more votes in the primaries while he was in them, than McGovern did.
BTW. LBJ was a thousand times more liberal than either McCarthy or McGovern on all the important issues.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)right. I don't really care about stuff along time ago. I care about where a person is now.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Won't you?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I've had my fill of DLC republicans.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) 
bvar22
(39,909 posts)My opinion is as valid as yours, and based on the same degree of logic, research, facts, and documentation.
You do see why those types of ignorant, divisive, fact free, documentation free, personal attacks are bad for DU, don't you?
Thanks for sharing, and lowering the bar another notch.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Let see here, my wife ran as a D. Twice.
I give so much money to the D party that they had to re-imburse me for giving too much. Not to mention giving to just the candidate.
Lasher
(29,576 posts)And overall, this is the kind of discussion we need to have. Now I see a jury has locked one of betterdemsonly's posts - meaning he can't post anymore in this thread. Too bad he stepped on his, um, foot with that Billary thing. He at least understands what New Democrats, neoliberals, and New Deal Democrats are; and to me that makes him an interesting new member.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)That was a bad hide. As far as meaningless swipes, just look to the source.
Lasher
(29,576 posts)He used the term twice in this thread and my guess is, both were alerted on. More alerts give you a better chance at drawing a sympathetic jury.
I see betterdemsonly has been posting over at Daily KOS. I hope he sticks around.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)But that's another story. 
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)He should have left dimson in the dust but he didn't.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...Court. How is that 'caving"?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...on which this country was founded. How is Gore reponsible for the incivility lead by Rove and company?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I'm sure he looks in the mirror every night before going to bed and reminds himself how awesome he did at his campaign.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Tampering/interfering with the counting of a federal election and crossing state lines to incite a riot (which ALL of them DID) are both felonies, even if this was all theater.
Ask yourself how fast liberal protestors would have been beaten and arrested if the tables were turned.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)your bitter tears are nectar to my soul.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Hardly.
I laugh at the the throngs on their knees bowing to their false god.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) 
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Sad about your shift key being broken, though.
theKed
(1,235 posts)I'm sure you didn't actually mean to put those two distinct groups together as one, did you?
I mean the Obama-bashers and the anti-Clinton camp. Love or hate Obama, he's the President. Some of us, on the other hand, would rather see a Democrat elected in 2016, not Hillary Clinton.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)trouble is, anybody who doesn' agree gets an army of her supporters after them. Have they all been promised jobs or what?
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)TRUTH must be sought and held high above all else. Not one thing else matters more - not one.
First female president? THAT would be the high water mark of her ascencion to the Oval Office. Beyond that, we'd have 4/8 more years of Slick Willie politics. And the ONLY folks who'd really benefit from that are corporate & banking interests. That's what we've got with Obama. His legacy will be that he's the first black president. THAT'S IT. Even tho corporate and banking interests might grouse about him publicly, what has he done to impede them? Hardly ANYthing. Holder's gone after no one - when Wall St. and corporate crooks laugh at the rest of us suckers whose pockets they clean.
Sure - she could straighten out a few more wrinkles in the realm of civil rights. But just as has benefitted the LGBT strata, those would be rights that mean NOTHING against the overall takeover that's marching forward even IN SPITE OF the progressive we've supposedly got now.
As a progressive and a male, I'd LOVE to see a woman in the Oval office! I just don't want one where the REAL VP will be Bill Clinton.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)the other thing that makes me not want her is a new thing. And it's something that she is being given great credit for .... For telling off the Reps in the Benghazi hearings with her "What difference does it make?" replies. And yelling at them... And this was a victory for her?
My god, the woman is supposed to be a diplomat who could gracefully answer all questions in a civil way, with courtesy, etc., no matter who is asking the questions. They had a right to ask - that's what the hearings were all about. And after having to wait several weeks for her appearance, I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
A secretary of state should NEVER lose her/his temper like that in public. When that happened, I thought she was going to be pillarized, but instead she was praised.
Made no sense at all to me. Diplomacy is an art that not everyone has, like it or not...
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Biden should run whatever she does. There are no entitlements only primaries. Hey I like that one.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I have said this from day one
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)It's easy to be against someone or something.
Find someone to be for.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Not that I think that will happen.
In '04, HRC and BO were last on my list of contenders. They were the candidates I MOST did not want. That always happens, though. The better candidates never do well in Iowa or New Hampshire, and the mainstream never votes for them. They get scared into voting for the candidate tptb declare "electable" instead of the candidate with the best position and record on issues.
By the time my primary arrived in late May, the nomination was a done deal. My vote didn't count for anything. I voted for HRC. Not because I wanted her to be nominated; it was partly a lesser of 2 evils vote, since she at least was better on public education, and partly a protest vote against the unofficial nominee. I never donated or worked for either one; neither earned it.
I've had it. I will never again cast a vote for a neo-liberal, and nobody is going to bully me into it.
You want my vote in '16? Nominate someone worthy of it. Otherwise, forget it.
I'll be there in the primaries, working for the best candidate I can find. The best candidate on ISSUES. I'd love it if the rest of the party would join me.
Give me Grayson, or Kucinich, or my Senator Jeff Merkley. Give me Bernie Sanders. Yes, I know he's too old and not a D. Give me someone worthy of my time and energy, worthy of my vote.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
babylonsister
(172,759 posts) PufPuf23
(9,852 posts)By the time of the actual election, was firmly in the Obama camp and even sent $$ and cried election day in happiness.
I began to be appalled as soon as Obama started making appointments even before the inauguration.
In most part you take the words from my mouth and thoughts from my brain.
There is much evil in our politics.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)n/t
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Monsanto's boy Vilsack wasn't from the Clinton administration.
Neither were Eric Holder, Robert Gates, and a bunch of others.
Those that were from the Clinton administration weren't exactly appointments to be proud of. Rahm Emmanuel, for example. Timothy Geithner. 
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Also, it was Holder who carried out Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of Marc Rich.
Tom Vilsack was national co-chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign. His wife, Christie Vilsack, served as Hillary's Iowa co-chairwoman.
The Clintons have connections to many if not most who have worked in the O administration. DC is an incestuous lot.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Bill Clinton's administration.
Connections...yes. And since the Clintons ushered in the era of neoliberal Democrats, those connections are nothing to be proud of.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Now all they need is 40 in the Senate.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)What so many seem to not understand is the president doesn't make the laws, and he can't pass them by himself. If we want real change we need to start with congress, and make sure that at our state levels we get out and vote in every election so we don't see more states run by republicans who the gerrymander their state so it't easier for republicans to win seats on the national levels as well as state levels.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and manage to get almost everything they want,
or at least move the country continuously to the Conservative Right with only 40 votes in the Senate,
why can't The Democrats do the same?
Volaris
(11,704 posts)play by a higher set of standards than the Other Side. There are conservative Dems that will negoiate in good faith for what they believe. For that to be BI PARTISIAN, there would have to be at least one LIBERAL in the GOP cauccus.
As long as there isn't one, we're going to have to play mean. Yes, it's stomach-churning to some of us, and no, it's NOT how things should HAVE to happen.
The alternative is the abolition of The New Deal, and the concretization of the Corporate State as THE Governing Will in America.
quakerboy
(14,868 posts)It has nothing to do with higher standards, and everything to do with elected officials and who pays their way into office and promises them financial well being after leaving office. Their benefactors usually tell us more about their policies than the opinions of those who voted for them, or their party affiliation.
Volaris
(11,704 posts)It's why part of the Party Platform should be Publicly Funded Elections, and if you're a Democrat, you dont TAKE money from corporations or paid, lobbists, PERIOD. Yes we will lose some elections. Some of those will be of National Prominece. But if we can clearly demonstrate that we are losing those elections not based on the merits of our ideas, but because the Game is rigged, the long game win is GOING to be ours.
But there's no gurantee it will be OUR argument to make. Whichever Party gets there first, wins.
The Popular idea right now is "Fuck Wall Street." When the GOP figures that out, you don't think they will use it to FULL advantage?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)while they are in the minority, then we are told to be fearful of them getting a majority because they 'won't let anything pass'. I wonder if those who keep making excuses for Democrats realize the message they are sending. What it says to me is 'it doesn't matter whether Dems win or lose, Republicans are always in control'. So I'd like them to explain to me why bother to work so hard for Democrats?? It is THEIR theory, but they can't have it both ways.
So which is it, do we benefit when Dems win if Republicans are so powerful no matter whether they win or lose and Dems so helpless?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Now what are they going to--oh, I see they're just going to go on repeating it no matter how foolish it is, lol.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)what the pukes are doing. It suits their agenda too. They sure as hell aren't doing it because they are "honorable" and above doing stuff like that.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)we have in the House/Senate. The worst are the Gang of 14 which vote Republican...but, there are others and they carefully switch around votes so it may look like it's the Blue Dogs...but the votes sometimes for them to seem to be the "fall guys/gals" to take the hit when really it's the majority Dems that have a problem with a policy/bill/amendment but need the cover of the Blue Dogs vote with the Repugs so that they keep their seats and their money from the Lobbyists.
I think this because of all those C-Span hearings in the House and Senate and watching vote tallies switch back and forth and then checking to see who voted for what during the Bush years. That was an eye opener for me. And, very discouraging but, after awhile it was obvious the games that were being played with many votes already counted ahead of time...so the vote was just Theater in the end.
It was a very sad revelation and I know other DU'ers here at the time who used to do running threads on Senate/House votes during Bush terrible times began to pick up on the way it all operated and became as discouraged as myself about 3/4ths of the way through Bush's second term. We were seasoned by that experience for what has come after.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)And then they will narrow it down to who they decide will maintain the status quo and we will get to vote for their choice. I really don't think Hillary will run.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)Nothing wrong with that. But if she wins it anyway back her in the general election and then get back to fighting her on specific issues that matter, and work for a more progressive Congress.
mick063
(2,424 posts)First of all, she will have her husband's influence.
You know...the guy that signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act?
The guy that signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (going with Bush senior's jewel) and then said, "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."
Those two signings did just as much, if not more damage to our nation than anything Bush did.
Hillary will be a corporate tool that will use "Village Speak" to lure progressives in to the corporate trap.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I like that.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)The latter is personally insulting to me like it is to this woman who posed the question on those tech workers who are qualified and getting squeezed in America because of the corporate sector's buyout of these two politicians to maintain the status quo that allows them to race to the bottom with expansion of H-1B.
Obama's support for H-1B and his either uninformed or feigned concern for the plight of this woman's husband's difficulty...
Hillary Clinton's support for H-1B expansion to Silicon Valley execs who she was coddling. Now I don't support Lou Dobbs for most things as I think he is motivated in trying to limit any one who's not of anglo saxon heritage from moving to this country to become citizens, which I fully support and want to see encouraged. However, he's right that we shouldn't be doing it through the indentured servitude program like the H-1B program which encourages the race to the bottom.
As I said before, what Lou Dobbs would not support, but I would, would be to smooth the way for real immigration where people from places like India can move here with the idea of becoming true immigrants, and not just gaining temporary employment to get more money than they could in India where the cost of living is a 10th of ours and continue moving the world capital of high tech from Silicon Valley to Bangalore, India, which it has done over the last decade. If they are here as aspiring citizens and have an equal playing field in demanding salary equity and can have the rights and responsibilities as citizens that can be a part of our union movement, then THAT is what I want to see advocated by a future presidential candidate for our party!
lobodons
(1,290 posts)And that is HILLARY!!!!!!
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)and probably with a non sellout supreme court justice.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)And, you can always run yourself.
helpfully,
Bright
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Do we really have to have our own version of Poppy/Chimpy Bush 
Find some new blood.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)being that all of them were second generation from a prior person(or as you refer to it,
a dynasty.)
I am crying that Jerry Brown would not be able to get your vote if Hillary were to pick Jerry as VP
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)
Hope you feel better.
demwing
(16,916 posts)If a fully qualified, dream candidate ran, would you disregard them if their name was Kennedy?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Hillary is far from a dream candidate, so between that and my dislike for dynasties, I'll support someone else.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Not wise to make selection choices (+ or -) based on names.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)There's obviously some misunderstanding here, so I'll make it crystal clear for you: I would consider eliminating a candidate that I would otherwise support solely to avoid a dynasty, something you obviously disagree with.
That is completely the opposite of what you said. Glad we understand one another.
demwing
(16,916 posts)I understood perfectly when you said: "I'll decide when that dream candidate comes along."
Which is exactly what I believe- base decisions on the candidate, not something superficial like a name.
If that's not really how you feel, it wasn't a misunderstanding, it was a miscommunication.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Because I've never said what you allege:
Me:
You:
Nowhere does my statement say I won't make a choice based on a name. Can you see how these statements differ? I might, for instance, find the name so offensive that I even discard the perfect candidate. But I'd have to see the name first.
These juvenile argument mischaracterizations are tiresome.
demwing
(16,916 posts)If you don't wish to be responded to, don't respond to the responses.
That being said, fine, dismiss people based on their names. It's shallow. You claim you want "new blood," but what you mean is "new ideas."
You're judging a person's ability to think independently based on their name or family association. I don't give a damn if every President were named Kennedy, or Bush, or Roosevelt, or Jones. Names mean nothing, votes based on or against meaningless criteria are votes that are uninformed.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It's discouraging when I write one thing and someone projects another meaning onto it.
Again, telling me what I mean (by projecting your own beliefs) rather than reading and attempting to understand what I say. This will be my final statement in this frustrating exchange:
As to the topic, I think big names get ahead due to their names and connections only. The probability that a dynastic name is also best qualified is microscopically small. And I feel that supporting a person who became prominent because of their name is anti-democratic. Throw out all the dynastic families you want, even Kennedy, I still believe this.
You can choose to accept that, or continue to tell me that I think something else. Either way, this is my last reply on this matter.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Perfect, then we agree.
But if you're true to that value, shouldn't you also be willing to give someone a fair review regardless of their name? Isn't assuming a person with a famous name got ahead because of their name? Isn't that diminishing them based on a genetic connection over which they have zero control? Why would you assume the worst about a person based ONLY on their name?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Isn't is just as absurd to deny a candidate based solely on bloodlines as it is to promote a candidate simply based on bloodlines?
While a person may or may not have legitimate and valid points to raise concerning any one particular candidate, it seems to me that a candidate's genealogy is irreverent to why one may promote or work against that candidate.
pa28
(6,145 posts)IMO we're down to our few remaining chances to steer the party back from neoliberalism and toward Roosevelt values. We just can't accept any more Clinton's and Obama's and hope to hold the party together as a catch all for the left.
They've just gone too far.
antigop
(12,778 posts)nt
libodem
(19,288 posts)Harassment and abuse she is going to be bombarded with and be willing to dish it back out, waller in the mud, that has become politics, she can go for it. For those of us who love her and Bill, we will just have to grin and bear it.
It is going to be infuriating but I'm sure it is part of the Repub, political ideal, to attempt to make it so distasteful and unpleasant, it would discourage, Caligula.
Blood in the water, only makes us, more voracious.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I still regret those 2 votes.
bigtree
(94,261 posts). . . get out there and support the candidate of your choice. This anti-candidate stuff is just detached and weird.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I want a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
It's past time.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Michael Parenti talks about Them.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/DemocracyForFew.html
Initech
(108,783 posts)We have one next year that is equally important and the House and Senate elections. We have to kick the Fox News Tea Party dipshits to the curb. We can't get change happening on a national level until we start making changes at the local level.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)finding a Dem that will go after Social Security some more.
Initech
(108,783 posts)They've done nothing but damage to our country - all because of bullshit spewed from Fox News. It's time for Fox News to be made irrelevant. 
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)if Obama had governed like a Dem. The best way to fight them is to govern left of center, and not like a moderate republican. If moderate republicans had fought for the republican party instead of displacing new dealers like me, there would not have been any room for the teabaggers.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The equivalent date for the 2016 elections is about 1 year and 10 months from now. That's not that long.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
Deep13
(39,157 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)They tried to create inevitability last time too. Once she is you will have to hush up if you support somone else or hit the highway.
demwing
(16,916 posts)just as always
We love us some family spats!
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... I don't recall her announcing. And as others have said, it is still 3 years away ...
penndragon69
(788 posts)I'd like Grayson, Warren, Bill Richardson, Harken....
ANYONE (that has a shot) over the worn out centrists
that did so much damage to America.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Richardson. He is very much a Clintonoid.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)I'd like to know. Only one Clinton has been President, that I know of, whereas we had 20 years of Bushes in and around the Oval Office:
Reagan/Bush I
Reagan/Bush I
Bush I/Quayle
Bush II/Cheney
Bush II/Cheney
and now a probable Jeb Bush candidacy.
You can oppose Hillary Clinton without making up things about a "dynasty" that has not really happened yet. For a couple of generations we had Kennedys and Rockefellers all over the place, but only one Kennedy ever got to the White House, and one Rockefeller to the Veep-hood.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)But heck, who give s a crap. Right?
John2
(2,730 posts)someone in the Progressive end of Congress, people can convince to run. Obama came out of no where really. A Progressive needs to run.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Hillary might not be who you want. She is a moderate and an insider. Personally, I'd put the Clintons to the right of Obama. She won't do anything to change the status quo. It would just be more of the same Washington politics putting Wall Street first.
Oh...but at least we have the first female president, so the feminists can cheer and be happy about something. But that's about all the left will gain from that presidency.
And everyone seems to forget we have an election in 2014.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Most importantly, she'll be the first "Madam President" in a long list of Misters. Imagine what a Female head of state would mean to shattering the glass ceiling in the private sector?
The thing is, the greatest change she'll bring could also be brought by any other woman. Its the cumulative little things that Hillary would bring to the table that would either take us in new directions, or keep us on the same trajectory, cementing some policies, rejecting others.
I think she has the best resume for the job--but a resume isn't everything...
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Most Americans think it is an inevitability that we will one day have a female president. Both parties have nominated female VPs. Both parties have had female secretaries of state. Both parties have put a woman on the Supreme Court. So when a woman is elected president, there wont really be any earthquake in the social structure.
Everyone thought electing Obama as the first black president was going to be a big deal. It was for American history purposes....but it really hasn't changed much. It's politics as usual.
demwing
(16,916 posts)for a generation. The same will be true of our first female president.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,960 posts)anyone who insists Hillary would be great for women just because we would have a woman president needs to ask Cornell West how well having a Black president worked out for most Afro-Americans. Just like the black bashing went up, woman bashing will ramp up, because they can say "well, we did elect one of them presdient, right?"
demwing
(16,916 posts)another is that we've had an African-American president (literally!), and freedom didn't break. It will now be easier for others to make the same journey, and maybe without having to dial back some of their lefty values
DonCoquixote
(13,960 posts)however, the jury is still out, especially because many who hate Obama on both left and right will by cynical and say "you only voted because you wanted your misty little moment that told yoruself America was growing!" May the years between 2016 and 2020 prove me wrong.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... in the future with his actions as the first president as an example. I don't want the next candidate of color to be tainted by Obama's history of not working for his base.
The same can be said for the first woman president if someone like Hillary gets the nod. It will doubly reinforce that a woman or person of color not get nominated as well.
I want someone like Elizabeth Warren to get the presidency so that the first woman that gets elected sets a good example for other women in the future to follow for the Democratic party, and one that will actually encourage the base to nominate more women then. Hillary will continue the status quo which will hurt us in getting progressive candidates down the road.
We need a candidate or set of candidates for the ticket that will run on true bipartisanship on issues that are "bipartisan" in the way the masses of both individual Republicans and Democrats want, but perhaps the 1% don't want. That kind of bipartisanship doesn't really exist today in politics. Those on the side of the 1% paint themselves as "bipartisan" when they are really "1% partisan". We need to break through this mantra in today's media that's bought off by the forces of Citizen's United.
Warren perhaps might not head the ticket, but I think she should definitely be on it as VP and a president in waiting, if the nominee isn't a woman this time but is someone like a Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin or the like. We need a ticket like that to give us the FDR we are waiting for. Obama still is functioning now as a Harding today. We don't need another Harding as president to recover this country and the world economy.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Having it based on Corporate Rights only brings war and death and profits for Halliburton and Co.
dangin
(148 posts)3 more with Obama, 8 with a democrat after that. Any democrat. And the Supreme Court is where we want it. That's my dream.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)for 2020. It's already way too late for 2016. These things take time. If the right person (by majority) is found--it will take a lot of time to build the "war chest", introduce this "strange new progressive"....and for him/her to gain our trust-political trust that is now, nearly non-existent.
I'm also done with the status quo---I think they've had all the time They Need to Prove US Right---after all these years of "blind faith" in the promise of their sweet lies.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)I mean a realistic candidate that could be ready to run a campaign after the 2014 midterm election and who could beat the Republican nominee?
I hear Warren's name touted around as if that was a realistic choice. For various reasons I don't think that she would be electable in 2016. It will be hard enough to win the WH after holding it for two terms. If the goal is to see the WH go to the Republicans, by all means pick the most LW candidate that you can muster. It will go as well for the Democrats as it went for the Republicans when they tried to run every Tea Party kook that they could muster.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Registra...city council mayoral governor come on we are getting creamed by state to state control.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Thats where real change happens---where it all begins.
Run for office at City Halls, Counties and State-get inside your local party, run for open positions.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Otherwise, we'll end up with Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Or both.
Sen Warren doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a presidential race (not to mention the nomination), and sad to say that neither does Dean.
Clinton has been loyal to Obama, done a great job in foreign policy, has stamina and smarts and political savvy, and is TOUGH when dealing with Republicans. She's been to the Republican whipping post several times and knows the score. We could do worse.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)This place is the mirror image of the Freepers. There they think that Tea Party candidates like Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Palin, Ryan, etc., have a snow ball's chance in hell to win in a general election. Here they think that Grayson, Warren, Dean (Dean???), etc. have a chance.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)mettamega
(81 posts)
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)What a revelation.
Good luck finding someone who doesn't support free trade agreements.
Cannabis. One of the great human rights struggles of the century.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)They've had their time in the spotlight and now I wish they'd go away. It's long overdue that we start looking for new leaders.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"Hillary is not a neocon". If that, er, viewpoint, is a common one, I think this baby is a foregone conclusion.
DURHAM D
(33,054 posts)How about a link?
it's about 1/4 inch above the other post in which you insulted me.
DURHAM D
(33,054 posts)"I am mortified at the euphoria in the LBGT forum over (some) advances in their rights..."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Can you be a little more specific about what you meant in this post?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125517594#post2
***
If all those men read the post and comments at your link and could understand even a portion of the conversation they would really be panic-stricken.
Which part, specifically, of the blog AND comments "made you smile"? What part did you feel that 'those men' couldn't understand, but if they did they'd be, quote, "panic stricken"?
Can you elaborate on that post with some specifics?
DURHAM D
(33,054 posts)Can you defend the comment from the good Doctor?
Not playing your game Warren.
Love ya'.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I really would appreciate some clarification on what part of those comments you thought were so great.
You felt it was important enough to mention at the time. Really, you should share it with the entire place, don't you think?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)CRRRRAZY!!!
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,533 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin
CC
William769
(59,147 posts)She's the one and I will do everything in my power to see that happen if she so chooses.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's only 2013, people! Four more years to see how this all shakes out!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Contribute to their campaign. Push their cause here on DU. Write letters to newspapers supporting their candidacy. And if you can persuade a majority of primary voters that your candidate is better than Hillary, they will be the candidate.
Isn't democracy wonderful? If someone in Cuba wants a president who is not Castro, or someone in North Korea doesn't like Kim Jong Un, or someone in Iran wants a different Ayatollah running the show, they are pretty much out of luck.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)We need some new directions and new visions, not Clinton/Bush retreads.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)Only Republican women seem willing to stand up to the Ayn Rand agenda of these guys. The problem as I see it is that the brotherhood is very business-like and has a specific agenda to push whether the majority wants it or not. Republican women can't stop it because not enough Republican women are willing to betray their "team". Maybe there's a progressive Republican out there someplace. Maybe a woman even. Sort of the 21st century Teddy Roosevelt?
demwing
(16,916 posts)Compare Clinton to an ideal "progressive Republican"...a match up, or diverging paths?
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)I think the Rand Paul will help to create some "liberal" or "progressive" Republicans. And hopefully more liberal Democrats. But the word has to get to the rural areas of the country. They need to save themselves and us while they're at it.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Who happens to live where you do.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)That is how the OC GOP behaves. There are no women involved in their plan to completely do away with government workers and public security. This is opposed by a coalition of Dems and Repubs, who don't have their power. So we are ignored. But we are growing with the help of sane Republicans - of whom many happen to be women.
(note: I'm trying to start a meme with "Republican Brotherhood". If I say it in my local comment sections, I'll be torn to shreds by them.)
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)I looked up Gregory Peck. He was encouraged to run against Reagan for governor of CA. He declined, but encouraged his son Carey Peck to run for office. He lost twice by slim margins to Bob Dornan. However, I think that district was in Los Angeles. Dornan moved to Orange County and was finally booted by Repub turn Dem Loretta Sanchez - OC's only Democratic rep in Washington. Dornan according to Al Franken and other evidence, was one of the worst reps ever. He keeps himself alive with vitriol and real idiotic diatribes on the radio.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...but that decision will be made by the owners of the country.
- But thanks for your continued participation in the electoral process!
K&R
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...that they did. It was a contest to see who could raise a billion dollars in promises and commitments without appearing like the Snake Oil Salesman they truly are. And Obama was clearly the winner of that contest.
- It's always a choice between Gog and Magog. Or to be more PC: Gog(ette) and Magog(ette).
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I said it seemed the 'serious' candidates were auditioning to see who could make Republican policies seem Democratic.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)amuse bouche
(3,672 posts)We? Millions of us do want Hillary.
Don't speak for me...Thanks
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)You got a mouse in your pocket?
Nika
(546 posts)
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)world of progressive activist. Yes Hilary is a corporate-militarist-DLC type centrist. But the vast majority of Americans - even Democrats - even self-identified liberal or progressive Democrats don't know that. For every American who thinks Hilary is to far to the right - I can guarantee you that there are three who think she is far to the left and half of them think she is probably a calculatedly evil Marxist-Lesbian with an agenda to impose her anti-Christian secular socialist order - under Sharia Law. That is the unfortunate reality of where the American body politic is at these days. More Americans - a lot more think those corporate-militarist-DLC type centrist are really Marxist in disguise than think they are far to the right.
If we want to run and elect a progressive Presidential candidate - we first have to have a progressive movement - - Not just a world of core left-wing activist - but a movement that gets ordinary people thinking about a progressive agenda.
If Hillary runs - she will pretty much clear the field - which does open a space for a progressive alternative candidate to raise the moral flag during the primaries and at the convention. I doubt that Sen. Warren would run if Hilary is in the race. I suspect she is not one to enter a race that she doesn't think she has a very good chance of winning. I don't think it is very likely that such a progressive alternative dark horse candidate of the left - will likely win the nomination in 2016 - presuming Hilary runs - But, finding this progressive alternative dark horse candidate of the left can be a giant and necessary stepping stone in building a national progressive movement that extends beyond the boundaries of activist and true believers. .
bvar22
(39,909 posts)She was crowned, inaugurated, and installed in the Oval Office by the Media and the Party celebrities before the Iowa Caucus.
Even after losing badly in Iowa (3rd Place behind Edwards & Obama), she was STILL marketed as "the Favorite".
Just saying.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)from true progressive candidates like Dennis Kucinich then, with the idea that the PTB knew they could blow up his candidacy at any time, which they did when the options were down to three. Once he was pushed out, then there was only two left (a person of color and a woman), who could help inspire the base to vote for them because of getting in someone with these attributes, when both of them were serving the corporate crony infrastructure we have today by design. I got sucked in to voting for Edwards then, even after he initially pulled out, and would have voted for Kucinich early on if I'd known the complete picture of the choices we had then. A photoshop I did later in frustration of these choices then...
I don't want to feel that frustration in the next nomination process!
glinda
(14,807 posts)moondust
(21,286 posts)Can they be trusted? Could it be that her high poll numbers are to some extent a contrived narrative the 1% and their media operatives want us to believe because that's who THEY want for the reasons you cite? The 1% surely knows that a Republican is not going to win the White House with their current demographic problems and inability to change.
If the numbers are legitimate, would anybody seriously spend their time and resources challenging her for the nomination if she does, in fact, want it?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Last time she was a popular but lightly experienced senator, so another lightly experienced candidate with epic charisma had a chance.
Now she has greater popularity, the senate experience, and experience of what is historically considered the second most powerful job in the country. Who is out there besides a Biden who can match her experience? Now she has both parts of that package.
Anybody who gets in the race against her has a number of massive problems to overcome.
moondust
(21,286 posts)Presumably becoming more enlightened and more humanitarian after traveling all those miles to all those countries.
My main concern with her this time around would probably be the possibility that she would surround herself with the old corporatist DLC gang.
agent46
(1,262 posts)It's obvious more and more people are feeling the same way.
That brings us to the danger of a new Liberal seeming "man of the people" Trojan Horse being trotted out by the corporatist parties for one last grand shell game in 2016.
If we're not mad as hell and collectively forcing real change from the bottom up by then, they will fool the passive public again with a slick demagogue puppet promising reform - more even than they have, and continue to, with the Obama brand.
(If the history of the collapsing Roman empire is any model at all, that is.)
Well, somebody had to say it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Who and when we will get someone to actually address this issue, I couldn't tell you. It may be another 50 years before someone is actually willing to address this issue. But until someone does, we won't make much headway on any other issue.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Ready-made bumper sticker:
WHITEHOUSE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.
He's brilliant, big on climate change and well respected.
randome
(34,845 posts)Just based on what you posted.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)That would be so bad!
Pisces
(6,235 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Personally, although it's early, I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren run.
But if she's the nominee- and she may well be- then the only sane thing to do will be to support her.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)If that's who the owners want, that's who they're going to get.
jambo101
(797 posts)She's got the qualifications to be President and she'll do a better job at it than what any Republican would do.
At this stage of the game Hillary hasnt said she even wants the job and the only other contender i've seen is Biden, So if ya dont like Hillary who is on your short list of contenders?
randome
(34,845 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)(or their clones).
Change. A noun, not a verb.
Uben
(7,719 posts)Maybe your thread title should read "I" instead of "we", since no one here speaks for all of us. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'd be the first to stand up for that right. I was not an Obama backer in the 08 primary, I backed Clinton, but quickly shifted my support when Obama was nominated....and I'm glad I did. I see no candidate emerging that could pull the vote count Clinton could, but that's what primaries are for, and that is where you exercise your right to choose. Good luck to ya, but I'm in the Clinton camp.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Means your normal, and probably put the people first.
I'm not looking forward to her either, and getting sick of Obama too.
Oh well
I'll still support dems.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Bear in mind that they have to be A) progressive and B) electable.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)We need another great Dem like Pres. Obama in the WH for another 8 years. Hillary is that Dem.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)If she runs, I will be looking for a more progressive candidate in the primary. As much as I love her, your list is more important. The Democratic party should be able to get someone out of the primary who meets the criteria on your list. Not like it is very extreme. The Clinton's will be fine without my support in the primary.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)That genius didn't know Ca. doesn't have a winner take all primary. The people you hire MATTER, and Mr. Shrum was/is a seriously egregious hire. In the meantime I'll be trying to push the process as far left as possible....
karynnj
(60,968 posts)In fact, Kerry did very well in getting the nomination with Shrum on his team - as did Gore. Both also would have won honest, well run elections - with clear ballots and adequate machines (or paper ballots - all things the US observers monitor in third world countries.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
gateley
(62,683 posts)If it's Hillary, that's fine.
Welibs
(188 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)America doesn't want more of the Clinton DLC/Third Way agenda. Americans want somebody who is willing to stand up for the workers.
gussmith
(280 posts)The whole Hillary push is irksome. I haven't sorted out, or digested her entire record but there is much that turns me away from her, such as the usurpation of the New York senate seat. The voters are so star struck, not results oriented.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)erpowers
(9,445 posts)If you are anyone else does not want her as the Democratic nominee than vote against her. In addition, get involved in at least one other persons campaign(s).
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)My favorite word for Hillary in 2008 was "fake".
Feb 15, 2011.
From Partnership for Civil Justice:
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail. She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back. Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.
randome
(34,845 posts)But she did not brutalize this guy. For all she knew, security had a reason to take him from the audience.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Standing with his back to her, security hauled his ass away.
randome
(34,845 posts)Just kidding. All I'm saying is it's plausible Hillary wasn't paying that much attention to him.
That being said, she should have spoken up and said something, not just let it happen. I agree about that.
I think like Bill, she tries to play safe too often. We don't need more of that.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)
Fearless
(18,458 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)'20 or '24? Maybe.
(And don't bring up Obama as if they were at equivalent arcs in their careers at this point. Not even close.)
Fearless
(18,458 posts)I said I would like to see Elizabeth Warren run in 2016 and that is exactly what I meant.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Realistic that that's what you really *want*? Sure. Realistic in that a Warren 2016 candidacy is something that can really happen and be successful? Um, no.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)
If she doesn't have a chance, then you have nothing to be afraid of.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The only thing I would be afraid of is that how seriously a candidate is taken can be damaged if people think they're pushing too fast. Warren running for president in '16 when she's clearly not in a position to make that leap could put a lot of people off. A kind of "what the hell does she think she's doing?" effect. And I don't want people put off Warren because I'd be totally behind a Warren run down the road when she has the resume for it.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Warren 2016.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Fearless
(18,458 posts)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Fearless
(18,458 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)If Hillary chooses to run there are no realistic alternatives. So support her.
If she doesn't? I have no idea. Warren is too green. Biden might get the nod just based on the traditional "VP runs next" after an incumbent finishes an 8 year term thing. He wouldn't be ideal but he's at least decent... don't think he would have very good odds of winning though.
Really, it's a weird dynamic. Hillary simply eclipses the rest of the field in terms of viability to a degree that's pretty rare. It's hard to pick out alternates against the contrast.
Grayson? He'd have the resume if he stays in office until then and his progressive credentials aren't an issue, but I would put him as less likely to win than Biden (anyone coming out of the House is a long shot) even though I think he'd probably make a better president...
Maybe a Dem governor...?
randome
(34,845 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Obama was not simply a "not her" choice in '08. Not remotely close. What planet were you living on?
randome
(34,845 posts)Obama inspired us. Hillary does not do as well in that category. Now that I've had my appetite whetted for fresher, more energetic candidates, I can't see ever going back to old-style politicians like Clinton.
The country needs to move on.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...at inspiring the general electorate as Obama. However, she comes in second to him among any prospects I can think of by a very long way. Keep in mind we are talking about the general electorate here, tens of millions of people. Not the inhabitants of this forum. I remember '08 just fine. I wasn't in the Hillary camp but it was not an uninspired lackluster camp (Well, except compared to Obama's)
I supported Obama over Hillary in '08 and it wasn't all that difficult a choice for me, but the field is very different now.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Period. We need democrat who is willing to stand and fight for democratic programs. Real change is necessary.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...who has *any* chance of being in a position to actually *win* a presidential election in 3 years by all means cough up the name. Like I said, that name isn't Warren. 7 or 11 years out? Sure, a chance. 3? No.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Warren should run and I will support her. Others could run as well. And we'll see who will win.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The thing is the outcome of that process is not exactly in doubt. But feel free to waste your time and energy, I sincerely hope Warren *doesn't* since I don't want her credibility damaged.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I won't vote for Hillary even if she's the damned nominee. I'm done supporting Third Way neoliberals.
Mr. Obama was in a "what the hell does he think he's doing" position, if that is your description of running too soon, and too inexperienced. Look what that caused. A presidency nullified by opposition. Let's see how Ms Warren fills out her resume over the next few years. p.s. A woman will cause as much backlash as Obama has.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Obama was a phenomena ever since his '04 DNC keynote and he had a significantly deeper political resume than Warren will in '16. Get some objectivity. There are similarities in type in that Warren has a devoted grass roots following but it has *nowhere remotely near* the breadth Obama had built up. Look outside the confines of the DU community and try and evaluate electoral viability on a national scope. here were some people pulling out the "what does he think he''s doing" line when Obama ran but there were even more who were simply thrilled he was running and had been waiting for it for four years.
Those proportions will not be remotely the same if Warren runs in '16 and if you step back and get some perspective you'll acknowledge that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"Don't bring up Obama"? Why not?
Obama proved that "strike while the iron is hot" is a viable approach. "Seasoning" works for the GOP, who like their nominee well-ingratiated with and sold out to the money people who grease the party wheels.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Like, the post *directly above* yours...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2635431
Not. Remotely. The same. If you think it is you're simply not paying attention.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The people who aren't paying attention are the people who don't remember how well pushing Hillary's "inevitability" meme worked out for them, last time.
And maybe the people who don't realize it's still only 2013.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I repeat. Nowhere remotely near the same situation.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Still, there are a grand total of two definitive statements I will make about 2016, right now:
1) I'll support the Nominee whoever it is, and
2) It's too damn early to say anything else about it.
Renew Deal
(85,151 posts)You will likely lose, but you're free to do so.
Larrylarry
(76 posts)Having one choice in Hillary is not enough for me.
Although if she gets the nomination I will support her 100%
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Because yeah, moving more progressive is good *where achievable*. But getting so focused on it that you throw the presidency to the GOP is the opposite of good.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Now shut up and eat your peas!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)HRC was among the founders of the DLC and the 3rd way. She even hired that slimy toe-sucking Dick Morris (originally).
We don't need her... again. Look how she managed her campaign (if you can call it management) in 2008.
She voted for the IWR knowing full well about PNAC.
She is not to be trusted.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)MarcoS
(64 posts)Hillary's negatives are among the highest of any Democrat, and the more she talks the less people like her. That said, our two-party cartel only allows candidates who stick to the power status quo (i.e. bankrupting our country for their multinational corporate interests), so we can't look for substantive change from anyone with a D or R next to their name.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"What if we don't want Hillary Clinton as Democratic candidate?"
Then simply cast your vote as appropriate, and hope the process works out to your preferences...
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)I'd consider other Democrats. Like Elizabeth Warren. Yeah! But until you come up with someone better, Hillary is going to be talked about first.
creativebliss
(69 posts)I definitely agree we need a democrat in the White House, though I look forward to a day when the two party system is extinct. As stated already, the biggest reason being a Supreme Court nomination.
Therefore, regardless of progressivity (though I prefer it), we need a candidate that can actually become President. With Citizens United flaunting its ugly head, we need a candidate that can aquire record breaking funding. I realize many of us out there are fighting to overturn Citizens United in addition to getting money out of politics altogether, but I believe that will not occur prior to the next presidency.
Also, we have a voting body with a short attention span and little time to dedicate to political issues. This is, after all, a big obstacle when trying to motivate and organize activism. Therefore, they need a name they know and feel some kind of attachment to.
I personally believe this person to be Hillary Clinton. I do, however, believe she will need a seasoned and recognizable running mate as well. I will be the first to admit I do not favor the status quo, but for the good of the nation, I believe we'll need it for four more years.
In the meantime, those of us who are involved need to continue to do so while trying to get some friends to accompany us. We need to start voting in the cities, then the states for more progressive candidates, those who have democracy's best interests at heart. It is more cost effective too. We can't just shoot for the Presidency and hope it trickles down. We've seen what trickle down ideology has done for this nation. We've got to start from the bottom up. We have got to be present everywhere, just as pervasive as capitalism, but certainly not as evil. Many low to uniformed citizens today view progressives and activists as radical. We can't change this until we change the political landcape from the inside out. We have got to turn the "us" versus "them" meme into a "we."
I would like to add that I would love nothing more than Elizabeth Warren in the White House. As stated earlier, she can be more useful where she is. Further, she is still a bit green to be running for President. I realize Obama did it, but he had a charisma and charm unmeasured by most, and likely since JFK, in my opinion. Obama was compelling and believable. People voted for him. While I am having buyer's remorse, I would hate to think of the alternative. If I have to suffer buyer's remorse again for the next presidential election, so be it, as long as it is the better alternative. And, hopefully, someday in my living future, we will have several viable alternatives to choose from for president.
Bake
(21,977 posts)This IS a democracy after all.
Bake
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Billy Pilgrim
(96 posts)And Hillary seems like the best candidate to me. I'll gladly vote for her if she runs.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)In other words, there are far more pressing political issues in the midterms. I know the midterms aren't sexy but that is where the real achievements happen. The President matters far less than we would like to pretend.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Collecting favors for favors done...
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)the Purest Progressive test and end up on the trash heap with Dennis Kucinich. Alan Grayson? As the leader of the free world?