Hillary skepticism explained in 15 questions

[Proud Public Servant]

I keep seeing threads asking what Hillary skeptics are so skeptical about. So I made a little quiz that might explain it...

1) Do you want to see the banking industry subject to real regulation of the sort that will prevent future 2008s – including a new Glass-Steagall?

2) Do you think Hillary supports that?

3) Do you want to see a real reduction in military spending, with the savings shifted to social welfare and infrastructure?

4) Do you think Hillary supports that?

5) Do you want to see an end to Gitmo and Gitmo-esque sites, as well as “extraordinary rendition” conducted in “plausibly deniable” third countries?

6) Do you think Hillary supports that?

7) Do you want to see the NSA reined in and the PATRIOT ACT dismantled?

8) Do you think Hillary supports that?

9) Do you want to see corporate taxes raised and corporate loopholes closed?

10) Do you think Hillary supports that?

11) Do you want to see capital gains taxed at the same rate as income?

12) Do you think Hillary supports that?

13) Do you want to stop the Keystone pipeline?

14) Do you think Hillary supports that?

15) Do you really think Hillary is our one and only chance of winning in 2016? Really?

[Little Star]

1. Answer to #15, pretty much. The rest figure it out yourself.

[Proud Public Servant]

3. Really?

There isn't a single Democrat who can take down Christie? Jeb? Rand Paul? You really believe that the rest of the party is so devoid of talent and stature that Mario Rubio wins in a walk unless we run the most famous woman in the world?

Is it that you really think that little of the Democratic party? Or are you mysteriously awed by the GOPs shrinking base, plummeting popularity, and numerical disadvantage in the electoral college? I'm genuinely curious.

[Little Star]

5. Regarding Jeb & Christie....

Yep. That's exactly what I said and what I honestly believe.

Rand & Marco maybe someone else could beat them.

[Arkansas Granny]

7. Hey, you started the thread. How about you put some names out there if you think

there is another Democrat that we can be assured can win the election. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head.

[Proud Public Servant]

9. Sure

I can't say anyon'e "assured" -- there's no such thing in politics. Just ask Hillary.

And no, I'm not going to mention Warren or Grayson. But there's a pool of people who keep being mentioned as likely to jumb in if Hillary doesn't: Cuomo, O'Malley, Gillibrand, Schweitzer, Warner. Except for Cuomo, I think any of them would stand a fine chance against a blowhard like Christie, a guy named "Bush," or any of the crazies in the Senate. And except for Warner, I'd have more patience with any of their politics that with hers.

[dsc]

25. If you think Cuomo and Warner

support 1, 9 and 11 you are woefully uniformed as to their records. I have my doubts that any mainstream Democrat will do 5 while Congressional Democrats continue to oppose the closing. I would bet my last dollar that Schweitzer favors the Keystone pipeline and left to his own devices so would Cuomo (he was ready to open all of upstate NY to fracking until he was forced by grassroots pressure to back off). In short, with the exception of O'Malley and Gillibrand you haven't named a single person who even might meet your test.

[Proud Public Servant]

37. That wasn't the question

I'm not suggesting all of the people I listed would support all of the proposals in the OP. But all of them (except maybe Warner) would at least support some of the proposals in the OP -- and that's more than I suspect HRC would support.

More specifically, though, I was answering a question about electibility. And I do think all of them except Cuomo would fare well in a general election.

[dsc]

38. but unless you are a big honking hypocrite

none of them should be satisfactory to you. If you oppose Hillary for her positions then you have to oppose them for theirs.

[Proud Public Servant]

41. That's absurd

I've never agreed 100% with any candidate I've voted for; but I've always looked for the one I agreed with most. That's how grown-ups participate in the democratic process.

[dsc]

43. the fact is pretty much none of the candidates

have publicly taken any of those positions and in the case of Cuomo and Warner they have publicly done the opposite of a MAJORITY of the positions you site as being important enough to make Hillary an impossiblity. If you are willing to vote for Cuomo and Warner but not for Hillary then you are either a hypocrite or a sexist. Both Cuomo and Warner are way to the right of Clinton on economic issues. Cuomo actually cut, as in the opposite of raised, taxes on the wealthy and capital gains in particular. Cuomo, nor Warner have spoken out at all about any issue of foreign policy that I know of.

[totodeinhere]

33. My opinion is that the GOP is so out of touch right now that any major Democratic candidate

will be able to win the presidency in 2016 no matter which candidate the Republican nominate. As long as we continue to get strong minority support we will be virtually unbeatable at the presidential level. That's why I think the real battle will be taking place at the congressional and local levels.

And regarding Christie, I doubt if the wingnuts will let him get the nomination. He isn't crazy enough for them.

[brewens]

76. I had no clue who Clinton was this far out when he first ran. It's early. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

77. Absolutely correct on both counts

Christie knows he doesn't sell well in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, he thinks he can score big with all the Jersey retirees who moved to Florida.

We saw how well that strategy worked for Giulliani.

[davidpdx]

91. I agree

As a party we would have to seriously fuck up to lose the next election. Whomever gets nominated I will support. In terms of the primary I will wait until I've seen who's running.

You are right about the congressional races, those are going to be a big deal. We need to have control of Congress (both sides) when the new president is elected.

The next Congress probably won't change that much. I think it's going to take two more cycles to get the majority of the "wackobirds" (borrowed from Senator McCain) out.

[JackRiddler]

79. Ridiculous.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Problem with hanging your ENTIRE argument on that is, the same one was made in 2008.

And yet, shown to be patently false.

If she wants to convince people, she needs more than "inevitable" and "you have no choice".

[William769]

2. Your OP can be summed up in one word.

HOGWASH

[TroglodyteScholar]

4. I like Hillary in a lot of ways

But I fear we'll be making a grave mistake if we hang all our hopes on her. The questions in the OP are fair ones, and all if us should be concerned with the answers.

[Little Star]

8. TPTB will select our candidate during the primary.....

The answers to the other questions are not worth answering because there is nothing realistically that anyone can do about who our nominee is.

Now the general election is a whole other bird. That's where we can make a difference.

[starroute]

14. So are you saying we can't avoid being handed a corporate Democrat

But they we get the glorious opportunity to vote for them over a corporate Republican?

If those are the only alternatives, we need to start thinking about why things have gone so wrong.

[Little Star]

16. Can't argue with we need to start thinking about how to...

make change. But 2016 is waaaay to close for us to out smart TPTB about our primaries.

[TroglodyteScholar]

17. Well that's comforting...

Guess I'll just stand by and watch it happen then.

[Little Star]

19. Reality is some times hard to take....

But as I've said in other posts:
For me, it's a lot of fun to participate, root and campaign for the candidate I want to see chosen during the primary season.
But more importantly, it's nice to help get others interested & involved in the process of politics.

[TroglodyteScholar]

21. So you will be voting in the primaries?

And your only motivation in doing so will be to get others interested?

Couldn't help but notice your avatar...would you be happy if TPTB choose Clinton, then? Does this contribute to your willingness to tell other Democrats that they have no choice in who their candidate will be?

[Little Star]

22. You bet your butt I'll be voting and

my vote will be for Hillary Clinton if she runs. I happen to really admire much (not all) about Hillary. Yes, I also hope and pray TPTB choose Hillary Clinton.

"Does this contribute to your willingness to tell other Democrats that they have no choice in who their candidate will be?"
Nope. It's just a reality about the way things are. And that's why I told you above about why I like to be involved in the primary process.

[TroglodyteScholar]

54. Why do you suppose we hold primaries at all then?

I very much doubt their purpose is simply to give you good feelings about introducing people to national politics....

[TheKentuckian]

72. Fun??? I know I can't avoid sounding nasty here but self governance is not about having fun cheering

for a fixed race.

I can't even suggest honest sport as an alternative here, it sounds like the WWE is what you're looking for.

What the hell does anyone give a lousy shit about getting folks interested and involved in a phony exercise?

Too damn many folks are all about playing games and cheering the winning team and Lo and Behold! The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and those in the middle join the ranks of the poor while oceans rise, rights become "quaint" and fewer and fewer even if we manage to expand franchise (as more people get access, what they have access to is diminished), infrastructure crumbles, and the only tool the people have, the government, is captured by greedy corporations with no loyalty to our people.

You do understand that your "defense" of our party's role in elections is beyond terrible. You are stating that our party as an entity is anti-democratic and is openly and willfully scamming us and is participating in a greater scam purely on the behalf of wealthy "elites".

I think I am also missing how the whole thing is a farce and a scam, when does the democracy take place and why would we think the general is run cleanly when the primaries are theater? Especially when we account for selection 2000 and a dubious 2004?

[Little Star]

74. You could at least quote the rest of my points, not just where I said fun...

The primary is what it is and in the end TPTB make the final decision. It's not just our party, the republicans are just as bad.

In the general the Dem PTB's are on the same side as the rest of us Dems and we are fighting against Republicans. Except when we take into account the selection in 2000 and a dubious 2004, like you said.

But reality is reality. Peace.

[L0oniX]

53. They don't need the left and progressives. They need more blind worshippers. Let them...

all keep moving to the right ...and fall off the edge of what was once a real Dem party.

[Little Star]

29. Howard Dean was never TPTB's guy. They never really liked him much and...

still don't.

2008 yes TPTB did back Hillary until they saw that Obama had the Black vote coming his way in the general and that Hillary lost it to him. They then hedged their bets & switched. So yes, I think you are partially right about 2008.

I don't know what to say to you when you can't see what's in front of your nose about how we always get our nominee.

[SheilaT]

30. I would argue that Dean was NEVER

a choice of the powers that be. Never. Which is why momentum so quickly switched the Kerry at the very first opportunity.

But you are absolutely right that they supported Hillary, and were thwarted by the will of the voters.

[Nay]

42. Agreed. TPTB hated Dean. He was too much of an independent thinker, and the one thing

they didn't want him to do was use the presidency to strengthen his 50-State Strategy and revive the Democratic Party at the state and local level. The 1% is terrified of a center-left movement; they couldn't care less about a RW teabaggy movement, because baggers are intrinsically against govt and can be controlled in any case by well-crafted talking points.

[Beacool]

92. B.S. on the "will of the voters".

More registered Democrats voted for Hillary in the primaries than voted for Obama. His slight vote advantage came from the open primaries where anyone can vote. His also slight pledged delegate advantage was due to the caucuses. Not a democratic way to choose a nominee in this day and age. Many voters cannot physically take the time to caucus. I have been saying for years that caucuses should be eliminated, this is not the 19th century. How can a candidate who won a primary by 100,000 votes get almost the same number of delegates as someone who won a caucus by 1,400 votes? There's something screwed up about the whole process.

Hillary won the majority of the big primary states and Obama won all the caucuses, except NV. The super delegates are the ones who tipped the nomination to him. That's another B.S. way of choosing a nominee. They should get rid of that fake process of having party insiders decide the nominee.

Regardless of the 2008 outcome, I would have said the same thing if Hillary had been the nominee. Get rid of caucuses and super delegates.

[hedgehog]

44. If I recall correctly, back in 2007 it was pretty obvious that TPTB had

selected Hillary and that that first term senator from Illinois with a funny name didn't stand a chance....

[Little Star]

46. I agree they had selected Hillary but then, well...

see my post # 29.

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Odds Yes, Evens No

Exception for 15 which is debatable.

[hfojvt]

10. your skepticism clearly just makes you a heretic

Hillary support appears to be a religion which cannot be swayed by any amount of logic.

Her supporters are more likely to post about how inevitable she is for the nomination and how much they long for the day when you will be taken to room 101 to have rats chew your face off for even daring to question the fait accompli of her election in 2016.

Certainly most of them don't appear to have any sort of rational answers or argument in favor of her. Only gloating about the 71%.

71%, 71% neener, neener, neener. 71%

[L0oniX]

51. Her supporters are also more likely to watch Dancing with the Farts...

and other shallow tv shows for the weak minded.

[hfojvt]

57. hey now

I am not gonna pretend that the shows I watch - Under the Dome, The Mentalist, and NCIS (for a few examples) are exactly graduate courses in physics either.

Sociology maybe, but not physics. For that I have to watch the Big Bang Theory (which I don't even though some people say I remind them of Sheldon (yes I have seen a few episodes, TV tends to be a Lorelei).

[Skittles]

78. you really are skeered, aren't you?

pathetic

[loyalsister]

11. How about

Do you support electing a president who health will undoubtedly, naturally decline over their tenure? Some people think it is ageist, but I have heard from people her age and older that it is not very practical and I agree.
I don't think she is our only hope. I think there is certainly a Democrat who I believe I can confidently expect to be in good health through their term. I am intrigued by Martin O'Mally

[kiva]

18. I'm sort of grateful that this thinking wasn't in place

when FDR ran, given that he had polio and all.

And exactly who can run that won't be 4 or 8 years older in 4 or 8 years, and likely be less healthy? Yes, it's an ageist argument - unless there is mental impairment (can anyone say Reagan?) age shouldn't be an issue.

[hedgehog]

45. It's an ongoing argument whether the world we live intoday might be better

had an ailing Roosevelt not run again in 1944.

I don't know if there was another person who could have done a better job or not.

[kiva]

73. Neither do I,

but given what he'd accomplished - both good and bad - I'd likely have supported him.

[loyalsister]

85. Don't you wish it had been when Reagan ran?

He left office with the beginnings of a serious impairment. And "this thinking" was in place when FDR ran. That is why they published his life insurance policies.
I am hearing this from older office holders- not young people who are repelled by age.

[kiva]

86. I wish that the press would have been more questioning

about Reagan's mental health. I know people in their 80s who are sharp as a tack and people in their 40s who are slipping - to me, we the people should be looking carefully at everyone who wants to lead us and ask the hard questions.

[L0oniX]

12. Do you think that most progressives and lefties will vote for her?

Good luck with that wish.

[Little Star]

20. In the general, I certainly do think they will if she is the candidate.

[L0oniX]

24. They voted for Obama and not Clinton. IMO she and those that push for her will lose those votes. n/t

[Little Star]

26. TPTB are the ones that made sure Obama was our nominee. If you couldn't...

see that the 1%, the media & the Dem establishment chose him as our candidate while that was going down......

Well, then I can't help you.

I had to chuckle a little bit at the time because TPTB had quite the hard time pulling that one off! That's just one of the many reason's I admire Hillary, she sure gave them a run for their money! But yes, they did win the battle of the primary run, but they had to work hard and spend ton's of cash-ola to do it. lol

Edit to add: This conversation just brought back to mind how TPTB were begging Hillary to drop out early even though the primary season wasn't over. Bill told them no. I was glad to see them have to keep on spending their money right up until the end. lol

[L0oniX]

28. Well I won't help you with a Clinton primary and I don't think I am alone with that.

"Well, then I can't help you."

BTW I don't want your help.

[Little Star]

32. That's fine cause I don't think I'd want your help on this issue either. Peace.

[Marr]

48. They were fine with Obama *and* Hillary Clinton.

That's why those two were universally touted as the "only viable Democratic candidates" before even a single primary vote had been held-- and continued to be described as such even when Hillary was in third place.

[L0oniX]

52. ...and the same thing is going to repeat itself and we will again end up with business as usual.

The worship has already started.

[Little Star]

59. Could be possibly. But TPTB soon saw the way...

the wind was blowing when the Clinton's lost the black vote. The Clinton's always had the black vote (more so than any other white couple.) But black people, rightfully so, wanted the first black president (and I got in line.) That's when TPTB hedged their bets.

Now, I'm sorry, but this time I want to see the first woman president and I think Hillary is better qualified to win the general than any other woman. Besides that, I have yet to see any progressive/liberal male who stands a chance at winning the general election either.

Maybe some progressive/liberal male or female who stands a chance at winning the general election will magically appear but I've yet to see one mentioned. Until then, I stand with Hillary.

fyi: If she ever does become president we should hold her feet to the fire. I think she could handle that.

[Marr]

67. How can you be so vested in a candidate whom you clearly understand is not behind you?

You acknowledge that she's a 'powers that be' choice, ie, status quo, big business, etc. You acknowledge that voters would have to 'hold her feet to the fire' en masse to keep her from just (I assume) running rightward.

How can you be jazzed about someone like that? Would it really be that thrilling to have a corporate tool with female parts instead of a corporate tool with male parts?

[Little Star]

70. Gimme me a break. #1, Every Presidential Nominee is TPTB's choice....

And #2, the only reason I said anything about holding her feet to the fire is because EVERY president needs to have their feet held to the fire. They are not there to be worshiped, they ALL need us pushing them in the correct direction, that's part of our job as citizens.

"Would it really be that thrilling to have a corporate tool with female parts instead of a corporate tool with male parts?"

All presidents end up being a corporate tool to some extent. Hillary would be no worse than any other electable Democrat, in fact on many things she would be better.

[Little Star]

71. I forgot to mention that I also think it's....

about time we had a female perspective in the presidency. Plus, it would do us & the whole world good to see the USA progress beyond always having only male presidents. I do believe we would see some good come from electing a democratic female.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

88. I really don't mean to be personal,

but I think that is a sexist argument. Just because Hillary is female doesn't mean she'll be any better than the men who have been screwing up the party. We need someone with good policies and that definitely isn't Hillary. I think Elizabeth Warren has a much more "female perspective" than Hillary and has the potential to make a real difference.

[Skittles]

80. hilarious how some here seem to think Hillary was the only "anointed" one

all evidence to the contrary

[AgingAmerican]

13. Yes

nt

[progressoid]

15. Who is this Hillary person of whom you speak?

[L0oniX]

23. She is the sister of Landrew...

Are you of the body?

[Maedhros]

34. "You will be absorbed."

"Your individuality will merge into the unity of good, and in your submergence into the common being of the body, you will find contentment, fulfillment. You will experience the absolute good."

[progressoid]

36. "Joy to you friend. Peace and contentment will fill you."

[ca3799]

31. I would vote for her (more)

I would vote for her. While there are many good potential Dem candidates, she comes with unparalleled experience and already has some support structures in place. Ultimately, any Dem is far, far better than any R candidate I have seen and we need many years of progressive leadership to undo all the damage the R's have caused. Is she perfect? No. But I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If she steps up to the plate, she will get my vote.

[LaydeeBug]

35. It's *REALLY* *IS* Hillary hating when President Obama fares the exact same. nt

[Proud Public Servant]

39. It's not hating

It's wanting more than a choice between far-right and center-right.

[LaydeeBug]

40. Oh, it's HATING for sure...you want what you want, eh? Telling. nt

[Proud Public Servant]

61. Oh, that's not what's telling

What's telling is that some folks have so bought into the cult of personality that they conflate honest political disagreement with hate. I don't hate Hillary; I'd just prefer a different candidate.

[LaydeeBug]

84. Oh, yes it is...you see, here on DU, we don't take to bashing Democrats

and Hillary Clinton is indeed a Democrat. No one is conflating honest political disagreement with hate when one is trying to project a cult of personality on someone else as their reason to complain.

People who claim the moral high ground shouldn't do it while they're standing in quicksand.

[Proud Public Servant]

89. Show me where I bashed a Democrat

Or are we now at the point where asking potentially uncomfortable questions about a Democrat is the same thing as bashing?

Or maybe it's that asking potentially uncomfortable questions about a Democrat shows that I'm secretly thinking about bashing, and have committed a thought crime. Is that it?

Or are we now simply required, as Democrats, to agree with all other Democrats? And how does that work, exactly? Are you in personally in charge of getting Elizabeth Warren and Tim Johnson to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"?

So many questions! But, nope, still no bashing...

[Marr]

47. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton even if she's the nominee.

I'm done voting for corporate Democrats, and Obama has shown how they can actually be more dangerous than Republicans in certain respects. If he weren't faced with the lunatic Tea Party, I've little doubt he would've realized his Social Security cuts by now, for instance. A Republican would have a much harder time doing that.

My focus will continue to be at the state and local level. DLC Democrats don't stand for me anymore than the GOP does, so I won't waste my time standing for them.

[brooklynite]

62. So, you'll be leaving DU then?

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Terms of Service

[Marr]

63. You don't read past titles, I see.

Try reading again.

I intend to vote for Democrats, as usual. That doesn't mean I'll vote for any corporate shill who tacks a "D" at the end of their name. In state and local races, I have plenty to support. If, in my judgement, there is no Democrat running for President, then I won't be voting for President.

[brooklynite]

64. "I won't vote for Hillary Clinton even if she's the nominee."

"I'm done voting for corporate Democrats"

"DLC Democrats don't stand for me anymore than the GOP does, so I won't waste my time standing for them. "

Tell me if I've missed something.

[Marr]

65. Apparently you are missing something, yes.

It seems like reading comprehension skills from where I'm sitting.

I won't vote for DLC Democrats, because their agenda is quite contrary to my own. So while I vote for, and volunteer for, Democrats at the state and local level, I do not give my support-- or vote-- to politicians who I don't think deserve it. Hillary Clinton is one of those politicians.

[brooklynite]

66. You are entitled to your opinion on her policies...

and according to the TOS you can be as critical as you want to during the Primary...but IF she runs and if she becomes the nominee, the House Rules don't say "support Democrats unless you personally feel they believe in DLC policies".

[Marr]

68. Well, I will look forward to your demands that I be banned then.

Because I'm not going to cheer for some corporate tool.

[brooklynite]

69. I won't demand anything...

...it's Skinner's Board and Skinner's decision. I merely point out the obvious.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Hillary exceeds my nose holding limitations.

Enough with 3rd Way "not as bad" candidates.

[SheilaT]

50. Is there anyone here who remembers 2001

or 2005? Anyone? A show of hands please?

Okay, for the rest of you, I'd like to point out that in 2001 a large number of people here on DU were utterly convinced that Al Gore would run again and would win. You in the back, would you like to explain what happened in 2004?

Thank you.

So now we come to 2005. Lots of poster here were eager for Kerry to run again and win this time. Until, of course, Hillary became Ms. Inevitable.

My point is that it is still so far ahead of the 2016 election that it's beyond futile to be discussing this when there's a very important election that's not much more than a year from now. That's what everyone should be concentrating on. Sometime after November 5th of next year we can start seriously worrying about the 2016 election.

[greatauntoftriplets]

55. I remember it well.

[Katashi_itto]

56. I want the repeal of NAFTA.

I could almost say to Hell with anything else.

It began with a Clinton. End it with a Clinton.

Since NAFTA started we've lost 94,000 factories.

[cliffordu]

58. #15 -----Yes.

The rest are just bait.

Brave new world.

[brooklynite]

60. Point to a candidate you can confidently assert will espouse all of these policies...

...in the unlikely event that Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown chooses to run (nb - if Hillary runs, they won't), I suspect that their positions won't be substantively different than anyone else in the race.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

81. If Elizabeth Warren runs,

I expect her to remain the fighter she has been so far.

Also, both parties now tend often to have outlier candidates (e.g. Ron Paul, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich).

If the list of issues given in the OP do not get progressive responses from a Democrat, I won't support any Democrat, just as I didn't support Obama in 2012. Because if we don't get progressive leadership at the top of the party, the country and the earth will continue to be screwed. Why vote for a Democrat if the result is pro-death policies?

[brooklynite]

82. Do you know how much money Elizabeth Warren raised last year?

Any idea where it came from?

I'll give you a hint: the Wall Street Journal ran a story about "Wall Street Lawyers" supporting her campaign (nb-one of the people they specifically called out was my wife). If you imagine that Elizabeth Warren would run a fringegrassroots campaign like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, or that her positions would be radically different than Hillary or any other Democratic candidate, you have a vivid fantasy life.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

83. My fantasy life is just fine, thank you very much.

But my voting pattern is unconnected to it. If Warren continues to advocate for re-enactment of Glass-Steagall, I'm OK with her fundraising. It's a question of populist policy and the guts to do the hard thing. Examples of doing the hard thing: Clinton's tax bill in 1993 and Gore's negotiation of the Kyoto Treaty in 1997. Another hard thing: opposing the IWR in 2003 when the conventional expert wisdom said to be elected president, one had to support it.

Everybody knew it was a repugnant vote, but Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Edwards and other wannabes voted for it. Hillary has a history of taking the expedient, rather than the principled action. Dean opposed the war, as did Gore, when he was still very viable as the 2004 nominee.

If I can find a candidate intent on actually doing something about climate change (as Gore did); about regulating the pirates on Wall Street (as FDR did); and reigning in the military and intelligence (as RFK would have done), then I will work my ass off for such a candidate, as I did for Gore. If Warren or someone else doesn't fit that bill, I'll probably vote for the Green candidate.

The 21st century is clearly our last chance to save civilization. I for one will not mcvote for mcpolicy anymore.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

90. No difference in substance, huh?

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18134-sen-elizabeth-warren-mocked-larry-summers-as-eva-peron-backs-janet-yellen-to-head-federal-reserve

[customerserviceguy]

75. As for #15

It doesn't matter whether or not we could win with anybody else. We may well do that.

However, if she wants to run, she will capture both the nomination and the general election. She's done her groundwork, and that's not with progressives, but with the mushy middle - the people who are so politically adrift that they decide the weekend before an election, she's impressed them.

There's no way around that, as far as I can see.

[Beacool]

93. How about everybody holding their water until people actually announce that they are running?

Hillary will not announce any decision until after next year's midterms. Bill has already said it more than once. The only thing I'm sure of is that if she runs, she wins the nomination. For all of you who say that TPTB wanted Hillary, you don't know what went on behind the scenes. Yes, many super delegates had initially supported her and didn't believe Obama would get far, but there was a push for Obama behind the scenes by some within the party. The reasons are various, some genuinely liked him (Kerry for example), some thought that the country had Clinton fatigue, others that a woman couldn't get elected, some thought it was time to elect an AA and there were a few who opposed a Hillary run for personal reasons and petty jealousies. Politics is full of people who have an oversized ego, are arrogant and think that they could be a better president than their party's nominee.

The political stars aligned behind Obama after IA. This time around, ironically some of the same people who were for Obama in 2008 (Pelosi and McCaskill for example), are now beating the drum for Hillary. They think that the party has a chance to retain the WH and elect the first woman president. It's not loyalty and personal affection in some cases, it's just sheer calculation on their part.