If she runs, I will Support Hillary Clinton from start to finish in 2016

[Pretzel_Warrior]

I know it's early...but the thought of expanding Dem WH for the longest stretch since FDR/Truman is exciting!

[bigtree]

1. she should be challenged in the primary by more progressive candidates

. . . although, she is well-positioned, well-suited politically for a national presidential contest.

[brooklynite]

86. Who have you got?

I would suggest that, rather than dream about Elizabeth Warrent or Alan Grayson, you focus on the hard work of convincing a "real" Democrat to run against her AND figure out where the hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for a serious primary challenge will come from.

[bigtree]

105. well, you're on the right track about the money and organization

We see that some Obama campaign ops have publicly aligned with the Hillary pac and that's at least two major steps toward a serious presidential bid. That's the type of organization effort that will need to emerge for ANY candidate who intends to make a realistic go of it.

Still, we all saw this lanky young man make an audacious entrance at a Dem convention and take the WH less than a decade later. I've always believed that the presidency can only be achieved by folks who believe in themselves enough to get others to believe in them. It takes an incredible ego to believe that you can run the nation. It takes leadership to get others to believe the same.

That's not going to originate with me. That's going to be up to these figures folks are urging to run in op-eds, internet chatter, and other deliberate promotions. If I were an aspirant, I'd look closely at the way the Obama campaign just dominated the social media the last election. Of course, any effort there also challenges the candidate to make that actual appeal.

[daleanime]

138. Warren and Greyson.....

Are not 'real Democrats'?

[brooklynite]

145. They're not "real candidates"....

...since neither has any intent to run in 2016.

[MrSlayer]

2. I'll hope for an actual progressive in the primary.

And then I'll resign myself to voting for the latest Reaganite "lesser of two evils" as usual.

[NRaleighLiberal]

257. +1. n/t

[Bonobo]

3. I will support a candidate that represents Progressive values. nt

[delrem]

4. Yes! We can't get too much of the same! We want even MORE!

Who give a flying fuck about the future so long as obnoxious political dynasties, royalties, persevere!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. WOW! Thank the lord we already have a Hillary Clinton group. We'll need it.

Amazing! I remember all of the fervor for both Hillary and Barack during the 2008 election.

[msongs]

7. maybe your lord will send us a progressive or liberal instead nt

[David__77]

6. If she won the primary, I'd support her, but I hope to vote for someone else.

Why not a Democratic governor, or someone new? Someone like Martin O'Malley or Brian Schweitzer? Besides, Clinton already said she isn't running.

[delrem]

8. I wouldn't. If there were nothing better I'd pass.

[David__77]

10. Can you really be sure of such a thing?

I suppose I cannot either...

I don't think it's a choice with which we'll be faced.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

110. You would refuse to vote? If it is not too personal, what state do you live in?

[Agschmid]

184. Any person is allowed to make that choice...

Even if their state is purple. You cannot pin a lost election on them.

You can do everything possible to support the candidate who is the best for our country... And then encourage others to make the same choice.

I do not feel its appropriate to force people to make a choice just because their state is purple... And yes I know there are a TON of important issues at stake including the SCOTUS.

[graham4anything]

9. I predict Hillary will win 500 electoral votes and 125 million Popular votes. Biggest landslide ever

and yes, the continuation of Barack Obama's agenda forever, which is what President Obama has sought from day one.

Stupid fracture or just unbelieveable WHY did democratic voters vote for Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush casued the dems to lose in 1952 1956 1968 1972 1980 1984 1988 2000 and 2004

one realizes we should have had 80 straight years of democratic presidents

and now we can do just that.

Let the repubs fracture.

It is going to end up 80-20 and that is a good thing.

(Also-note the article I just posted about Hillary).

President Obama came to office to unite and guess what, it worked as he has united the party like no one else
95 to 5 and the united Obama/Hillary voters all working for the same thing.
Picking Hillary as SOS was the great rope-a-doping the critics on the right and left who were hoping for fighting between the two
all 8 years, and it didn't happen

because two ADULTS came together as one with one common goal, and not ego and with neither doing anything petty.

Both working FOR America, not childlike trying to tear each other and America down.

And women nationwide are going to turn most of the south blue.
While gerrymandering affects local races, add all the women and every single demographic minority group together,
and it will be the biggest landslide

And President Obama is the one clearing all the Bush stuff from the table.
Though the naysayers don't see it, the President is making sure the T's are crossed, the I's are dotted and moving forward is
happening.
It's no wonder the Rand Paul libertarians and republicans and tea party want to attempt to not let it be known in the media,
but at the end of the day, 95% of the democratic party is not having a go at what the repubs and Rand Paul are saying.
No one is reading the media.

Just like in 2008 and 2012.

People are shrugging and saying, what is the media saying another scandal? Is the birther back?
And then laugh among the 95% self at how ludacrist it all is.

I can't wait to see the look on Rush Limbaugh's face when 1-17=2017 and Hillary is inaugurated Madame President 45
to continue the agenda of Barack Obama.

And be it Michelle Obama, or Cory Booker or Janet Napolitano, Deval Patrick, maybe Joe Biden again, whomever the VP is, will be fine by me.

[cali]

15. I predict Hillary will lose in the primary if she runs, just like she did in 2008.

[graham4anything]

24. Hillary didn't lose in 2008. She won big time. Because she won the 45th.

and as Cher sings now "It's a woman's world".

all the other women in the democratic party will not run in the primaries against her. Not one of them.
Michelle won't run against her either.

and as Cher sang "It's a woman's world".

And Cory Booker won't run against her either, and he would be the second choice

[cali]

27. OK, this is taking rewriting history to such an absurd length that it's jaw dropping

I know it's 5 years on, and I'm sure this is painful to you, but Hillary Clinton lost the battle for the democratic nomination for President of these United States, to one Barack H. Obama.

And that's a fact no matter what Cher sang and Hillary hasn't won anything yet when it comes to a nomination.

[graham4anything]

32. Sorry, but I have supported Obama since 2004..Hillary would have beaten McCain and Mitt...in fact...

Hillary would have won in 2008 had Obama not been in the race using 99% of the exact same strategy he did

And being that 95% of the party supports both Obama and Hillary, there is zero chance anyone can break through.

This is not 2008. Much as those want to go backward, President Obama goes forward, and there is no way you add up all those voters

with Joe Biden doing a football flank

I figure Biden is good for 13% of the democratic vote which leaves about the normal 20% elsewhere.

But the more entrees, the better, hope 20 People enter the primaries against her and Joe.
I welcome all of them. They each can split the 20% other vote, getting one percent each.

all the others will be going for VP.

And Hillary is running, her letting people know the 3 campaign people won't be with her, and now Obama's people will
is 100% indication.

Never in history has there been a sure thing.

And after she wins, 100% of every little kid Thomas Jefferson forgot to mention is his declaration that "all men are created equal" will
in fact be able to say they too can be grow up and be President
It will be historic.
Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, SC, NC, and everywhere in between, every blue Obama state and far far more.

[cali]

37. lol. I think it's a riot that you think that if Hillary is the nom, she'll win Mississippi and

Georgia and other similar states. If only I had the money to place a wager with you. alas.

And I think there's more Hillary fatigue than you know.

[Art_from_Ark]

39. I'm not sure if she'd even win Arkansas,

where she spent 12 years as the state's First Lady.

[cali]

44. Oh, I think we can safely say she wouldn't. Your state is lost to dems

for now and into the near future.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Yup, I'm afraid you're right

Since 1968, only Southern governors have been able to win Arkansas from the Democratic side. And one of those governors was Bill Clinton.

[graham4anything]

50. Such negativity. Positive vibes=positive results. Think of the little engine

it huffed and it puffed and got over the hill

had it not tried, the train never would have left the station.

WOMEN are going to radically change the nation both in 2014 and 2016.
JUST BECAUSE the extremists now hold office in those states, doesn't mean women will vote that way.

It's a woman's world as Cher sings, and as BTO sang "you ain't seen nothing yet".

And ALL the 20 others plus the ones that won't run, all will be standing arm and arm applauding Hillary when she accepts the nomination.

And she EARNED my vote the old fashioned way- by earning it though what she has done, not any other way.

And you won't hear me go negative against the others personally. Just want the surest way to 270.
No message no Dukakis.

Just 270 in the books to be 45 and 500 would be great, but its 230 more than needed.

BTW- Gov. Ann Richards was a major Bill and Hillary supporter.

[cali]

57. It's not negativity. It's reality.

Dems can win the Presidency (witness 2008 and 2012) without Arkansas or Georgia or SC, etc.

As for women radically changing the nation in 2014 and 2016, how exactly will that happen?

[BOG PERSON]

156. R.I.P. graham4anything

[hrmjustin]

76. He can't answer because he is no longer a member.

[Autumn]

79. here you go cali

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=280518

[cali]

84. whoa. thanks, autumn. any idea why?

I'll confess, he bugged the hell out of me with the word salad rah rah recipe but more's the fool I for letting it get to me.

[NYC_SKP]

111. "Troll", according to Skinner. (nt)

[DCBob]

116. That poster was a real oddball with all the goofy hype.

I suspected a troll also.

[davidpdx]

208. Seriously?

Wow, just wow. I didn't see that coming.

[Suich]

213. Me, either!

Not sure I understand what a troll is now. Did not think you could be one with over 11,000 posts.

Oh, well...

[hrmjustin]

253. He started crap in the hosts forum and that is why he was removed.

[Ken Burch]

53. what do you mean when you say "she won the 45th"? What is "the 45th"?

And HRC isn't the only woman. A woman who isn't tied into corporate power and the foreign policy status quo can win too.

[hrmjustin]

75. He can't answer because he is no longer a member.

[idwiyo]

80. Finally.

[hrmjustin]

81. He went too far on an issue in the hosts forum and he was removed.

[idwiyo]

83. I wish someone would post the details or PM them.. This troll was so obvious from the beginning,

mind boggles how he managed to survive this long. Though I have to admit he did provide great entertainment.

I am curious how his supporters feel about it.

[hrmjustin]

85. the host forum is blocked to non-hosts so I can't post it.

All it was he pushed a point about another host too far and I think Skinner had enough. I think it was more than today's moment.

[idwiyo]

88. I know. I should have said 'could'. That's why I didn't ask. Thank you for the tip though!

[hrmjustin]

90. Sorry about that!

[idwiyo]

93. Absolutely nothing to be sorry about! Thank you again for letting us know he is gone!

[hrmjustin]

95. Welcome!

[cali]

91. Bless that skinner! I don't know why Grahm for whatever drove me so batty

but he did.

[hrmjustin]

92. I did not expect it but it happened.

[idwiyo]

96. It might have been the sheer amount of 'crazy'. He was so definitely overboard it was embarrassing.

[Nay]

228. Yeah, me too. I don't have anyone on ignore, but he was just about to be the first. IMHO,

people who post any kind of "word salad" should be encouraged to leave....word salads do nothing for anyone. I understand that some mentally ill people can only post word salads, but still. It's beyond annoying.

Thank you, Skinner! Better late than never!

[Autumn]

149. I can image one that is very sad at this time.

[idwiyo]

152. I can think about several who are really pissed off. Sad. Very sad.

[Ken Burch]

171. check your pm's in a few...

[Logical]

188. Me too?

[Ken Burch]

189. Sorry, not you.

Responded to the wrong post.

[BlueStater]

159. Oh, no! Who will create an endless onslaught of "Hillary 45" posts now?

Goodbye and good riddance. I can't believe it took this long.

[davidpdx]

209. Yes indeed

RIP Troll, Feb 2,2012 to July 10, 2013

[RZM]

169. Skinner . . . The real 'great equalizer' n/t

[Ken Burch]

170. graham got 'stoned? Wonder what led to that?

He was kind of eccentric, but he never seemed vicious to me.

[hrmjustin]

172. He went to far on an issue in the host forum.

[Beacool]

194. Nothing worse than a sore winner.

The race was extremely close and the super delegates were the ones that tipped it in Obama's favor. So let's not pretend that he got the nomination by a country mile. The party was pretty evenly divided.

[Sherman A1]

11. If and only if she is the eventual candidate will I support her

I believe there are far better choices within the Democratic Party and would prefer someone else. That said, if she wins the primaries then she will get my vote.

[East Coast Pirate]

12. Blub.

What a depressing thought.

[Apophis]

13. Gods, I hope she doesn't run.

We need a more progressive candidate, not one that'll keep the status quo.

[summer-hazz]

17. ^^^THIS^^^

Thank you!!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

183. You said it. She also brings too much baggage to the table.

[winter is coming]

247. +1. I'm not even remotely interested in a Hillary candidacy. n/t

[RandiFan1290]

14. Whoop de doo!

[summer-hazz]

16. I really would

love to see someone else as our candidate. We have so many good
Democrats that could do this job, and lead, that owe nothing to corporate America.....

Why do we want another Centrist, or Third Way...caving to republicans?

Why Why Why Why Why

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Why?

Are you willing to set a precedent that being First Lady is somehow a qualification for being President?

Who was the last former Secretary of State to become President? Oh, that's right... James Buchanan, who is widely accepted as the worst President in U.S. history. (Yes, worse than Shrub.)

Is her record as Senator good enough? Remember she didn't just vote for the Iraq War, she was a major supporter who helped get other (D)s on board.

Will she be able to pass the Commander In Chief test, after her support for the Iraq war plus "Snipergate"?

Won't her husband's record be more of a distraction than an asset? She will need to defend everything that was done while not being able to claim direct credit for anything.


I sincerely hope that people think this through. Inheriting a vast political machine shouldn't be how Democrats pick a candidate.

If she wins the nomination I will support her but she has a hell of a lot of work to do to earn my vote in the primary.

[cali]

29. Excuse me? I firmly oppose Hillary for lots of reasons but she has as much pertinant experience

or more than any possible other candidate? Sheesh. She was a U.S. Senator for 7 years. She was SoS of 4. This has jackshit to do with setting a precedent that First Lady is a qualification. That's just the worst kind of sexist dog shit.

[Dawgs]

42. Agree about the experience part, but I don't think the poster was being sexist.

I just don't think they like Hillary.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. So when Republicans sneer that Obama was a 'community Organizer' rather than a state

Senator and a US Senator, they are not being racist, they just authentically 'don't like him'? Really?
I don't agree.

[Motown_Johnny]

112. she ran on her first lady experience in '08

And the idea that 7 years in The Senate and 4 as SOS is as much experience as any other candidate ks laughable.

[cali]

115. she largely ran on her experience as a Senator

and name any other potential candidate with greater experience. SoS is pretty rarified political experience.

[Yavin4]

120. Like her policies or not, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified American to be the President

Except for past and the present POTUS, Hillary has spent 20 years in the Executive, Legislative, and Foreign Policy branches of the govt.

[truebluegreen]

178. Help me with the math, will you?

4 years in the State Dept. (Executive branch) + 7 in the Senate (Legislative) plus what else? to add up to 20? And there isn't a "Foreign Policy" branch.

So I get 11.

[Yavin4]

187. 8 years as First Lady. 8 years as a US Senator. 4 Years as SOS.

8+8+4 = 20. Do not discount her tenure as First Lady. She was deeply involved in policy and dealing with congress.

[truebluegreen]

224. I'll discount what I like.

She wasn't elected, and wasn't accountable.

[Yavin4]

225. She was held accountable by the congress when she testified

During the election of 1992, it was clear and plain to everyone that Hillary would be taking on a policy role in Bill's White House as she did when he was governor of Ark.

[Yavin4]

118. Now do you understand why so many Obama supporters detected racism...

in so many of the anti-Obama posts?

[Art_from_Ark]

40. There's no way that Buchanan was worse than shrub

and Buchanan didn't steal an election, either.

[Ken Burch]

56. Didn't invade anybody, either.

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

(rest of message self-deleted due to historical inaccuracy).

[Art_from_Ark]

218. I think you may be thinking about William Henry Harrison

who died 1 month after taking office. Or maybe Zachary Taylor, who, a little more than a year into his term, died from "drinking too much lemonade on a hot day". Buchanan was the president who immediately preceded Lincoln, and he served his full 4 years.

[Ken Burch]

249. Shit...you're right. Sorry. n/t.

[HardTimes99]

97. OT somewhat, but is Buchanan viewed as 'worse' than say, U.S. Grant or

Warren G. Harding?

I don't follow such rankings closely, so I'm curious as to why Buchanan wins that dubious honor. He was weak and ineffectual, but the Southerners he faced were a fuck of a lot worse than Southerners today or the douches du jour, Republicans.

[steve2470]

217. My guess is the thinking is he could have done more to avert the Civil War

Granted, things were extraordinarily tough back then, but I think that's why historians are so negative about him.

[HardTimes99]

223. Thanks, Steve. Not my area of expertise, so I'm going to

go back and re-read some history now to re-familiarize myself with Buchanan's tenure.

[stillwaiting]

19. That's nice. I will vote for her if she wins the primary, but I strongly hope she doesn't.

The 1% have been running the show for way too long, and she will continue that trend.

We absolutely need a progressive in the White House, and the right one most certainly can win.

The middle class, working class, and poor desperately need this to happen. The rest of the world just might be a bit happy about it too.

[jessie04]

20. I hope Ralph Nader decides not to run.

He can be a troublemaker.





"I always look out for number one"

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Nader will be 82 on election day.

Time to get a new fright mask to wave about, Ralph is getting to be elderly.

[cali]

21. I respect your choice. I will vigorously oppose Ms. Clinton in the primaries should she run

and vote for her with the greatest reluctance should she win the nomination. There is no guarantee that she will. Everyone considered her sure to win in 2008. I believe; granted with no evidence, that there is a strong strain of 'Hillary fatigue'.

[corkhead]

22. I will not pledge fealty to Ms. Clinton, I will likely be voting AGAINST the clown the Repubs put up

[hobbit709]

23. I'm really getting tired of holding my nose and carrying a barf bag when I vote.

If she's the nominee, that's what I'll be doing but until then she won't get my vote.

[Kahuna]

25. I agree, 100%!

[bowens43]

26. do we really need another corporate shill? Wasn't Obama enough?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

61. So Obama is a corporate shill ?

[liberal_at_heart]

164. yes.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

165. based on what? He didn't single handedly take down all the banks?

you've got a lot of nerve. A CORPORATE SHILL would never have even tried. You know....like Bush, et al.

I'm amazed at the expectations of purity on here. It would be laughable if DNC listened to you guys. The DEMS would keep putting out there someone liberal enough for you, and for 20 years straight....nothing but GOP administrations. THEN you would see corporate shilling.

[Jamaal510]

203. If Obama is a corporate shill, why did the Kochs spend so much money against him?

[BeyondGeography]

28. She'll get a challenge from the left

But I think I'm just going to watch this time. I certainly won't be getting on the bandwagon (blame Bill; she is our best qualified candidate and obviously deserves a shot at the presidency but his pining for a return to the WH is unseemly), nor will I fight her to the end like I did in 07-08.

[polichick]

137. Challenge from "the left" within the party - or from the outside?

There doesn't seem to be much of a "left" left in the party.

[BeyondGeography]

139. Sherrod Brown would fit the description

Elizabeth Warren, too, at least on the economy. Anyway, "within," is the answer.

[polichick]

142. Hard to see either of them getting the nomination...

but imo either would make a good president.

[BeyondGeography]

151. Agreed on both counts

[frylock]

155. dr. dean

[polichick]

161. Remember how the powers-that-be took him down last time...

The minute he spoke about curbing corporate power both parties went after him.

I worked on his campaign and found his grassroots approach so inspiring!

[frylock]

162. i do indeed recall that..

which leads me to believe that they are afraid of Dean, and that makes me support him all the more.

[polichick]

167. I agree - they are afraid of him...

But that goes for the corporate whores in BOTH parties - if Dem leaders had stood by him he would've been our nominee. The Clintons went after him as much as anyone - I don't think it'll be different next time around.

Bottom line is, if we can't reclaim the Democratic Party for the people, a new party will eventually have to be created.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

182. Dean would be terrific.

[Nay]

229. I'd go for Dean for just that reason -- entrenched party hacks on both sides are terribly

frightened of him. I think that's a good sign. And I think his grassroots, all-50-states org plan is brilliant. I'd love to see him run again.

[polichick]

236. I'd go for him too, but I think he'd get farther outside the party...

Dem Party leaders don't want him - they're too worried about their corporate bosses.

[polichick]

237. Forgot to say that I agree, his grassroots, 50-state plan is brilliant...

It really pissed me off that Obama borrowed it in large part without thanking Dean or offering him a job in the administration.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. In dodging that sniper fire in Bosnia, she

proved that she has what it takes for the job.

And Bill can be "Secretary of giving bankers whatever they want... and even more!"

[bigtree]

82. by "sniper fire in Bosnia"

. . .you must mean, 'right-wing attack.'

Yup, she dodged that nonsense attack with ease. It's still nothing more than another lame mantra in the republican nut-jobs' lexicon. It's made all the more irrelevant by her globe-trotting record as SoS. Kind of ignorant to keep pushing a mantra that was used to discount and discredit her time spent traveling to foreign nations as first lady when she has an excellent record of service and experience to trump all of that sniping from the right.

Besides, haven't Mrs. Clinton's constant critics moved on to 'Benghazi?'

[MannyGoldstein]

127. Don't you remember the sniper attack in Bosnia?

Hillary does:

[bigtree]

148. nope. Just remember the rw nutjobs who parroted the nonsense.

. . . you're in good company, Manny Goldstein.

[frylock]

157. clearly that video is an elaborate hoax

[bigtree]

219. another booster . . . right on cue

. . . amazing how popular rw attacks have been with critics posturing from the left.

[frylock]

241. she made the stupid statement..

take it up with her.

[bigtree]

246. why

. . . why should I 'take it up with her?'

[Whisp]

175. I found the real, real footage of that day...

[MannyGoldstein]

180. Tough as @#$&ing nails, that one

Bravery under faux fire.

[JoePhilly]

31. For all the complaining in this thread, not one alternative candidate is proposed

as of my post.

Big surprise there.

For about 4 years, I've been suggesting to those who dislike Obama that they need to get busy finding the acceptably progressive candidate for 2016.

Time is running out.

[cali]

33. why should anyone propose an alternate? It's not our job to find a progressive candidate

And 2016 has nothing to do with 2016. No, time is not running out. You can start saying that in a year or so.

[JoePhilly]

35. If the disgruntled don't think its their job to find the better candidate,

do you expect one to just show up?

If so, you will be here in 2016 complaining about President Hillary Clinton.

Its going to take longer than a year for this acceptable candidate to get name and face recognition and enough money to have a shot.

[cali]

38. Why yes. Yes, I do. Of course dems will be deciding whether or not to run

Martin O'Malley is considering it and I imagine others will too. They'll make their intentions known in a year or so and then I'll, like many others, will decide who to back.

There's nothing unusual about this. It's simply the way it works and the way it has ALWAYS worked.

Also, 2 years or so before the elections is not too late to announce.

[JoePhilly]

47. I'm not talking about announcing.

For a candidate to beat Hillary, they will need to have a very large following before they ever announce.

As for how it has ALWAYS worked ... think about your own posts, and the posts of MANY of the other disgruntled ... you and they HATE how it has ALWAYS worked because its the evil 3rd way, DLC, centrists who pick the ultimate candidate.

Right? Am I wrong there?

If you and the others wait, just like ALWAYS ... this oh so special, truly acceptable, very progressive candidate that you want (but that you can't yet name) will lose.

Hillary took the primary for granted last time, I doubt she'll make that mistake again.

[BeyondGeography]

58. You're right

It's still early, but Obama was already on the national radar post-2004 keynote and I don't see anything comparable out there right now. I also think a lot of Obama's base support will swing to Hillary if she runs, making it even tougher for a challenge from the left.

[cali]

60. Oh for pity's sake. Yes, I hate how it works, but largely not for the reasons you assign to me

I hate the huge amounts of money involved more than anything. I've never called anyone or any group evil.

So yeppers, you're wrong. Not a huge surprise. No surprise at all. I don't look at it so simplistically.

I can't make anyone run. I have no idea whether anyone will run who I will enthusiastically support. I don't look for some "oh so special, truly acceptable, blah, blah blah candidate. I'm a realist. I do not, for instance, support Warren because I don't think she has the experience in politics and campaigning and she's not terribly good at it, she doesn't have that ineffable quality that Bill Clinton and Obama have and she doesn't have the D.C. base she'd need.

so yeppers, you're not just wrong. you're completely and utterly wrong, dear.

and as for Hillary? She may or may not run. Looks like she will, but anything can happen. I also think there's more Hillary and Clinton fatigue than is currently apparent- though I have nothing to back that up.

[JoePhilly]

71. OK, I'm wrong.

[DCBob]

43. Someone on another thread mentioned Sherrod Brown.

I like him and a good alternative/contrast to Hillary.

[JoePhilly]

73. It would be interesting to see him run.

He'll need to raise his profile sooner rather than later.

[BlueStater]

160. He would definitely have my support if he did run.

He's someone I would be genuinely excited about as well. I wouldn't just want him simply because he isn't Hillary.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. My sig doesn't count? nm

[JoePhilly]

72. no.

[MannyGoldstein]

136. OK then, a sign you to use next time:

[Dawgs]

46. Howard Dean, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren are all good options.

Certainly more progressive, and certainly just as qualified.

[JoePhilly]

74. Of those ...

Dean is probably the best potential "front runner".

Brown and Warren don't have as much national exposure so far and so they would each need to get more visibility soon.

[Dawgs]

98. I couldn't agree more. Dean is my first choice. I think this is right time for him.

Especially if Hillary chooses not to run, which I doubt.

[madokie]

34. At this point yes I will

I really would like to see a woman president and feel she has a good chance of winning.
I'd really like to see Senator Warren in the whitehouse if you really want to know what I'd like to see.

[datasuspect]

36. bless your heart

[99Forever]

41. I will not vote for any Turd Way candidate, ever again.

Including Clinton. I will only vote for strong progressives.

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. Yes, because we need another Scalia at the Supreme Court

I suggest you look at Clinton's values before you judge her "not progressive."

Voter temper tantrums are what got the US in this mess in the first place.

[99Forever]

55. Save your guilt trip for the fools.

I will vote my principles and my conscience. Nothing you or any other partisan tool can say will change that. I will not hold my nose while voting ever again.

[Evergreen Emerald]

59. Yes...vote your "principles" as you watch the middle class continue

to spin down the porcelain bowl and the rights of women denied again and again.

[mick063]

62. as if Hillary will stop the death of the middle class

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Time to get a clue.

When the nation is going to shit under a Democratic administration, scare tactics about Republicans are actually marshmallows.

[HardTimes99]

99. This board often forgets that her husband signed NAFTA, Welfare "Reform,"

Repeal of Glass-Steagall and other steaming turds into law.

We now have little or no real social safety net, thanks to Bill Clinton's efforts.

The process of decimating the American middle class, though, has been bipartisan, commencing in January, 1981 and continuing unabated ever since. And I mostly blame Reagan for it. Every president since has been but a bit player in executing the middle class. (In 1982, for example, Reagan presided over 12% unemployment nationally, worst since the Great Depression.)

[99Forever]

173. Run progresive candidates and I'll vote for them.

Run DINOs and I won't. Apparently you have no principles, which is your right. I do, that's my right. You don't like that I choose not to hold my nose vote for the less shitty candidate? Frankly, I don't give a fat rat's ass.

You don't want to hear what you can do with your gawddamn guilt trip.

[DCBob]

49. I will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is..

and anyone who refuses to vote since Hillary, or whoever is the candidate, isnt "progressive" enough is foolhardy.

[Ken Burch]

52. It's not like she's the ONLY Dem who can win.

We don't have to nominate an antilabor "free trade" loving war aficionado that used to sit on the WalMart board to hold the White House. We just need a person who will stand up and fight for the workers and the poor, for the majority of people in this country who don't benefit from the status quo.

[hrmjustin]

54. I intend to support her fully!

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Imagine my surprise. n/t

[ChangeUp106]

64. It says a lot that you got all these replies and only 9 RECs

I'm hoping that's a sign that people aren't too hyped up for Hillary

[JoePhilly]

77. Now go through and count how many alternative candidates are

proposed in this thread.

Lots of whining about Hillary, but not many alternatives proposed.

Unless the disgruntled get busy behind some alternative, and soon, Hillary will win if she runs.

[leftstreet]

117. The 'alternative' to Hillary will be the GOP candidate

Her celebrity status is unbeatable by any other Democrat, and the party hasn't positioned anyone else (as with Obama) to support as an alternative

[JoePhilly]

121. So there aren't any more progressive alternatives?

[leftstreet]

122. It's possible the GOPer could be more progressive

[JoePhilly]

123. Which one?

[leftstreet]

124. LOLOL omg you're seriously worried about that?

I was being facetious, but I can see where Hillary might have to worry. What if Nixon came back from the dead? He was much further to the left of the Clintons on social issues

[JoePhilly]

125. I was mocking you.

And apparently, you were too dense to get it.

I'd rofl, but its kind of sad really.

[leftstreet]

126. Oh good

The irony would be too rich and too to contemplate: Hillary worried about being more progressive than the GOP frontrunner








sorry

[JoePhilly]

129. I doubt Hillary is worried at all about a challange from the GOP,

or a challenge from her left.

As you have demonstrated, for all of the posts by the perpetually disgruntled here on DU, she really has nothing to worry about.

[leftstreet]

130. She could be the DLC's undoing

in all seriousness, no smiley thingys

The Democratic party can't get much further right before the GOP has nowhere to go but left, if they want to win elections

[JoePhilly]

135. I don't see how that can happen ...

The GOP won't go left on social issues, and they want to use the military to Christainize the entire planet.

I can't think of a GOP platform that is on the left, not even if I start with the Libertarian elements and try to force fit the other pieces.

[mick063]

196. You actually have a good point

Romney waylay-ed Obama in the first debate because he took a dramatic swing to the left. It was an overnight sensation as the President proved completely unprepared for it. Obama's whole debate prep was based upon the platform Romney used in the GOP primaries.

In the second debate, Obama's prep was basically about the dramatic swing in the first debate and focused on Romney's GOP primary positions. It reinforced the perception of Romney saying anything to get elected.


This was such a great debate strategy for the GOP that once the debate is strategically analyzed for 2016, you can expect the same thing to happen again. In effect, what you said. The Republican running to the left or at the same position as the Democrat.

[bobduca]

65. Ill vote for any other candidate in the primaries

no more royal families.

[NCTraveler]

66. I will support a more progressive person in the primary.

If it is Hillary in the general, she has my support.

[madrchsod]

69. is`t there anyone younger?

[Dantheman65]

70. Heads explode

The hatred for Hillary is so strong among republicans they will behave VERY badly if she is the nominee. They can't seem to stop themselves from advertising their hatred. It will be Vince Foster time all over again and they will drive voters away from the their side. I don' t care for Hillary all that much but it seems unlikely the republican primary process can produce an electable candidate. It has failed the last 3 times.

[Little Star]

78. Me too Pretzel_Warrior, me too!

[Recursion]

87. I like O'Malley, but we'll see

Should be interesting. I recommend an asbestos suit when reading DU at that point.

[olddots]

89. She's a fine republican candidate so go ahead

n.t

[NuclearDem]

94. So, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton?

Maybe run Jeb in 2020 and Chelsea in 2024.

Sorry, not happening. Progressive please.

[markiv]

102. you have choice, you choose bush or clinton

now go away, moose and squirel

[Pretzel_Warrior]

107. I think a LOT of ground work will have to happen in this country before your brand of progressive

Could get elected. Hillary is progressive.

[NuclearDem]

108. And how the hell will electing someone just to the left of Bush

do anything to lay that groundwork? If we just keep electing the same politicians every cycle without ever gambling with a far more progressive candidate, how will that change anything?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

109. I think that other Mormon (not RMoney) is just to the left of Bush

I think both Obama and Hillary are far to the left of Bush and it's not even close.

[Apophis]

186. "Hillary is progressive."

Hold on a sec.

[markiv]

100. George Bush, in pumps nt

[darkangel218]

132. Lmao!!!!!

[truebrit71]

101. Good for you. I'll continue to hope that a Democrat runs this time...

...not a battle to see who is the most centrist of them all...

Obama was the last straw...

[polichick]

133. Do you think today's Dem Party could nominate anyone other than a...

corporate centrist? After many years of working for the party, I no longer think so.

[truebrit71]

147. No, sadly I don't...

...and that's just another indicator that the system is broken..

[polichick]

150. I agree - so it'll mean voting for the lesser of evils until...

something happens to really shake things up.

imo that something won't come from within either party.

[Ed Suspicious]

103. I plan to support a candidate to the left of her, but if she's ultimately the candidate... well, I

won't vote republican.

[Coyotl]

104. That would be a mistake. She will be the consumate insider and that won't fly after Obama's record.

Elizabeth Warren is the top choice.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

106. If the wars are wound down, economy improving

And GOP continues to piss off women 5 times a day, she should do quite well.

[liberal_at_heart]

168. Women's rights was the reason I voted for Obama in 2012, but it is no longer enough

for me. I want someone who will fund public education, get money out of politics, and fight for true single payer healthcare. So, the democrats cannot depend on my vote just becuase the GOP continues to piss off women. And there will be a lot of people who will never feel the effects of the improving economy because of suppressed wages. The wars in Iraq and Afhganistan may be winding down but involvement in Syria and possibly even Iran will not be popular with a war weary public.

[Jamaal510]

207. As long as the GOP doesn't successfully cheat,

and as long as conditions continue to improve under Obama (the economy, health care, wars, etc.), the 2016 Democratic candidate should have very little to worry about. I'm hoping that people in general are going to have the mindset of sticking with what has been working (i.e. Democratic administrations) rather than jumping ship when we have not reached our destination yet.

[William769]

113. Welcome to the adults table

Where positive discussion is encouraged & sophomoric juvenile talk is well just ignored.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. That s nice

I will try to keep my mayor in office...vote in the board of supers race...care about my state...after that, you are on your own kids. This NSA scandal both are the same. It's empire, just one is slightly better for the citizens of the core.

[KamaAina]

119. So you already know who else is running?

Would you tell us, please? Or maybe you could go on one of the Sunday talking head shows.

[polichick]

128. I'll support her if she is the most liberal and populist candidate...

imo she's yet another corporate Dem - but likely to be the least of evils.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

131. Is this the same Hillary that vociferously supported Bush's war and Obama's drones?

No thanks.

[MineralMan]

134. If she is the Democratic candidate after the convention,

I will vote for her. I'd prefer some other alternative, though. I can think of a number of possibilities that I'd prefer.

However, I'm not thinking about 2016 at this point. 2014 is just around the corner, and that election is at least as important as the 2016 election.

GOTV 2014!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

141. I do agree that this is quite early with 2014 just around the corner

I'm gonna get back on the horse and try to motivate people to get out the vote in swing districts to turn some red seats blue.

[MineralMan]

144. Great idea. My biggest fear is that some Democrats

will not be active in 2014 and that might allow Republicans to gain strength. I'm opposed to that utterly. 2016 will take care of itself for now, and as soon as the 2014 election is over and we've done well, I'll start thinking about the next presidential election. Until then, I'm just not that interested in discussing candidates for 2016.

Right now, I'm most concerned about what Democrat can run in MN's CD-6 and defeat the strong Republicans who have already declared for the seat. Now that Bachmann has withdrawn herself from the campaign, it's our best opportunity in Minnesota to pick up a seat for a Democrat, but it will have to be someone with imposing stature and ultra-strong name recognition. It will be a difficult district to turn. I'm just hoping someone will take the race on, and I'll encourage and work for that candidate. My own district, CD-4 is a lock for Betty McCollum, and she's just fine, so I'm focusing on a possible turnover in CD-6.

[AngryAmish]

140. Does this mean you will not be posting "Hillary's Downfall"?

That video seemed a bit unpopular with her supporters a few years back.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

143. I'll post it or watch it even if it is a bit cliche to do Downfall videos at this point.

I supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008, but it doesn't mean I did not enjoy or agree with most of her platform.

[1-Old-Man]

146. I draw the line at some point. No, no Hillary for me. Not in the Primary, not in the General.

Aside from the fact that I do not at all like the idea that three or four families are the only ones fit to fill the White House my major concern is that I perceive her to be nothing but a Corporate shill, Bill without the personality.

[Zen Democrat]

153. Hillary has made some bad decisions regarding foreign policy.

She supported and voted for the Iraq war.
She's to the right of Obama on most foreign interventions.
She was against the raid that got Osama bin Laden.
Her hubby, and I'm sure her closest advisor, said the President Obama was a "wuss" for not going into Syria.
Hillary would be fabulous for women and children. Unless those women and mothers are soldiers wanting to stay out of war.
If she won, there would be a swarm of DLCers surrounding her -- Eddie Rendell and Harold Ford, Jr., just to name two.

The Democratic Party needs to move forward and into more progressive territory.

[Beacool]

195. She was not against the raid that got Osama.

That would have been Biden.

[frylock]

154. no thanks

[BOG PERSON]

158. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

163. I'll only vote for a liberal.

[bluestate10]

174. Same here. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

176. If she is nominated, I'll be voting for someone else. n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

235. Who will you be voting for? Constitution Party?

Libertarian? Green? Please let us know which direction you plan to throw away your vote.

[Egalitarian Thug]

242. It doesn't matter since you guys are working so hard to elect republicans. n/t

[bluedigger]

177. If she is the nominee, very reluctantly.

I find it really hard to believe that in a nation of over 300 million people the very best candidate one party could offer would just happen to be the former First Lady. The odds of that are ludicrously small, and would expose our political system for the sham it will have become. Come on America, we can do better!

[truebluegreen]

179. +100

[Nay]

232. +1000

Enough with the dynasties, please! It's killing us!

[kwassa]

181. Martin O'Malley, our next great Democratic nominee

time to get over Hillary, who we gave maximum contribution to in 2008. I have a picture of Hillary holding my infant daughter at a fundraiser in Georgetown.

The Democratic governor of Maryland has major skills, is much younger, has energy and a future. And has his own Irish band. What could be better?

[Arctic Dave]

185. I will not support her in any form.

The party is nosediving bad enough with Obama at the wheel, I don't want her to crash us into the side of the mountain.

[limpyhobbler]

190. I will fight this with every fiber of my being.

The thought of another neoliberal corporate shithead occupying the White House physically sickens me.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

191. my impression from other "liberal" people in DU was that

people aren't throwing personal insults toward our president--they're just disagreeing with his policy.

[limpyhobbler]

192. loose cannon here.

"Our" president? whatever. not my president any more than Bush was my president.

Doesn't care about people like me.

[liberal_at_heart]

193. loose cannon here too. I just became an independent.

[limpyhobbler]

198. oh ok that's cool.

Probably there's gonna be a lot of those.

[liberal_at_heart]

199. I am hoping some liberal democrats will run, but I will not vote for democrats who favor

corporations anymore.

[limpyhobbler]

202. Well I can certainly understand why. I hope some better Democrats run too.

There are several people I'd like to see in the primaries. The good ones usually get eliminated by voters in Iowa, NH, South Carolina primaries. Pretty much makes the democracy fake.

[Beacool]

197. I'm not going to argue with anyone here about 2016.

I'm only sure of one thing: if Hillary runs, she wins. It won't be 2008 with the "hope and change" guy coming out of the woodwork. The question is whether she would want to run again.




BTW, there's also this:

Rivals No More, Obama Veterans to Lead Clinton Group

Ready for Hillary, the group encouraging Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016, is hiring a new team of old rivals: a pair of President Obama’s top strategists who helped defeat her and put him in the White House.

The daily operations of a campaign-in-waiting for Clinton, ABC News has learned, will be overseen by Jeremy Bird, the national field director for the Obama campaign who was pivotal in building an army of grassroots supporters. Joining him is Mitch Stewart, who was one of Obama’s earliest campaign aides and led his effort in battleground states during the 2012 re-election campaign.

It is the latest sign that Ready for Hillary, the super PAC seeking to pave the way for a possible candidacy, is serious.

“It’s her decision to make,” Bird told ABC News. “This is about putting the infrastructure in place on the grassroots side, should she decide to run.” The new partnership is scheduled to be announced Wednesday morning.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/rivals-no-more-obama-veterans-to-lead-clinton-group/

[Pretzel_Warrior]

200. yep. I loved hearing that news. She may ultimately decide not to

but she will have a ground game this time, that is for sure.

[Beacool]

201. Yes, she will.

If anything, her supporters are even more hungry for a win. If she throws her hat in the ring, we'll make sure that she comes out on top. Besides, 2016 is far too important to give it to the Republicans because the Left is navel gazing, hoping for the perfect progressive candidate.

[Logical]

204. Only 20 recs tells you something. n-t

[Beacool]

205. Yeah, it tells you that DU is not the real world.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

206. I found that out several election cycles ago

like when we thought we were going to steam roll Bush in 2004.

[Beacool]

220. Yeah, that hurt.

It hurt as much as it must have hurt the Republicans who were convinced that Romney was going to win in 2012. People need to realize that this site and others are not necessarily how people feel in the real world about politics in general and certain candidates in particular. We are in a bubble over here.

[fadedrose]

210. I don't like Hillary Clinton

Also don't like ANY talk show hosts who keep promoting her as though she was already a candidate.

Her behavior or that of her overentusiastic supporters at the convention trying to get getting Michigan's illigal primary election votes sucked.....long story.

[mimi85]

211. Let's concentrate on 2014 instead of 2016.

I honestly don't think she'll run and many people (including myself) want Bill as first man. I supported him in his day, but I think that time is past. His ego wouldn't allow to him sit in the passenger seat.

I honestly hope she has a couple of grandkids to enjoy and leaves this insanity behind. Her health is a little sketchy anyway. She'll be what, around 70? Just as someone has to be 35 to run for prez, I think there should be an upper age limit as well.

[fadedrose]

227. As a 75-yr old, I totally agree with you...

Only someone on miracle drugs could avoid the arthritis and forgetfulness that comes with age. And gees, something new - just got dizzy - first time that happened.

If nominated, I refuse to accept your nomination, to spend not more time, but less, with the grandkids, and no time at all with politicians and botox.

[Beacool]

221. What sucked even more was giving Hillary's MI delegates to Obama.

Let's no go there. I was in DC at the hotel where it all took place.

Yo don't like Hillary? Well, I didn't like Obama, but he was a better choice than the Republicans had to offer.

Therefore, pardon me if Hillary's supporters don't give a crap if some on the Left don't care for her.

[AtomicKitten]

230. Ya know what really sucks?

What sucks is that you continue to this day pretending like Michigan (and Florida) were even in play in the primary election of 2008.

Clinton had 12+ more members on the steering committee than anybody else that decided Michigan (and Florida) were disqualified because they jumped the gun in the primary process order. That's right. If they had a problem with it, they sure didn't have it when they held sway over the damn rule-making.

You should be embarrassed to continue to maintain they were HER delegates. Obama wasn't even on the damn ballot in Michigan for crissakes! But to try to placate the hizzy she was throwing, really putrid behavior btw, the committee allocated those delegates in the fairest way they could.

Clinton was an embarrassingly poor sport. She ran a slapdash campaign, raising and burning through $100 million by the end of 2007, not planning after Super Tuesday because she was inevitable doncha know, and then had a very public temper tantrum trying desperately to rewrite the rules that HER people had the huge majority in writing.

I will not support that mess. Not now. Not ever.

[Beacool]

238. As I said, I don't give a crap what Hillary haters have to say.

I have other things that concern me far more.

[fadedrose]

231. Oh, that Michigan thing again.

First of all, Hillary didn't get Obama's votes. The DNC disallowed the illegal primary because it was held in January and was scheduled to be in August. Our genius Senators and Governor (Granholm, whom I love) decided on the early primary.

They were told well in advance, and the candidates were informed, that the primary votes would not be permitted to be counted at the convention.

So, Biden, Edwards, Obama, and somebody else, forget who, maybe Dennis K., all removed their names from the ballot. Hillary and one other, maybe Dodd, left their names on the ballot. The whole thing seemed contrived in some way.

To vote for any of the others besides Hillary, one would have to vote for "None of the Above" which an amazing number of people did. Me, for instance.

The head of the DNC, DWS - from FLA, I believe, distributed the "None of the Above" votes at the convention among ALL our candidates in spite of Clinton's protests. There were only two candidates on the postage-stamp sized ballot , but Michigan's votes wouldn't even have been counted except for the refusal of Clinton and supporters to adhere to the rules of the DNC. To me, this was unethical. This is not screwing the Reps, but only would have screwed Michigan Democrats (a lot of blacks and many unemployed). Unethical all down the line.

We preferred other candidates to Clinton with the same passion that you have for her. And I still prefer Biden to her - I woud have voted for him in the primary if he were on the ballot. Would not have voted for Obama even tho he was my heart's choice - my brain told me a black man couldn't win. Thank goodness I was wrong cause I still love the imperfect man.

[Beacool]

239. Sorry, don't have time to read it.

But you are the one who brought up the MI delegates, not me.

[fadedrose]

245. The MI votes were NOT all Hillary's

and if you read my post, nobody's should have been counted.

Hillary expected the rules be broken when she left her name on the ballot, and convinced a cronie to stay on with her. Not ethical.

It's also not ethical to shout at Republicans at congressional hearings when they ask question she doesn't want to answer. A diplomat, a real diplomat, should have had them eating out of her hand....the Reps were obnoxious, but it's their right to hold hearings and ask questions...

And Democrats praised her for this....

[Ken Burch]

255. Obama had the nomination by then anyway...and it was wrong for Michigan to break party rules

and hold their caucus early. There was no good reason for them to do that. HRC should have joined Obama in staying out.

[totodeinhere]

212. I am not so sure that she would get the nomination. She was considered a virtual shoe in to get the

2008 nomination until a guy named Barack Obama came along. But then we learned that she was beatable. There will be at least one major candidate running to her left. Who it will be I'm not sure. But what we need is another vigorous contest in the Democratic Party, not a coronation.

[Beacool]

222. This is 8 years later and people now know the score.

It's far easier giving vague speeches about "hope and change" than governing.

Hillary already knew that. It will be hard enough to keep the WH in 2016 after 8 years of Democratic rule. It won't be like 2008 when a turnip could have been elected president if it had a D after his/her name. After Bush, the long wars and the economic collapse of 2007, there was almost no chance for a Republican to keep the WH. 2016 will be a totally different ball game. Why do you think that Pelosi, McCaskill and others are pushing Hillary to run? These two were not in her camp in 2008, but they know that she's the one big gun that could create the kind of enthusiasm that will be needed to fight the Republican nominee.

[totodeinhere]

226. I doubt if the GOP will be able to make many inroads among minority communities. Look at the

immigration reform train wreck in the House for instance. And given that I suspect that any credible Democratic candidate could win in 2016. We've already had 20 years of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. It's time to move on to new blood. And for those who think it's time to elect a woman, which I agree with BTW, Senator Warren would be an excellent choice.

[Beacool]

240. Warren won't be ready.

This is her first elective office. At least Obama had been a state senator. She also barely won in a blue state. If she were younger, I would say that a few years from now she should run. As it is, I don't think that Warren will run in 2016. She would have to start mounting a campaign after next year's midterm elections. That's not a lot of time.

[totodeinhere]

248. I disagree. I submit that she will be more qualified than Barack Obama was when he ran in 2008.

They will both have served the same amount of time in the Senate. Plus Warren has a lot of other experience. From Wikipedia:

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Warren served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). She later served as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under President Barack Obama. In the late 2000s she was recognized by publications such as the National Law Journal and the Time 100 as an increasingly influential public policy figure.

She did not win election in a landslide that is true. But as I said before, if we are looking at electability any major Democrat should be able to win in 2016. I just think that it's time for a bona fide progressive and I don't think that Hillary Clinton fits the bill. Her support for free trade agreements is enough to disqualify her IMO.

[fadedrose]

244. Why are they pushing her to run ?

Ed Rendell (former gov/PA) said on Hardball that he would like to end his career with a WH job, and Clinton has promised him a position.

Lots of goodies to pass out when you win to supporters.

[avaistheone1]

214. I really hope she doesn't run for President.

Obama dashed our hopes for change. And Hillary would have no problem doing the same.

I am sick and tired of the recycled DLC crowd and their candidates.

[fadedrose]

243. Amen....

except the Republicans and SOME Dems didn't vote the way he would have liked, the way we all would have liked.

DLC sucks for sure.

[SunSeeker]

215. K & R

[olddots]

216. an interesting concept ------

very flawed but interesting

[fadedrose]

233. Why not see if somebody in FDR's family is available to run ........nt

[Shankapotomus]

234. Damn straight!

Let's ride the best wave we have, people!

Strengthen it!

Support it!

Build it!

It's about momentum!

If we start to doubt it, we will lose.

[bigwillq]

250. I won't.

But may the best man or woman win.

[on point]

251. I'm voting for the best REAL progressive, and she isn't one. So NO, she will not get my vote. Period

The dems need to put up a better candidate. Like others I am sick of the DLC and will NOT support ANY of their candidates.

Go Warren, Dean, White, Grayson or anyone else please.

[Ken Burch]

252. That wasn't why you started this thread, though.

I suspect your ACTUAL intent was probably to try to goad people into posting that they WOULDN'T support the Democratic ticket if HRC were nominated, and therefore getting themselves banned.

That's what this sort of thread is usually about.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

254. well, I can see why you'd be so cynical...but no. I saw info about Hillary and got to thinking

about the yeoman's work she did as SOS and NY senator....thought about her being tanned, rested, and ready, and just had to post my exuberance.

But again....I cannot tell you honestly that I didn't later think what you thought. Which is why I put this in my Journal so I can refer back to it to see what names are no longer there in a few months.

[question everything]

256. I would like to but, to be honest, I will wait to see who else runs

Things have changed and she is older.