We can do better than Hillary Clinton.

[Music Man]

This week's appearance at the Atlantic Council in which Clinton and Henry Kissinger warmly embraced one another is an excellent example of "meet the same boss..." Kissinger, the war criminal, has become an influence of sorts on Clinton's thinking (despite the fact that Clinton was probably protesting his policies 40 years ago. It's amazing how power changes one's values).

Hillary Clinton is smart, dedicated, an inspiration to women, and has been a gracious contributor to Obama's administration.

But the sudden inevitably with which most on the left want Clinton to run in 2016 strikes me as lazy thinking. Why? Because she's "paid her dues"? It's "her time"?

Pissed at Obama because the health care bill is watered down with items like individual mandates? Remember that would have been Clinton's starting proposal even before a compromise.

I'm willing to give her another shot in 2016, but right now, I am more excited about prospects like Elizabeth Warren, Deval Patrick, or Martin O'Malley.

Keep fighting the good fight, folks! In 2006/7, practically everyone said Hillary Clinton would be the inevitable choice. The safe choice. And they're doing it again.

[SlimJimmy]

1. She was my pick in 2008, not so sure now.

[Fuddnik]

64. Out of 8 candiates in 2008.

I had Obama and Hillary ranked 7 and 8 respectively, before the primaries.

However, after spending about 45 minutes talking to Chris Dodd, he quickly dropped to the bottom of the list. As far as I'm concerned Clinton is still ranked #8 for 2016.

[neffernin]

77. So both Dodd and Clinton are both ranked #8?

[Fuddnik]

177. Reading comprehension?

That was until I got to speak with Dodd. Clinton moved up to 7 at that point.

[alp227]

147. How did you meet Sen. dodd?

He is now a Hollywood lobbyist I think.

[Fuddnik]

179. This was in late 2007, before the first primaries or caucuses.

NALEAO (National Assn of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials) Had their national convention in Orlando, FL. The had Republican and Democratic Presidential forums on different days.

Three of us, who were very active in Florida Democratic politics at the time were given an invitation to spend the day in the Green Room, with the candidates. It was private and informal. Just us, the candidates and a couple of their staffers, and security. No press or anyone else, other than Edwards who showed up with his two bus entourage. And we got to spend the day just bullshitting and talking informally. The only candidate who wasn't there was Bill Richardson.

Now, Joe Biden is a guy you'd really like to go out drinking with. Friendly, charming, and a bullshit artist of the first magnitude.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

229. I don't think Joe Biden drinks. It's infuriating too because the wingnuts are always making fun of

Joe, insinuating that he's drunk or something. They take a bad picture of him and use that as proof. I'm pretty sure I'm right, however, in that Joe Biden does not drink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teetotalers

[gateley]

248. You're right -- Joe doesn't drink. Never has.

[MADem]

272. He doesn't touch the stuff. They're using ethnic stereotyping on him. It's terribly classless. nt

[randome]

2. Out with the old and in with the new. And I'm not talking about age.

It's time for fresh outlooks on our problems and future. That's not going to come from someone schooled in old-style politics.

[antigop]

99. especially DLC/Third Wayers nt

[SoCalDem]

120. Hopefully, someone in their 40's who is comfortable with technology

and whose outlook is longer than their look-back..

People who are in to 55+ category may have little or no understanding of so many complicated things that will shape the future.

Like Rumsfeld said about the known-unknowns and the unknowns-unknowns, the more they know (and are comfortable with) the better we all are.

On my perfect wish-list, our candidate would totally refuse to play the "Good-Ole-Religion" game, and would speak truthfully without using wiggle-words.

[Beacool]

122. You must be very young to state this.

"People who are in to 55+ category may have little or no understanding of so many complicated things that will shape the future."

[SoCalDem]

173. I am 64

and smart enough to know how little I understand of ultra modern technology. I want someone who grew up with it and understands it inately.

[randome]

187. Kudos to you!

I'm 54 and I don't want my generation in power any longer.

[90-percent]

202. ditto

I'm 59 and I agree with you.

My observation about current young people, 30 and under, is that they are very open minded and live and let live. They grew up on computers and are very tech savvy.

They're OK with gay everything and generally tolerant of everything.

I try to talk to them. It recently occurred to me they DID NOT GROW UP with middle class lifestyles that I got to enjoy and took for granted growing up. I read somewhere that the peak middle class prosperity was in 1965 and has been in decline ever since. I was in 5th grade and wanted for little. Had all the model cars, bicycles, and TV shows I could ever want.

Most young people I engage have a very high awareness of the hurt from our corporate overlords. They are aware of how many rights have been taken from them.

I have only recently realized my youth and young adulthood was a lot more prosperous and filled with opportunity than theirs will ever be.

I was not carrying student debt the size of a home mortgage when I finally graduated college. My career prospects were very good. Modern young people have a bleak future and they know it. I must tell them it was not always like this. There was a time when the American dream was more real and more accessible.

The worst thing a generation can do is wreck the future of the following generation. My generation has been doing that to young people for the last thirty years.

-90% Jimmy

[Beacool]

205. So then vote for a LAN guy.

What does being an expert in new technology have to do with knowing what it takes to run a country? Tech people can be hired, good politicians are rarer to find.

[randome]

206. I'm not sure you can fully understand the people you are governing...

...if you're too far removed personally from their daily lives.

[Beacool]

210. I'm not sure about that.

FDR and Kennedy were wealthy, but I think that they understood the common man. In the Clintons case, they were the poorest couple to enter the WH in decades. They didn't even own a home. Clinton was only paid $35K as governor of AR. Hillary is the one who was the bread winner and her take was not grand by corporate standards (around $100K).

[xtraxritical]

207. Well I'm sixty-three and I grew up with modern technology, where were you?

[SoCalDem]

215. There's "modern technology", and then there's modern technology

We had what was there in our day, but I never touched a computer until I was well into my 40's...

I want a chief executive who feels comfortable with stuff like cyber-terrorism and I know they can always hire people who do, but it;s not the same as being able to understand some of what the experts are saying..

We should have learned the lesson of GW who was too ignorant to understand and too stubborn to learn much..

The job of president (and really anyone who becomes a legislator) is a grueling job (when done properly) and mid 40's seems about right to me

[xtraxritical]

340. I'm pretty sure your President is proficient with current technology and he gets all

the help he may need too. I was weened on the IBM X86 and I'm about twenty years older than the President. We need to be producing our own CPU's in this country and be very dubious of imported microprocessors.

[whathehell]

214. I'd rather have someone who knows 20th Century US History and "grew up" in a pre-Reagan America,

than someone who grew up with "ultra modern technology"...That tells me nothing about their

Values, Experience or Vision. .

[BlueCaliDem]

227. Very good point! Because too many have white-washed Reagan's reign of corporate terror

since he's gone, and it would be smart to get someone in who remembers so we don't fall for it again.

[liberalmike27]

234. Exactly Whathehell

If you get someone younger, you'll have someone who doesn't even understand the different way, where the poor made more money, where the distribution was better, in a time where we made our own things, and the jobs were unionized, made more, and had benefits.

My problem with getting someone younger is they were raised under this insane Reagan and neo-Democratic ideal, like the Clinton's and now Obama.

I voted for Obama hoping he'd be more liberal than Hillary, then he disappointed in the first half by not fighting harder, and more vocally. I figured he was taking it down a notch to assure reelection. Now he continues to be lame, to try to please those who are going to hate him, are going to refuse him at every turn. At some point, trying to impress those who are going to hate you because of your skin-color no matter what you do, becomes just the actions of an idiot.

So Obama now seems to be getting more conservative if anything, trying to appoint a Billionaire the other day, touting her Chicago Boy's, right-wing-economist type credentials, of Milton Friedman. So now, well I guess Obama is in it for the after-presidency cash. He's got a small window to actually leave some kind of legacy, embrace some FDR Green New Deal solutions, appeal to his base, rather than crap all over us. Or he can go down as that guy who always sucked up to the rich kids, and was abused by them for his actions. His choice.

[whathehell]

246. Thank you. As a boomer who grew up in the 50's,60's, this country is almost foreign to me

and I honestly would prefer not to have someone who doesn't remember how America was at it's PEAK,

a time when we had the LARGEST middle class in the world, about 40% union membership, and the largest

number of college graduates. Hell, my dad was a union organizer and blue collar worker and he could easily

afford to allow my mom to stay at home with their two kids -- and without financial suffering. We were

hardly "rich" or even "upper middle class", but we were middle class, happy and generally satisfied.

I sometimes wonder if this is not at least part of Obama's problem. He was born in 1961 and, even

given his untraditional upbringing, you MAY remember his saying how he regarded Reagan

as a "Transformational President".....That sent up red flags for me, because what he did NOT say was

that Reagan "transformed" everything alright, but for the WORSE. Given his age, he was probably not politically aware

until Reagan's time.

His mother was an interesting, free spirited with a strong social conscience. My guess is that he rejected her model and went with

that of his Bank Vice President grandmother, "toot". I don't, of course, know what her politics were, but

something tells me she was a great believer in MONEY...She apparently paid about $30,000 a year in today's bucks

to put him through a pricey private school starting in Sixth Grade. Someone here, I forget who, said that

Timothy Geithner was actually the son or grandson of Toot's boss...I don't know if that's true, but it's

an interesting question.

I too voted for Obama hoping he'd be more liberal than Hillary...What a disappointment THAT's been,

since I really believe they're "birds of a feather", if you will. I honestly do NOT think he's a democrat in anything

but name. I think he was able to "pass" as one, for a couple of reasons, but one important one would be

that people have been paying SO much attention to the SOCIAL issues, rather than the economic ones,

that at this point, just about ANYONE, assuming they're pro-choice and pro-gay rights, can call themselves a "Democrat"

and THAT, I believe, is both a great mistake and a great danger... You may have noticed that, like the Repukes, only in reverse,

most beltway dems now almost exclusively concerned with "social issues".. And why not?...Like the Repubs, they may have noticed that

the social issues do not Cost anything! It allows them to feed at the Wall Street trough, while proclaiming their "liberalness".

Getting away from our economic roots seemed to start with Clinton, although I think even he was better than Obama.

The party has been going downhill ever since, IMO...If we don't get someone at least SOMEWHAT progressive,

I think we're doomed.

[xtraxritical]

338. I'm the same age and feel the same way, spare me from conservatives, they're so austere.

[whathehell]

342. Absolutely....Had anyone told us, back in our twenties, that this is the America we'd be living in

we'd have laughed at them.

[Matariki]

277. Just because YOU don't understand technology doesn't mean the rest of us 55+ don't

Educate yourself and stop projecting your failings onto others.

[Jennicut]

243. Hey Bea! Well, my 65 year old Mom still won't text me....

But I am pretty open to an older candidate and I am still in my 30's. They have to be the right person. On the other hand, it would be really interesting to have a true Gen Xer run for President as a Dem. Paul Ryan was a terrible representation of my generation. And President Obama is from Generation Jones, right after the boomers. He doesn't really count. I mean, he never grew up obsessed with Star Wars (kind of a prerequisite for us- my husband has quite the collection of junk).

[DonCoquixote]

166. Jerry brown is older

and I would take him in a New York Minute.

[Matariki]

276. What a bunch of ageist crap your post is.

People over 55 can't understand complicated things?

That's just rude and ignorant.

[dotymed]

183. If we can field "old-style" FDR candidates, then we can Progress.

If not, count me out.

[randome]

193. Don't quit mid-tide!

Things are changing and we need to be ready to seize the moment when it comes. I don't consider myself an optimist but I think the GOP is on a steady march to irrelevancy and that changes the game entirely.

[whathehell]

223. What do you mean by "field"?

I would like nothing better than an "old-style" FDR candidate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. She's a 3rd Way triangulating warhawk. No thanks.

[haikugal]

27. Yep...you got that right!! Me too....no thanks.

[Ikonoklast]

34. And those are some of her better qualities.

Do Not Want.

[99Forever]

50. Yes she is.

If the Dems nominate her or any other Turd Way schmuck, I'll be forced to vote 3rd party. I will NEVER hold my nose and vote for the less lousy of two lousy candidates again. Ever.

[DJ13]

55. Ever.

Same here.

[Fuddnik]

65. Likewise.

[psiman]

116. Welcome, President Cruz!

were you asleep during the whole Bush/Nader fiasco, or are you secretly jonesing for another conservative Republican presidency?

[99Forever]

135. You're welcome to be unprincipled...

... if you choose, what you can't and won't do, is hold my vote hostage, ever again. If you don't like it, tough shit.

[DonCoquixote]

167. letting any GOP person into the whitehouse

is as unprincipled as it gets.

[99Forever]

181. Nope.

Lying to me and holding my vote hostage is as unprincipled as it gets.

[Fuddnik]

196. Bingo!

I said before that someone would have to earn my vote. But I was so scared of Romney, I dumped my vote for Jill Stein and voted Obama. Anymore, I don't give a fuck. Serve working peoples interests or fuck off.

All Hail President Gohmert Pyle!

[BlueCaliDem]

228. Yeah, because it's all about YOU, isn't it?

Fuck the country, the economy, the social safety net. If they don't do as you like, you'll toss your vote to some GOP-backed putz and when another Republican wins by default, you'll have even more to snipe and gripe about. Good thinking there!

[JDPriestly]

160. Obama is not inspiring me to want a compromiser or a DLC Democrat next time.

I might just sit out an election if Hillary runs. I just think she is too compromised.

[Auntie Bush]

319. Because you think (wrongly) Hillary is too compromised...you'll help get a Rethug elected?

Smart move! That's what Dems did in 2010 and look what it got us...The Tea Party!
I would think smart people/Dems would have learned!

[JDPriestly]

330. What difference is there between a DLC Dem and a Republican?

Very little.

[Auntie Bush]

339. That's ridiculous! You need to do some homework and study up.

We have a good chance to put a Dem in the White House...why would you goof it up?
That's what happened in 2010. Obama wasn't progressive enough...why vote for him and send him a message.

So, now we have a damn ReThug House (Tea Baggers) who control almost all politics and grind it to a halt through the filibuster. And you all blame Obama. He's trying! But we need help from people like you. Stop giving the ReThugs talking points and brush that chip off your shoulder.

[rhett o rick]

190. Blaming the Bush years on Nader is asinine and childish. Not a good start

here in DU.

[BlueCaliDem]

232. No, it's the painful truth. Just look at the posts on this thread alone

that are declaring that if Hillary is the candidate they just might sit out the next election or vote for a third party candidate. Same shit that I've seen in 2000, and it needs to be nipped in the bud.

What's childish are those anti-Democratic Party posts, and you should call them on it because those posts aren't a good start for the 2016 presidential election. Don't call out the people who are pointing out the obvious.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

[rawtribe]

255. I damn well remember the past.

That's why I'll never vote for another Clinton. Fuck the DLC.

[rhett o rick]

268. "Same shit that I've seen in 2000, and it needs to be nipped in the bud."

If you really wanted the progressives to vote for the Democratic candidate, trying to bully them isnt going to work now any better than it worked in 2000.

The so called centrists or corporatists disparage progressives at every turn. The current President has completely turned his back on progressives. He has appointed conservative after conservative, corporatist after corporatist. And yet they want the progressive to give them support. No, they try to bully the progressives into support.

Blaming what happened in 2000 on Ralph Nader is asinine and childish. There were a lot of factors that lead up to that disaster, many were illegal. So why does The Third Way want to blame Nader? Because they cant face the fact that they didnt present a candidate that was going to fight for the 99%. And neither is Ms. Clinton. She is a corporatist thru and thru.

[winter is coming]

304. +1. Blaming 2000 on Nader is as effective and logical as the Republicans' belief that they lose

elections because they didn't get their messaging right. The idea that what's being peddled is undesirable never seems to cross their minds.

Don't hire a new PR firm. Don't change the messenger. Change the message.

[BlueCaliDem]

306. Yep. Same shit that I've seen in 2000, and it's alive and well here.

Let's hope it's not out there.

As for Progressives . . . any person who voted for Nader is NOT a Progressive. They're, at best, a conscientious Liberal. At worst, a Regressive, considering who backed Ralph in the 2000 and the 2004 campaigns - GOP money bags. Progressives' main goal is to move this country forward even if they don't like everything about the Democratic candidate and however incrementally. Liberals have incredibly good and valid ideas, but they rarely see them through because it's not about winning elections to them. It's about voting "their conscience". They're still waiting for that one perfect candidate - and unfortunately for them, that candidate doesn't exist.

DLCers don't exist anymore and Third-Wayers are those who would vote Fringie-candidate {be he a faux Libertarian like Ron Paul or a faux Green candidate like Nader} as opposed to someone who can actually WIN from a corporate-backed, moneyed Republican. And the GOP is thankful for those "principled Liberals".

[rhett o rick]

322. Here's the deal. You choose a candidate that disparages progressives, then you are on your own.

Dont you dare blame progressives for looking else where. You either want progressives on your side or you dont. YOU CHOOSE.

[BlueCaliDem]

337. Here's the deal. Don't take yourself so seriously. It's childish and self-defeating.

Liberals, not Progressives, are the ones who get butt-hurt and sit and pout at home when they perceive being disparaged. Progressives get over themselves and vote for the greater good even when the candidate isn't 110% what they wanted and hasn't catered to their every whim.

So don't you dare call yourself a Progressive when you'd rather sit and pout or vote for a third-party candidate that doesn't have a chance in HELL to win, and what would only helps the GOP take this country back - to the 1870's. That would make that person a GOP enabler and a REgressive, wouldn't it?

[rhett o rick]

343. I have never, ever sat home. I in my experience it's the liberals/progressives that go door to door,

handle the GOTV phone lines, etc. not the damn wishy-washy centrist that cant decide if they are liberal or conservative.

What I find interesting is that centrists will compromise with conservatives but not liberals. Hmmmm.

From your tone it appears you dont want a decent discussion, so I am done.

[winter is coming]

305. I'm seeing people who don't want another centrist. That's not the same as anti-Democrat. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

307. Read their posts.

That's pretty anti-Democrat to me.

[winter is coming]

309. They don't want another centrist, period.

Last time I checked, centrists weren't the whole of the Democratic Party.

[BlueCaliDem]

310. It's not what they want. It's what can WIN for the general good.

NOBODY is going to get the perfect candidate. Nobody. To keep undermining the candidate that's closer to their ideals is just plain stupid and it's the reason why the Democratic Party suffers the ping-pong results in elections, unlike the Republican Party.

We {Democrats} believe we are a democracy because we want to work together toward the general good, and nobody, nobody, can claim with a straight face that having another Republican win the WH and Republicans control Congress again, is working toward the general good of this country.

You're right, though, that centrists don't make up the whole of the Democratic Party, but like it or not, they are the majority. That's what needs to be kept in mind when we go cast our votes, or decide to stay home because there aren't any candidates worthy of our vote.

This is in interesting and insightful piece regarding the divide in the Democratic Party ranks:

" . . . explain why Democrats are unable to translate the party's persistent voter identification advantage into sustained congressional and White House dominance. In the report, "Family Feud: Democratic Activists v. Democratic Voters," I explain that the Democratic coalition is more divided between activists and rank-and-file members than are the Republicans. Most Democrats are moderates, and this has not changed in 40 years. Party activists are liberals.

<snip>

If Democrats on the left want a progressive revolution in America, they need to understand that it will not happen from the top down. They need to find areas where activists and non-activists overlap. They need to facilitate the change that the vast and vital center is seeking. If they can accomplish that, then perhaps moderates will become open to a more progressive government. Then, when the people are ready, Democrats can help facilitate the change.
Right now, however, Democrats need to focus on how they can win consistently, and that requires engaging the party's moderates. It does not mean abandoning core beliefs or giving up on efforts to influence opinion. But it's easier to influence opinion when you win elections.
My research suggests Democrats can embrace the middle and win, but if Republicans push too hard to embrace the middle, they will lose too many of their activists and non-activists. The key to victory for Democrats is to force Republicans to fight for the middle — it's a win-win strategy for Democrats, as they grow their coalition and divide the Republicans.


Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-democrats-20120226,0,3286100.story#ixzz2SHXrBOuK

[winter is coming]

315. Oh, goody, another lecture about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

Except no one's demanding perfection, and we're being offered precious little that's good. A lot of the stuff progressives want polls well with ordinary Americans... and those polls are seemingly ignored by the centrists. Every time we reach to "embrace" the middle, we move further away from what Democrats traditionally believed... and the Republicans shift even further right. Where do we stop? When do we say 'enough' and realize we've been played for suckers?

[BlueCaliDem]

341. It's not a lecture. It's reality.

We don't live in Utopia. We don't have unpolluted water, air, and food. We don't have zero obesity problems in this country. We still haven't eradicated cancer or AIDs. We live in America where it's not perfect because nothing is.

And if you really believe that "no one's demanding perfection", you haven't been reading the threads around here. The unrealistic view some demand from this president is just plain stupid and self-defeating, but what's even stupider is their constant harping about every tiny thing he does that they don't approve of, and then they launch into another self-defeating "I'm not voting for another Democrat!" bullshit diatribe that the GOP are happy to exploit.

President Obama has done more progressive work for this country than any other president since FDR, who, may I add, had super-majorities in both chambers of Congress and still didn't get through everything he wanted. Yet the fickle Left believe that he should be another FDR or a LBJ, while President Obama only had a slim majority in the Senate - for 24 days. Yet he still got a lot through even though he had to compromise.

You really want a more Liberal government? Do as the article suggests . . . work from the bottom up cuz it ain't gonna work from the top down. Fight to push for more liberal candidates at the local and state level and work your way up while remembering that the president is NOT a dictator or king, he doesn't occupy the most powerful branch of our government, and that despite the media's reluctance to inform the American public, Congress is, collectively, "the decider".

[winter is coming]

353. That's not even close to reality.

Reality is that the President explicitly told us to "hold his feet to the fire", but the minute someone criticizes an Administration action as being detrimental or favoring politics over evidence, the hater/perfectionist/"you want a pony" strawmen come out.

Reality is that centrists repeatedly dismiss progressive ideas as being "far left" or "fringe" or somehow not "pragmatic", yet the Progressive budget plan is plausible and doesn't mis-identify Social Security as a target for deficit reduction. Oh, the Republicans won't vote for it? They won't vote for the President's plan, either... so why should we support something Americans don't want (reduced SS benefits) instead of something Americans do want? If we're going nowhere, anyway, why not make a case for a workable, fair solution? Democrats used to be about workable, fair solutions.

Reality is that progressives are told to go off into the hinterlands and "prove themselves" in low-level elections and then maybe they'll be taken seriously, as if they have extreme, radical ideas that must first garner public approval before the centrists will acknowledge their validity. What, exactly, are so extreme about progressive ideas, many of which are a continuation or extension of positions once held by liberal Republicans as well as Democrats who weren't afraid of being called liberal? Seriously, what's so "out there" about liberals that they need to prove themselves before you'll stop treating them like red-headed stepchildren?

Reality is that our country has not moved to the right, but the leadership of both parties has. Reality is that media has been bought up by a handful of monied interests, and that those same interests inject a shit-ton of money into the political campaigns of candidates they believe will favor their agenda. They pretty much own the Republican Party lock, stock, and barrel, but they've got a death grip on our party, too--and on the country. The problem with progressives/liberals isn't that their ideas are too extreme for the 99% who actually elect candidates: it's that their policies don't favor the 1% who disproportionately fund elections and control the media. In that environment, progressives can never prove themselves by winning local races first, because it's not about whether or not voters want them. Corporate interests are going to do their level best to prevent them from getting on the ballot in the first place, and then smear them if they do.

Reality is that some politicians don't care so much about that, as long as they're in power. Others go along to get along, telling themselves that they'll do as much good as they can within the current system, only to find that the area of influence they exert control over constricts with each passing year.

Reality is that the current state of affairs is not sustainable. The 99% are going under, and the economy will eventually go with it, assuming there isn't an outright revolt first.

You want to side with the go along to get along crowd? Knock yourself out. I'll be with the people who are actually offering up real solutions, even if the 1% don't want them.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

219. That's a fucking tired argument.

[sabrina 1]

261. You mean the Bush/USSC criminal treasonous 'decision' that stole an election and gave it

to Bush. I'm always fascinated by people who want to let Thomas et al off the hook for their treasonous crime in 2000. Try something other than the legal, democratic run for office of someone who had zero to do with the stolen election. It's old, false, and by now only serves to make people wonder why someone would try to distract from the reason we got Bush et al for eight, disastrous years.

[Capt. Obvious]

290. The first Canadian born President since Chester Arthur

Orly Taitz is cool with it.

[sabrina 1]

132. Same here. Things are changing, the old ways are dying and people are far more informed now

than they ever were. I know I am.

Congress is where we need to focus, the spotlight on the Presidential elections distracts from where the real power is. We can pick Congressional candidates, we cannot pick presidential candidates but we can create a Congress that will keep them in check now that the executive branch has claimed so many powers that badly need to be rolled back.

[KoKo]

217. yes...that's where I'm focusing, also.

We don't pick the Presidents and with the money involved in local/State elections our chances of having choice is dwindling. But, there's still a chance there and we need to seize it before there's nothing left but Corporate, Think Tank, Wall Street Money running every election from Mayor to School Board to Judges and Human Services, etc and picking those who they can put in place without bothering with the voters wishes. This is already starting and it's got to be pushed back starting now.

[Demo_Chris]

139. Me as well. nt

[Carolina]

111. Touche!

I never got over her IWR vote and all the ass-covering speechifying she gave to justify it. Such utter bullshit when she knew about PNAC and its hard-on for war against Iraq while Bill was still POTUS in 1998

[olivelove]

186. Hear

Hear

[CrispyQ]

222. I have a repub friend who thinks Ron Paul is the bees knees & she told me

"I would vote for Hilary."

The people who got us into this mess are not going to get us out of it.

[truedelphi]

301. Same here. Summer pf 2010, she was absolutely

Orgasmic over the 33 billions of dollars that our Congress committed to the war in Afghanistan. She just gushed and gushed over how that would help the war effort there. Meanwhile the people inside the USA were being foreclosed, pink slipped, and told to keep a stiff upper lip.

It's time for a BIG HUGE change away from the DLC candidates, away from the "Always enough for wars, never enough for people, schools, fire districts, etc" style of thinking.

It is also something to ponder that it was her husband who signed onto the Banking Reform and Modernization Act. If he had vetoed that act until the Grahams removed their "kill" off of Glass Steagal, we might never have gone through the economic collapse of 2008. But he signed on.

Coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) her husband then went on to garner some $ 100K per speech in front of a Corporate podium. Goo d money if you can make it; especially if you can sleep at night knowing what you signed onto killed off the middle class of this nation.

[deutsey]

4. At the moment, I'm interested in O'Malley

He's my governor and he's indicated a possible run in 2016.

I like other potential candidates, too, but none of them have indicated they may run as far as I know.

[gateley]

249. Since you and somebody else mentioned him, I looked him up.

I read something that indicates he does have his eye on the WH --- and that every step is plotted to achieve that.

My only concern is if he really BELIEVES in what he does, or is he just playing the game to get ahead?

What do YOU think? You can obviously understand him far better than I -- you see him in action every day. I'm thinking he's the real deal otherwise you'd have seen through him, but I'm interested now. And it would be nice to focus on someone who really is willing to run rather than wishing and hoping that some of our faves would throw their hats in.

[deutsey]

275. The jury is still out for me in some ways.

I've been impressed with how much he's done during this go-round in the statehouse, which is why I'm interested in him. From what I've seen of him, I think he does believe in the progressive agenda he recently guided into becoming law.

He is still a politician, though, so I'm also still keeping myself in the "interested" column rather than throwing my all out support for him at this point. I was actually going to get in touch with local Democrats who know him and see what they think.

[gateley]

283. Thanks for the input.

[Music Man]

5. And I'm so eager to go through another campaign with Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn on my TV screen.

[sabrina 1]

262. Or Axelrod and Rahm ....

[get the red out]

6. Primary

I am looking forward to seeing who the Democratic candidates are and what they discuss.

[uponit7771]

7. You're right, HILLARY\WARREN 2016 > Hillary :-)...I'm for Hillary, I believe she's changed enough...

...from what I've seen I don't trust the intelligence of the others

Regards

[cascadiance]

8. Senators like Jeff Merkley or Elizabeth Warren...

Maybe getting Russ Feingold to run as well...

We need someone that is far from the "Third Way"/DLC cancer that is infecting too much of this party now. Hillary Clinton doesn't fit that bill.

[davidpdx]

142. I love Merkley, but I doubt he'd do it

He's my senator and I hope he stays in the Senate. During his first term he's gained some momentum up the seniority list.

It would be highest level seniority (combined) since Packwood/Hatfield (Wyden is 18, Merkey is 64; Packwood was 10; Hatfield was 7)

[hopemountain]

331. he's my senator, too

i would seriously consider a WARREN/ Merkley ticket.
Elizabeth Warren has the chutzpah to be our first woman president - as does Hilary - but i am more aligned with Warren.

[gateley]

247. I love the idea of Feingold -- don't know that much about Merkley.

A couple have mentioned O'Malley, too (Gov of Maryland -- You probably know, but I had to look it up)

Ideally, I'd love Bernie -- but that's not going to happen.

[cascadiance]

257. Bernie would be ideal too. But it would be difficult as a third party candidate at this point...

We need something like instant runoff voting put in place at the national level before someone like Bernie running as an independent would have a shot. And I suppose there are a ton of ideas on how he might trade favors, etc. to become a Democrat just to run for the nomination, but I just don't see that happening. He's a bit older than the others, and I think he says he's happy staying a senator, and a fine one at that.

Russ Feingold needs to get back in the mix. I'd hoped he would have run in the recall election against Walker and won, and then he'd have both gubernatorial and senate experience on his resume to make up for the problematic notion that an unmarried candidate can't win the presidency.

I see others saying Merkley as well mentioned in other places, even with people outside of Oregon where he's my senator. I think at some point he could get support for being president, but perhaps its a bit early now. Personally, I'd probably rather at this point see Harry Reid "retire" and have Merkley take over the Senate Majority Leader position, though he probably doesn't have enough seniority for them to give him the job. He certainly has probably the best perspective on how we SHOULD have the Senate run with his trying to get filibuster changes in place that are sorely needed and would make a fine leader there I think to restore the Senate majority of Democrats to be a progressive majority and not a do nothing corporatist beholden majority that pretends they are "progressive" with their hands tied all of the time the way Reid runs it. But I guess I'm mostly stating in my earlier post the kind of politicians I'd like to see running instead of Hillary. Those who put the people they represent first instead of those with the corporate dollars that spend it on their campaigns.

I think ideally someone like Elizabeth Warren would make a good VP on the ticket, if not the nominee (if many view her term in the Senate as not long enough experience to be the nominee) as a decent woman president in waiting. I'd like a Feingold/Warren ticket, though I'd hope that people wouldn't treat Warren as a "virtual first lady" in that case which the media would try to do and which would not be fair to Warren and the women she'd represent in this country either, especially if Feingold were still not married. Perhaps Feingold needs to get in the mix and get a good partner like Dennis Kucinich did some years back.

[gateley]

269. I think the country is so fed up, it will respond to someone who seems "strong".

Feingold could do that. Haven't heard O'Malley or Merkley.

I like your idea of Merkley going to the Senate -- even if he doesn't take Harry's job (I sure hope SOMEBODY does!)

Warren, although tough, doesn't come across as strong as I'd like. But a VP gig would be perfect -- people would get the chance to see how strong she really is!

So much, sadly, depends on perception. And "who you'd like to have a beer with". Too many people just don't pay close enough attention (and that was me until 2008 - left it up to "those who know" to pick the Dem candidate then I'd vote for him/her).

I was disappointed Feingold didnt run in WI, too, and he's pretty much dropped off the radar. Yes, he needs to get back in the mix. We know he still cares with Progressives United (but even that hasn't made much of a splash).

People say to just wait and see, that we're jumping the gun, but I think it's crucial that we begin preparing NOW -- both for 2014 and for 2016.

[cascadiance]

278. Merkley was the senator who lead the effort to try and get a talking filibuster earlier...

... that Reid TOTALLY SCREWED UP to our detriment now! He's already in the Senate now, and will be up for reelection for his second term come 2014. Certainly miles ahead of that old Rethug Gordon Smith he replaced who said in a debate with him that Sarah Palin was formerly the governor of California.

I want that kind of leadership that recognizes how the strings of power should be played in the Senate as our Senate Majority Leader to get things done. Not someone that finds ways to invent excuses on why we can't get things done, but that "his heart is in the right place".

Some people have said that Warren should be the VP pick to Hillary. I don't think that would work on many levels. As the OP notes, I think we can do better to Hillary. And I think it's a bit too early to have two women on the ticket to have them get elected. Maybe down the road, and I certainly have nothing against it, but we have to also think of how to get someone elected too.

That's why someone like Feingold (or maybe even Tom Harkin) with Warren as their running mate would be good in my book for 2016.

[gateley]

284. My sense is that Hillary and Warren may have ideological differences, so don't see

that as a working duo. As always, I could be wrong.

You've got me thinking about a totally female ticket. Don't know if we could swing that yet.

It would take an EXTRA strong woman at the top so people don't automatically defer to the male VP.

I owned a business (I'm a woman) and my best friend (a guy) worked with me. More than once, someone would come in and say to Jim "are you the owner?" and I'd say "No, I'm the owner" -- yet they would present their pitch to HIM! I'd even say "I'm the SOLE owner" but with the same result. And I'm no shrinking violet, believe me.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

Don't even get me started on Harry and the filibuster. My blood still boils whenever I think of it.

[winter is coming]

9. The more people push Hillary, the less acceptable I find her or any other centrist. n/t

[11 Bravo]

13. That makes you somewhat ... malleable .. does it not?

[Music Man]

14. Martin O'Malleable?

[11 Bravo]

67. If you voted for Bobby Haircut and didn't feel slimy, you may be in the wrong place.

[hootinholler]

71. Plus the Rain Tax is a RW talking point here in Md.

It refers to fees for storm water management, which needs to happen.

[gateley]

250. Is he? I'm just learning about him. Why do you say that?

[winter is coming]

16. In the sense, that I'm making the transition from "would reluctantly vote for but

would not support" to "would vigorously campaign for an alternative", I suppose so.

[AngryAmish]

10. We may not like it, but you better learn to love it

TPTB have selected her. Dissent is not tolerated.

[customerserviceguy]

178. We are indeed stuck with her

If she wants it. Maybe something will happen to change that, but I doubt it.

[Parable Arable]

11. I won't claim to be as liberal as some members of this site...

So if it really comes down to Hillary, I'll support her. That being said, I agree that she isn't my ideal choice for a candidate. I'd like to see someone new enter the race. Given that our party is becoming increasingly divided between the 3rd way and the progressive caucus, I'd like to elect somebody that could, at the very least, reconcile these two groups. Clinton has done an admirable job as Sec of State, but I just don't her as the "unifyer" that I'm hoping for. Yes, I recognize that electing a Bernie Sanders type of figure would be a monumentally challenging task, but I hope that the next Democratic president will be able to remind his congress that "hey, don't forget what the Democratic party is supposed to stand for, alright?"

/end incoherent opinionated post/

[antigop]

12. Silly you. You have to accept the "inevitability" meme. nt

[closeupready]

15. I like her, but I don't want her to be the nominee; if she wins

the primary, however, I'd support her.

Frankly, I'd rather see Elizabeth Warren. She's far more to my liking.

[Parable Arable]

17. Agreed.

Senator Warren is among one of my favorite choices to run in 2016. Though in the event that she actually ascends to the presidency, I hope that we'll be able to adequately fill her seat.

[Ishoutandscream2]

38. +1

[Cleita]

76. Yes, I support Warren too. n/t

[mysuzuki2]

18. I will support her if nominated.

If only because she would be infinitely better than the spawn of Satan who the rethugs will inevitably nominate.

[NCTraveler]

19. Welcome to DU.

I think that this is a fine op. I would have left out the first paragraph, but it doesn't bother me enough to not give it a full thumbs up.

Don't forget that republicans are your enemy.

[bamacrat]

20. I get that and all but..

we really need a democrat to follow Obama. If its a republican, every bit of progress will be repealed and a double down on Reaganomics will ensue.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Elizabeth Warren or O'Malley may be a liberal's POTUS but stand little chance at winning. Albeit Obama at this point before the first election probably seemed a long shot, so...

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I would prefer Elizabeth Warren, but I think using "warmly embracing Kissinger" as a rationale

is a bit lame.

And look, no one is more critical of Henry Kissinger than myself. Probably half the US deaths in the Vietnam war; and God Knows how many Vietnamese- can be laid at his feet, in particular the dublicitousness he displayed around the 1968 Paris Peace Accords and the election.

But that said, what do people expect Hillary to do? Clock the guy? It's like expecting Bush to be arrested. Sorry, it's just not going to happen. There is a certain level of political decorum in this country.

Oppose Hillary on her policy points- like the IWR vote, which has been a sticking point for me... if she's the nominee I will support her, but I too would rather see Elizabeth Warren.

I also think it's too early to get too preoccupied with this stuff.

[Music Man]

25. Your point is well-taken,

But the political niceties aren't what bother me, actually. Kissinger has apparently become a bit of a mentor to Clinton, and I'm simply using the example of Kissinger's words at this week's event as something that should cause a red flag to go up. That deep down, Clinton is more of the same, as she would have been in 2008.

Besides, "decidedly" means unequivocally or decisive, and enough people seem to agree with my post that bringing it up isn't "decidedly" lame

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Your point is well-taken, too, so I switched it to "a bit"

And I appreciate the value of symbolism.

I did not support HRC in 2008 because of wariness over foreign policy matters, mostly. But I do think she is a strong voice in the Democratic Party and she would be a formidable candidate.

I would rather have Elizabeth Warren, for a lot of reasons- the primary one being that she is the ONLY one out there saying the things she is saying, and she says them on target without pulling punches.

[Beacool]

123. Yeah, because Obama is such a progressive.

[Pirate Smile]

152. There is a big slice of Obama Primary/caucus supporters who are quite willing to get behind Hillary.

Constantly re-fighting those battles is counterproductive, unnecessary and divisive.

A lot of the same people who are constantly ragging on Obama, will be the same ones ragging on Hillary - and many of the Obama defenders are going to end up being big Hillary defenders so try to restrain the impulse to always defend Hillary by attacking Obama - restrain from doing it for Hillary's sake.

[Tarheel_Dem]

159. She won't stop until everyone at DU despises Hillary. I'm a loyal Democrat....

and have always supported the eventual nominee, but posts like hers are making it increasingly difficult to work up the necessary enthusiasm. Reading her posts, are like seeing Mark Penn on my tv, it brings back memories, and none of 'em good. Lest we forget that Hillary can be blindsided, it's been done before, and her supporters share a huge chunk of the blame.

[Beacool]

200. Please, selective memory.

Last edited Sat May 4, 2013, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary supporters had to hear enough crap then and now. Look around this site, every time someone writes a post on Hillary, there are people almost breaking their fingertips in their rush to write something negative. Therefore, most of us have left this place. It has never been Clinton friendly.

[Tarheel_Dem]

235. "It has never been Clinton friendly". Do you think you've contributed to that?

Because of your dislike of Obama, you fell right in line with the bashers, not even caring that they are the same folks who hold HRC in contempt, and for much the same reason. You've called his supporters "thugs". You've made snide comments about his wife.

Bea, this is a serious question. Do you think your particular brand of venom toward the current president and his wife will help Hillary with Obama's coalition? I'm not just talking about DU, but there are still Hillary supporters on the teevee who have never let it go. That's counterproductive. The cloak of invincibility wasn't enough to stop an insurgent newcomer last time. The few Democrats left here at DU want to support whomever the eventual nominee is, and I want to be every bit as supportive of that nominee as I have been of Pres. Obama. If that's Hillary, I would hope to do everything I did to help elect Pres. Obama, but you and other Hillary loyalists have got to let go, or NOT!

[Beacool]

327. His wife?

I happen to like Michelle. I only remember questioning some fashion choices, such as those belts she used to wear early in his presidency. I have said several times that I think she's doing a fine job as first lady.

First of all, no one knows if Hillary is even interested in running again. But, if she does choose to run, I doubt that anyone will vote or not vote for her due to my opinion of Obama. That would be silly. As for people here on DU, they can do whatever they want. I'm not brow beating anybody.

What I can't abide are the hypocrites who were against Hillary in 2008 and who are now hoping that she runs in 2016. People like Chris Matthews and Nancy Pelosi, for example. Pelosi had the unmitigated gall to say yesterday that she was actually praying that Hillary would run. This is a woman who behind the scenes was twisting the arms of super delegates to switch their allegiance to Obama (even in states that were won by Hillary). I also remember her saying repeatedly to reporters (after Obama became the nominee) that it would be a mistake for him to choose Hillary as VP. She's now "praying" for her to run???? Please............

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/nancy-pelosi-hillary-clinton_n_3208039.html

So, you want people to "let go". Easier said than done.

[Tarheel_Dem]

373. "So, you want people to "let go". Easier said than done."

Like I said, "or NOT". Not sure how that helps, but hey..... Enthusiasm matters. One of the Clintons' handpicked gubernatorial candidates has fallen behind to a troglodyte named Cucinelli, and it's because people are having a difficult time working up the needed enthusiasm to put him over the top. He was ahead in this race, much like Hillary is now, but things can change, and re-fighting useless battles can open up wounds that could be detrimental.

And as an aside, Nancy isn't the only one who's had a change of heart re: Hillary. 2008 wasn't her time. We should be so lucky, every election, to have two candidates who generate the kind of excitement that '08 presented.

[Pirate Smile]

203. This could be a very unified party but some of the Clinton folks - like Rendell - have got to stop

trying to promote Hillary by insulting & denigrating Pres. Obama.

I don't get why that is hard to understand.

It would also help if Bill would stop running around trying to settle scores in Democratic Primaries.

They've got to stop that stuff. It is counterproductive.

Most Dems love breaking barriers & love the idea of the first female POTUS.

Restrain the Clinton loyalist stuff.

[randome]

204. I wonder if there is a downside to promoting her this early, though.

The more fervent her supporters, the more they will just as fervently align with whomever Hillary decides to endorse if she decides not to run.

That puts her in at least the position of King (or Queen) maker.

[Beacool]

209. The media is promoting her this early.

It's not Hillary's doing. Some inside the party also seem to feel that the Democratic candidate in 2016 should be a woman. It makes me a little nervous to see such a push for Hillary so soon. Every week there's a new poll. I don't trust the media at all. In 2008 they dropped her like a hot potato for their candidate of choice. They are vultures who will turn on someone on a dime.

[Tarheel_Dem]

236. Ditto to everything you just said!

[Beacool]

198. It's not an impulse.

Just a reminder of the myriad of times that we had to hear back then that Obama was so much to the Left of Hillary, when some of us already knew that he would be a centrist. What I'm trying to say is that the Left got what they deserved. They got a center-left candidate on some issues and a center-right candidate on some others.

As for 2016, it's too soon to tell who is going to run, and that includes Hillary. she may choose to give the election circus a pass.

[Whisp]

161. Compared to Hillitary, yes he is.

The Clinton's priority one is jamming more cash in their jeans and sell it as patriotic.

[Beacool]

199. Still using RW nicknames for Democrats, I see.

[Whisp]

212. I don't think the RW would mind that name so much.

So I doubt very much it originated with them - they like wars.

I think it's mine and I'll keep it.

[DonCoquixote]

168. stil more progressive

Than Hillary is, was or, judging by her silence, would be. She can easily change my mind if she promises to revive Glass Steagall.

[Beacool]

201. She's her own person.

She's not her husband. As for Obama, I beg to differ that he's more progressive. The one thing that he didn't do, voting for the IWR, he probably would have done if he had been in the Senate. At least that's what he told Tim Russert in 2004. Politicians flapping lips is to be expected, putting their money where their mouth is, is a totally different thing.

[DonCoquixote]

332. I know enough about what she did do

Like why the Hell were we even involved in Libya? Yeah, we got Qadaffi's scalp, and put more fundamentalists into power, the same as with her Syria saber rattling, and her Iranian saber rattling.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

375. See what Pirate Smile said below. I supported Obama (reluctantly) over Hillary in the primaries.

I now support Hillary if she is the nominee, and I will work as hard for her as I did for Obama...maybe even harder.

You constantly bash the president--either implicitly or explicitly--and you must realize that it doesn't do anything for your cause. If you truly honor Hillary and stand by her, then stop being divisive. Get over the 2008 primaries, once and for all!

[L0oniX]

33. Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. - Henry Kissinger

Yea we really need that attitude. Nice that she can embrace a fucking war criminal. Decorum over deserved scorn? If only people would have scorned him in public in the past maybe he would be staying in his shell and die without any positive legacy and notoriety. I've had enough of the American exceptionalism assholes.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I get it. I do.

But realistically, she wasn't going to deck the guy.

[Music Man]

37. Never hit a man with glasses.

Hit him with something bigger and heavier

[Warren DeMontague]

39. heh heh

welcome to DU.

[L0oniX]

41. "I don't talk to or shake hands with war criminals" ...that would work for me. n/t

[JEB]

138. Exactly. Talk about palin' around with terrorists.

[SunSeeker]

22. We can do better than Hillary, but I'd support her if she ends up the nominee.

I wouldn't be shocked if she decides not to run though...she might get used to the freedom of a cushy retirement.

[DirkGently]

23. I like Hillary as Sec'y of State. She's formidable. As President ...

... not as much. She and Bill are triangulators who think Wall Street has all the answers. Witness Chelsea becoming the world's youngest hedge fund manager. They like speculators and fat cat capitalists and don't see any tension between the common good and the unlimited power of the wealthy.

And I think the country is leery of Presidential legacies at this point.

Elizabeth Warren? Yes, please. They'll say it's too early for her, but we shall see. I think a lot of moderates and a sizeable chunk of self-identified conservatives like her willingness to tell the Too Big To Fail guys what's what.

It's too soon to tell. But I wouldn't put too many eggs in the Hillary 2016 basket yet.

[Auntie Bush]

45. Elizabeth has NO foreign policy experience. With all that is going on around the world

today...the president needs to KNOW that kind of stuff. Hillary already knows all the world leaders, has experience in the health industry and knows politics the best of all.
We can WIN with Hillary. It would be a gamble with Warren. I prefer not to gamble! The ReThugs put in their farthest to the right. Let us not put the one in office who's farthest to the left if we want to be assured of a win. Remember we need independent votes too and Indies love Hillary..as I do.

[bike man]

61. NO foreign policy experience? "Some say" we've elected presidents with only two years

in the Senate, and Ms Warren has at least that - or perhaps that's what you meant when you typed "...With all that is going on around the world today..." Is that a drawback?

[Beacool]

124. Yeah, and he's such a good negotiator.

He still has the tread marks on his back. Experience DOES matter in life.

[bike man]

158. And then we did it the second time. We don't learn our lessons well. nt

[Whisp]

376. He has no tread marks on his back

there you go again, making up ugly shit about Obama and calling him weak and ineffectual. That is what your Goddess of Peace did during the primaries - low down dirty personal insults. I won't forget what kind of character she really is made up of and these same characteristics seem to be attached to her most ardent followers as well.

As far as comparing the President's 'leftness' to Hillary's - he actually got something done about ACA and moan as you will, it helps a lot of people and will help more in the future. Hillary just shut the door and gave up - how does this make her more left? Or how about that great vote for the Iraq war? That makes her more left? The list is long to prove she and her hubby are no lefties in comparison.

[DirkGently]

82. I like Hillary's F.P. as a diplomat. Not so much as Commander-In-Chief

She's far too hawkish, and her idea of economic reform is more offshoring free trade agreements and more cookies for bankers and speculators.

True that Warren is no foreign policy expert, as far as I know. She probably won't be nominated this time around.

But she has more of what we need going forward, and I disagree she'd be seen as too much of a lefty for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Many regular Joe conservatives see the deathgrip the financial powers that be have on the country and don't like it.

Is there anyone conservatives hate more than Hillary? That's no knock on her, of course, but if you're arguing Warren's too big a lefty, I think that's outweighed by conservative hatred for Clintons in general, and Hillary in particular.

I also have a hard time forgetting her utterly dishonest play over the Michigan primary. She should win where Obama wasn't on the ballot? It seemed so blatantly disingenuous that it damaged my ability to take her seriously as a candidate.

[antigop]

91. more offshoring free trade agreements..just like Bill. No thank you. nt

[Carolina]

112. The problem with our foreign

policy since forever, or at least since 1948, is all the meddling, coups, invasions and other shit wrought by those with and without such foreign policy experience.

Maybe we should just take care of the domestic front for awhile and for a change, because quite frankly some of the shit happening in the world is blowback for US interventionism, rampant capitalism and belief in its own mythology of exceptionalism.

Clean house first and Elizabeth would be excellent at that.

[Demo_Chris]

140. What would we win?

I am still trying to figure out what WE won with Obama -- it looks like a whole lot more of the same to me.

[burnodo]

308. I believe the current president had no prior foreign policy experience

I think he's doing alright

[L0oniX]

24. "the left want Clinton" ...WTF dude don't even try to frame it as a "left" thing.

The fact is that the Clinton's and their DLC asscarrots brought the Dem party to the right.

[hrmjustin]

26. President Hillary Clinton sounds great to me!

[graham4anything]

28. Hillary45 to continue Barack Obama's agenda forever. Get used to this picture.

[img][/img]

besides HIllary and Joe, the nevergonnabees won't even get out of the gate,
and none of them will be the VP either. (Hoping for Janet Napolitano or Joe Biden)

[Walk away]

80. That would be cool to have Joe as VP again!

I do wonder who she'll pick. As for the "Pure" candidates, I doubt they can stop Hillary from being President in 2016 even think if one of them runs as a 3rd party Super Liberal.



Remember Dennis Kucinich? He's so pure.

[Auntie Bush]

100. I'd like for Bidden to Run for VP again with Hillary for President.

I wonder if he'd do it? Talk about a team of rivals and a team with experience ready to take over without skipping a beat. What a team they'd make!.

[Carolina]

113. Barack's agenda

More Wall Streeters the cabinet... no thank you

[Whisp]

377. She is no Obama - the Clinton's are not interested in much other than their own selves and

this 'legacy' of theirs that can bring in more money.

money money money
power power power
throw in some interference and meglomania too

[highmindedhavi]

29. No vote is money is taken from Banks/Wall Street

I don't care anymore if the candidate is a long shot, I am going to take a stand against the Banks and Wall Street.

[Milliesmom]

30. Change you can believe in

Trust me when I say after spending 72 years on this planet you can be sure that the person you love and elect will not be the same that leaves office after 4 or 8 years. They all change because they do not make every decision on their own, they have so many advisors and not all of them are on the citizens side. Besides as you know, we all change our minds on many different subjects, or as the POTUS calls it "evolving ". Every President will never be in lock step with the US citizens. We can only hope he listens to us more then George Bush did.

[No Vested Interest]

31. I'll come right out and say it---

I believe in today's world a candidate has to be telegenic,
meaning have a bounce in their step, and youthful enough to give the appearance of open to new ideas.
As smart, wise, experienced as Hillary and Joe Biden are, I don't believe they will be as appealing to the electorate as a more vibrant candidate of either party.

I can say this as a senior myself, older that Joe and Hillary.

I sincerely hope that Hillary takes the path I myself took years before her age and takes on the happy role of grandma (assuming Chelsea's cooperation in that area).

Of course, I would vote for either one- Hillary or Joe, should they be the nominee, but right now I'm looking more to Martin O'Malley. I think Mrs. Warren would make a heck of a VP.

[Samantha]

137. This is exactly what I am starting to think -- O'Malley/Warren

This country definitely needs a noticeable move to the left, the true left. That ticket would do it, but it would be a hard sale in some areas. So there would have to be a lot of passion from a lot of Dems to get it.

I do not think being telegenic is an absolute, and here is my example: Bernie Sanders vibrates the set when he speaks, he has such passion, such logic and a ton of courage. That is extremely attractive to me as a voter. He is also a politician with cajones. The telegenic Marco Rubio looks to me like a person with zero gravitas with a Mitt Romney bent: he can step to the right, immediately backtrack and step to the left, turn around and move back while speaking as if he is looking to toward the future. He sure looks good while he is doing this but he leaves one with the impression he has zero principles weighing down, except the principle of self-promotion.

So I give few points towards being telegenic. I think it is overrated.

Hope you don't mind this small disagreement since I am in total agreement with your ticket choice! I am not too sure an overwhelming number of Democratic voters realize how hawkish Hillary is and how much farther to the right she stands than what appears. I did admire her as a first lady, a Senator and Secretary of State. But I do not see her as the type of leader this Country needs at this particular point in time.

On the other hand O'Malley/Warren might have a lot of money problems....

Sam

[No Vested Interest]

157. No, telegenic is not the be-all and end-all, but

it goes a long way. Think one-on-one debates. Think traveling around the country, working the lines after speeches. - All hard work, and being youngish does matter.

Remember, Sam- you & I are political junkies. We know a lot about candidates & possible candidates.

Most of the country doesn't even know their senator & representatives names. A number of those we would need aren't even registered yet.

I completely agree with you re Bernie Sanders, who marches to his own drummer. We Dems are so fortunate he caucuses with our guys, but, then, what choice does he have? He sure couldn't take more than 2 minutes of Mitch Mcconnell's leadership. Bernie Sanders is a man of his convictions. Because of his independence he's not nor never was going to go further, but day in, day out he stumps for what he knows is right. I do believe, though, that we overlook his senior looks because he are so familiar with him - we see "good guy", not "old guy".

Money problems- Our Prez didn't have huge amounts when he started campaigning in '08. He built up that campaign structure - with help of a great team. The Dems as a whole - not the Obama campaign itself- had some money problems in 2012. Didn't read that the Dems still owed a huge bill from the convention in Charlotte last Sept? If Citizens United still stands in 2016, yes, there will be money problems. We'll just have to see.

[forestpath]

32. K&R

[broiles]

40. She's too old. She will be 69 by the election.

Don't accuse me of ageism. I'm 72 and I can see and feel some of the limitations that come with advancing age and the job is too tough for someone with those limits. Plus we need to shake up the leadership of this country with new faces and new ideas. Plus. plus she is a hawk. We have had enough hawks.

[antigop]

44. she also sold out the American worker -- as did Bill.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

Hillary Clinton: So you are talking about the outsourcing of US jobs to India. We know it's been going on for many years now and it's part of our economic relationship with India and I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefitted many parts of our country and there are disadvantages that go to the need to improve the job fields of our own people and create a better economic environment so it's like anything like the pluses and minuses.

Still waiting for Hillary to tell us what laid off IT workers and engineers are supposed to train for.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html

Despite aggressive courtship by Democratic candidates, major unions such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union have withheld their endorsements as they scrutinize the candidates' records and solicit views on a variety of issues.

High on the agenda of union officials is an explanation of how each candidate will try to stem the loss of U.S. jobs, including large numbers in the service and technology sectors that are being taken over by cheap labor in India. During the vetting, some union leaders have found Clinton's record troubling.

"The India issue is still something people are concerned about. Her financial relationships, her quotes -- they have both gotten attention," said Thea M. Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO.

Facing a cool reception, Clinton and her advisers have used closed-door meetings with labor leaders in recent months to explain her past ties to Indian companies, donors and policies. Aides have highlighted her efforts to retrain displaced workers and to end offshore tax breaks that reward companies that outsource jobs.

But the Clinton camp has been pressed by labor leaders on her support for expanding temporary U.S. work visas that often go to Indians who get jobs in the United States, and it has been queried about the help she gave a major Indian company to gain a foothold in New York state. That company now outsources most of its work to India.

"They're obviously defensive about it," observed Lee, who has taken part in such meetings.

[DJ13]

72. Still waiting for Hillary to tell us what laid off IT workers and engineers are supposed to train fo

Servants.

The next growth industry.

[eilen]

79. I read that the human trafficking business is booming, bigger than it's ever been.

Owner, Dealer or Livestock.....

[antigop]

86. the DLC agenda! nt

[msongs]

42. bush 4 nt

[TRoN33]

43. I agree about other better choices over Hillary...

Once upon a time, Bill and Hillary Clinton and their lovely young daughter, Chelsea were so dead broke and are very much in common with rest of Americans. Today, they are worth $50 million of dollars with $20 million in stock portfolios in several companies as a gift.

Hillary may be a great leader and very great Democrat but she have already forgotten how it truly feels to be very broke like rest of 98.9% of Americans.

I would rather to stick with Joe Biden, Joaquin Castro, Julian Castro, Andrew Cumo (potentially, he will make the Republicans cringe much more worse than they feels about Obama), Elizabeth Warren (think Andrew Cumo but much more better in keeping Republicans and Wall Street under tightest leash) and lastly, John Hicklenlooper due to his above 68% approval rate, the highest of all governors in America.

Hillary may be great President but she is way too comfortable with the Wall Street and mega corporations along with invested interest in defense companies. No I wouldn't go with Clinton.

[brooklynite]

92. The Castro brothers have never won a Statewide race...

...and you want them to run a national election?

[brooklynite]

95. A very simple question...

How will any of the progressively pure names mentioned in this thread win in Ohio, Florida and Virginia?

[Beacool]

125. So what if they made money?

They earned it by working for it. Do you think the Obamas are poor? They too are worth millions thanks to Obama's books. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Whisp]

162. yeh, and the rest of us lazy poor bums just don't work hard enough. thanks. n/t

[alp227]

149. Yes! I was thinking Andrew Cuomo too!

I would have wanted my governor Jerry Brown to run of he hadn't run in 76 or 92.

My mock 2016 Dem primary opening debate:
Hillary Clinton
Andrew Cuomo
Russ Feingold
Al Franken
Jeff Merkley
Martin O'Malley
Chuck Schumer
Elizabeth Warren

[Bohunk68]

185. As a New Yorker, I don't want Andrew.

He's too DLC-Third Way. I would far prefer two women - Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom are awesome women. Kirsten has worked hard on the repeal of DADT and is working hard on weapons control. Her and Elizabeth would be tremendous.

[OKNancy]

46. 65% in new poll prefer her

The latest is a Quinnipiac University national survey released Thursday showing Clinton claiming the support of 65 percent of Democratic voters. Vice President Biden trails by a wide margin in second place, with 13 percent support.
Quinnipiac is just one of several polling outfits that have recently found Clinton up big.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/02/polls-show-hillary-clinton-running-well-ahead-of-the-pack-in-2016/

----

[DFW]

47. Hillary would be fine IF.........

And only if she still wants it so bad she will fight tooth and nail for it.

I'd be fine with her as our nominee, would prefer someone younger, with less mileage and more HP.

Her Sec-State experience would make her great on foreign policy, and her WH/Senate experience would make her very capable (I'm speculating) on getting some domestic policy pushed through. Her long experience, though, would make her very attuned to what's possible and what is not, and like Bobby Kennedy in 1968, I'd be thrilled to have someone in the White House who is for figuring out how to do a little of the impossible.

[kentuck]

48. I think we might need some new blood?

Henry Kissinger (war criminal) ??

[SheilaT]

49. If I had gone into a coma in 2007

and had now just woken up, I'd be incredibly confused by this thread. Wasn't Hillary inevitable some eight years ago? Wasn't she absolutely going to be our nominee? So what happened?

I agree with all those who say that assuming Hillary is inevitable for 2016 is very lazy thinking. She's really too old. I'm 64 myself, and others older than I agree. Same with Joe Biden. In fact, the common wisdom four years ago was that Biden would be a one-term VP, to be replaced by the person who could then be the inevitable nominee in '16. So what happened?

Oh, and think about an obscure governor in 1990, right after is was obvious to all who observed that there was no way George HW Bush could miss being re-elected.

Or in 2006, the first term Senator from Illinois, who everyone thought was charming and would go a long way, but obviously was going to need four or eight years of seasoning.

My point is, everyone should cool their jets about 2016. We still have 2014 to get through, and there is simply no way of knowing what's going to happen between now and then.

Personally, I do hope Elizabeth Warren is on the ticket three and a half years from now, but I'm not betting on anything so early.

[Eleanors38]

98. Obama is charismatic, good-looking, and a good speaker. Other than all that stuff...

...how did he suddenly burst forth from a missile silo to beat the Anointed One with all the backing? Evidently, there was a virtual administration behind Obama when he made his first speech in Iowa. Do any of the alternative candidates have a similar "sub-structure" behind them to compare with the Big O's? Will an alternative to Hillary inherit her sub-structure? If not, there is not likely to be an alternative to Hillary because a serious bid would mean a virtual take over of the Democratic Party, preceded by a major popular movement, and I don't see this happening.

[davidpdx]

146. I agree with you Shelia

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were underdog candidates. Bill Clinton was much better known since he had been governor of Arkansas for many years.

I think neither Clinton, nor Biden, nor Warren will run. There is going to have to be a fresh crop of candidates in 2016 with all the old well known ones stepping aside. More than a few possible candidates are out there that fit that description. We'll see what happens.

But I too think it's time to focus on 2014 which is going to be a tough year. If we don't hold on the Senate we are screwed.

[gateley]

254. Good post -- sage advice. :-)

[bvar22]

51. Well, if you income puts you in the top 6%,

then Hillary is Right for YOU!

PLUS, it would be "HISTORIC" !!!

...but if you are in the BOTTOM 96% who have to Work for a Living,
Hillary would be a Bad Choice.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Beacool]

126. How much does Warren earn?

How much do people in Congress earn? Using your criteria almost all politicians couldn't run for office as most of them earn more than $97,000.

[ColesCountyDem]

52. If she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her.

She is NOT who I'd prefer to get the nomination, but I will not permit the perfect to become the enemy of the good. She is a gazillion times better than ANY GOP-er out there.

[hobbit709]

56. That's about the only support she'll get from me.

I'm tired of having to hold my nose while voting.

[Apophis]

53. Um, duh, we can do better than her.

[Taverner]

57. We can, but we won't

Once again, this is one of those things we really can't do anything about

[woo me with science]

59. We MUST do better than Hillary Clinton.

However, we WILL get Hillary Clinton or another corporatist and warmonger, unless we get serious as a nation about getting corporate money and influence out of our elections.

[MADem]

60. Count me out of your "we." I like her. If I want to hear people trashing her, I would turn on

Faux.

I don't think "we" could do better.

She's smart, she's been through the grinder, she knows how to tell a Republican to fuck off with a smile, and she's experienced. Plus, she has a husband who is a free advisor, a spare cabinet member.

She's not "anointed." First, she has to decide to run, then she has to compete.

Starting from a position in opposition to her, and calling people "lazy thinkers," before she's even declared, is just silly.

Warren, Patrick and O'Malley haven't declared, either. And they don't have her political experience or her campaign experience.

No one's thinking "lazily," she's just the only one besides Biden who has run before, is still entirely viable, has the best experience (SecState is better training than VP, any day), and hasn't issued a Sherman statement.

[OKNancy]

62. Fortunately the "we" of DU are a tiny and marginal group

[MADem]

68. There's a bright spot! Yee haw! nt

[stevenleser]

70. I'm going to be happy to see Hillary win the nomination and the General Election.

She is going to be a great POTUS, and I will celebrate mightily the election of the first woman President!

[antigop]

83. Add "1" to the "inevitability" meme counter. nt

[stevenleser]

90. Add 1 to the people I have on ignore. You've earned it. nt

[antigop]

94. You've earned the "inevitability" meme count. nt

[Beacool]

129. That was good.

[MADem]

110. Works for me...! nt

[amuse bouche]

252. Yes Please

I'll probably have a heart attack but it will be worth it.

[Auntie Bush]

321. +100,000,000

I will cry if she doesn't win.

[Beacool]

128. Thank you.

This place sometimes is as sickening as a RW site.

[MADem]

242. Some days, I wonder if the TOS and SOPs are just suggestions!

It's good that the anti-Democratic Party people put themselves out there on the record, though. By their words we know them...!

[Beacool]

259. This site has always been unfriendly to the Clintons.

They trash them worse than the Republicans. The majority of the Clinton supporters left a long time ago. It's a depressing place for us. Any slightly positive post about either Clinton brings out the haters. They can't stand their popularity. Thankfully, these LW sites are not what goes on in the real world.

[MADem]

263. Well, if they're spending all their energy hunched over their keyboards "hating" here,

they're not off their asses doing any damage "out there"--where elections are actually won!

I guess we'll just have to take the "Consider the source" advice!

This site is, in many ways, a bit left of the real world, that point is very valid. I drive people to the polls as a hobby, and we just had a special primary in MA to replace the Kerry seat. The candidates were Markey (Lily Ledbetter champion, pro-choice/no bullshit, gets an upcheck on most progressive issues) v. Lynch (weasel worder on choice, shopping his union heritage from many decades past, dumped his super-sartorial wardrobe for a "working mans" outfit in his commercials, sounds more GOP than Dem on some days, etc.). Turnout was poor, and that was probably to Markey's benefit. Most of my "clients" are elderly, and some of them liked Lynch because they knew his mother, or some shit. Most of them "couldn't be bothered" to go, because they had something better to do and they "knew" Markey was going to win. Being for Markey, myself, I didn't insist that they vote! When the special election comes around, though, they'll pull the lever for Markey--they are "straight ticket" types, by and large.

[Beacool]

326. Good point, hadn't thought of that.

here's hoping that Markey wins.

[MADem]

335. He's up against a pretty boy named Gabriel Gomez, from Los Angeles.

He has a Pepsodent smile, he was a Navy SEAL who didn't stay in, he's a "businessman," and he knows the Pledge of Allegiance. That's what his stupid campaign commercials tell us.

And he's heavily funded with out of state cash.

Markey is up, but not by enough to suit me. I hope his lead starts expanding once a few more people lock on (here's hoping they do). Markey doesn't have the gift of gab--he's better one-on-one. It's by no means a done deal; I hope he gets some party help in terms of surrogates to help GOTV.

[sabrina 1]

134. Rupert Murdoch likes her too. He even threw a party for her. So not to worry, she may

get some surprising support. She attended all those prayer meetings with the Family etc and seemed to change quite a bit during that period.

Notice she doesn't get trashed on Faux these days, you're more likely to see Elizabeth Warren be attacked by the far right now.

[MADem]

141. What an absurdly petty thing to say, and it shows your lack of understanding of the nuance

of the NY political scene (Schumer got money from him, too), to say nothing of the motivations of Murdoch, who is not an excessive ideologue. He's just a guy who loves money, and loves WINNERS. He also gave money to Ted Kennedy--did that make Ted a tool of FauxSnooze, too?

Your agenda could not be more transparent.

Gee, I don't "notice" that someone (who isn't even holding public office anymore --ya think that's why no one is "trashing" her? Ya think??) isn't getting "trashed on Faux News these days" because, unlike you, apparently, I don't watch Faux News. And I certainly wouldn't expect even them to focus obsessively on someone who isn't currently in public office.

You need to do some reading.

Once again, it seems Mr. Murdoch takes a pragmatic approach in choosing what political affiliations to engage. In the article, “What’s in a Murdoch-Clinton Alliance? Something for Both Sides”, Anne Kornblut writes, “Strengthening a pragmatic rapprochement, Rupert Murdoch has agreed to give a fund-raiser this summer for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the latest sign of cooperation between the conservative media mogul and the Democratic lawmaker who has often been a prime target of his newspaper and television outlets. Asked about her relationship with Mr. Murdoch, Mrs. Clinton described him as simply "my constituent," and she played down the significance of the fund-raiser” (Kornblut)

Although News Corp has the reputation of being a conservative media conglomerate, many News Corp employees support Democratic candidates. For example, Peter Chernin, president and CEO of News Corp, supported Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign. It seems many of News Corp’s employees followed Mr. Chernin’s lead by supporting Democratic candidates. The political campaign contributions of News Corp employees can be tracked at the site campaignmoney.com.
According to the New York Times, many employees at News Corp have contributed money to the political campaigns of Democratic candidates. “Some of his (Rupert Murdoch) media outlets have been criticized for conservative bias, having made a sport over the years of tearing into former President Bill Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, among other Democratic leaders. But an analysis of campaign contributions from employees of the News Corporation and its affiliates, including 20th Century Fox, Fox Sports and the like, reveals they skew heavily Democratic and toward Mrs. Clinton, who collected more than $100,000 in donations compared with about $80,000 for Mr. Obama. The records show that the employees gave less than $20,000 to Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination” (Luo).

By supporting political candidates from both parties, Rupert Murdoch simply betters his chances at continuing to make money and expand his media conglomerate. “Many longtime Murdoch observers have noted that he is above all a pragmatist, who has a history of supporting candidates who could potentially help his financial bottom line, regardless of party affiliation. ‘He has a very well-informed sense of the influence of politics on his business interests,’ said Reed Hundt, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in the first Clinton administration, who during negotiations had an up-close view of how the media mogul seeks to influence government” (Luo). Simply put, Mr. Murdoch will support whatever candidate, Republican or Democrat, who can help further expand his media empire.

http://media.litmuse.net/Industry/News-Corp/politics-of-big-business

Even companies whose news outlets are often perceived as having a conservative bias have given significantly more money to Mr. Obama. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for example, has contributed $58,825 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $2,750 to Mr. Romney. The conglomerate, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and the 20th Century Fox studios, gave roughly the same amount to Mr. Romney’s Republican primary competitors Rick Perry and Ron Paul as it did to Mr. Romney.

...News Corporation has donated $504,162 to individuals, Super PACs and candidates in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’s OpenSecrets Web site. Eight of the 10 top recipients of that cash are Democrats. (Mr. Murdoch’s personal contributions largely favor Republicans, though his wife, Wendi Murdoch, has donated to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York.)

In 2008, News Corporation contributed $380,558 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $32,740 to the Republican nominee John McCain.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/

Wasn't that "fund raiser" you're huffing and puffing about in rather "faux" dire fashion a lousy little BREAKFAST? Why yes, it was--here, read this:

http://www.democrats.com/node/9490

If he really loved her, he'd have thrown her a ball with a sit down meal and an eighty piece orchestra, a twenty five thousand dollar a plate deal. He would have pulled out ALL the stops. But gee...he didn't. And how did she regard him? As a CONSTITUENT.

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. Straight faced, too, and no shame.

[sabrina 1]

143. Facts are petty now? YOU mentioned Faux, I presented a fact. And you launched into yet another

personal attack. 'Your agenda could not be more transparent'. Explain that please. I know what my 'agenda' is, certainly better than you do. I am curious as to what powers you have to be able to read the minds of people you do not know on the internet. Maybe it is your agenda that is transparent, did you ever think of that?

[MADem]

148. Yeah, I said I didn't watch it--twice. That didn't stop you, though.

It's not an "attack" when it's the truth. You take every opportunity to shit on Clinton, even when the "facts" aren't on your side.

If Clinton is evil because she took (a very small amount of) money from (a lousy BREAKFAST fundraiser that was HOSTED by) someone named Murdoch, then so's Chuck Schumer, Sen. Gillebrand, and the late Ted Kennedy...for starters.

Murdoch predicted that Obama would beat McCain, too, and he did it publicly. That's not ideological cheerleading, to say those sorts of things publicly.


Your "With us or agin' us" attitude sounds familiar. Not in a good way.

FWIW, in the event that you are, perhaps, unclear, my "agenda" is to not be a perpetual, whining, carping asshole towards Democratic politicians, particularly on a Democratic discussion board--and yeah, I do think I'm pretty transparent on that score.

[sabrina 1]

150. Well, if you consider yourself to be superior to the rest of us who have very good reasons to

be upset, with say, cuts to Social Programs to pay the gambling debts of Wall St, then just remember, we are Democrats go ahead and amuse yourself.

We support the working class especially over a corrupt, criminal Wall St that crashed the world's economy, and we have family, elderly relatives, disabled friends, who are being adversely affected by the policies emanating from not just Republicans, but from the man many of them supported for the WH.

Good for you if you don't have to worry about your future, but most of us don't have that luxury, and frankly, politicians are not our family members, we don't feel obligated to defend them when they are wrong.

And for the record, you could not be more wrong, but that doesn't stop you. It doesn't matter, your opinion means as much to me as the opinion of any internet stranger I don't know. There are opinions I respect, generally they do not engage in personal attacks when they cannot support their claims.

[MADem]

151. Well, IF is a short word with a lot of portent, and IF I wanted to engage in fruitless

straw - manning (starting with making me "superior&quot I'd do it in more agreeable company, frankly.

You "if'd" your way through that rant, so I'm going to leave you to think what you want. You have a strong need to fight with someone--that's pretty obvious (since you have replied to me elsewhere just now, I'm guessing you wanna fight with me) and I just don't find your "if's" and shitflinging at Hillary Clinton interesting -- or compelling-- at all.

Since you said this to me--your opinion means as much to me as the opinion of any internet stranger--I am at a total loss as to why you would want to continue to engage me in conversation. You plainly have no regard for my opinions, so why do you even bother writing these diatribes? You've just given me the equivalent of a hearty FUCK YOU if I've ever heard one!

I prefer to go where I am celebrated, not where I'm crapped on. So have a nice night.

[Tarheel_Dem]

237. We're on the same page, MADem. I realize that I'm on the opposite side of some of my Obama...

compadres, but at the end of the day, I'm a Democrat, and unless the party nominates some whacko, I'll be voting for the Democrat. At this point, it appears that Hillary stands the best chance of beating anything the GOP puts forward, and that's enough for me.

[MADem]

241. +1,000 !!!! nt

[gateley]

251. Ditto. It doesn't matter ultimately whether or not I like him/her, what matters

is getting someone there who can WIN.

[Tarheel_Dem]

273. Thank You! Absolutely nothing wrong with principles, but they're useless without the ability to win

Many politicians are seen by their supporters as "principled"; Michelle Bachmann, The Pauls' & Ted Cruz spring to mind, but reasonable people think they're extreme, and in some cases, insane. Hillary doesn't have that problem. She's seen as a solid, level headed, former SOS, and Senator who was revered by her constituents. Pretty good resume. I had my misgivings in '08, but she's proven that she is a tireless worker, and she stared down those assholes in the Benghazi hearings, and made them look like the schmucks they truly are.

[MADem]

359. Allen West...now there's a principled nutjob!!

But HRC? She is solid as a rock, and she's got thick skin. They can't throw anything at her she hasn't already seen, and she can swat anything away like a half dead fly at a pic-a-nic!

[datasuspect]

63. YES WE CAN!

[Coyotl]

66. But the Republicans cannot!

[azmesa207]

69. We can

do better than Clinton I dont think so we could have done a lot better than Obama that much is certain.

[gateley]

73. I think we need some new blood -- even though I'm still HUGELY supportive of Biden.

I'd like him, just in a younger version -- doesn't matter which gender.

[No Vested Interest]

85. Biden in a younger version-

I think that sounds like Martin O'Malley.
Do most DUers know he sang and was a musician in a band?

[gateley]

101. You're the second who's mentioned O'Malley. I'll check him out.

[Maven]

74. We could have done better than "movement centrist" Obama too

[Jim Lane]

75. I agree, but let's not overlook the centrists' backup threat, Andrew Cuomo.

If Hillary announces she's not running, Cuomo will run and will be the choice of a big chunk of the Democratic Party's establishment (especially if Biden also opts out). Cuomo's right-wing budgets and bashing of unions will be noted with pride as indications that he can appeal to independents.

In fact, if Clinton and Biden both stay out, then Cuomo is the single most likely nominee. If we're lucky, he might pick someone like Sherrod Brown as his running mate, to appease the liberal wing.

[Shrike47]

78. I'd vote for her if she's nominated.

I will vote for whoever is nominated against the a-hole the ReThugs will nominate. I have been disappointed by Clintons being too centrist but I sure would like a Dem woman president.

[Little Star]

81. Sure we can & who ever they are will easily win too. hahahahahaha

[watoos]

84. Howard Dean and...

Elizabeth Warren or that Castro guy from San Antonio. If Hussein can win in America, so can Castro.

[brooklynite]

89. Because Dean did so well last time?

He's an appealing political figure and was an able Party Chair. But he was a lousy candidate.

[Recursion]

114. Gah. Dean is to the right of Obama and HRC

I still want to figure out how he sold himself to the netroots like that.

[MADem]

265. How he did it? He's a smart man.

He's ex-GOP, and he appeals to the "He saw the light!" crowd.

He had a "hippie" wife who wasn't all lipstick and high fashion. She wore flat, scuffed shoes, her hair was simple and sometimes a bit messy, and she dressed for comfort and didn't talk much. She liked her job and intended to keep it. She was even more different than he was!

And speaking of clothing, Dean did the same thing that most born-very-rich people do--buy very expensive clothes, and wear the living shit out of them; repair, not replace. So he had the frayed collars, the not-very-stylish threads, the earnest New England loafers, etc...but that's the standard uniform of the Bushes, too. It's only the nouveaus and non-New England types (e.g. rMoney--who was a MA carpetbagger and never 'got' the vibe here) who over-spend on clothing and haircuts. Reminds me of Queen Elizabeth, who, as an insult remarked "Ewwww....they have to buy their own FURNITURE!!" (like the only good stuff was passed down in the family)...

But hey, he was blunt, he was edgy and modern, he didn't ignore "the kids" (who didn't really show up for him like they promised), and he had the "independent" wife. He wasn't scripted, too. He had a great personality, and he plainly wasn't stupid. There was a lot to like about Howard Dean.

We obsess over where candidates are on the conservative-to-liberal spectrum, but at the end of the day, it does not really matter. Progress in DC is always incremental, unless the White House is marching in lockstep with both houses of Congress. Otherwise, it's baby steps and gridlock. So long as "our candidate" gives half a shit about kids, the poor, and the elderly, they'll be better than those business-first Republicans.

[Jamaal510]

367. This...

"We obsess over where candidates are on the conservative-to-liberal spectrum, but at the end of the day, it does not really matter. Progress in DC is always incremental, unless the White House is marching in lockstep with both houses of Congress. Otherwise, it's baby steps and gridlock."

needs to be repeated again and again on this site.

[rhett o rick]

324. Fail. What is your agenda here? nm

[Beacool]

130. Howard Dean???????

Please.........

[Tarheel_Dem]

356. I take it you're new to politics?

[madinmaryland]

87. I'm surprised that graham4whatever has not weighed in on his favourite candidate.

[MADem]

366. He has a star--I don't think he's a sock puppet.

That's a pretty bold accusation, there. What makes you think he is a sock puppet, and if he is, who is his "main persona?"

[rhett o rick]

368. Not sure why it's so bold, it's not illegal to be a sock.

IMHO his outlandish posts seem to be intended to stir things up. Just my opinion.

But I will withdraw the remark.

ps: I would love to know his "main persona".

[MADem]

369. Well, I thought Skinner said it's not illegal to have a second account if you have a valid reason

for one--like, say, you lost your first password and didn't have email access to retrieve it, or you need to communicate and your computer with your stored password is at home, and you make another account on a friend's computer just to pass the word, without intent to use it again.

It's not OK, per my understanding, to have more than one account for purposes of jury duty, shit-stirring to create a buzz on a thread, engaging in pile-ons, or alerting on members' posts, and that sort of thing.

If you've seen additional guidance on this matter I'd be grateful if you'd point me to it.

I'd ask (politely), if you're that curious and you believe he's a reincarnation. After all, this is the new DU, where transparency rules the day.

[rhett o rick]

370. First of all I dont really care.

It does bother me when I think someone is deliberately stirring the shit. Not that I am accusing him.

I remember a post by Skinner where he said something similar to what you said. That having a second account was ok if you obeyed the rules. However, I ran into this during my search:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12591249

I am cool with it either way.

[MADem]

372. Maybe he's just enthusiastic.

If he is really irritating to you, there's always ignore.

If he's only slightly irritating, that Hide Thread thing works pretty good, too.

I don't run into him very often, but he hasn't bugged me that I've noticed, anyway.

[flamingdem]

88. Yes but

1. it would be great to have a female pres
2. she might improve
3. we need to win, it's imperative with the scary right wing chomping at the bit

[winter is coming]

93. *Never* marry or vote for anyone using "he/she might improve" as a reason.

[flamingdem]

96. I'm okay with her the way she is

over many other candidates. I am assuming she will improve when she has power. She knows what she's doing and is not inherently a Kissinger kiss ass.

[Deep13]

97. individual mandates aren't a "watered-down" provision.

They are central to this corporate model of reform. Frankly the only difference between Obama and HRC on that issue is that during the primaries, Clinton was honest about it.

[Laelth]

105. Too true. n/t

-Laelth

[bigwillq]

102. Yes, We Can!

K and R

[ecstatic]

103. None of them are any more left than the other

Maybe EW is --but only slightly-- on some issues. You brought up an interesting point about lazy thinking, but the names you listed suggests that you're doing some lazy thinking as well. lol

By the way, I'm OK with any of them running because I live in the real world.

[Laelth]

104. Um ... I find this OP puzzling. n/t

-Laelth

[TrollBuster9090]

106. IMHO, the reason people keep picking Clinton by default is because

She's the only woman with a high enough profile, and that's a shame! It's a shame that, in the Party that claims to champion women, there is only ONE 'Top Tier' WOMAN!

Some others that I really like are:

SUSAN RICE
CHRISTINE GREGOIRE
JANET NAPOLITANO and
KATHLEE SEBELIUS

(I would have included Barbara Boxer, but it might be too late for her.)

Obama should be putting some ducks in a row for these women, and organizing some high profile activities for them, to push them into the top tier of visibility.

[newmember]

115. We need a fresh face and those aren't it

Tulsi Gabbard



JANET NAPOLITANO ...... oh hell no!!!!!!!
SUSAN RICE .........never happen
Barbara Boxer ... ....you got to be kidding
KATHLEE SEBELIUS......not a bad choice

[sabrina 1]

264. No, none of those women are acceptable. Napolitano with her anti-Constitutional

Naked Scanners, Rice, don't get me started. The others are slightly better but part of the whole inside circle that has changed the Democratic Party.

There are plenty of great Democratic women who would make fantastic presidents. Eg, Barbara Lee, a super intelligent, actual Progressive and excellent on Civil Liberties and Foreign policy.

Elizabeth Warren, great for the Working Class, not yet sure about where she stands on FP, but if you care about the Working Class you are not going to, like Clinton, vote continually to spend trillions on useless and dangerous wars all over the world.

I will not support anyone, like Susan Rice eg, whose FP differs very little from Bush. It is these policies that contributed so much to the deficit, that have endangered the US rather than made it secure. It has encouraged so much financial corruption it is mind-boggling and steals money away from what WOULD make this country safer.

Enough of the old Cold Warriors, both left and right. We don't need to be killing people all over the world, and doing so will only destroy this country in the end, both morally and economically.

[AtomicKitten]

107. Gore2016.

Hey, a girl can dream.

[Prophet 451]

108. She's not my ideal

Understand, I'm British so I don't vote in either primaries or generals. There are people who I'd rather see in the presidency (I have an opinion because what starts with you guys always comes to us). So, if given teh chance, I wouldn't vote for her in teh primary. However, any Democrat would be better than any Republican so if she survived teh primary and was nominated, I'd support her.

[Carolina]

109. Totally agree

No more 3rd way, no more DLC (of which she and Bill were founding members)!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

117. The DLC will go the way of the "Bourbon Democrats" of a century ago...

If history repeats itself we will have another massive crash followed by an even bigger liberal resurgence than FDR.

[MADem]

145. The DLC folded over two years ago....only here, on DU, does there exist people who still think it

is a viable organization. It's the oddest thing--this is a website where people are supposed to be politically savvy, and several times a year, I still see people babbling on about the DLC like it is a viable and functioning organization.

It's NOT. It has disbanded. It and the current administration don't have much in common, so it doesn't have much opportunity for fundraising. The DNC has a lock on that.

They have no offices, they have no officers. They have nothing. Their shit was boxed up and stashed in a storeroom at, I believe, the Clinton Library.

Kaput.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

154. The DLC is a state of mind....

Even though it closed up shop it still has former members spouting it's "wisdom".

Thier Dream Ticket would be,..

..Hillary Clinton,..


..and Harold Ford.

[MADem]

155. No it isn't. It was a fundraising (emphasized) and policy - postulating outfit. It is no more.

It is not in consonance with the goals of the current administration and there's no room in the fundraising panoply of the Democratic Party for it. The DNC has the deck and the con, and the captain of the ship is on the bridge of the USS WHITE HOUSE.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

163. Pssst....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html

[MADem]

266. Pssst.....

3/11/09

What did he say in kindergarten about this subject?

Wonder what he said when he met with the Black caucus?

The only "leadership" that counts in term 2 is the President's leadership. HE drives the train--not the other way around. The supplications and palm-greasing with his own party ended a LONG time ago.

Elections have consequences.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

281. My point is that the mindset of the DLC takes longer to kill off....

Mainly because the Villagers love the play "Kick The Hippie".

And to think there were hippies back in the day saying they were going to inherit the earth.

Instead, they watched a new generation rise up that tried to blame them for what was wrong with America.

[MADem]

282. Well, "the mindset of the DLC" is not a borg-like entity.

There are conservative Dems, moderate Dems, 'progressive' Dems, and liberal Dems.

They ALL make up the Democratic Party.

Obama's "accommodations" are that he isn't about to ignore ANY Democrats.

One wing of this party can't make the damn thing fly. He gets that. More people need to, too.

I don't have a problem with pragmatic politicians--in fact, I think ideologues who go down with the burning ship are idiots who don't help us in the slightest..."At least he stood on his PRIN-CI-PLES..." they whine, like what the loser thinks matters.

The idea is to win, because without winning, NOTHING is possible. With winning, EVERYTHING is.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

285. You know as well as I do about the results of a survey where contituents were more liberal,...

...than their representatives thought they were.

DC is chock full of right-wing "think" tanks and they are constantly churning out a steady stream of crap. This is warping EVERYTHING.

Especially the way issues are presented.

A great example is how they twisted gays wanting to get married into gays attacking marriage requiring laws to "protect" marriage.

[MADem]

289. My objections in this thread have to do with false characterizations of politicians for purposes of

nothing more than snark and contrariness.

It's just bullshit, and I'm not having it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49041.html

This article does a good job of pointing out the differences that the "They're All The Same" champions here seem to have missed.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

291. Don't get me wrong,..the Democrats have swung to the left,...

...especially after the Blue Dogs and "New Democrats" got a major pasting.

Obama gathered a team that was more liberal than himself and their success in his re-election earned them some chops within the party.

But don't kid yourself, there are people still in the leadership that have bought into the whole "third way" crap and are actually very much like Nixon Era Republicans,...including the way they manipulate.

[MADem]

295. They are people who will do what they need to do to get the best deal they can possibly get.

I can't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Life is short. We'll all be waiting forever if we demand continuous and constant perfection. We won't get it, either.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

298. We aren't going to adavnce the cause if we keep selling out.

[MADem]

317. No one's gonna get elected to do any advancing if they tack too far either way. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

329. Oh, come on. That's DC talk....

Republicans EMBRACE being openly hard core Conservative.

Democrats try to attract Republican voters who vote for the "R" anyway.

By running away from the "Liberal" label they have helped Republicans define it as a "bad" thing.

[MADem]

336. It's true. But Republicans don't always embrace Conservatism--not by a long shot.

We're in the midst of a special election for Senate here in "progressive" MA, and the Republican candidate is NOT being "openly hard core Conservative." He's trying to play "independent, like Scott Brown, only cuter and smarter." The guy is tacking way left. He's flashing his Pepsodent smile. He's mouthing moronic platitudes.

And people are stupid. It's a four point race right now.

You cut your cloth according to your measure. It's why Democrats sometimes say things that this board doesn't "approve of," but resonate "down home."

Tip O'Neill was right. All politics IS local.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

346. The attitude is the voters need to be tricked. Both parties do it....

The problem is that the DC crowd keep saying, "This is a center right country" and that's the REAL trick.

Because this country is actually very Liberal and when Dems run conservatives there is no enthusiasm.

[MADem]

347. All politics is local.

Quite recently, in fact, they ran a liberal Vietnam-era war hero in Nebraska named Bob Kerrey who had a strong record of service to the state, a superb reputation world-wide, and a lot of clout, and the voters rejected him for being "too liberal."

They chose a conservative--a darling of Sarah Palin, who helped the campaign-- instead.

If we apportioned SENATORS the way we apportion representatives, your statement might be true. Wyoming would have to share a Senator with another state, and NYC would have a dozen. But they don't do it that way, and so long as they don't do it that way, this country will--like it or not--remain center right, at least for the purposes of laws getting passed.

It's not a question of "tricking" voters--it's how the very system itself is rigged.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

349. If you want to play the "D" vs "R" game....

People have only become obsessed with the Red vs Blue thing since Bush. Prior to that it was ISSUES that mattered.

Look at this animated gif that I compiled showing elections from 1960. This country was very fickle until Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove came along and Media Consolidation.



Best example: California voted for Nixon twice, then Ford, Then Reagan twice, then Bush I.

Then it voted for Clinton along with Washington and Oregon and the entire Right-Wing noise machine called it "The Left Coast" and wrote it off for all time.

BTW: The colors USED to be the other way around. Red was for Democrats and Blue for Republicans. The media switched them in 2000. It's like it was an experiment to see if people had memories.

[MADem]

350. California isn't really a "best" example, though....

Nixon was FROM California. Born and raised. And he represented the state in the Senate. He was "their" guy, their "Pride and Joy."

So was Reagan--not born (he was born in IL), but he spent the bulk of his life there, worked out of Hollywood, did the union thing out of there, and he was the doggone governor of the state.

The native son usually has an advantage, even if they're a bit jerky. Party flies out the window. People cross over to vote for a native son, especially if they don't actively hate them.

Bush I was the heir to Reagan, so he had "bootstraps" or "wind beneath his wings."

Ford was the guy who kept native son Nixon out of jail during his "appointed" term as President. He was owed.

The RW Noise Machine plays that "Left Coast" shit OUTSIDE of California--the same way they insult MA but don't hesitate to throw money into races like Scott Brown's, and more recently Gabriel Gomez's (and, ironically, he's from Los Angeles).

That nitwit Darrell Issa is from CA. So's that loudmouth Rohrbacher. They only have 15 out of 53 seats in the House, now, but that's because their ideas suck...and CA has had enough of GOP leadership (they had all that time under Ahhhhnuld where things got worse, not better).

All politics is still local...it sure was for Nixon and Reagan.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

351. You miss the whole POINT of the "All politics is local" quote...

It isn't that you need to run conservatives in "conservative" districts.

It's that ISSUES matter and if people vote on ISSUES then Republicans and Conservatives LOSE because their "solutions" make things worse.

That's why Republicans don't run on actual issues. They run on fake issues or they run AGAINST their opponent.

Sadly, Democrats are now doing that since Republicans went so crazy. They're telling their base they have no choice but to vote for the corporate shill they run because the Republican is a total loon.

[MADem]

352. Well of course that's what Speaker O'Neill meant. And I did not miss the point at all.

People vote on issues of interest to THEM.

People also vote for candidates who are from THEIR state--like Nixon and Reagan. Their INTERESTS include having someone working at the federal level who will throw a little largesse their way. It's not just "Oh gee, he's one of ours" -- it's "He's gonna make OUR lives better, BECAUSE he's one of ours."

See? All politics is LOCAL.

If Christie runs for President, NJ will probably go red.

How the hell do you think Mitt Fuckin' Romney became governor of MA? He played that game, and the 80 percent of voters who are woefully and willfully stupid BELIEVED him.

He pretended--despite his Michigan upbringing and his Utah mansion--that he was a Massachusettsian, based on the house where no one lived in his wife's name in Belmont. His lousy little rape-the-workers business was centered here, and he flat out lied in dozens of commercials that he had "friends" who would "bring jobs" to MA, particularly the western part of the state, where jobs are sometimes scarcer than the eastern part.

Of course, he was LYING...but he was LYING about an "issue" that was important to people here.

At the end of the day, no "friends" came to create jobs, and things got worse, not better, with some of his line-item tactics. User taxes went up, senior benefits and benefits for the disabled were stripped away, and life for those on the margins became close to untenable. That's why he was a one-term governor, and he pranced off, three quarters of the way through his term, to run for President, leaving a thick-as-a-brick LGOV to stumble around ineffectually.

Fortunately, MA is a weak governor system--the actual "governor," during Mittsy's term, was the MA legislature, who laughed at him and overrode every veto of every new law they put forward. It's why people made jokes that if you wanted a MA state trooper, you had to go to NH, because half of them were "protecting" the governor as he lived out of his lake home up there, trying to drum up support for his presidential run. Of course, his dickishness became known through his pisspoor performance in MA, and the people of NH weren't terribly swayed by his attempt to play the "All Politics is Local" game in that state--they'd seen him fuck their neighboring state quite royally by then.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

355. "How the hell do you think Mitt Fuckin' Romney became governor of MA?"

Why the HELL do you think he lost his own state?

Maybe because the whole "native son" theory doesn't wash.

Nixon ran as a "sock it to me" guy who would bridge the divide and unite the country. He claimed to understand the nation's youth at the height of the "generation gap".

Reagan got in by promising a bright future and posing with big stars. Like Ford before him, he claimed the economy was all psychological and all it would take was optimism and not math.

[MADem]

358. Because it's NOT HIS STATE and we KNEW IT. He was not born in MA. He did not live in MA.

He didn't even live in MA when he was GOVERNOR, fachrissake. As I pointed out in my last comments.

He spent millions running against Shannon O'Brien's disorganized and poorly funded campaign. She was fighting (Dem) enemies on the Hill, MA sexism, AND rMoney's millions.

He "bought" that election in more ways than one.

He tried to bribe the electorate. He told them he would bring jobs, and he didn't -- he fucked them. He was a FAILED one-term governor...one who had a HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION on his house in Utah when he filed his papers in MA.

The fact that the state turned its back on him PROVES my point--he was never "local." He spent all his time in NH. He lied to the people, he used them.

They repaid his perfidy in kind.

Reagan and Nixon WERE Californians--real ones, not Potemkin ones. And I'm betting that California's Military Industrial Complex did VERY WELL INDEED under both of those CinCs.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

360. Face it. The American People are beginning to reject Conservatives...

So the notion that Democrats need to continue to run Conservatives is even dumber than Republicans feeling they lost because Mitt wasn't Conservative enough.

[MADem]

361. That doesn't mean a Nebraska candidate can run with a New York platform.

One more time--and you need to 'face it'--all politics IS LOCAL.

The cloth is cut according to the measure, and what flies in Massachusetts does not fly in Mississippi. What works in California is rejected in Kentucky.

My point about Mitt is that he WASN'T local. He was a bullshitter with big promises and zero delivery. He was given one chance because it really doesn't matter who the governor of MA is--we have a "weak governor" state and the chief executive does nothing without the cooperation of the legislature.

My remarks about him were relative to how people in MA regarded him, not his performance on the national stage.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

362. Republicans reject the idea that "all politics is local" and they win....

The REASON is because people know what they stand for.

Meanwhile Democrats tell Red State voters they can be as good as Republicans and then lose,...lather, rinse, repeat.

The frustrating thing is many of those voting Republican would actually vote for a Liberal based on issues if the labels were gone.

[MADem]

363. Well, Scott Brown didn't beat Elizabeth Warren...

So I dunno about that theory.

And he tried every trick in the book, to include "You dumb woman" and "You oversmart Harvard 'per-fesser'" and "Let me make fun of Native Americans while I mock my opponent." He pulled out ALL the stops.

The labels will never be gone--we're, er, tribal that way.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

364. That proved MY point. Everyone knew where she stood.

[MADem]

365. All politics is local.

Everyone knew where Scotty stood, too--and he was the incumbent. He had a track record.

They liked her better...and he was MEAN. That was his kiss of death. That--and a really bad showing in debate.

[Fuddnik]

220. They just re-branded.

Third way, New Dems.

But, we tend to use DLC (which Hillary and Bill were) as as a catch-all for Conserva-Dems.

By the way, did you know that Hillary is associated with "The Family"? Some of her prayer partners are:



John Baldacci[6]
Ralph Brewster[89]
Sam Brownback[89]
Ed Bryant[6]
Conrad Burns[17]
Frank Carlson[17]
Tom Coburn[89]
Carl Curtis[90]
Jim DeMint[89]
Pete Domenici[2]
Michael F. Doyle[6]
John Ensign[89]
Mike Enzi[89]
Chuck Grassley[89]
Tony P. Hall[6]
Merwin K. Hart[89]
Mark Hatfield[89]
Harold Hughes[89]
Jim Inhofe[89]
Melvin Laird[90]
Steve Largent[6]
Mike McIntyre[89]
Bill Nelson[89]
Don Nickles[17]
Chip Pickering[89]
Joe Pitts[89]
Mark Pryor[2]
Absalom Willis Robertson[89]
Mark Sanford[89]
Heath Shuler[89]
Bart Stupak[89]
Herman Talmadge[90]
John Thune[89]
Strom Thurmond[89]
Zach Wamp[89]
Frank Wolf[89]

[MADem]

258. Third Way is NOT the same outfit, and it's not "re-branded."

Ask Al Franken if you don't believe me.

Did you know that Hillary is "associated" with John Ashcroft?

He used to be a cabinet member....and so was she!!!!

He used to be a senator...and so was she!!!!

Strom THURMOND....what a fucking stretch! You're too clever by half. Apparently you are unaware of the fact that for the last many years of Thurmond's life, he was LIVING at Walter Reed. Not an in-patient; LIVING. His aides would throw him in the wheelchair and haul him to the Senate chamber for votes, and then haul him home.

He wasn't doing any "praying" with Hillary Clinton or anyone else. But that IS what you are trying to suggest with that little uncited list of yours.

You do know this is the crew that puts on that National Prayer Breakfast every year? Apparently, you don't. EVERYONE shows up at that thing--might as well list the entire Congress on your dire little list.

Every year, they choose a REPUBLICAN and a DEMOCRATIC chairperson to oversee that behemoth of a thing. And every President since Eisenhower has showed up for it. So let's throw JFK and Jimmy Carter into the mix, too! Yeah, that's the ticket!!!

Who else, then, is "associated" with "The Family?" (Their formal name is The Fellowship...but doesn't "The Family" sound more dire to an amateur conspiracy theorist?)

Let's throw some brickbats at (oooooooooh....!!!!)

...BONO--he spoke at one of those prayer breakfasts.
...Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, who did likewise.
...Jimmy Carter--he's had dealings with them BEYOND attending the breakfast....let's put him in the pile, too!!!
...Don't forget Menachim Begin and Nelson Mandela!!! Put them on your EEEEVIL list, too!!!

Hillary Clinton has, as SECSTATE, spoken at a National Prayer Breakfast--just like Bono did. AND when she was a Senator, she committed this CRIME on rare occasion....

Wednesday prayer breakfasts for United States Senators, which have been attended by Senators Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, James Inhofe, John Ensign, Susan Collins and Hillary Clinton.

How dare she go to a Wednesday Prayer Breakfast! The NERVE of her!!!!!!

Now, we know where you got your little uncited list (not cool to post uncited material here, and we know you didn't have that lot memorized)--so let's just put it all out there. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)

You really should be ashamed of yourself--but that takes a reservoir of awareness and a grounded core that I don't believe you possess. You've got the Rovian "J'Accuse!" down pat--unfortunately, you don't do your homework very well, and it's just way too easy to just blow your bullshit out of the water.

Bottom line--LOTS of people do business with "The Fellowship." They're like a lobbying organization with a religious patina; they have connections and they make connections. They can be relied upon to keep their mouths shut--that is their strength. You don't have to be in love with them to understand that.

Apparently, you have a Pollyanna-ish view of American politics, where people of opposing views never sit down with people who don't share their POVs and "network." Or even speak to one another of personal matters. That's not reality. This organization provides a venue for conversations across the aisle. Are they the most savory in DC? Hell no, they are secretive, they value the privacy of their members, and of course, they are RELIGIOUS, which is a hanging offense according to some--but they're not the worst kids on the block, either.

For anyone reading along who wants a full picture of what "The Fellowship" (which counts a quarter of Congress as "members&quot entails, I recommend this article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/13/100913fa_fact_boyer

It's a far more balanced account than the bullshit conspiracy theories being shopped in this thread.

Excerpt:

Under Coe, the Fellowship’s work became more focussed on an intensely personal, “relational” ministry to leaders, many of them public leaders, which made absolute trust paramount. What some saw as obsessive secrecy, Coe says, was a necessary privacy. “We’re not being secretive, it’s just that no one advertises that we’ve got a guy here who’s an atheist and is having a problem with his life, or maybe stole money from his country’s treasury,” he said.

The other change under Coe was a refining of the brand of faith that animated the Fellowship. Coe distilled that faith down to the raw teaching of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and in the first few chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. This approach conformed with Coe’s youthful rebellion against the idea of a God who would condemn all but a particular brand of believer. “They tell Jewish friends, You can’t go to Heaven unless you’re a Christian,” Coe says. “Well, the facts are, if that is true, Isaiah could never go to Heaven, Mary could never go to Heaven, Jesus could never go to Heaven. It’s crazy.”

But there is also a strategic value to this insistently nondoctrinal approach: anybody, of any faith, can admire Coe’s Jesus. Rabbi Jack Bemporad, who works in the field of interreligious relations, met Coe on a trip to Iran several years ago. “He wants to have a way of presenting Jesus so that whoever he’s talking to will find a way of accepting it,” Bemporad says. “He’s not dogmatic and saying, ‘You’ve got to believe in the Trinity,’ or ‘He’s the son of God.’ ” ... Coe also finds spiritual communion with the Dalai Lama (“the Dalai Lama loves Jesus”), and recently sent me a book of the Dalai Lama’s meditations on the Gospels. Along with a note, Coe slipped in a small tract titled “A Follower of Jesus,” which amounted to a summation of the Fellowship’s creed. The Followers of Jesus, it said, seek “a ‘revolution of love’ so powerful that the division and animosity separating people and nations will be greatly eliminated or replaced by the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation as modeled by Jesus of Nazareth.”

“I can tell you that critics to his right think that Doug is just doctrinally soft and confused,” Michael Cromartie, the vice-president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, and a friend of Coe’s, says. “It’s one thing to be an admirer of Jesus the man, but there are people in the more orthodox world who want to say that Jesus did more than just walk around and teach; he actually did something in history, on the Cross, that is crucial to everything.”

Coe shrinks at the thought of trying to convert anyone. His gift, those close to him say, is for acting as a sort of spiritual adviser. ....

[Carolina]

175. you clearly miss the point

We are savvy... despite your snark, the DLC exists as a philosophy and thereby remains .

Duh!

[MADem]

270. No--YOU miss the point. If the DLC was still a viable, lobbying, policy making and fund raising

entity, it would still exist. What would be the downside?

If Obama was, as one person here suggested, a "DLC-er" then surely his influence would have been enough to keep a Democrat in charge of the outfit, making connections and getting a payday?

You can't have it both ways.

The "philosophy" now is "Whatever The President Says, Goes." And that's how it will be so long as we have a Democrat in the White House.

These contrarian little organizations only thrive when a party is in the minority and out of power.

Related article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49041.html

The last sentence is especially salient.

[Carolina]

287. First, this thread is about

original DLCer HRC.

And she is DLC philosophy to the core. Ergo, the philosophy persists, remains and thrives...

You still don't get it. Bye, bye!

[MADem]

288. That's not true, either. Hillary was not the "original" DLCer.

Al From was.

And the first Clinton to get on the DLC bandwagon was her husband.

When you don't have even the basic facts down, it's just not worth having a conversation with you--but then, no worries there-- you've already run away, full steam, with that childish little "Bye bye!"

Is this DU, or Junior High School?


Hard to tell, some days.

[hay rick]

118. More DLC? No thanks. nt

[yellowwoodII]

119. I haven't forgiven her

For voting to support Bush in invading Iraq.

[Carolina]

174. Touche!

Same here. As I said upthread: I never got over her IWR vote and all the ass-covering speechifying she gave to justify it. Such utter bullshit when she knew about PNAC and its hard-on for war against Iraq while Bill was still POTUS in 1998

[Fuddnik]

221. Not to mention the coup in Honduras.

[Beacool]

121. The left wants Hillary?

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

No, most of the base of the party want Hillary, the Left has always vilified her.

As for 2016, Hillary hasn't even said that she's running.

Maybe YOU think that you can do better than Hillary, but to millions of people Hillary is the best option.

If she does throw her hat in the ring, there will be many people who will work very hard to help her to win the nomination.

As for the inevitability meme, that's media driven, just as it was in 2008.



BTW, this is why Hillary and Kissinger were together:

"The final award for Distinguished International Leadership was presented to former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Secretary Clinton was presented with video tributes by President of Malawi Joyce Banda and internationally-renowned political activist Aung San Suu Kyi. She was introduced in person by former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger. "

Was she supposed to kick him in the teeth?

[cascadiance]

279. The "left" IS the base of the party, NOT the DLC/Third Way...

... that keep reinventing themselves when their secrets are discovered and how they care more about their corporate donors than the people they are supposed to represent. It was found out earlier that the Koch brothers had been funding the DLC right before they "dropped off the map"...

[Whisp]

354. It depends.

Were you one of those bellyaching that Obama was seen with Bush at the Library opening and that he should have kicked him in the teeth, on camera, infront of all living presidents and viewers?

No, you probably wouldn't have said that out loud, but I will bet you the lower 40 acres you thought it.

[Beacool]

357. Wrong.

I saw nothing wrong with Obama being at the Bush Library, it's tradition. I didn't say anything against him, Clinton or Carter being there.

[MrScorpio]

127. What Democrat that you like has an equal to or better than chance of getting elected in 2016?

If you've got that person in mind, I'm all ears.

You see, I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House that I'm not 100% in agreement with, than sacrificing the chance to get a Democrat there by standing on principle alone and finding a Republican ending up in the Oval Office instead.

Whether it's Hillary or not… I want a DEMOCRAT!

[NewJeffCT]

256. well said

I don't love Hillary, and I didn't love Obama in 2008 or 2012. However, it was better than McCain or Romney or Jeb Bush/Chris Christie/Marco Rubio/whoever in 2016.

[jeff47]

293. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to tell.

Besides, we've got 2014 to worry about for now.

[Martin Eden]

131. Hillary hasn't changed; Kissininger has reformed

Just kidding

I won't vote for Hillary in a Democratic primary for the same reason I didn't vote for her in the 2008 Democractic Primary or for Kerry in the 2004 Democratic primary:

They voted for the IWR in October 2002 that gave GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

[Auntie Bush]

320. The Muslims hold grudges and don't forgive for thousands of years TOO!

[Martin Eden]

344. It was a profound lack of judgment on her part

Not a good quality for a president

[antigop]

133. Ha, ha! We have a new meme about the "inevitability" meme!

New meme: The "inevitability" meme is "media driven".

So we need another counter.

So are we going to have yet another meme about the "media driven" "inevitability" meme?


<edit to add> I didn't realize so many people on DU were the media!

[randome]

188. You are the anti-Graham4Anything poster!

Somewhere in between the two of you lies the truth. I lean more toward your point of view.

[antigop]

191. I'm the antiGOP, antiDLC, antiThirdway poster.

Last edited Fri May 3, 2013, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I post DLC Hillary's OWN words...they ARE the TRUTH.

[randome]

192. Nothing wrong with that!

[TheKentuckian]

136. We better.

The more of the same coalition is a motherfucker though and have every cent that the TeaPubliKlans don't have so they'll probably jam her or worse fucking Cumo down our throats, maybe Charlie Crist for SUPER BIPARTISAN bullshit antics.

I think Sherod Brown is the play but the juice will go to the corporate wing, of course.

[aquart]

144. Of all the superficial, idiotic reasons for rejecting a csndidate...

Now we're tossing them for GOOD MANNERS?

What fucking nonsense.

[colsohlibgal]

153. Better Than Any Republican But Still....

It would be nice to finally get back to nominating a real liberal, not a neo liberal, aka like a 1975 republican.

As a woman I think we're overdue for a female president, but I'd much prefer Elizabeth Warren, a true liberal populist.

I thought we might be getting a real progressive with Obama, he sure talked the talk getting elected, but once in went mostly neo liberal/corporate democrat.

Of course we know what happened to the last democratic president to veer left, to question the Military-Industrial Complex - he got part of his head blown off in Dallas. In 2013 the MI Complex and Wall Street/Big Corporations rule, we get the scraps. We must get money out of our system, go to public campaign financing.

[spanone]

156. what bullshit

[Rowdyboy]

164. For fucks sake, give it a rest. If she wins, we win..... if she loses...we still can win

Its just less likely.

[DonCoquixote]

165. put this in neon

"Pissed at Obama because the health care bill is watered down with items like individual mandates? Remember that would have been Clinton's starting proposal even before a compromise. "

[Hekate]

169. We have to get through 2014 first. GOTV and give Obama a Congress that will work with him

Unless we do that, we got nuttin' -- and so does our candidate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

170. OK! HILLARY IS 1000X better than ANY Republican. But she is not going to move the country forward

Because she simply does NOT believe in that sort of thing. She may help hold on to some of the gains of the past. She might even pass a few nambey pambey reforms that no one will ever notice and no one will ever care about. But she is not going to be making a case for a new social contract where the wealth is more equitably distributed, where we have a greatly improved economic safety net, where we have REAL universal healthcare, where those who work hard can be guaranteed a livable wage, where workers and ordinary people have a real voice and real representation in the matters that most directly control their lives. Nor is she going to make a case to move America away from this unsustainable military empire that bankrupts our nation as it weakens our own interest. She is not going to champion those issues. Because she does not believe in them

Yes I know - the last time America ran a progressive was in 1972 and we lost by a landslide. But the first time the Republicans ran a modern conservative was in 1964 and they lost by a similar landslide. Did they just give up and decide it could not be done? NO! They went out and made their case and made their case and made their case and came back with a landslide win only 16 years later. So instead of just giving up on the progressive cause and just accepting that we are never going to really bring real change - why not learn from the conservatives and start making the case of Progressivism with a party leader who does believe in it? Who knows? That approach worked for the conservatives. It might even work for liberals and progressives.

[mimi85]

171. I Agree.

I really don't want Bill (as much as I admire him) being in the White House. I def am more excited about Warren or O'Malley or Patrick (those were the name you mentioned). Hillary might still be politically significant but I see her more in a grandmother role...c'mon Chelsea, give us all a break!l

[blkmusclmachine]

172. Easy votes here against HR Clinton. We'll go 3rd Party.

Just say NO to the Queen of the DLC/Third Way/Blue Dogs/New DEMS.

[dsc]

176. I would love your proof that her plan would have been more compromised than his at the get go

since she campaigned on a plan less compromised than his ended up.

[harun]

180. Third Way/DLC'rs are not Progressives or Liberals

[MADem]

260. Al Franken was a DLCer. You're saying he isn't a progressive, then? nt

[harun]

299. Only Liberal/Progressive in the Senate is Sanders. Rest are free market Corporate Sellouts.

[MADem]

316. Ah, the oracle has spoken, then. Everyone, go home, give up... nt

[Harriety]

182. My dream Pres/Vice Pres ticket? Elizabeth Warren/ Michelle Obama....but

I know it's just my dream. Many women I know can see Hillary in office because they know her and know her for being a smart, tough, woman. She would not be my pick but if she can get in because of her name and recognition so be it. We need a woman in office, who's smart, dedicated, tough as nails, good communicator, and understanding.

[LWolf]

184. We could have done better than Obama, too.

I didn't support the nomination of either.

I don't want another "safe" choice. I want the right choice.

[rhett o rick]

189. Ahh to continue the pretense that we really still have a choice.

Ahh to pretend that we are not totally manipulated and that the choice is ours and not that of the 1% Elite.

But I still play the game too because the only other choice is revolution. So dont look behind the curtain we call Democracy until you are ready to accept what you will see. There will be no turning back.

Dont think that I am advocating a revolution because I am not. That too would be orchestrated by the 1% Elite. They already are working the TeaBaggers into a frenzy but their anger will be directed at us and not the 1%.

But, as I said, I still play the game, I still try to kick the football. Maybe Lucy wont pull it away this time.

[ProSense]

194. Best part of all of this:

Watching the Hillary supporters who thought dumping on Obama would improve her standing now battling it out with the anti-Democratic coalition. Yeah, there are many interesting and fun days ahead.

[AtomicKitten]

218. !!!

[haydukelives]

195. Joe Biden

haven't heard his name mentioned once for POTUS.
he is my choice, did he do something wrong.

how long before someone wants Michelle Obama to run for president. I don't understand when someone is elected president, suddenly everyone in their family is qualified, and should run for President.

[BootinUp]

197. Not really

but we all have our own opinions on these things. I am still not convinced she will run anyways.

[jimmyolsenblues]

208. Hillary will win 2016

Bank on it.
The republican party is fractured.
You can't hate on gay marrige & immigration & women's rights. And expect to gain voters.
More white voters voted for Romney than white voters voted for Obama.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171093/bad-news-about-white-people-romney-won-white-vote-almost-everywhere
-If only white people had voted on Tuesday, Mitt Romney would have carried every state except for Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and New Hampshire, according to the news media’s exit polls. Nationally, Romney won 59 percent of the white vote, a towering twenty-point margin over Obama. (Exit polls were canceled in nineteen states by the consortium of news media that run them.)-

Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Bank on it.

I hope she brings home all the troops, we don't need to have troops all over the world.

[Stuckinthebush]

226. Bingo

And most everyone here will support her candidacy.

But...I'm not worried about 2016. I'm worried about 2014. Let's get the house.

[creativebliss]

211. It's great to be looking to the future, but...

I believe we need to focus more presently on politics now.

In my opionion:

Our current President requires some democratic guidance and frankly some heat.

Although I am a global thinker, we need to be more micro-minded now and get progressives into local office first so we can vote them up the food chain later.

If we are going to think ahead...let's plan and organize for 2014, because without a more democratic House or Senate, our 2016 Democratic nominee will still face harsh partisanship.

Lastly, I agree that no matter what we do, we need to insure that a Democrat takes office in 2016 to help secure a more fair Surpreme Court nomination.

[Hubert Flottz]

216. I will not vote for another Clinton.

Ever.

[Tx4obama]

224. A link to a DU poll below

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251302259

[magical thyme]

225. Yes, we can.

Hillary was my 2nd to last choice the last time around. Obama, based on his youth and inexperience, was my last choice.

Hillary is currently my last choice. One thing I've found is that people don't become less of who they are as they age. They become more of it. That is true of me. Of my sisters. Of my father.

And it is true of Hillary. Who started out as a Young Republican, don't forget. Now she's just an Old Republican in Dem clothing. A warhawk being mentored by Kissinger, who was for the insurance mandate as a starting point.

[liberalmike27]

230. Totally Agree

I think if we've got a worthwhile candidate, she's going to lose anyway in the primary.

The last thing we need is another weak, right-of-center type, who loves war, privatized prisons, worked on the board of Wal*Mart, like Hillary.

[BlueCaliDem]

231. This is about who can win, and Hillary can WIN. None of the candidates

{well, maybe except for O'Malley - and that's a HUGE maybe} can win against a Jebbie Bush or Teddy Cruz in 2016. Those fascists will have the power and money from corporations like KochBros and Adelsons backing them, something only Hillary has the power to go head-to-head with.

Face it, until we have election finance reform {not going to happen since Congress LOVES them some bribes}, we have to go with the Democratic candidate who can rake in corporate dollars for our side as good as the GOP can rake it in on theirs. Remember, we still have Citizens United to contend with, and although America is center-left, it is NOT Left.

Hillary will most definitely capture the majority of the women's vote, the majority of corporate backers {and just so you know, there are good corporations in this country, too} and a huge war chest. She will also be helped by President Obama's OFA machine {since she worked hard to help him get elected}. All of President Obama's backers will immediately rush to stand behind her the moment she declares she's running.

However, and ideally, I would like to see a Hillary/O'Malley ticket. I really like O'Malley more than Hillary, but he doesn't have the bona fides yet to work with Congress and he can learn a lot from Hillary as her VP.

[jeff47]

294. It's way, way, way too early to come to that conclusion.

After all, this far from the 2008 election, Hillary was the only one who could WIN. Didn't quite turn out that way.

[DCBob]

233. flamebaitery

[grahamhgreen]

238. What is her position on the costly trade agreements?

[antigop]

244. It's an excellent question. But don't expect any answers from the DLC/ThirdWayers. nt

[Whisp]

267. there are also no answers on exactly what terrific things she did as SoS.

but if you go googling, some of those things really aren't that terrific, in fact some of them are Horrific. Don't toucha the Google seems to be a directive from the Clintons to their following.

All this silliness of best eva SoS in all universes! but when you ask why and ask for accomplishments you get the evil eyeball rolling or a snort. And maybe a link to some speech somewhere about human rights and how she feels so deeply about women and children (but the Iraqi dead ones under her husband's watch are okay - they don't count as human I guess)

[cantbeserious]

239. No DLC Love Here - Hence No Hillary Love Either

eom

[cascadiance]

280. Let's not forget that the Koch brothers funded the Clintons' DLC...

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

Koch brothers funding who we have for president in 2016? NO THANKS whether they are Republican or Democrat!!!

[cantbeserious]

312. Agreed - Koch Brothers Are An Anathema To Democracy

eom

[Egalitarian Thug]

240. "(inevitability) with which most on the left want Clinton to run in 2016"

It's nowhere near most on the left, it's just all those who do what they're told to do by the party. In fact, it's almost none on the left that wants her within 100 miles of the Oval Office (unless she's there for dinner or a tour). No, it's the corporate owners that want Hillary running for the blue team in 2016.

[antigop]

245. +100 nt

[LanternWaste]

253. I imagine we'll have primaries to sort it all out...

I imagine we'll have primaries to sort it all out... regardless of how many people tell us who we should or should not vote for, what we should or should not think, and how much we love or hate freedom for doing so.

[Skidmore]

271. That aura of inevitability was her undoing when

she rolled into Iowa in 2008.

[BlueCheese]

274. Hillary Clinton's health care plan included a public option.

So it's not quite accurate to say that the ACA is essentially her plan.

One reason I like her is that she has no illusions about the Republican Party. She saw what they did to Bill Clinton in the 1990s-- they called him a murderer, a rapist, and impeached him over a sex scandal.

I also don't see how Patrick or O'Malley have distinguished themselves, though I'm open to learning. What have they done that makes them stand out from all the other Democratic governors?

[LittleBlue]

286. She has never won a competitive political race even once

Her senate seat was a super safe NY seat where the party practically handed her the nomination. She lost the only competitive political contest she's ever attempted, to Obama, and she was so heavily favored that she was called "inevitable."

Do not want!

[Yo_Mama]

292. I think it's too early to think of this

Obama just got into his second term, for pete's sake.

[GoCubsGo]

296. Thank you!

I agree with the general sentiment of the OP, but I wish people would wait another year or two before all the speculation. I would also like to add that this country fought a revolution to end being ruled by one particular family. I don't like having the Bush family constantly shoved in my face, and I feel the same way about the Clintons.

[Yo_Mama]

300. When I do start thinking about this,

That will probably be one of the things I'm thinking!

However, what bugs me about "electionism" is that the policy gets lost. There should at least be a two year interval after we elect one president during which we buckle down and talk about policies instead of the next election. The political process needs to be more about policies, and then the elections will be more meaningful.

[GoCubsGo]

302. It was the first thing I considered in 2008.

That's why she was my last choice in the field. If she gets the nomination in 2014, I'll vote for her. But, I can't guarantee right now that I'd vote for her in the primary.

"Electionism" bugs the crap out of me, too. I wish people here would stop it. It's bad enough the media inundates us with this shit.

[MrSlayer]

297. It's cute that you think we have a choice.

If she (they) wants it, it's hers (theirs).
Let's not be naive.

[LuvLoogie]

303. No we can't.

One of the reasons she is polling so high is due to her performance since she ran for President. Among that is her grace in accepting her SOS position and being a stellar First Officer of sorts. She has the level of experience no other prospect besides Joe Biden has. Plus she is THE ONLY candidate who can pull Progressives down ticket, which is where we need the leverage in Congress, The Judiciary and State Legislatures.

Elizabeth Warren will be more effective with other like-minded colleagues in the Senate. Her chance will come. Our agenda will be more effective with Warren et al in the legislative branch. Let us not become demagogues at election time, because elections are a numbers game. It's time for the big tug, and Hillary has the speed and the power.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

311. Well, it would be hard to find someone worse than Hillary..unless you're fond of the DLC.

[Music Man]

313. Wow. My first thread on this site,

And it's a DUzy!

Definitely not the last, though.

Let me be clear that if Hillary Clinton is nominated, I will vote for her. Relatively speaking, I understand my priorities and the danger of the perfect being the enemy of the good. And my mistrust of some of her votes and some of the crowd she's run with over the years is not a reflection of my respect for her and the grand sweep of her work for this country.

And if I were a betting man, I would put my money on a Clinton nomination (and presidency, for that matter).

That said, I suppose my OP is a reaction to the speculation about 2016 that's *already* starting (polls showing 65% of Democrats want Clinton, for instance). Before the bandwagon picks up too much steam, I hope the Democratic party will scrutinize Clinton as much as anyone else. As others have remarked, some of the same conversations we're having now seem like they could have been verbatim from 2007 or so

Peace, love, and music.

[Daninmo]

314. I don't get it

If VP Biden is good enough to get elected twice as VP, meaning he is fully capable of being POTUS if something terrible happend to President Obama, why can't he run for the office of POTUS?

[Whisp]

318. Yes We Can!

[flvegan]

323. I like Hillary. But, I love Kucinich.

But, as I learned here on DU, he's can't get elected for some reason that trumps why she can.

[DonCoquixote]

333. Because he shoots himself in the foot

working for Fox, or talking about UFO's

[William769]

328. We can also do worse. much worse.

Talk about a epic fail OP.

[DonCoquixote]

334. Indeed we can

And if she survives the primary, I will hold my nose and vote. Until the moment she wins the primary, all bets are off, and no holds are barred.

[cascadiance]

345. The problem with "centrists" is they are ALWAYS corporatist. Just wishy washy on social issues...

It's the social issues that they are "allowed" to go back and forth in different ways on, since those controlling the purse strings of their campaigns don't really care about how they get resolved, only in most cases that they DON'T get resolved, but just serve as a way of drawing votes emotionally to one candidate or another and serve as a distraction from the issues (like the TPP and H-1B Visas of course) that the corporate donors really care about, want to keep quiet so that their money can make sure that the corporatist majority votes for their side all of the time.

You ever hear of someone who's a "moderate" on social issues (goes on either side of them) and takes sides that work more for the American people and less for the corporatists? They hardly exist in politics, even if in the real world, people might love people like that who will try to work negotiating those contentious issues on both sides, and stick to fighting for what most people want in terms of liberty from corporate slavery, etc.

THAT is the problem with what happened when the DLC was started and the Third Way followed. And we keep letting the corporate agendas run our party by giving them so much power over us that is what the Republicans let infest their party more willingly.

I think that's why the Tea Party has been wound up so much on social issues like guns, etc. now (that are also corporate issues in terms of the gun lobbies wanting to sell them), since they corporate lobbies know that they need to keep us at each others throats so that we don't join together in any way to fight off the corporate interests and get something like a citizen's effort for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen's United or something like that together.

Their corporatist stance consistency is why people like the Koch brothers funded the DLC and have funded a lot of Republican corporatists as well. To keep us moving towards fascism the way they want it. Their family loved working with Joseph Stalin and building up their wealth that way. They don't care so much about ideology as they do about power.

[winter is coming]

348. And funding is what puts centrists on the ticket, again and again.

Progressive/liberal positions are popular with ordinary people, but the people holding the purse strings don't favor them... so we're told that progressives are "unelectable" and we must therefore support a centrist.

[Pisces]

371. Wow, the RW's are terrified of Hillary. They are already trying to foment dissent against her and

the election is 4 yrs away!!! I was always an Obama supporter, but i will gladly support Hillary when she runs in 2016 and
celebrate when she is the 1st women President of the US.

This backbiting on a board that has turned more anti democratic candidates that pro is almost laughable. The shit stirring is allowed to
go unchecked and negative seeds planted about our best chance to keep the White House. Of course that is the goal of some on this
board. Its disheartening and exhausting. It makes it easy to take a DU vacation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

374. "We can do better than Hillary"...

...someone once uttered the words, "Yes We Can," and I agree!!