I'm Loving The Fact That Even Though Hillary Hasn't Declared... There Is Such Push Back Here...

[WillyT]

Push back on what?

Hillary has not declared.

Brian Schweitzer has not much juice...

Now put Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren into the mix... and then we're talkin...

But WHY does somebody approaching the 2016 Presidential Election from the LEFT...

Cause so much consternation here?

[neverforget]

1. when you need extra Presidential defense, go to 11

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. 7 minute abs. 7 is the key number.

http://m.

&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbyEkJ3zRTcY

[Iggo]

18. Not six!

Seven!

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. My theory is that a lot of people are just hoping that if we ignore 2014 and just skip right

to 2016. they can pretend that 2014 won't/didn't happen, and it was the left's fault anyway.

[neverforget]

7. They blame the left for now showing up in 2010 when the evidence

shows that it was independents that dropped the Democrats.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739&singlePage=true

Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)

[sabrina 1]

23. I know they have tried to do that, right after the election, it started. But by now

few are going to believe that. Otoh, their attempt to blame the Left may backfire on them. People don't like being lied about and a Party that lies to and about its base may find itself wondering where they went.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, so he won't be in the Democratic primary.

As a third party candidate in this country, I don't expect much.

Warren isn't even being cagey. So far she has said she won't run and even signed a letter asking Hillary to run with the other lady Senators. Unless she changes her mind, I don't expect her to run.

I suspect that we will really start seeing who is in and who isn't after the midterm n November. Watch for anyone who sets up an presidential exploratory committee. That will be a sure sign. Other than that, if they write a book, they start a PAC, go to Iowa.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has visited Iowa, so I will put her on my list of possibilities.

[WillyT]

9. He's More Of A "Democrat" Than Any Democrat I've Known...

And while I doubt he would change his party allegiance to run for the Presidency... he could do so in a heartbeat.

I think him being unaffiliated, and running, would reshape the pardadigm...

And I'm all for that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. But he isn't a member of the Democratic Party so he is not "more of a "Democrat""

So he will not go head to head against whoever runs until the general election, in which case he would more likely act as a spoiler. In the primary, somebody like Warren or Klobuchar would force all the candidates to the left.

Except for the very rare third party candidate (Perot or Teddy Roosevelt) they don't really move politics, but they do act as spoilers, draining off votes from one of the big parties. Roosevelt ran the most successful third party run in history and the republicans lost because of that. Perot's appeal to the right, especially libertarians and centrists who vote Republican, allowed Clinton to win with a plurality of votes.

So, yes, he could change parties in a heartbeat, but I suspect that is unlikely since he has never been inclined to do that before.

[sabrina 1]

27. Yes, he is 'more of a Democrat' than many who have that 'D' after their names.

And latest polls show that fewer people than ever are identifying with one party or the other. See Congress' poll numbers eg. That means that a majority of Americans are no longer affiliated with either party. I believe the number is in the 40s, while those identifying as Dems has dropped to 33% approx. and 29% for Repubs.

Few people articulate Democratic values the way Sanders does. That means he is 'more of a Democrat' to the VOTERS than anyone currently thinking about running for the WH. History shows that there have been periods when 'conventional wisdom' no longer applies. This could be one of those periods. So many disillusioned Democrats including even those who still, like me, would identify as such in a poll.

If it were up the voters, I have no doubt Sanders more than has a chance of winning. But knowing that our electoral system has been hi-jacked, realistically we know what would happen as soon as it became clear he was beating THEIR choice of candidate. And I'm sure he knows also.

[Katashi_itto]

49. Agree!

[L0oniX]

62. He'd have to move (centrist 3rd way) right to be in the Dem party???

[Beacool]

61. And in what world does Bernie Sanders win the general election?

Maybe in another country, but not in this one.

[geek tragedy]

5. When someone on the left actually enters, it will be news.

Hillary certainly doesn't count as the left. Nor does Brian Schweitzer (D-XL).

Warren would. So would O'Malley or Sherrod Brown. Bernie Sanders obviously.

Right now, we have east coast corporate friendlies and great plains megacarbon friendlies running.

[Recursion]

17. We have a choice about what sort of corporatist agenda we want enacted.

Ships turn slowly.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Yes, ships turn slowly, but as anyone who has seen Titanic can tell you

ships can sink very quickly.

[MADem]

6. Well, this is the land where some thought Kucinich was a viable candidate.

You're probably catching some of that vibe, you see...

[Kaleva]

12. Here is a link to an article about a 2007 DU primary poll

Kucinich easily won it .

"I tracked the polls from the very beginning, but only stared taking the screen shots when over 900 votes were cast and the results show that Dennis Kucinich is the choice of the educated and informed Democrat."

http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/11/conference-call-democratic-underground.html

[JI7]

13. Kucnich AND Edwards won that poll while both Obama and Hillary got low numbers

[Kaleva]

14. There was no tie. Kucinich got the most votes.

[JI7]

30. i meant that Edwards beat Hillary and Obama also

[MADem]

34. That's not an "article"---that's some dipshit's BLOG, and he's blogging about a DU poll.

Your post is a bit, well, stunning in its naivete.

To put it as politely as I can possibly manage.

Think about what you just wrote there. You're ascribing authority to some putz who writes a blog, and he's citing a damn DU poll!!

[Kaleva]

40. What's naive about showing evidnece that many in DU prefered Kucinich?

And I was pretty clear in the title of my post that I was discussing a DU poll:

" Here is a link to an article about a 2007 DU primary poll"

[MADem]

70. Do you realize that if everyone here "in DU" stayed home on election day, it would be

unlikely to make a shit's worth of difference? I am not advocating that, I'm just talking pure data, here.

A DU poll is MEANINGLESS. There's no statistical sampling, there's no effort to weight the poll in any way, shape or form. And DU just doesn't have the numbers or the ideological spread to make any information gathered here worthwhile.

DU is famous for picking losers--because the mindset of this board, as charming and as vibrant as it is, is well to the left of the bulk of the voting population.

Your taking a "DU poll" and ascribing any credibility to it is like taking the results of a Free Republic or Newsmax or Daily Caller poll and saying "Oh, geez, hang up the coats, Martha, let's not even bother hitching up the team... we're DOOOOOOMED!"

You might as well cite "Miss Jean's Kindergarten poll--Kidz Pick The Prezidunt!" as your authoritative source, for all the meaning your link has. It's a pointless data point. It's as useful as a single opinion, if that.

[Kaleva]

72. A DU poll just applies to DU.

This particular poll which I linked to does show that DU, in general, is not in sync with the rank and file Democrats out in the real world.

I'm unaware of any reputable mainstream poll ever taken during a primary season in which Kucinich ran that showed him at more then single digits.

All I'm saying is this DU poll and others that are similar show that DU is not representative of Democrats in general.

[MADem]

77. Precisely: "DU is not representative of Democrats in general."

Thus, any blog or poll here is pointless in determining the popularity of a candidate on a national or statewide level.

It's why I don't get too offended when I get accused of "nefariousness" around here. I keep my eye on the prize of "more Democrats and fewer Republicans in public office."

[Sheepshank]

93. Defending a DU poll as if it reflects....what now?

Agreeing with you that it's just plainsorry, and this is just plain nutty in it's attempt at some statistical reference. Further, the continued attempt to justify it all is actually pretty funny.

[Beacool]

63. Proving once again how far from the real world this place can be.

They wanted Kucinich and Edwards in 2008. One turned out to be a weasel and the other one wouldn't have been able to win the general election (ditto for Sanders).

[Ikonoklast]

90. Kucinich couldn't even win a statewide seat in his home state of Ohio.

People here are delusional about his appeal nationwide.

[Beacool]

91. "Delusional" is a word that I have used here often enough.

[Ikonoklast]

106. Kucinich actually had trouble outside of Cuyahoga County, let alone the rest of Ohio.

He was not the person many here think he was.

[sabrina 1]

28. He was, that is why they felt compelled to conduct a smear campaign against him.

That will happen to anyone the VOTERS choose. Too bad you tried to use the characterization of Kucinich to make your point. Kerry was at 3% when Kucinich was polling as a front runner. The voters had no say in that decision. NOW we know how it works and good luck to them trying to foist some Corporate shill on the voters this time. Bush isn't available as a fear factor this time. Back then even Kucinich supporters fell for the 'but he can't win and we will get Bush again' routine. We got Bush anyhow, didn't we? And we learned a valuable lesson.

[JI7]

31. hahah,you think Kucinich really was front runner in the real world based on a DU poll ?

[sabrina 1]

32. No, I don't think he was. I KNOW he was and they got so desperate it was stunning

to watch. We however were in the throes of Bush crimes and bought the propaganda. THEY cut his access to the media, demonstrating how frightened they were of how popular he was. I was there, I regret falling for the politics of fear. He was RIGHT about everything and we got Bush anyhow, didn't we?

You mean you though Kerry had a chance? Based on WHAT? He never had a chance. Kucinich otoh, DID.

What do you mean 'DU Poll'?? He WAS the front runner. I never saw a DU at that point. I saw plenty of other polls though and SO DID THEY. THEY believed he was the front runner.

Kucinich has been proven right about EVERYTHING back then. And that is a lesson we will not forget, Vote your conscience and ignore the politics of fear. IT took a while but polls are now showing that fewer and fewer voters are identifying with either party. No Corporate Candidates, the voters are sick to death of their obfuscations and phony promises until after they are elected. THAT is a fact which the Dems better pay attention to. Those old tactics won't work anymore.

Kucinich, one of the most intelligent and proven to be correct, actual Democrats, who voted according to his beliefs, AGAINST Bush policies, AGAINST Bush war funding, while the Fake Corporate Dems helped Bush and his wars and his violations of the law.

You must think we are stupid.

[JI7]

35. no, Kucinich was never front runner in the real world, and yes, Kerry did have a chance i supported

him and followed his campaign closely .

[Bluenorthwest]

47. In 04 John Kerry went around defending DOMA, which he'd voted against, and

stressing his 'one man, one woman' view of marriage. We were stuck in 04, but no way in hell was that man going to get a second shot at smearing the very people he'd claimed to support for years and years. He had no chance.

[geek tragedy]

46. OMG.

No, I don't think he was. I KNOW he was

[MADem]

71. It's both hilarious and sad.

It does explain some of the disconnect we see here.

I guess all teams have their dreamers!

[sabrina 1]

80. What's hillarious and sad is the denial a few people are in. WE LOST to BUSH because the people

have no say in the choice of candidates. IF they had, Kucinich would have been the people's choice or someone else who was far more popular at that time. . How sad it is to see the support for Corporate Candidates.

I remember well the political operatives who were all over the place TRYING to dissuade people from voting for Kucinich, using the old scare tactic 'look, he doesn't have a chance, and if you don't vote for Kerry, WE WILL LOSE to BUSH!

Money talks.

What happened? WE LOST to BUSH!

But that ploy has become less and less persuasive as people have seen, people like me eg, who did fall for it back then and dropped support for the most progressive candidates because it became 'anyone but Bush' that it is all about money in the end.

Keep on denying the reality that if it had been the people's choice, we might have had a chance of defeating Bush. Clearly YOUR way failed, didn't it? We got Bush by doing it YOUR way against OUR better judgement.

[MADem]

84. "We lost to Bush" is a blatantly right-wing talking point.

We didn't lose, if you'd just cast your mind back nearly a decade and a half.

That election was STOLEN.

S-T-O-L-E-N!!!!!

How soon they forget!

And idiots like Nader and Kucinich did nothing but suck the energy out of the room--it's why they took donations from Republicans--payment made, value received. It's why that dickweed Dennis toyed with teaming up with that nitwit Ron Paul...it's called Divide and Conquer, and only the clueless cheerleaders couldn't see it for what it was.

Your judgment is not "better"--it's awful. Had your buddy Dennis stopped fouling the air, along with his asswipe GOP helper Ralph, we'd not have an ugly war in Iraq in our shameful history.

And if you want to continue to swoon over your pal Denny, just tune in to Roger Ailes' Fux News channel--see? They're STILL paying him off! He did the GOP a real solid, and they won't forget! Now that's some "reality" for ya....

[sabrina 1]

89. You comment is a perfect example of what I am talking about when it became obvious that

Kucinich was so popular among Democrats. Thank you so much for saving me the trouble of finding examples of the smear campaign that was launched against him.

Such comments began to appear all over the Democratic Forums. Which shows what a threat he was, what he was saying, telling the truth about Bush and his cabal of warmongering liars.

I love it when people expose themselves without any help from me, always did.

How childish to resort to those old Right Wing name-calling tactics. I am so, so familiar with them from the old Bush days. 'Your old pal Denny'. Unbelievable to see this again, HERE! I remember when I used to argue with Bush supporters, same way I'm doing it now, defending Democrats like Kucinich against their childish attacks. And that was the best they could do. 'Your boyfriend Denny' etc.

But you ARE right about ONE thing. He or anyone else who had the guts to stand up to Bush back then never had a chance, but not because of the voters.

As for the election being stolen?? This is priceless. OF COURSE IT WAS.

Too bad you can't blame Nader or Kucinich for that.

The 2000 election was STOLEN ALSO and that had nothing to with Nader either.

And what did Democrats do about two stolen elections? Remind me please, the only Dems I ever heard talking about it, were Dems like Kucinich and other Progressives 'who never had a chance either'.

Keep going, you prove everything I have said regarding why Progressives 'never had a chance' and have provided a graphic example of what I mentioned above, the smear campaign against those who WERE popular with the voters.

[MADem]

92. Good grief.

That wasn't a "smear campaign." That was fact.

He wasn't a threat--he was a Quisling. He was all about himself, he could give a shit about anyone else. He never co-sponsored any legislation, all he did was pull a Weiner--talk, talk, talk--and no action at all.

And folks like you lapped it up.

Nader and Kucinich aided and abetted election theft. They spread more FUD than farmers spread manure. And you cheered them on.

I don't need to "keep going"--you've done a great job proving my points with your latest post.

[Beacool]

65. You got to be joking!!!

Kucinich was never number one with Democratic voters. I like the guy, but please deal with reality.

[sabrina 1]

69. YOU must be joking! Know where Kerry was with Dem Voters by any chance? Or were you even there at

that time.

[zappaman]

73. Holy crap.

[MADem]

78. I'm wondering if this poster's account was hijacked.

I am just astounded at the assertions!

[zappaman]

79. No

Pretty much consistent in never making any sense and with easily refutable assertions.

[MADem]

86. Maybe I was just inattentive...

I never saw, or maybe just never noticed, such a paucity in argument before.

[Sheepshank]

96. oh yeah...it's a pattern I've been observing

opinions posted as fact and very, very rarely with any reall back up..no links, no c&p nada.

[zappaman]

97. It's actually to the point of being sadly hilarious.

[Number23]

100. Are you kidding me? You should know better than anyone here that is SOP for that person

I've seen so many people tell that person flat out "I will not answer your questions or respond to you" because they know that person won't read, see or believe ANYTHING that doesn't already support an absolutely hilariously ignorant and narrow "world" view.

As many times as you've had to deal with the spew yourself, you honestly believe that a highjacking occurred?

[MADem]

103. I've never seen that much "condensed fact-free material" I guess.

Usually there's a thread, an iota, a soupçon of grounded or sourced matter in there, somewhere.

In this conversation, though--no. Not a shred.

It's like entering an alternate universe!

[Sheepshank]

95. you tend to state with all sorts of assurance stuff that never has a basis in fact.

interesting trend I've noticed with your posts.

Your opinions are perfectly fin, and you do prattle them out over and over, but top attempt to indicate there is a fact based opinion, well, it's just not there. You must think we are stupid.

[sabrina 1]

98. I'm very flattered. I don't think I've 'noticed' your 'prattlings' at all.

I'll keep an eye out for them before deciding if they are 'interesting' or not. So far, no offense, but I have a general rule, when someone has little to say other than personal attempts, and I say 'attempts', at insults, I find them very uninteresting. But it's never good to judge by one comment, so we'll see.

[Sheepshank]

108. very noble of you n/t

[sabrina 1]

109. Thank you! n/t

[MADem]

33. No, he wasn't. He didn't get any but a few votes, and he made a living "running for President."

He never worked with any of his peers on legislative issues, he thought he was too good for the pedestrian administrative work required to keep a legislative caucus running, and now...? Well, now he's working for Roger Ailes.

Yeah, he's viable, all right--he's a viable FauxSnooze Punching Bag. And he's paid well to play the fool.

[JI7]

36. plus kucinich supported the republican redistricting plan which resulted in the change in his

district.

i do wonder if he kind of wanted that to happen so he can have an excuse to get out and make more money.

[MADem]

38. I think he thought--like some do, here--that he was more popular than he actually was.

He is NOT missed in the House. He wouldn't do ANY caucus work, his staff never helped out, either--he never co-sponsored legislation or helped to herd cats. He was all about himself.

[Number23]

99. Not only that but Sid has reminded me of the fevered Darcy Richardson 2012 idiocy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4342013

Get ready to laugh! Like I said, I'd almost feel sorry for some of the folks around here if they weren't so ridiculously loud and wrong about EVERYTHING.

[MADem]

101. Jesus....it BURNS!!!!!!!!!

There's no polite way to put it....!!!!!

[brooklynite]

8. Point out the consternation...

I haven't seen much angst at the PROSPECT of a Warren/Sander campaign; just at the preliminary trashing of one of the most popular political figures in the Democratic Party and the annoyance at all the trumpeting of a progressive savior without any apparent effort being made to bring it about. But then, this is all academic because they won't be running against her....

[sabrina 1]

29. Apparently you are out of the loop of the voters. There is a huge effort going on to stop the

control once again, over who gets to choose the candidate. And Hillary is not in the running for most Progressives. Sanders and Warren and Grayson among others are hugely popular with the voters and we are way more informed NOW than we were when Bush was the 'threat' being used, successfully unfortunately to influence the voters to support candidates who were on the bottom of their lists.

That won't happen again. We got Bush anyhow, didn't we? And we learned.

Recent polls show now that fewer and fewer people identify with either party. The Dems despise Liberals? Yes, we know that but times are changing. 'You have nowhere to go' is how they got our votes. Really? They need to get out of the DC bubble, yes I know about that, I worked inside it and saw how out of touch they are.

We played the game right up to the last election, but they can no longer depend on those they have so much obvious disdain for, being there this time.

The largest voting bloc now is Independent as more and more people take them at their word. They despise Liberal Ideas, fine get elected without them. IF you can. With a Corporate Candidate, they don't stand a chance, but they still don't seem to get it. People have 'moved on' just like they 'moved on' from War Crimes and Wall St. Crimes.

[brooklynite]

39. Yeah, I heard something about that.....here

...and in a nice hopeful article in the New Republic. And that's about it.

Now, point me to the organization that's leading this effort, and share with us its FEC fundraising data. Or maybe its URL? Or how about something as simple as a copy of the letter/email you personally sent to Warren, Sanders et al to persuade them to get into the race? Because unlike READY FOR HILLARY or what I know about personally about what O'Malley, Schweitzer and Biden are doing, I'm seeing nothing. So please enlighten me,

[The Straight Story]

10. Maybe because in a nation of over 300 million

folks are tired of certain names in power.

Change isn't something we wanted for one election, but for many.

There are some folks in both main parties who seem to want to be president because they think they deserve it, not because they want to serve us. Romney was one such person. He did 'all the right' things to work up to it. Governor, wealthy, owned a business, everything he did seems calculated to where, at some point in time, he could say he earned the right to be president.

It wasn't about the people, the country, etc - it was about him and his personal ambitions being the most important thing.

Experience today boils down simply to how many asses you have kissed and which circles you have sold out to so that you can exert the most influence if you get elected.

Folks liked Obama because he didn't spend years laying down a plan to reach the job, calculating each job he had and how it would factor in to the point he could claim he 'deserved' it. A new face, new name, pushed along by the people more than companies.

More outsiders to bring more change and less people who have lived and breathed in the beltway jockeying for their turn at bat for the title.

Hillary is more qualified job wise than anyone currently that may be in the running, but that, to me, is also a mark against her as being part of the club/old guard. People who owe favors and have agendas of a personal nature.

[Beacool]

68. Your last sentence.

Experience is precisely why I do think that she would be an effective president. She knows all the players in both the domestic and international front. She also knows what makes them tick. Obama has a visceral dislike for getting down in the muck with the Congress critters, Hillary wouldn't be so squeamish. Their styles are different. She's been dealing with Republicans since her days as Arkansas' first lady and knows how to handle them.

[ecstatic]

15. In my opinion, the disagreements come because certain people

make divisive posts about how candidate X is so much better or so much more progressive than candidate Y.

In most cases, that's simply untrue. Everyone you mentioned holds progressive views, but they also hold some views that are considered centrist or even libertarian.

Of course there will be "consternation" when you're presenting someone as a liberal hero who is so much better than other candidates based on one or two comments they made, without examining their entire record.

[ZombieHorde]

16. The three main reaons I can remember seeing are

1) The Iraq war
2) The TPP
3) Another Clinton would mean Clintons and Bushes dominated US politics for a long time, and some would like to see some other name.

I personally think she would be a continuation of the Obama administration.

[sendero]

41. Which was really a continuation of the Bush..

... administration. Sure, Obama got out of Iraq, Bush would have also, it was "their" mission accomplished. He is trying to wind down Afghanistan, Bush would have too. On the economic front there is very little difference between Bush and Obama. Obama yaps about extending unemployment benefits but he doesn't have to mojo to make much of anything actually happen. And then there is that horrible Sequester, what a complete cluster fuck that is.

The ACA might be a nominal positive legacy of Obama's term, if he can keep it. In the meantime, if HRC is the best the Democratic party can do then we deserve to lose.

[Iggo]

19. Hint: It's called "push back" for a reason.

[delrem]

20. Right. "Hillary hasn't declared."

And that's all there is to it. Immense war chests and corporate backing isn't a factor, since "Hillary hasn't declared". Insane speaker fees for both Hillary and Bill don't matter, because of course those fees aren't "lobbying". No payback is expected, because "Hillary hasn't declared".

What in the world could cause so much consternation here?

[democratisphere]

21. FACT: Far Left (Like Far Right) is/are going nowhere in an election.

MOST VOTERS are centrists across the middle and I certainly would want my President and Members of Congress from the Centrist Left, certainly not the Centrist Right.

[bobduca]

22. DERP

[Electric Monk]

24. Fail to stand for something so fall for anything? Ah.... "centrism"....

[bobduca]

37. I love centrist FACTS

FACT: centrists have no stands on any issues.

[democratisphere]

42. Sure they do.

Try and get a Far Left and Far Right to come together and compromise on ANYTHING! It's called GRIDLOCK, which is what we have now and absolutely NOTHING is getting done!

[bobduca]

43. WAIT I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT?

STAY ON MESSAGE!

[Chan790]

53. Fuck centrism.

"The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos." - Jim Hightower

[NuclearDem]

57. Where on earth is this Far Left you're talking about?

Because all I see are some center-left ideas surrounded by neoliberal/Third Way crap being sabotaged and obstructed by fascists and libertarians because the president is a Democrat.

[bullwinkle428]

59. So, "both sides are equally to blame"? Welcome to our board, Chuck Todd!

[democratisphere]

44. Centrists aren't mindless idiots without strong opinions;

centrists are just looking for a way forward. No one wants the do nothing, get nothing done state we are currently in. Like your dog!

[msongs]

25. that's what you've got now so work for change :-) nt

[Proud Public Servant]

52. FACT: If you think Warren, Brown, or O'Malley are "Far Left"

you're parroting GOP talking points.

[MADem]

74. That's the truth!

EW is a hawk on a number of issues--she wasn't ruling out military action against Iran earlier; she's very much for a strong defense, and she's not afraid to override the Pentagon (and insist that they buy shit they don't want) so long as it works for her constituents who are employed by the affected contracting agency.

Backed by several Massachusetts legislators, a House committee in June rejected a Pentagon request to divert $128 million in federal funding away from the WIN-T program. The House Armed Services Committee notified the Pentagon earlier this summer that it was denying the request to "reprogram," or reallocate, funding that had been designated in the president's budget for WIN-T and other programs. The committee called the $128 million allotted for WIN-T "essential to the Army's top modernization program."

Her brother did hundreds of combat missions in Vietnam, she comes from a military family. She voted for Reagan, for heaven's sake. Just because she's a populist on the "bankster"/working class families issues, that doesn't automatically make her a "liberal" on all other issues. She's a woman in her sixties, who was brought up in Oklahoma, and her life experience colors her attitudes.

For example, she opposes MJ legalization for recreational use. You'd think after all her time at Harvard, this wouldn't be the case, but it is...!

One thing she is, though, is pragmatic. She's not afraid to change her mind and vote with and for the people who put her in her seat. People are hoping she has a Come to Jesus moment on the MJ issue, given the Colorado roll-out.

Of course, when legislators change their minds in ways that others don't like, they're wafflers; if they do it ways that people approve, they're "principled!" I didn't agree with her take on Iran, I don't agree with her take on legalization, either...but I have hopes she'll come around. I still like her, even if she's not the "liberal" some think she is.

[ZombieHorde]

56. What is the difference between the centrist left and the centrist right? nt

[NuclearDem]

58. Screw that.

I can almost guarantee you that if the nonsensical two party system was broken up and a proportional system was put in its place, a party that ran on single payer, social justice, and a $15/hr minimum wage would get a ton of seats.

People want the left's ideas, but they're not going to come as long as we have this abhorrent FPTP, heavily-redistricted system that leaves at best 49% of voters unrepresented.

[Beacool]

67. Bingo!!

Although some here will refuse to admit it. The far Left and the far Right are too intransigent for their own good. For example, Christie right now is the GOPs most viable candidate (obviously depending if he can survive all the investigations). If any group is having more fun with Christie's problems than NJ Democrats, is the Freepers and others at similar sites. They still think that they have a winner in kooks like Cruz, Paul and Palin.

Around here the Left is waxing poetic over a Socialist in his mid 70s, who would be as viable in 2016 as Kucinich was in 2008.

[RC]

87. So those of us on the 'Far Left' are supposed to move over to the Right in support of the DLC, DINO,

3rd Way and other assorted Right of Center Conservative "Liberals"? So they can then move even farther to the Right, following the Republicans over the cliff?

Not me. I like reality over high pies on my family too much.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/piehigher.asp

[lostincalifornia]

26. It is all speculation, however, odds are pretty good Hillary will run

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Hillary took ages to say anything postive about equal rights for LGBT people

Now she has muttered a few words, but the late comers are the cowards, not the leaders. I'd really prefer someone else and if it is Hillary I'll fill out a ballot but that's it, I will be too busy protecting my family from what will come next out of the Third Way alliance with the Republican Party.

[NCTraveler]

50. People are passionate about their politics.

Hillary seems to be doing some things that could make one believe she is running. There is no need for her to announce if one wants to get some shots in at her.

Just because legislation has not been put forward doesn't mean you don't completely attack a politicians trial balloon. That is often the best time to attack. Early and loudly.

Many duers who are said to be perpetually outraged, and citizens like them, are the best friends we have in the party. Poor ideas are often shut down before they even form by party leaders because of these individuals. Their reaction to trial balloons is good for us all.

That is all they are doing here. It is a preemptive strike. Dent her armor before she throws her hat in the ring. Don't think she doesn't have people gauging where she is at every day.

Many also think she would be devastating for a party that they support. They don't want her. That is something else I can understand. Many of the attacks on her are very fair. She has set herself up for them. Her Iraq war vote should be enough for anyone to question her.

Time will tell how it all works itself out. I love Hillary. I can promise you that I will vote for a more progressive candidate in the primary. I am beholden to no politician. I want our party to move left. If she runs, and wins the primary, I will proudly go door to door to help get her elected. Doesn't mean she is the best person for our party or the job itself.

[gwheezie]

51. Pretty much sums up my thoughts

I didn't vote for Obama in my primary in 08 but had no problem voting for him in the GE,went out and campaigned for him in 08 and 12. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I may vote for someone else in the primary but we'll see if anyone else gets as far as Virginia. I am hopeful that the party moves further left, they have been shoved to the right so even though I don't want to see a destructive primary fight, I would welcome enough of a fight to push the nominee whoever it is left of where dems are now.

[KittyWampus]

54. Push Back. LOL! You mean like how Schweitzer says he's running against Obama

That gets posted as a thread title and suddenly Schweitzer is considered a full-blooded liberal the DU liberal ideologues want to get behind?

Despite the fact the man is an extremely mixed, pragmatic bag who would normally be considered "third way" or "centrist"?

But because of his statement about running against Obama and his position on a FEW issues, he's a hero to the extremists here?

Yeah, that's some smart push back. Really meaningful.

LOLZ

[Capt. Obvious]

55. You forgot the :rofl: smilie

[LondonReign2]

60. It's ALWAYS important

to rail against someone who didn't show the POTUS the proper level of fawning adoration, even when it has nothing to do with the thread.

Keep up the good work.

Oh, and "extremists"? Nice touch

[JoePhilly]

66. Ding ding ding!!! No more calls, we have a winner.

DU's perpetually disgruntled loved that thread because it suggests Schweitzer hates Obama almost as much as they do. So he must be awesome.

But of course, they are all about the policies, don't ya know.

[MADem]

75. "Flavor of the month!"

It's like a litmus test--you can tell who is unserious, who is just a dabbler, or an instigator, or just gullible, based on how quickly they leap on the Bandwagon du Jour.

[JoePhilly]

76. Remember when some here said that Schweitzer was going to primary Obama in 2012.

Ahhhh ...

Good times.



But hey, now he's going to run against Obama in 2016 when Obama isn't running ... I guess they figure that's one way that Schweitzer can definitely beat Obama.

[MADem]

81. Yes, and...and....and.... and he'll run with Liz Warren, because they AGREE on so many things...!!!!

Errrr..... not! But hey, what's a little hundred and eighty degree difference about, say, gun control! Or the Keystone Pipeline!!!! They're both, ya know, LIBERALS...because some people (the ones that control this narrative are mostly cough-Republicans-cough; the others simply clueless) say so!

[JoePhilly]

83. Back in 2007 ... I'd debate right wingers ...

... and they'd say that liberals thought Obama was some sort of Messiah.

It made no sense to me.

I now think I understand. I think lots of the most disgruntled folks around here now, were the folks that the right wing was talking about back when they said "Liberals think Obama is the Messiah."

The same folks who scream about "personality politics" hop around like rabbits from "personality" to personality.

Lately, its Warren who is infallible. It was funny recently when some of her top supporters around here were complaining about the budget deal, that is, until SHE signed on to it too. They hated it ... aweful bipartisan thing ... oh wait, Warren is going to support it ... it must be ok then.

This week its Schweitzer because he dissed Obama in an interview. Who cares about his actual political positions. He dissed Obama so he must be awesome.

Its pretty hilarious.

[MADem]

85. Yep-flavor of the month. It's sad that so much of the discourse here is taken up by

"cult of personality" acolytes who, the minute their Hero of the Moment starts to acquire a record that suggests (*****gasp!********) pragmatism, they start singing like Lady Day!

[JoePhilly]

88. +1

[AngryAmish]

64. Many people remember the racism in the 2008 primary

[Cleita]

82. I like your choices but they don't have a chance.

The global money interests, who now run our government, will push Hillary on us or some other candidate they like on the so-called left. That way no matter who wins in either party, they win. Has not the last thirty four years of presidential elections taught you anything?

[mother earth]

94. Absolutely! nt

[Octafish]

102. Didn't you get the memo?

The Center is the place you got to be to win elections.

Just because the Center today just happens to be yesterday's Right shouldn't bother you, with enough alcohol it'll all make sense.

[Warpy]

104. I know some of the stuff I'm reading

is a hell of a lot like party hack stuff from the corporatists.

There, I said it. I know Mrs. Clinton has enthusiastic supporters here at DU, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the faintest praise for anyone else being met by a massive post against that other person, a massive post that reads more like a press release than a conversation.

I don't know if they're paid but if they are, it better be by the word.

[avaistheone1]

105. K&R

[Ikonoklast]

107. "But WHY does somebody approaching the 2016 Presidential Election from the LEFT..."

Because Hillary is a Third Way DLC centrist right down to the soles of her feet.


She lost to Obama in the first place because she is to his Right, and electing here would be a step backwards, away from any Progressive or Liberal issues advancing in this nation.