Top Democrat: Hillary Clinton Would “Clear The Field” In 2016

[DonViejo]

O'Malley, Cuomo, and Biden would all make way, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer predicts. “I don't know that anybody would run against Hillary.”

Ruby Cramer
BuzzFeed Staff

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer predicted Tuesday that Hillary Clinton would "clear the field" of potential Democratic rivals for the 2016 presidential nomination were she to throw her hat in the ring, deterring runs for the White House from Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and even Vice President Joe Biden.

"I don't know that anybody would run against Hillary," Hoyer said in an interview with BuzzFeed. "If she runs, she clears the field. If she doesn't run, I think Cuomo is a leading candidate and O'Malley is a leading candidate."

Asked if he believed Biden was considering a run — the vice president joked last year that 2012 wouldn't be the last time he voted for himself — Hoyer said, "I think Joe is really thinking hard about running. If Hillary doesn't run, Joe will run. I don't know that Joe runs against Hillary, though."

In a Democratic field without the former Secretary State, said Hoyer, O'Malley would emerge as a potential frontrunner whose success with progressive ballot measures — voters in the state passed both marriage equality and the Maryland DREAM Act last year — would make him an attractive candidate to the party's base.

more:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/top-democrat-hillary-clinton-would-clear-the-field-in-2016

[WI_DEM]

1. I think he is probably right.

[karynnj]

36. At this moment in time, I agree - but the same was said in 2005 about Hillary Clinton

There are some advantages this time, but it is never clear that that will continue. There are disadvantages too - she is 8 years older and she is also likely more aware of the grueling nature of running and it really seemed in 2007 - even when she was still the frontrunner, there were times she looked like she was not happy with what she was doing.

One thing that likely will change and change quickly is the % of Republicans that gave her favorable marks. Given that they would have to believe the Obama foreign policy was good, when this becomes political = look for that to fall. Whether it causes a shift among some Democrats who pick her because she is so obviously a general election winner, who knows.

In addition, there is the possibility that she might not want to go through it again.

I know that few will agree but I think it as likely that one of (O'malley and Cuomo or Gillibrand) win. She has the disadvantage of having been a public figure for the last 3 decades. The question is whether the more progressive positions of the three named on things like gay marriage will be an issue - will people hold HRC to public positions from years ago (ignoring that many evolved.) Consider that in 2007, her 2002 and 2003 position on Iraq was a huge issue. In a primary, if one of these younger candidate's with less baggage really takes off and consolidates the not Clinton vote as Obama did. It is not just the marriage equality, but it could hurt that she is now seen as really having been one of the hawks in the Obama administration - on both Afghanistan and Syria.

Remember that the primaries start with Iowa. In 2008, some smart people suggested that she should have avoided Iowa because retail politics were not her strong suit. Not to mention the caucuses favor the leftmost candidate - and that won't be HRC. Remember that coming in with great expectations, she needs to win and win conclusively. If it comes down to her and ONE other candidate who is close, you could see a replay of 2008 - which would be a nightmare for HRC.

[NewJeffCT]

2. Probably right

she's the most popular politician in America right now, so I think anybody running would be running to be her VP candidate.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Just like she did last time!

It's inevitable.

All your votes are belong to Hillary.

[SheilaT]

5. Yes!

But, since she must be in her second term right now (forgive me, I fell into a coma very early in 2008 and just now woke up), since she was so clearly the anointed one, did they change the 22nd Amendment while I was out?

[stevenleser]

7. Last time, she hadn't had the historically second most powerful job in the country.

She went from a senator with a modest legislative record to a former Secretary of State.

But please continue to present your superficial view of the situation.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. And the winner was a Senator whose legislative record in DC was shorter than hers...

She lost because her Senate record was modest, but the winner's was even more modest.
How does that work, exactly, to suggest that she was rejected for the modest nature of her Senatorial service?

[stevenleser]

10. I didn't say that that is why she was rejected.

I said it to contrast her candidacy then and now.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The actual outcome of the election cycle suggests that the modest record in the Senate

was a non factor. You are saying it is a factor, but without offering any support for that point of view. Last time, the Senator with the shortest and most modest record won the election, indicating that the voters really did not care about the modest or brief Senate service.
Contrasting does not really work well without the comparison which is counterpoint to contrast.

[stevenleser]

18. I dont think you can say that, no. There is only one conclusion you can draw from 2008 IMHO

The potentially first African American President with limited experience was more charismatic than a similar experienced potentially first Female President.

One of the reasons Hillary was so exciting was that she represented the potential first woman President. Problem is, that is exactly what Barack brought too in terms of the African American community. They were similarly experienced so experience wasn't a factor.

That is not the case this time. Hillary still has all the excitement of being the potential first woman President and now she has one of the best potential resumes in terms of experience.

There is no one capable of besting her in excitement or experience. And there is something else that is pretty important. All of those Obama supporters who were against her last time? Now they see her as someone who was loyal to their guy. That is going to mean a lot too. She is going to have a massive amount of them supporting her in addition to the folks who supported her last time.

You want to try to claim someone can bring something that will beat all of that? It's not going to happen. The only chance that Hillary is not sworn in January 21st of 2017 is if she doesnt run.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Speaking superficially...

Clinton's a rabid Third Wayer. The Third Way's reign of triangulation is over.

Americans have had enough of bipartisan savagery against the 99%, we will vote for Liberals now.

[stevenleser]

12. You can pretend she won't win if she runs, but you will in fact be pretending. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That's what they said to a guy named Barack Obama.

Now here's what they say to that guy: Yes, Mr President.

[stevenleser]

16. I never said it to or about Barack Obama. I never thought she was unbeatable in 2008.

It's totally different this time around. Not only does she have the superstar status, not only would she be the first woman President, not only is she the wife of an extraordinarily popular former President, she has now been Secretary of State and that gives her the experience over everyone else except Biden now too.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Yeah, you also put down others as 'superficial' while making a specious point yourself.

Had you not done that, I'd have just chuckled at your post. The extra added snark was without purpose.

[stevenleser]

20. LOL, there is nothing specious about the many reasons I have given you. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Which is what made Mr. Leser's point highly entertaining.

Stop trying to ruin it for us readers!

[dkf]

65. Obama had the advantage of being right on Iraq.

Also he campaigned against the individual mandate. That is why I supported him with no reservations and couldn't support Hillary.

All that is moot now as Hillary seems to have won the argument.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Well. That settles it. nt

[graham4anything]

30. Janet Napolitano for Vice President.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. She was also first lady to an extremely popular President and played an active role...

In his administration and campaigns. She was considered a shoe-in against both the 2004 VP nominee and an historic 2004 DNC keynote speaker. She still lost last time and she could still lose this time. Not saying that she will not make an excellent candidate and has a great chance of winning both the primary and general elections, but there's not going to be a competitive primary, not a coronation. Steny Hoyer and anyone else who thinks otherwise this far out is being silly.

[davidpdx]

40. I'm sorry Steve I have to agree with Manny on this one

(yes, hell does freeze over occasionally). His point was that she was so popular that there was no way she'd lose. The inevitability card gets old when people keep playing it. Yes, her popularity has increased since she became SoS, but that doesn't detract from the same old argument people are making that she is the only one that can win.

[stevenleser]

44. I never said that last time, I didn't believe it. Your blaming me for other people's opinions

Hillary had very little to campaign on last time other than popularity. That is why I never bought into the inevitability aspect last time. Now she has been Secretary of State. That is a completely different situation. She ads one of the best resumes out there to her popularity.

And, as I said in #18 above, she has earned the support of a vast majority of Obama supporters who admire how loyal she was to him after the difficult primary.

If she runs, there will not be a contested primary. Hoyer is right.

[davidpdx]

49. I think you and Hoyer are wrong

Anyone who bows out in the primary is a chickenshit. Yeah, they probably will lose but we should have a competitive primary no matter who is running. Personally I see the only exception to that rule being when you have a sitting president who is popular and can run for reelection like Obama was able to do in 2012. The idea of clearing the field is pure bullshit and pretty much a retread of 2008.

I also disagree that she had very little to campaign for. She had been in the Senate for 7 years (if you count the day of the Iowa Caucus as the official start of the campaign, that could be disputed since campaigns seem to now start at least a year before that and I think they will start earlier in the future) and first lady for 8 years. I honestly think that's not the reason she lost, the reason she lost is she ran a piss poor campaign. Now if she runs again I know that she'd be much more careful in selecting who is running the campaign and certainly they would make sure they had the campaign funded well.

[antigop]

53. She also ticked off the engineering/IT community because of offshoring and H-1b nt

[davidpdx]

54. I never heard about that

Maybe it wasn't that big of deal as I was paying pretty close attention to everything that was going on.

[antigop]

55. Here ya go....

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

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."
....
High on the agenda of union officials is an explanation of how each candidate will try to stem the loss of U.S. jobs, including large numbers in the service and technology sectors that are being taken over by cheap labor in India. During the vetting, some union leaders have found Clinton's record troubling.

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton reaffirms support for more H-1B visas

The tech community was livid -- exactly, what are engineers/IT people supposed to train for after their jobs are shipped overseas?

[antigop]

57. She co-founded the Senate India caucus with JOHN CORNYN! 'nuff said nt

[geek tragedy]

33. If she gets a restraining order on Mark Penn, we'll know she's serious nt

[davidpdx]

41. Now that is funny

I heard he's up for the World's Worst Pollster of the Century award.

[geek tragedy]

47. The Dick Morris Award? nt

[davidpdx]

62. Yes, those two are both toxic

I think "Dick" liked to play both sides more then Penn. They remind me a bit of the character Bruno Gianelli in The West Wing.

Campaigns really need to do a better job of not hiring sleazeballs like those two.

[joshcryer]

87. She actually got the popular vote.

Obama leveraged caucuses and Mark Penn fucked Hillary's chances by playing for big states and ignoring middle class / upper middle class caucuses.

Note: I am not saying that she won, I am simply saying that if the nomination process was a plurality she would have won and that she had more people supporting her than Obama.

Obama had the better ground game and media presence. Hillary had the vote.

[marmar]

4. You would swear there was a presidential election this year.

All this prognostication about something that's years away. Bread and circuses.

[NorthCarolina]

6. I hope not.

It is my wish that Third-Way Dems need not apply. I also grow weary of turning our government over to a couple of well-to-do families. No more Clinton's, no more Bush's. Are we a monarchy? I would rather see a Warren, a Sanders (and i don't mean the colonel), a Feingold, or maybe even a Grayson...but a Clinton? No thanks...been there, done that "third-way republicanism" thing enough already.

[leveymg]

9. Hillary "Regime Changer" Clinton endorsed by Steny "Mr. AIPAC" Hoyer. Big Surprise.

Best President EVER!

[antigop]

59. amazing, leveymg, isn't it? nt

[tarheelsunc]

17. Maybe Joe would be up for 8 more years of the Vice Presidency?

Though I would think the party would prefer to have a younger candidate on the ticket with Hillary to balance things out. It would probably be nice to offer the position to O'Malley to groom him for 2024.

[midwest irish]

21. She was supposed to clear the field in 2007

and go on to defeat Giuliani in the general election.

[geek tragedy]

34. No, it was Condi vs Hillary, remember?

http://www.amazon.com/Condi-vs-Hillary-Great-Presidential/dp/B005Q823G0

[midwest irish]

42. how fantastic

I was not aware of this.

[antigop]

22. " +1" to the "inevitability"meme counter. nt

[Sunlei]

23. Dems should wait untill the very last second to tip off Republicans on who will run.

We have plenty of top flight politicans who are Presidential material.

Republicans have to spend billions to demonise any contenders, lets make them spend untill it hurts. Even if Mrs. Clinton doesn't care to run for President, she could be very helpfull to the party tp jerk around the republican $$$$propaganda empire.

[Beacool]

24. It NEVER fails.

Post an article on Hillary or Bill and the usual crowd almost breaks a finger in the rush to type negative crap.

I find it hilarious that somehow the same people that trash Hillary think that Obama is more "progressive".

I have no clue whether Hillary will run or not in 2016, but if she does, she WILL be the first woman nominee and I don't give a flying fig if left wings heads explode. You all can join the right wingers in that respect. The talking points are almost the same.

[DonCoquixote]

27. really?

I don't give a flying fig if left wings heads explode. You all can join the right wingers in that respect. The talking points are almost the same.


Really, almost the same? Are you even halfway liberal if you can say that?

And I never said Obama was more progressive, though he ran as left of ZHillary, which is why I feel cheated, Obama's failures are mostly linked to his attempt to be bi partisan, like Clinton was.

[Beacool]

45. I wasn't referring to you specifically.

But it does get annoying when any post about either Clinton is immediately trashed. Out in the real world they happen to be the most popular political couple in the country, over here they are treated by some as the enemy. It gets tiresome.

[karynnj]

37. Obama is more progressive and less hawkish than HRC

I think she is the most likely nominee for 2016, if she runs. However, I don't think that it is a foregone conclusion.

I think the toughest scenario for her is if the left coalesces behind one candidate - as happened in 2008. Remember the process starts in Iowa and the caucus process has in the past favored the most progressive, but still mainstream candidate. In 2008, Edwards imploded and no media designated second or third tier candidate gained momentum in Iowa or NH where that could happen.

Imagine that person, while praising the accomplishments of Clinton, subtly pushes that he/she is more dovish and/or compares her 2008 position on marriage equality with their 2016 position. (Note - this would happen with anyone - Do you think the main author of Kerry/Feingold could have run in 2008 as to the left of Obama on Iraq - even though it was true? ) It's unfair, but a fresh face does not have the history written in the minds of people that someone with HRC's prominence has.

Now, it could be that HRC will retain her high numbers even after saying she is running and many might feel it is her turn, but you have to remember that it could be 2008 redux.

[Beacool]

46. Yeah, the left mostly coalesced around Obama.

That's why I have been laughing the last 4 years plus, because he's center-left at best.

Unless another "historical" candidate pops-up between now and then, I don't think that it will be 2008 redux. On the other hand, we don't yet even know if she will want to run again.

[karynnj]

70. He is center left and there was no viable candidate to the left of him

Edwards, even without his affair, was a chameleon. His Senate record was similar to Evan Bayh's! His platform for 2004 was to the right of Kerry, Dean, and Clark. In 2005, he saw that Clinton would dominate the center of the party, so he took positions to the left of her.

None of the second tier gained any traction and none of them were significantly to the left of Clinton.

I think the idea of "historical" was media driven - with both Clinton and Obama that was their narrative - and I think it somewhat diminishes both candidates. I think there would have been a different FRESH face candidate - even if white and male - who was seen as more willing to end the war or more against it from the beginning and having roots in fighting poverty, that person could have engaged the left as Obama did.

As you say, HRC may or may not run. We also don't know what issues, if any, could energize the base in 2016. Obviously, if HRC decides to run, it will be hers to lose. It may come down to whether she can make the outreach to the left base that she seemed to not think needed in 2008. From many accounts, she is good meeting with small groups and winning over people. If she opts to do that in Iowa, 2016 could be different than 2008.

[davidpdx]

43. For me it really has nothing to do with whether she is progressive enough or not

It is very possible some of her stances have changed a bit since she was SoS. So on that front, I'd say wait and see.

As I've pointed out before (and you have agreed with me) it is the inevitability push by supporters that sours people. The article posted by the OP makes it appear there will be no real primary. As Manny pointed out people were saying that same thing the last time around.

If she were to be the nominee, I'd vote for her plain and simple.

I don't think you can lump all of the responses in this thread as negative.

[Beacool]

48. The "inevitability" meme was mostly pushed by the media, back in 2008 and now too.

There are some people who are saying it now who are not in the media, like Hoyer and some other politicians, but the push is mainly media fabricated. If you notice, everyone in "Hillaryland" has been very cautious. Hillary herself keeps denying any interest. So why punish her for what others are saying? The only thing that I do know is that there's a lot of talk within the party that they would like a woman candidate in 2016. Hillary is the obvious person they are talking about, but I don't think that she will make an official decision until after the midterm elections. The focus for the next two years will eb on retaken the House.

[davidpdx]

50. I agree that's what we should be focused on

I think it will be a very tough task though. We also have to defend a ton of senate seats as well. If we don't have good candidates that are well funded it won't happen.

[Whisp]

63. it was pushed by Hillary.

first 20 seconds or so. I'm not sure what the rest of the vid is, probably talking about things like her changing her mind on Michigan votes counting, stuff like that. I'll have to watch it some day.

Couric: If it's not you, how dissapointed will you be?

Clinton: Well, it will be me. But of course I'm ready to support the democratic nominee, whoever it is.

Couric: I know you're confident it's going to be you, but there is a possibility it won't be and clearly you have considered that possibility.

Clinton: No, I haven't.

[Beacool]

74. No, it wasn't.

Have you ever worked in a campaign? Being positive about your chances is what all candidates do, even those who may be behind in the polls.

[Whisp]

76. I don't recall any other candidate with that amount of certainty they will win.

Can't think of one of these that was so over confident. If you have something to show me, please do.

And another point that pretty well proves the inevitability factor in the Clinton campaign: they didn't really think past Super Tuesday, did they? It was all supposed to be wrapped up with a bow for Hillary by then.

So I'm not convinced at all that it was others that started this inevitability thing.

[zappaman]

25. I agree!

So it's over!
When is the inauguration?

[Walk away]

26. Hillary Clinton 2016. Our best chance of keeping the White House for another 8 years.

It's the simple truth. I'll bet you 80% of the voters have never even heard of O'Malley and O'Malley is no Obama.

[Whisp]

38. then the bets will be on when Hillitary goes to war, and with whom and when. guaranteed.

One of her biggest flaws is this stupid 'tough' shit she wants thought about her. That tells you right there what's the solution to a problem.

[Beacool]

66. I don't give a crap whether you like Hillary or not,

particularly since you can't even vote in this country, but quit the name calling. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She's a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. Have a little respect, this is not a right wing site.

[Whisp]

71. So all non Americans should not have opinions on U.S. policies...

And I can't be a real feminist either, because if I were I'd support Clinton no matter her record because she's a woman. Yeh, let's talk about crap.

The 'if you can't vote you shutup' meme sounds a lot more what rw sites said during the Chimp's sitting. If you don't like what our dear President does, you Merikuns, you can leave! Same sort of flavour to me.

And people that demand such high respect for hillary should have more for the sitting President, don't you think? But some still think he stole Hillary's throne.

[Beacool]

72. I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I don't call him names.

Calling Democrats names in a Democratic site is not appropriate. That's what the right wingers do on their sites. We shouldn't have to read that kind of stuff on a progressive site.

[Whisp]

75. Edwards was called a lot of names, Wiener... all sorts of democrats are called names here

and the winner of the biggest prize would be the names the President is called here so your post is way off the mark.

about Hillitary, well okay if it bothers you, I won't use that again, but it may be hard. I just find it very appropriate and not necessarily insulting if she is a hawk, but I guess I can see that it would be off putting to someone who doesn't believe that.

[AtomicKitten]

78. Saying you can't stand the sight of him is sooooooo much better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11077#post15

[Beacool]

79. That's my right, but I don't make up insulting names for him.

That's childish and inappropriate.

[Whisp]

77. so the millions worldwide that protested the iraq war...

should have just minded their own business and stayed home?

I hope you are realizing just how silly that 'you can't even vote' thing is now.

[Walk away]

67. Biden voted "yes" on the Iraq war as well.. so who does that leave that passes..

your "talks tough so will definitely start a war" purity test and can win a general election against Chris Christie with a billion dollars in his pocket? Elizabeth Warren who barely won a Senate seat in the Bluest State in the nation?

[graham4anything]

28. Hillary45. For the continuation of President Obama's agenda. Simply the best.

[BlueStater]

31. Let's just swear her in right now.

Why even have a fucking election?

[warrprayer]

32. I am grateful to the Clintons

for 8 years of peace and prosperity. However, I had the feeling that when Hillary had her meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife, the money behind the "Arkansas Project" trying to destroy her husbands Presidency, something was amiss.
I would like to see some new, progressive blood rise in the Democratic party in my lifetime. I don't want to see any of the dynastys continued.

[Whisp]

39. Scaife, that was the clinton's arch enemy, supposedly back in Bill's terms?

Hillary was schmoozing with him during the '08 primaries - or involved in some way with him like they were buds or something. Like a wrestling match where they they try to poke each others eyes out, but go for a beer together after the show and laugh about how the schmucks all fell for it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. indisputable front runners don't always hold it together for one reason or another

In 1972 it was Ed Muskie. In 1988 it was Gary Hart. In 2008 it was Hillary.

I'll agree that she holds the advantage right at this moment. But a lot could happen between now and then. And if all the big names step aside - not willing to challenge Hillary - perhaps this would be the perfect storm for an insurgent dark horse candidate representing the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to come on strong and make a real credible showing. But who knows? There is still a fair amount of time between now and 2016.

[longship]

52. Blah, blah, blah, 2016, blah, blah, blah!

So much bloviating over an election which will not even begin to happen for over three years.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

I predict that Hillary Clinton will not run in 2016. So there! That's at least as accurate as any other 2016 predictions. Who comes up with this rubbish? Sylvia Brown?

[antigop]

58. it's called the "inevitability" meme. nt

[David__77]

56. Center-right Hoyer says so. Not true at all.

It just came to light that Obama rejected Clinton's advice to start yet another war - this time against Syria. Obama ran against Clinton because she wasn't the best in 2008. She won't be the best in 2016 either. After her extremely poor judgment in running a right-wing campaign against Obama in 2008, I don't think she should be trusted with the highest hopes of Democrats.

[Beacool]

60. Here are two more polls so both the left and the right can gripe.

2016 poll: Hillary Clinton leads GOP in Georgia

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-leads-gop-in-georgia-87871.html#ixzz2LVbSdTsa


Christie Soars, But Clinton Tops Him

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/christie-soars-but-clinton-tops-him/

[winter is coming]

61. Not likely. It's certainly possible that she could win the nomination, but I don't think

she's such a shoo-in that people won't even toss their hats in the ring. Think about how many people ran in '08, and how many Republicans ran in '12. If we limit ourselves to "obvious" choices, we might overlook a good candidate, and we're less likely to hear candidates making any statements of substance.

[davidn3600]

64. Why is everyone trying so hard to avoid a primary?

A primary battle didnt hurt Obama in 2008.

[workinclasszero]

68. The democrats need to nominate the best person that can defeat the teabag thug party

This nation depends on it. Unless you want the country to become a teabag hell as in The Handmaid's Tale or the Hunger Games.

It sure looks like Hillary to me. These republican nazi slimeballs MUST be defeated!

I'd like the most progressive person as possible so any democrat is better than any rethug, as far as that goes.

[Sunlei]

69. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Governor of Texas 2014. Prettyy Pleasssee, Mrs Clinton we NEED you.

You would win.

[Beacool]

73. Governor of Texas?

Now, that would really be a stretch. LOL!!!

[Sunlei]

80. we need Democratic leaders in all the States to get states out of the republican chains of control.

Old painted rock Perry gone from his lifetime perch in Texas, would be a great start to a much happier local society

[Beacool]

81. Well, maybe Texas will be in play by 2016.

Here's an article on that subject.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/22/can_democrats_mess_with_texas_in_2016_117112.html

[Sunlei]

82. I want Mrs. Clinton to knock Perry off his perch now, next election. no more years of corruption.

I think the Governorship/Leadership of all our states starts at the top and every single R Governor needs voting out.


Beside a couple years of State Governorship is always awesome on any persons resume, who could be President one day

[Beacool]

83. There's a little problem, she doesn't live in Texas.

Her main residence is in NY.

[Sunlei]

84. I'd give her my house for the couple years so she has a place to call her own :)

If Mrs. Clinton doesn't want to be Gov. of Texas, how about President Clinton.? I'm serious Texas and Arizona both need democratic Leadership. Those states both need massive oversight of their use of state and federal funds. A reconstruction type Gov.

[Beacool]

85. I give up.

I can't argue with your reasoning.

Try to contact Hillz's people and see what she says on the subject. Would she have to wear a 10 gallon hat? That could be a deal breaker.

[joshcryer]

86. I hope she runs and gets the nomination.

Purely for the lulz. DU would be drama 100% of the time. Just like it is now with the rose colored glasses off with regards to Obama.

[Amimnoch]

88. I like her, and would likely support her again.

Really, this is way early. In 2008, early on in the primary season, Kucinich was by far my favorite. That didn't work out (to be fair, even from the starting gate I knew it was likely a loosing battle, but I don't throw in for popular, I throw in for the one whose stance on the issues most closely matches my own).

When he bowed out, Hillary became my favorite, and the one I threw my support behind. When President Obama won the Primary, I changed gears again and threw in for President Obama.

There are some stances President Obama has taken that I really wish he was stronger on, others that he's come out much better and stronger than I'd have thought he would have. Overall, I'm exceptionally pleased with his performance.

When Primary season starts up again, personally, I'll weigh each candidate on the issues I find important, and throw in my support to the candidate that most closely idealizes my own views. Ultimately, whoever wins the nomination I'll likely support that person as well.

It's shocking that there's still apparently so much venom (from both sides) remaining from that primary season.