2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Why--Hillary in 2016
The team that she will assemble in 2016 is just about unbeatable. First of all, heading it up is her husband Bill who really showed how likable and powerful he was at the 2012 Democratic Convention. There was no headliner at the Republican convention that came close to him. The Clinton's are seasoned politicians and know exactly how to run a campaign. There was a lot of talk about surrogates in the last election, how each of them hit an integral segment of the voting populace and the assembly for 2016 is awesome. Barack and Michele Obama owe the Clinton's a lot. They, and their entire team, will be on hand to support them. They have made great inroads to the Latino vote and most immigrants, not to mention their GOTV efforts in the black community. They alone are an extremely powerful entity that will be backing the Clinton's.
The women vote coming from the entire country will be overwhelmingly for Hillary. In this election Republican women will vote for Hillary more than they have ever voted for a Democratic candidate. First of all, it is an empowering act to make sure that a woman is finally elected President in this country. Second of all the Republican “war on women” is very real to Republican women and the extreme right scares them. Any reader here knows what I am talking about. And Hillary is white, Republican women found it hard to vote for a black man, but Hillary doesn’t have that in her profile.
Her posture as a world figure trumps all of the other candidates that the Republicans can muster. She has made a lot of friends around the world that are long and strong.
Finally, she is smarter than all of them put together. I am such a supporter of her that I don’t want to talk about her ruthless side----she will win this one!
When we look at the horrible mess and message that is coming from the Republican side we need a landslide vote for her, and Congress. With the current Republican House and filibustering Senate we need to get our country back on a good track.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)No more Clintons, no more Bushes.
We need a progressive, a champion, someone like Elizabeth Warren.
.
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,598 posts)
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)this is what happens without an announcement-----
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)
protect our future
(1,156 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...he doesn't want to run (trust me, I know the top people in the Ohio Democratic Party).
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but I was wondering about his background------what can you tell me about his position on issues
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Broadly, he's more progressive than most; not as much as Sanders and Warren.
http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Sherrod_Brown.htm
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)can you tell me about her team?----has she visited Iowa----the Republicans are there now
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...I somewhat doubt she has any intention of attempting a serious presidential run in 2016. She may run without putting much effort into it just to gain exposure and a place on the platform to air policy positions as a set-up for a real run down the road, kind of hope she does... but throwing serious resources into it? That would be crazy. Save it for 2020 or 2024. She simply does not have the resume right now.
(And nobody even bother mentioning Obama, his political resume was far FAR deeper and his public profile larger when he ran.)
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)we need to win--not get romantic
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)nominating her will just hand the election to the GOP. She's great but she can't win. That's reality.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)ditto
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)Not that I think we should run a freshman Senator but what's the problem?
We should have the slight edge in this next election I don't think we hafta pick Hillary Clinton just cause she's got the name recognition.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)You'll never understand the answer.
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)Out with it.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)But if you can't figure out why already, you never will and nothing I have to say will change that.
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)Or I have to call bullshit.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And it is very obvious that you only see what you want to see so I'm not going to waste my time explaining concepts that you'll never understand.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I am not sure if any of your post was directed to my commentary----please explain
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)but I was replying to NYC.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Wabbajack---I don't understand your question--please elaborate
ancianita
(43,307 posts)commander-in-chief of over 1,000 military bases and a joint chiefs. There's more, but that's the core of my argument.
Hillary has what it takes at this point in history.
Vote for whoever you want in the primaries. But let's try to see the long game, as well, and unite around someone who will win. We can fight to get our issues on the party platform until then.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)This is a trick question and you should do some research before answering.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)So don't put words in my mouth. That's very dishonest of you.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I like that Union logo
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Perhaps one should do some more research into the REST of the current President's political resume before attempting to formulate "trick" questions?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)please explain this
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)socket
(1 post)Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)
I will not vote for Hillary. She has shown poor judgment in Arkansas, and as First Lady. Her stint as Senator, she voted against the Levin Amendment to forestall the war in Iraq. The reason she said was that "it would have made the president's authority subordinate to the U.N. That was a misleading statement.
Levin made it quite clear in an October speech on the senate floor that
"My resolution affirms that, under International Law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self defense, affirming the fact that there is no U.N. veto U.S. military action."
Source: Sam Stein of the Huffington Post.Com. Feb. 1, 2008.
For all her movement on the civic stage, Hillary has really not much to point to that says "I did this, that, and the other." And as Sec. of State, she was nothing more than a Meet-and-Greet Ambassador-at-Large. She tackled no hard issues. None. She even failed at health care as First Lady. lizabeth Warren, on the other hand, can point to a whole new department she created and organized, but the Repubs would not vote for her to head it. As a junior senator, she is spearheading a lot of measures. She's dynamite!
As a senator, Hillary was low key for two terms - - except for her vote for the trumped-up war in Iraq. I suppose because it would look good on her resume as an aspirant first female commander-in-chief!
It troubles me that we Americans are dumb as hell. All want Hillary because she is a woman. They are not asking the right question:
IF HILLARY IS THE ONE, WHAT HAS SHE DONE? A bumper sticker material?
Reading list: Partners in Power by Roger Morris - paperback at Amazon
St. Hillary by Michael Kelly - New York Time Magazine. May 13, 1993.
Hillary the Pol - The New Yorker. May, 1994.
Hillary is reportedly smart, but not smart enough to run the nation. She would be great as a social engineer - - tinkering with human behaviors, etc. a Carry Nation, or an Amy Semple MacPhearson (phonetic sp.) to Bill, an Elmer Gantry.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)If she does not run , which of the republicans will you vote for?
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I think it is important to hear every voice---but as election nears we all need to be one voice--thank you for your reply wyldwolf
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Really?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I never realized the that there was so much contention on this site
PassingFancy
(33 posts)Warren is a great politician; however, she's just not ready for the win. Give her 2020 or 2024 and she'll be ready then to chew up every republican and spit them out in about 15 seconds.
BlueDemKev
(3,003 posts)Although progressives are slowly becoming a majority, it is very slim and a person like Elizabeth Warren won't win a national race. She will be an easy person for the Republicans to paint as "far left-wing elitist from Massachusetts."
Don't fret about Hillary...she's made some mistakes but overall she is highly-progressive woman who will continue to move this country in the right direction ('right', meaning left). 
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and I can't wait to see a news report that shows a group of women hovering around a microphone the way we see Issa---Boehner---and the rest of congress now------it can't happen soon enough
BlueDemKev
(3,003 posts)...I don't care if they're male, female, white, black, hispanic, straight or gay...
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)it well past the time for hurtful things that men have done to them------women will caucus and get to the bottom of things much faster than the group of clowns in the Congress right now-----GOTV ----and vote for women
The Masked Shrike
(14 posts)In reality, "She's great but she can't win." is the quintessential quote for Hillary.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)who would you endorse for President
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Cheney's daughter is running for the Senate in Wyoming-----she might upset a long time Republican there ----they have no conscience-----so that is Sen Cheney in 2014--------then Jeb Bush runs for president and makes Sen Cheney his running mate----I can understand your dislike for Clinton----but we desperately need to grow the Democratic presence in our elected officials---then ---we foment change
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)then going with another centrist is the wrong thing to do. We need new faces pushing the old Dem ideology, not the same-old same-old pushing the weaksauce that so-called Dems consider "pragmatic". Their pragmatism could literally be the death of us.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Besides, she will do a lot more good in the Senate. Presidents serve a limited amount of time, with good health, she could be a champion for liberal causes for the next 20 years. Think long term.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)But not just EW ----I think Wendy Davis is a heroine-----she took on those good ol boys in Texas and deserves a seat at the National table-------I think there are some great Latinos coming up in Arizona that will just turn the tide (from Red to Blue) in that state
I have not seen any polls ---that show Elizabeth Warren to be a contender ----I am quick to admit that she is a national player though-------but this is a time to galvanize our party----Hillary yielded to Obama for the election and thereafter and it puts her on this stage today-------and I can't wait to see what happens to Rush Limbaugh when she gets in----come on SKP ---we can't let guys like Trent Lott sully Hillary and not give her a day in the sunshine-----
Beacool
(30,514 posts)
karynnj
(60,956 posts)She held out even after all the primaries were done praying for a surge of super delegates to overturn the decision of the pledged delegates.
There are many good reasons - and you stated many for HRC, but the idea that she willingly stepped aside for Obama is not one of them. In addition, no brownie points for supporting the eventual nominee - it is unusual not to and should be a negative - even if it is Kennedy.
juajen
(8,515 posts)if she hadn't calmed her millions of supporters down, and urged them to support Obama. You have a short memory.
karynnj
(60,956 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)like Ross Perot did and helped Clinton win his 2nd term------and Hillary would be back for 2012 and 2016-------what happened was ---Hillary counted the votes ---and saw the writing on the wall-----and endorsed Obama ----that is what good politicos do----some on DU need to study this a bit
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I assure you most Democrats would not support her if she ran as a third party candidate. To suggest that is offensive to lifelong Democrats. You've revealed yourself with that ridiculously ignorant PUMA talk.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)
rock
(13,218 posts)I think that's what the poster is referring to.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)think that because some don't do things their way --then there is no party unity--------there is such a stark contrast between the GOP/TP that the actual fate of our country depends upon our party unity---Boehner is drunk and third in command of the country---Palin is drunk and could have been the VP---or worse if McCain died---the Democrats are the only adults in the room right now
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)of talk about it-----
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)please tell me more about deleteClinton.com---and how is it funded-----the quality of the video sound bites are not quite ready for prime time----so it dilutes their efficacy-----but someone is obviously spending money on this and I don't think it would come from within the Democratic ranks-----I think I detect some Tea Party earmarks because they are usually low info people
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Tea Party? Pfft. Nice swerve, but it's a compilation of some of the crap HClinton tried to pull during the 2008 primary such as talking about and having her surrogates press O's high school drug use and his attending Rev. Wright's church, also bringing up out of the blue Farrakhan in a debate, etc., etc.
Keith Olbermann had it right when he said she was running against Obama as if she were the Republican.
I didn't vote for her in 2008 and I won't in 2016.
Carry on with your proselytizing.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)women there seem to want to win----not get even-----there are so many people standing in the way of women it is time to stand up against those people-------but I do wish you well---and hope we can be as one
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)you got going on in this thread, Tellurian or whatever incarnation you are
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but I am primarily a seeker of wins by the Democratic party-----now after the win-----I don't mind fine tuning the candidate a bit
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)look at the damage Nader caused by splitting the vote----and although on the other side ---the Clintons can thank Ross Perot for his third party run---it got Bill elected for a second term------
karynnj
(60,956 posts)Bush was below 40% by early 1992 - having been sky high a year before. The year before is when many Democrats decided not to go for it. By the election, Bush was at about 34% in approval rating. Had this been a normal 2 man race, it should have been a clear Democratic win - like 2008. (though from 2005 (after Katrina), it was very clear that we were well positioned to win in 2008.)
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I think Hillary was smart enough to fold the tent------maybe some on DU should take a page from her book on this
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)should have known better?
What about the fact that she served on Walmart's board but did not stand up for the women working for Walmart at that time in that they had so few opportunities for meaningful promotions?
And then there is the fact that Hillary is so fond of outsourcing and giving our good jobs to guest workers from places like India, etc.
Hillary is the corporate candidate. She is not the candidate of the 99%. We can't afford to elect Hillary.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)you forgot to mention that she worked for the Barry Goldwater election campaign-----
On all of what you say----I agree----she is a political animal----and a woman----not easy for them to survive if they don't make some deals here and there---it happens to the best of us-----
but I must ask you , if you have an alternate candidate, and if that alternate has an election team in place now that we are a mere 39 months away from the election -----we do need a strategy that wins this from the Republicans
and I can defend some of her positions as merely "staying in the game" ----which you have to do sometimes--
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think the country is ready for a fresh face and a brilliant mind. She has both.
She taught law at Harvard and is used to being challenged. Her understanding of finance (bankruptcy) and consumer economics are just what we need.
She can appoint a really competent person to the State Department (someone really focused on foreign policy) and take a consumer-friendly, financially wise tack on trade. That would be a wonderful change.
Will the American people accept her?
She has a Southern midwestern way about her. People like her.
She is known for her criticisms of the banks. People will love her for that.
Nobody below the top 1% like the banks right now. People with savings are getting near 0% interest. People who want to borrow either can't qualify because of the damage they experienced during the Bush recession or because they can't get decent jobs with decent incomes (we out here are still hurting) and because the banks are using the low interest loans they get from the government to scoop up cheap properties, not to invest in American main streets.
I think that the time will be ripe for an Elizabeth Warren in 2016. And -- she is a woman. She also does not have the baggage about bank backing that will hurt her with minorities.
Those entrenched in the Democratic hierarchy may prefer Hillary. But Hillary will not be as easy a sale as they think. Hillary has too much baggage. I used to be a big Hillary fan, but no more.
Elizabeth Warren is the image of integrity and common sense. I think people will be looking for that in 2016.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and I saw her debate with Brown---she is good----and I know there is a base-----but the election is 39 months away----a very short time------first things first----has she said she would run----if so , does she have an election team in place----is she funded------but more importantly ----would you want to risk her removal from political life and such an early juncture as 2016 if she loses------would you rather build an unbeatable base for her for the future----I think Elizabeth will have to say she wants to run----and soon--Rand Paul is running all over Iowa getting ready for the primaries now-------what do you know about her willingness to run-------
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)would do in the battleground states
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)people agree on that. We need someone who understands the economics of boosting the middle class. That's precisely what is the pressing interest of the Tea-Baggers. Elizabeth Warren is an expert on the economics of the middle class and why so many are losing ground.
She is not a leftist, but she does appeal to ordinary people. She talks and feels like one of us. That wins voters. Hillary does not have those qualities.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I am asking for poll numbers and you say "I think she would do well ." That's love and very romantic---we are up against a bunch of rabid right wing wackos who are doggedly determined to march this country back to 1950's. All the polls on HRC say the Republicans can't beat her, but I am not all that comfortable if Karl Rove starts jiggling the vote. But OK let's think for a minute that all of us on DU, who love her so much that we convince EW to run----do you want to be responsible for her downfall in a Presidential election? I think not. But even so it takes a huge machine to win an election and national poll numbers that show a winner.
So I see it this way
in 2014 to 2016
It's all about GENDER
Allison Grimes replacing Senator Gridlock in Kentucky----Wendy Davis as the new Governor of Texas-----Hillary in the White House---for 8 years----after that or during that Michele Obama for Senate from South Carolina -----let's let women lead the country back to sanity------in this scenario where do you see EW---
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The bad stuff about Hillary is going to come out strongly.
And I doubt that Hillary has the humility to put her worst out there and admit to it. She is extremely proud. That is one of her biggest problems.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and the polls that show HRC peaking
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that as her negatives emerge, she will go down.
Democratic leaders Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Gov. Deval Patrick have slightly higher approval ratings than they did five months ago. Warren’s approval jumped to 52-39 from 44-39, and Patrick’s was 50-43, up from 48-41.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/elizabeth-warren/
Hillary is peaking too early:
As she prepares to step down as secretary of state, Clinton has a lifetime high favorability rating of 66 percent, according to the Post/ABC poll, with less than a third of respondents holding unfavorable views. Two-thirds of Americans approve of her job performance in the Obama administration.
That goodwill translates into broad support for Clinton to make a second run at the presidency in four years, with 57 percent supporting her candidacy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/hillary-clinton-2016-poll_n_2243843.html
When Benghazi hearings were underway, her poll numbers fell drastically.
Hillary Clinton Favorability Slips Slightly
Unfavorable views up to 39%, from 31% in April
by Andrew Dugan
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Hillary Clinton's favorability rating fell slightly in June to 58%, from 64% in April. That is the first sub-60% rating Americans have given her since 2008. Clinton's unfavorable rating now stands at 39%, up from 31% in April.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162986/hillary-clinton-favorability-slips-slightly.aspx
People know about Hillary. Her reputation precedes her. Her peers think highly of her. But her personality is not one that sells. If it were, she would have won in 2004 and we would be talking about Obama for 2016. Women want a woman. That is what is putting Hillary as high in the polls as she is. But as for Hillary herself, the Republicans would wait until after her nomination and then bring up all her history. It would be foolish of us to pick her.
Elizabeth Warren has a reputation for standing for the people against powerful interests. That is what Americans want. The Tea Party exists because that is what Americans want. The Tea Party is a bunch of loons. Elizabeth Warren will stand up against powerful interests in a stable, sensible way that really benefits the whole country.
Hillary Clinton has a lot of scandals just waiting to be talked about. Her relationship with India was discussed this past week by someone who seemed to have done a lot of research on it. Americans are not going to buy into that. And that stuff is out there. The Republicans no doubt have a huge file on her, colorful stuff. I hope we go with Elizabeth Warren and not Hillary Clinton. Give Elizabeth Warren a chance. She is presidential material. They are about the same age. Someone younger would be ideal, but women tend to take mommy breaks. (I'm a woman myself and know what that means to a career.) So a female president is likely to be older than a male with her qualifications.
Ordinary women can identify with Elizabeth Warren. She has a spectacular biography. An outstanding student, an early marriage that failed and then an amazing career in law culminated by a professorship at Harvard. That appeals to women. And Elizabeth Warren accomplished all that pretty much on her own rising up from Oklahoma. There wasn't any husband-former-president to stand by her side. Elizabeth Warren is married, but her popularity is not linked to her husband.
I back Elizabeth Warren. She is a winner, and she has the right character that we need now in the White House.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She would win.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)that would be interesting
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And if she does not announce, we will have Bernie Sanders' announcement.
But I think Elizabeth Warren will announce. She has already taken on some of the Clintons' favorite "achievements" and criticized them very effectively.
Glass-Steagall is one Clinton milestone that Elizabeth Warren has criticized in resounding terms. Elizabeth Warren's stance on the TPP puts Hillary in her place, since Hillary was in the State Department when that agreement was being negotiated.
Elizabeth Warren has more of the enthusiasm of labor behind her.
It is a matter of time and a question of whether she can raise the money to reach enough voters. Elizabeth Warren is getting out and even going into the South. Elizabeth Warren is much more likable and more focused on her issues than Hillary.
Elizabeth Warren has less baggage than Hillary.
I'm a woman. Remember how Bush said he was someone you could have a beer with? Well, from a woman's point of view, Elizabeth Warren is someone you could go to lunch with. I don't think Hillary projects that kind of warmth and easy accessibility. That is one of the reasons that I think Warren would make a better candidate. She may be prone to more campaigning mistakes because she is not the professional that Hillary is in that respect, but Elizabeth Warren is the kind of person you forgive quickly and easily. She has more humility than Hillary. And that is one of her strengths.
Elizabeth Warren is in public office to achieve things for people like her parents. Hillary is in public office because she has always striven for leadership roles. That is, believe it or not, a plus for Elizabeth Warren. She does not seem ambitious for personal satisfaction. She seems ambitious to better the lives of people like her own parents.
I hope you have read Elizabeth Warren's book A Fighting Chance. If you have you understand what I am talking about when I speak of her family.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)today. She needs to rework her personality and her record. Just tinkering with rules will not make her good presidential material even if she does win the primary.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)from the public's view that she couldn't handle being commander-in-chief. Just my opinion.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but....................I have not seen a poll that would get her the Democratic nomination ----and there is no chance for her to win a national election-----do you think she would be a good candidate for the Supreme Court
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You want good people in their 40s and 50s for the Supreme Court.
She would make a great president. End of sentence.
Hillary will probably do her campaign in. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will be standing by. We cannot allow the banks and businesses to do what they have done to our economy repeatedly in the past. We cannot allow that again. And Hillary Clinton will do nothing to change the ethics of American corporations.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)I could break it down, but I'm at work.
BTW, did anyone even ask Warren if she is interested in running for president? She never ran for anything before she was elected to the Senate and barely won that seat. How do you think that she would do in a general election?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and we need to help her grow her base ----running now would make her a sacrificial lamb -----she needs an organization --and I think there are some great people on this site to help her----and Wendy Davis
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She is the only one speaking truth to power about the banks.
She is mainstream America. She is a woman. She is not tainted by one scandal after the other as is Hillary.
The world is blowing up, and Hillary just retired from the State Department.
The Edward Snowden revelations have only now started to be comprehended by people. It even took the press quite a while to finally put two and two together and realize that the collection of metadata is about controlling the leaders in social networks. You like action films. You will get lots of action films glorifying the government. You like chick films. You will get chick films about women who sacrificed for America. That's how this propaganda is going to work.
And they will be able to sell anything, possibly even a flawed candidate like Hillary to the nation.
Limbaugh has his crowd down. He is the propagandist par excellence.
But when the government propagandizes in that way and when we are, as a country, in more danger from "free" trade and our own gun fetish than from any foreign wars, we are headed for trouble.
Hillary was at the top of the heap in the State Department and knew about all of this. It will be easy for the Republicans to find all kinds of shocking details about what happened when she was there.
Hillary and Bill began as idealists, but now they are just part of the elite. They know it -- and they live well, especially considering that we heard they had relatively little money when Bill entered the White House. I think the story was they did not even own a house. They have made many times their wealth since Bill left office. That does not bode well for the coutnry. Their financial well being and lifestyle depends on their pleasing their corporate masters.
Elizabeth Warren was a law professor. She cares about the interests of ordinary Americans. It's time we had a president who really cared about us. She is not going to have a career after the White House. She would make a great, honest president. Someone free from the pressure of having to put a couple of kids through college after the White House. We need that for a change.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)we have 39 months until the election
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She tried in 2008 when she wasn't viewed as such a party hack, so sold-out, but she couldn't make it.
Elizabeth Warren's support is still very grass-roots. I hope it will encourage her to announce at the right time. Her message is so strong and will appeal to so many Americans.
Hillary might succeed if she renounced the 1% and spoke out for the people. But she has been such a corporate shill that I don't think she can do it.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)karynnj
(60,956 posts)He announced in 2007 - the first hints that he was seriously considering it in December 2006. Not to mention this was in the face of the "Hillary is inevitable".
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)years earlier----he was my fav from the get go-----and if there were another Obama type here now we would be on their bandwagon----but there is not-----
juajen
(8,515 posts)Who died and made you kingmaker?
So, an ex-President and First Lady cannot make money by giving speeches and writing books?
If you have proof that they have profited illegally, then show it, but stop the innuendos and republican crap.
I will certainly vote for Elizabeth when it is time.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)owe a huge debt to the powers that pay their bills.
juajen
(8,515 posts)That's the way our elections run. It takes a lot of money to run for the President of the United States.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)I believe that she will be a force in the senate, and come along later. Hillary might not want more than one term; if this happens, Elizabeth will have had another four years to season. I believe she is too smart to try for 1216.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)angry Republican and other votes as well as Democratic votes because she demonstrates common sense and doesn't play favorites. She is not a tricky person. She cares about consumer rights -- those are the rights of the middle class. She would make the best candidate I've seen so far. Common sense prevails. And she does not have a record of defending loser wars or bankers or offshore accounts or huge tax loopholes for the lucky sperm folks. She is pretty clean of all the things that are making Americans skeptical.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Elizabeth Warren could be so marginalized in a run that occurs too early in her political career-----she is the long term candidate that return our country to decency
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... or "free trade" bills such as the TPP, etc. The Koch brothers have paid off the Clintons through their contributions to the Clinton's DLC to do their bidding before on things like NAFTA that Bill put in place with other corporatists before that DESTROYED American middle class jobs the last few decades. Ross Perot warned us then about these corporate shenanigans, and even Lou Dobbs has been right about warning us on Hillary's stance on indentured servant programs like H-1B that along with overpriced college education, is driving pragmatic smart kids away from high tech careers and more to others such as health care, finance, law and others that are more likely to have domestic jobs. It is not the BS that kids are driven away from the challenge of a high tech education/career. When I entered the workforce during the early days of Silicon Valley, many American kids like me were drawn to this field, and companies like Sun and HP had reputations for not laying off anyone, and hired domestically very well. Now the world capital for high tech has moved from Silicon Valley to Bangalore the last decade and there's a reason for that. Washington is serving those wanting to make money at the top of these industries, not those of us who actually do the work and come up with the technologies that allows them to automate more of the work around the country, that provides a hell of a lot more of the "value" of the work output than the execs and high level managers that take all of the rewards that the corporatists in Washington serve.
We need someone with an agenda that serves the rest of us and not the Kochs NOW! Climate change won't wait for two more elections for us to get our leadership right here. We need to get this to happen in 2016. Elizabeth Warren is in the best position to provide that for us AND serve the interests of women as well!
juajen
(8,515 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)who is your candidate----are they funded and is there an election team in place now----Rand Paul is in Iowa---whatya got ??
juajen
(8,515 posts)I am very clear as to the fact that my pick is Hillary, as always.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She is a Clinton.
We do not want an aristocracy. Two Bushes were enough.
juajen
(8,515 posts)to take their last name. If they were truly related, their marriage in most states would be against the law. She is a Rodham and proud of it. I took my husbands name when I married, because it was the norm and expected in 1963, but I have never been related to him, nor is Hillary related to Bill. She does not have one drop of Clinton blood in her body. Give it a rest.
It looks like it might be three Bushes, if the Republicans get their way.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and then maybe Chelsea Rodham-Clinton----after that the Obama women-------it is their turn
karynnj
(60,956 posts)I seriously doubt the Democrats remain continuously in power through 2024 - or even 8 or 16 years later than that in the first place - much less with just Clintons and Obamas.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)
karynnj
(60,956 posts) It would be worse if they are two separate posters.Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but this post has been around for a bit---do you have an objection to something I have said here?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)and really cannot understand why so many women do.
I won't be running for President myself, but when Hillary buckled to the pressure to change her last name after Bill lost an election, that made me lose a certain amount of respect for her.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but remember that she is a political animal-----so her think was this -----right now I ride on Air Force One every day-----if I divorce Bill because of Monica I'll be riding coach----smart woman----and she is smarter than Bill
Little Star
(17,055 posts)whathehell
(30,460 posts)
on point
(2,506 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)do you think there will be a primary?----who do you think will be running ?----have they started an election team yet?----have they announced? ----would you vote for Hillary in the general election?-----I am asking this because Hillary's team is now getting the 2014 candidates on her side by helping them-----making appearances --------
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)SCOTUS is a very big deal for the next 10 years
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but don't you agree that his team now owes the Clinton a return of the favor at 2012 ----and subsequent campaign trail stumping
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)at the beginning of the Democratic primaries ?
Speaking of the Obama team, an interesting recent story:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)Warren barely won her first election in a blue state.
karynnj
(60,956 posts)and she did it against a media loved incumbent who was above 50% in his approval rating. At the point Obama ran for President, he had no race in his past that he won that he could point to which was tough.
juajen
(8,515 posts)to help in any way I could. I like her a lot, but she cannot win the nomination or election without more experience. Obama was really the only candidate that could have done that. Republicans know that it's a done deal if Hillary wants it. Why do you think they won't let Benghazi die a natural death?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I can't wait------thee will not be the filibustering that is going on now-----she will get every bit of dirt on all of them---they will tow the mark when she asks
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Marblehead
(1,268 posts)
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Elizabeth gets about 4% Hillary gets 55%---this is Warren's home state ---what will she do across the country?---does she have an election team?---is she funded?
protect our future
(1,156 posts)I agree with NYC.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)is just too long.
polichick
(37,626 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Elizabeth gets about 4% Hillary gets 55%---this is Warren's home state ---what will she do across the country?---does she have an election team?---is she funded?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Just watch.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)where is her election team? where are her Iowa visits? ---we are 39 months away from the election-----if she is going to be a candidate we will need something more than that very sharp and clever logo on your signature-----what have we got? ----better still --when will this grassroots campaign organize----lip service is great ----and she is probably the best elected official since Jimmy Carter------but where's the beef? (kind of a silly question since I am a vegetarian)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Okey-dokey.
juajen
(8,515 posts)When she has earned a presidential nomination, I will certainly support her. She is good, but unseasoned.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren----a lot of people on this site unknowingly want to make her damaged goods in the next Presidential election------that would be tragic----let's save her as a continuous weapon in the Senate for now---I would hate to see her leave the Senate with so much undone------she is our rising star and fresh face in politics
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Warren seems to be fulfilling Obama's promises or what we perceived to be his spoken duty. She is like a pseudo-president as the US Senate is more powerful for liberals than the White House, at this point in history.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)thereby getting that experience as his right hand without having to be experienced himself.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the Republicans were pissed-----they knew this was a real groomer for Hillary for 2016-----and they know that they can not beat her---just lovin' it
polichick
(37,626 posts)Always Randy is the perfect name, ya know.
juajen
(8,515 posts)karynnj
(60,956 posts)There were comments I saw in various MA online versions of newspapers that were angry in 2008 that Kerry would have accepted a position as SoS if it were offered - rather than representing MA - as he had since 1984.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Brown was an aberration---and even Romney for a while------but they made him put in affordable health insurance which is quite the topic of the day
karynnj
(60,956 posts)Massachusetts - even before Kennedy's death was concerned that their Senator was working for them - not looking for a higher position. Consider that in Massachusetts, most people graduating college in 2008 had had the same two Senators since they were born! In the Senate, Massachusetts had enormous clout. Both of their Senators were among the most powerful in the Senate - which worked very well for Massachusetts. ( Kennedy chairing HELP and being a senior Senator on the Armed Services committee and Kerry chairing Small Business (which really helped the smaller high tech MA companies) and being a senior Senator on Finance and Foreign Relations made Massachusetts a powerhouse in the Senate - and when the Democrats were in power, they had the strongest House delegation.
Now they have two freshman Senators - both of whom are exceptional in their own ways. Warren is brilliant and knows the banking problem inside and out. Markey was the leading House advocate for the environment. However, there is no way that they command the clout that Kerry alone had - much less Kennedy and Kerry. Note that the same could have been said for Obama in 2005 - the Senate, not the rest of the world, puts huge value on seniority and when seniority and competence exist together (as was the case for both Senators Kennedy and Kerry) it is hard to beat .
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)There were no wars under Bill Clinton that were initiated by the US.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)were magnificent.
I'll bet you didn't know that! (Me neither.)
Beacool
(30,514 posts) MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Are you thinking that if she were president she wouldn't have thought they were good ideas?
Beacool
(30,514 posts)we wouldn't have invaded either country.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And if one of them had been President, we wouldn't have attacked.
Beacool
(30,514 posts) Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Hillary had to be seeing all of this through a different set of eyes. When Bush and the Republicans did not come through with the funding they promised to help NYC Hillary held their feet to the fire and won support for the NYPD and the NYFD. Manny I can understand your admiration of Elizabeth Warren, but not your lack of support of Hillary.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)
the environment surrounding NYC at the time made it gullible to the Bush lies of WMD----Hillary's willingness to vote yes had to be tied to a package of pork for NYC----she is not one to do a knee jerk ---"oh I am pissed off at Saddam so I'm gonna get him" ---she is shrewd, cold and calculating. She had to fight Bush to get every dollar to NYC----and she did a fantastic job----so Manny to be "crystal" on the issue YES --she did the right thing
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/george-w-bush-least-popular-living-ex-president/
Bill Clinton has a 66% favorable rating-----I just can't see him going to the Democratic convention or on the campaign trail stumping for Elizabeth-----and as good as she is---I don't think we want the current Republican fire to rage------Elizabeth is a bigger target for the extreme right and she would help them GOTV on the Republican side----so she could be a "Nader effect" ---I don't think Elizabeth would be party to that
Wilms
(26,795 posts)There are 300 million people in this country, most of whom are not named Clinton or Bush, and some of whom really are Democrats.
And as far as, "make sure that a woman is finally elected President" goes, consider that you get to vote at 18 years of age...and leave high school behind.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)are any of these 300 million polling above Hillary for 2016?-----my heart is with a lot of other candidates----but I think an overwhelming blow is needed to get the Republican party out of filibuster position---like I said my heart is with you on this----but my head says to win---you need a team ---and money----and I don't see anyone that is viable to raise the support ----take a look at the polls ---Hillary in Massachusetts is at 55%---and Elizabeth is at 4%
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Yes We Can, do better.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I haven't made a timeline on this--yet----but maybe we could do it together ---and see how much longer anyone can wait to announce---------what kind of team do they have-------I really think that if anyone announces it will be supported by the Clinton's---and paid for by them---just to create some diversionary tactics-------and on this issue I don't believe that Elizabeth Warren would do that----she is too ethical--Biden---yup
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/
we are now 39 months away from the election itself-----
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)even if it means a new Republican president in 2016----I am not talking about the "feel good " emotional side here----I am talking about winning
djean111
(14,255 posts)but as far as a primary goes - I would never in a million years vote for someone just because they have the same genitals as I do.
I keep reading that we wimmenfolk will of course vote for another woman, just to make some sort of point.
Hey, didn't work for Palin, did it?
I think that is a very flawed assumption, to count on GOP women votes for Hillary just because she is a woman. Not gonna happen, IMO.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Please don't think ---as a father of 3 daughters-a lifelong Democrat and a company policy and procedures manual that was gender neutral 40 yrs ago----that I use the term ''wimmenfolk"----and let's not ever think that a Palin had credibility anywhere-----but Hillary---like her or not---- as far as the Republican women go----even Laura Bush has said that a lot of the Republican candidates scare her------all of the women that I know go crazy when they hear the "Republican Rape Genie" philosophy----that is significant stuff-----and if Hillary's opponent has to pander to the Teapublicans -----she is going to win by a landslide-----and some of her surrogates at the convention will be Elizabeth Warren, Wendy Davis, Michele Obama----
So a question for you---will more Republican women vote for Hillary than voted for Obama?
djean111
(14,255 posts)All of the GOP women I know just hate "liberals" and love the GOP - no critical thinking required. I don't even think they think of Hillary as a woman per se, she is not like Sarah Palin.
And yes, pretty ironic that Hillary will be considered a liberal by GOP voters. She will be demonized as such, as will whoever the nominee is.
I think the TPP will not bother the GOP, but will hurt Democrats.
I fear that proposing chained CPI will hurt Democrats - a sound bite is worth a thousand rebuttals.
That's why I am hoping for new blood that can disassociate from the bad things the GOP will bring up.
Again, sound bites are going to trump logic. One of the things than sank Romney, really.
This is just me using my brand of logic and considering the things that bother me. I don't like Hillary's policies and corporatism, and the GOP voters, male and female, may not want to see a woman in the White House, anyway. So the fact that her policies are (IMO) more corporate and conservative than what being a Democrat used to stand for won't resonate with GOP voters. Hillary will be
"the other", no matter what.
As far as republicans being scared of some GOP candidates - hey, Hillary scares me, and I won't vote GOP.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I think that an election is so "big business"" now that any hope for human frailty is only in the lesser of two evils----and I have not seen anything from the Tea Party or the Republicans that looks anything like concern for the weak----I would agree with anyone that said Hillary is a ruthless corporate driven politico ---but her base is a religious right calling for all sorts of nasty intrusion into women's lives and to the weak---so she will vote support them in any way that she can-----or at least not bark our a 47% theory
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)They're in social circles where everyone votes Republican, and they won't want to admit what they did -- but they'll get in the voting booth and think about all the shit they've taken from men, some of whom the men who are now making jokes about Hillary not being "tough enough" to be President. They'll feel some solidarity with her.
As against that, some Democrats (mostly older men) will share that feeling that a woman couldn't be tough enough. They'll refuse to vote for Hillary for that reason. They might just leave the line blank (and lie about it, if in their social circle it's unthinkable).
I hope Hillary is not the nominee. I'd rather see a liberal. If she does run, though, my guess is that the identity politics of gender will, on balance, work in her favor, but probably not to a huge extent.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and have always voted Democratic----I think the one thing about Democratic men is that they seem to be on the right side of history a lot more often than Republicans ----you don't see any of this social diatribe coming from the Democratic Party-----on this blog you don't see the idiotic threats that are so frequent of the Tea party sites ----yeah we have had our whackos ---but the long and short of it is that we are loyal to the team----and we don't have party leaders that preach divisiveness----we are pretty much "big tent" ---we will vote for Hilllary
djean111
(14,255 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)is a ballbuster! She's still married to that philanderer! She lied about being under fire!
Most GOPers I have the misfortune to know hate both Clintons with a passion and believe the many tinfoil-hat myths that were spread around when they were in the White House.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the Secretary of Commerce--Edward Brown-----that's in the lore as well----and as far as the Lewinsky matter ---Hillary had daily flights on Air Force One----divorce Bubba=flying coach-----also there are some that say she knew all about the affair ---just one of many------on the Republican matter -----GWB's mother and daughter support a Hillary run ---and take a look at a new blog called Emily's List-----it will help you get in tune with women's politics ----anyone with your energy can do ,ore-----like for instance help get out the vote in Kentucky where Allison Grimes is trying to take Mitch McConnell's seat-------and on the gender issue------the last election was the black issue-----the next one is the GENDER ELECTION----and every woman who has had to put up with misogynists will be at the polls-----it's not so much that they love Hillary (kinda hard to love her)but one of your first accusation is one of Hillary's best traits ----she is a ballbuster ----and I can not think of a better group of ment that need their's busted than the Republican's ----starting with the slut calling Rush Limbaugh---he might have to retire !!!--------and it is about women --more and more ----a news reported said Wendy Davis has bigger balls than Ted Cruz---------this is emaciation politics and it is long overdue-------do you think that those force a woman to have invasive ultrasound treatments --do not need a little ballbusting-------I just can't wait-------and oh yeah the latest one is ---"she's too old"---wait until AARP reads that
RFKHumphreyObama
(15,164 posts) Always Randy
(1,085 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)No, not the same genitals, but a female that is brilliant and owns a pair. You get my drift, I'm sure. New Yorkers of both political persuasions would also say that she was a brilliant Senator, also.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And being considered brilliant means squat. Actually being brilliant means squat. It is all about the money now.
In any event, I am not very fond of anyone who helps architect the TPP - gender does not matter. Not going to be enthusiastic about more corporatism, ever.
I don't think of the presidency as some sort of symbolic award or whatever, either. I was working all through the feminist fighting years, I worked for some shitty women and some awesome men - and some awesome women and shitty men. I remember how Carly Fiorina was supposed to be some fantastic breakthrough for women. And she about ruined Hewlett Packard. So I am leery of the "finally a woman" thing. Brilliant senators - I am told that Warren makes a great senator, why waste her as a president......I like Warren because she hasn't had time to cut all the deals with Wall Street and corporations as yet.
juajen
(8,515 posts)I would say that the great majority of our past Presidents have been brilliant, especially the successful ones. Are you insecure with having a brilliant woman President?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)men don't always like to admit that a woman gave them so much-----but it is obvious-----a good marriage is teamwork---great women--yes!!!!----Eleanor Roosevelt---Rosalyn Carter---Jacquie Kennedy---Barbara Bush--Hillary OMG yes-----the country was falling apart about the Monica thing ---and she says ---Bubba ---put it back in your pants and get Presidential---oh she is so smart--------some foolish people thought she should divorce Bubba--and Hillary says-- ride coach instead of Air Force One NAH!---not HRC---
djean111
(14,255 posts)That is a snide question, not worth answering. Actually, it is not really a question, more like a sneer.
juajen
(8,515 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Asking me (a woman, by the way) if I am insecure about having a woman as president is ridiculous. And a bit sexist.
And I am speaking as one who doesn't think all those people voted for Bush to go to Iraq, I believe they voted to have him go to Iraq if evidence was presented to them and they accepted the evidence. Bush took that ball and ran with it, ignoring Congress completely.
In any event, nothing you or anyone else says here at DU will affect my vote. We are just having a discussion.
juajen
(8,515 posts)Last time I checked there was not an "F" of "M" beside our mostly disguised gender names.
I also do not know your age; but, am guessing that I am somewhat older than you. Please correct me, if I am wrong. I am 72 years old.
Most of my young adult life was spent trying to get out from under the ever present male, who controlled my life. There were many of us, and we worked hard to be seen as intelligent humans, and not just a stick with boobs and a convenient knothole. It was very hard for me to gain an education, for women either had money to go to a marriage market college or they were stuck as the "help" or the "girl", and neither of these names were respectful. I had a good brain, but not a chance to enhance it with learning or experience until I was much older. No female doctors of lawyers in my young adult life. Our chance came much later than that.
Probably, this background doesn't interest you. But, it is an explanation for why I believe we need to break that damn glass ceiling; and, this will take a talented and brilliant woman to accomplish, for many men as well as women will be frightened of change. She was taken down in the primary because she didn't have enough "foreign" experience. In other words, because they didn't want a woman and they could grab on to this supposed fault. It didn't matter that she had more experience than anyone else running, and she actually had been a Senator for eight years. It was an excuse because they did not want to scare away the little women voters, because they were voters in higher numbers than men. There were other factors, but none made any sense. Then, Obama needed her. She became SOS, one of our very best, and no more can anyone say she does not have foreign experience.
Before I die, I want a smart, well placed woman to take charge of this country. She's it. There is no one else as well placed. I only hope she will run, and not just say it isn't worth it. It's hard not to feel that way when you watch the first black President beset at every turn. Obama is a brilliant man, he's loyal to his wife and children, etc., but, still, he is just not good enough for those white haired, shit-eating, arrogant white men. To Hell with them! They have torn this country into pieces. I cannot believe what our beloved country has become. I am leaving it in horrible shape for my five children, three of whom are brilliant and well educated women, who will still be living in a country with only male leaders, if that ceiling still stands. I pray every day that she will stay strong and be willing to take up the sword. If she doesn't, I can only say "Thank You, brave woman! You gave it your all. The Democratic Party desperately needs to stay the party "with the big tent". So Mote it Be.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and I support everything you said---look Hillary can tick just about anyone off----we could spend hours picking her apart ----but to what end ----to really get this country into the new millennium we need a woman President----ok --we proved that a black man can be President and the country will not fall apart----to the contrary he is a sterling example of a man----often the only adult in the room----and Hillary can bring all of this full circle----I can not think of anyone better than her to put the right wingers in their place------and I can't wait to watch----after her the doors for change will be truly open------no one will be able to sa anything about a woman in the Oval Office----and we all know she is truly capable
juajen
(8,515 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Anyway, resurrected conversation over, you are just pointlessly jabbing. Shrug.
juajen
(8,515 posts)I certainly don't know much about it, and it seems that not many do. I think we need a thread on it. Perhaps you might consider that, for the info on it is sparse, and I certainly do not know enough to do this. I do know that Hillary supported it, and, on the surface, I think it could be a real problem. However, I do not know enough to make a judgment. Perhaps you do, and I would love to hear your opinion and what you feel Hillary is doing supporting it.
Perhaps there was a thread on this, and I missed it. If anyone has knowledge of one, maybe they could point it out to me.
djean111
(14,255 posts)would make the TPP to easy to isolate and perhaps be ignored. There are many fine threads about the TPP here.
A TPP thread would be good for required reading before someone uses the "link please" delay tactic. At this point, Google is likely a best friend, since I have noticed that sometimes when links are provided, the sources chosen are Snowdened. Again, a delaying tactic IMO, in hopes people will lose interest. Flak.
Hillary supporting it? I am given to understand that she is/was in the thick of negotiating and building it.
Hard nut to crack? If you mean hard nut of secrecy built around it by the Obama administration, well yes. Congress has to jump through hoops in order to see any of it (google grayson TPP (or trans pacific partnership) or look through TPP OPs here), and Obama wants this thing to be fast tracked when it does lurch out of the shadows. No discussion, no stripping out objectionable parts, a subversion of the Constitution, in my opinion. Why does he want that so badly? Not because it is stellar, according to those who have seen parts of it.
If you mean hard nut to crack as in how to make this thing palatable, I sincerely doubt that is possible. Better luck with that with Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce, no luck at all with voters who find out about it. Which is the whole point of the secrecy - I understand that around 600 corporate leaders are involved, but Congress and the public - veil of secrecy.
I am not going to link to everything - there are links throughout the TPP OPs here, and Google is always your friend.
I say this because I am not going to defend my feelings about the TPP, nor am I going to be sunk in a little blizzard of "prove it". It doesn't matter if others just say oh, too early to tell, or let's wait and see when it is enacted, really.
I am also interested in what Hillary thinks of the Chained CPI thing, Social Security in general, I believe she is for the Keystone pipeline. I doubt she will bother pretending to not be corporate, and I feel she may be counting on Bill's charisma (faded quite a bit for me) to counteract this sort of thing. Time will tell, but so far, FOR ME - she is going to be the lesser evil, and I hope she is primaried.
Being a woman? How did Carly Fiorina being a woman work out for Hewlett Packard? Not too well. As a woman who slogged through the sexist corporatism in the 60's, 70's and really onwards, I will not just climb on the train of wanting Hillary because she is a woman. That is, actually, just as sexist. I don't want revenge, I want a non-corporate president.
This is how I feel. There will be no point in dissecting my post and sinking it in a flurry of "links please". And then there is this - many many people will vote according to how they feel, they are not going to say or respond to "links, please", they are just going to vote.
Oh, and my hair is not on fire, (not directed at you), and when I find work I am a software quality assurance person, I am used to hunting down any possible problems, I take nothing at bland face value.
juajen
(8,515 posts)My suggestion was that we all need more discussion on it; but, this thread is about a Hillary presidential run and its inevitability.
As far as a corporatist presidency is concerned: In the hoped for event that Citizens United will someday be overturned, that is one of the major reasons why we desperately need a democratic win in 2016. If the republicans get to put even more conservative judges on the court, Citizens United will never be overturned.
For this reason, we need the most electable candidate possible; imho, that is Hillary. We also need a woman to take advantage of all the bad press the republicans are getting over "women's issues",and, no other woman or man in the democratic party is as qualified as Hillary Rodham Clinton to become the next President of the United States.
I loved Bill Clinton and hated NAFTA. I voted for Ross Perot because of it. We cannot and will not ever have a perfect President who pleases all of the people all of the time, etc. On the surface, I already hate TPP, and can fight against it like hell whomever is President.
I did not even attempt to be an expert on TPP; however, there are many things I am heavily educated on and, on those issues, I speak out.
I do not have the time nor the desire to know all there is to know politically these days. I choose my battles carefully and attempt to get an overall picture of coming attractions or disasters and post on them.
DU is a huge forum with a lot of very wonderful and educated people. All of our voices, knowledge and opinions make it an outstanding place to go to on the internet for information, which is forthcoming because we have so many who contribute their knowledge and wisdom; of course, if we get bored with all of that serious thinking, we can always slip off to the lounge for a drink of fun.
You took offense when none was intended. Because of you, I did some research on TPP, and will do more, after I take my required naps of the day, and catch up on some frivolous fiction. I am, after all, retired.
djean111
(14,255 posts)That is why it is relevant here.
Things like the TPP and chained CPI will be used against any Dem that runs. And if Hillary is responsible for part of crafting the TPP, then I am not really sure what kind of a supreme court judge she would nominate. If she, like Obama, takes a pass on public funding because corporate funding is so much more lucrative, then I have my doubts that she will change the status quo.
Women's issues? The GOP base does not care about them. Dem women may vote against the GOP because of women's issues, but as a woman, I don't see the GOP war on women as a reason to vote for one.
I think perhaps some are discounting the visceral hate the GOP has for Hillary, too. Hatred of her may bring more GOPers to the polls.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)link on this
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)this was posted on Politcususa tonight by Anya
"Hey GOP, I despise you as much as you despise me, the thirty-something unmarried American woman.
I can see what you shady assholes are trying to do and I will not vote for you, none of my friends or family will either. You assclowns are done controlling American women and we are over you; your creepiness, hypocrisy and patronizing garbage is so 1912, that we are done with you.
I hope your wives divorce you and your daughters have massive parties the day you die."
djean111
(14,255 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)in the next election --who will you be voting for ----any favorites?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and commentary sets a good bar for the site
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and she is going to win ----and she knows where their pairs are and knows how to drop kick better than anyone running
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If she is the best candidate, then I'd vote for her. Many of us want to see who will run. Some make the assumption there is only one candidate. That's another flawed assumption the person is making.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)even Nate Silver speaks of it in interviews -----bottom line --Hillary can get more Republican women to vote for her than any other candidate-------Laura Bush said some of the Republican candidates in the last election scared her-------GENDER is the theme of this next election----especially after all of the ultrasound bills , the rape genies, the Rush Limbaugh "slut" comments----defunding of Planned Parenthood, ---believe it or not WOMEN are watching this and the vote will be overwhelming from their response to the "war on women"
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)1) she will run and 2) that she has no one running against her. Right there are your flawed assumptions. In addition to that the first primary is still almost 30 months away. Everyone makes the assumption that she will run but the truth is we don't know.
I for one, as I stated before want to see who runs. Anyone who thinks Hillary is inevitable in 2016 is sorely mistaken.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)that we don't own a clown car that drives our candidates around making wild statements that just bury them--------------but after watching elections for the past 50 years I don't see anyone else with a team in place-------please tell me a name ---or names that you think could win-------remember that our back porch is on fire -------the Republicans are screaming desperate-for the White House----they have stolen elections in the past Bush vs. Kerry----- Planned Parenthood clinics are being closed ----they have ultrasound probing in women's bodies in several states ------and Dick Cheney's daughter is running for the Senate in 2014-----this is hardly a time to be too idealistic--------we need to put out the fire on our porch and set one on both the front and back on theirs--------either way here it is good to talk with you on this-----so refreshing to hear Democratic ideals-------thank you
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I'm going to ignore 99% of your usual rant. At this point no one is running, no one has declared. Please point to me a statement where a candidate (any candidate) has said they will run? Please point to a statement that is creditable.
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
As to who can win, isn't that a decision that should be made in the primary? Something that is 30 months away.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Statement 1---see Emily's List ----a very progressive women's political blog
Statement 2 --see "Ready for Hillary" a political team with many Obama team people gathering money for Hillary's campaign started early this year
Statement -3 my own ---since Hillary arrival on the national scene she has postured toward the Presidency----and has never wavered--it is so in her blood--
are you like Rooney in the same movie
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)You know what they say, two heads are better than one 
Just don't let the admins catch you using the same IP.
As for the conversation, it's over.
You shall disappear, goodbye 
and 
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)There are many men and their womenfolk, who will be just as enraged over a female President as they were over a black President.
Women have been fighting a long time for equality, and having a female President will go a long towards smoothing the way for a better tomorrow for women.
We do a hell of a lot of work for no pay, hold families together, do most of the volunteer work for the needy and raise the next generation, knowing, of course, that there are exceptions to every rule. We can and do make good leaders!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)from the bondage of their old fashioned beliefs----it will be so refreshing for them to wake up in the morning and not be a prisoner of their hatred and fear. Martin Luther King did a lot to free white men from thinking black men were not capable, valuable men-------and that discrimination had no place in the world----I know I know --it has taken such a long time to pull that pendulum this way----and I know Hillary is no Mother Teresa ----but we need a do gooder for President------we need a women that will hake those Filibuster Kings by the neck------and get this country moving
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but take a look at the most recent polling numbers---from 3 days ago---
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/democratic-presidential-primary-2016/
---where will Elizabeth get that kind of support other than from us ----trust me folks --sge will be on the Democratic team for a long time to come ----but 2016 is not in the cards for her as Prsident
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's just way too early, we don't know if any of them are actually going to run or not yet.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)please don't think that my avid support of her is because I like her-----she is the most ruthless politician on earth -----she's gonna win this one----I am just so fed up the right wing diatribe that I think she is the perfect antidote--
Thank you for the response
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And I think her husband has stated publicly that they don't know what will happen.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/bill-clinton-says-hillary-hasnt-mentioned-2016-run-to-him/
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the Clinton's were being interviewed about his infidelity with Jennifer Flowers------Hillary ---with curled lip---said straight on to the reporter-----look --I'm not some Tammy Winnette staying home --making cookies ---and singing "Stand by your man" -----Hill actually had to apologize to Tammy a few days later----a good political move to the mountain folk behind her----but what I saw then impressed me----again ---she is not my favorite----but she is so ruthless that she will win this one-----and she will have all the power on her side
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She is not a candidate for the 99%.
And that is going to matter in 2016. Who do you think the Republicans will run.
My bet is they will have a folksy candidate.
juajen
(8,515 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)As soon as Christy raises his head they will run photos of his embrace of Obama after the Sandy----the right wing will not let him forget that and they blame him for Romney's loss-----you and I know better-
juajen
(8,515 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)there are no "folksy" candidates in the Republican party --------and we don't need a candidate for the 99% ---and there never will be one that gets elected-----we need on for about the 56%--because that is what it takes to win-----but I can see a bigger landslide for Clinton----she gets a 55% support in Massachusetts----where a freshly minted Warren gets 4%----------
the 2016 election is now----Rand Paul is in Iowa rallying his troops----where is ours-----very much in control------Hillary is a political animal and has not stopped thinking about being President since birth
juajen
(8,515 posts)First Lady of Arkansas, please tell me who all these corporate supporters are? Of course, there are some democratic corporations that have always supported a democratic candidate. We are always very glad when they show up to to help balance the great amount of corporate money that the Republicans produce every election cycle. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. I am always aware that we now have to have big money to compete and that has been the case for a number of years. Citizens United just made it more lopsided than it was. I hate this, and wish we could go back to only voter supported money, where donations are made when we pay our taxes.
I am also aware that most huge corporations give money to both parties. This, however, does not mean that they support Democrats; it just means they want to make sure that they are not left out in the cold if a Democrat is elected, you know, if their attempts to salt the well fail.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/
and the Republicans have a StopHillary team in place----she's running
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)there is a very little that is not under her control --including this and most --if not all--- Dem PACs
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)if you can take a look at the Red States that Bill Clinton took in '92---the Clinton's still have a lot of support there ---and I think the Blue States are a slam dunk for them-----tell me more though how you feel about this----I could be missing something ---and again thank you for your comments
juajen
(8,515 posts)Too much can happen to change things, and announcing early is not a good strategy.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Hillary is running ----she loves this game-----and can't wait to play
juajen
(8,515 posts)goes with the territory. EW is also ruthless, she just needs some more time on the stage. If Hillary decides to come down after one term, it might be time for Elizabeth. I am so glad they are both democrats and lovely too. Unfortunately, that always helps a woman.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Which is precisely the reason I'd rather see somebody else. In essence she would be presiding over the third Obama term and that doesn't appeal to me at all. And I don't want to see Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House.
At this early date I could not say for certain that I'd vote for her if she were the Democratic nominee. Of course it would depend on her opponent. I can say this - if she were opposed by Jeb Bush I probably would write in an actual Democrat or leave my ballot blank.
And I will definitely vote against her in the primary.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I do believe there will be some that are encouraged to run--just for the distraction and to discourage others from running against her-------
but the election team she will have will probably be the strongest and most astute ever assembled
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/
RC
(25,592 posts)Hillery is not in the running. She is too well known as being too Hawkish and has been proven a bit too DLC'ish for the voting public. She has had her chance and has done about as much as she can for our/her owners.
They will do another Obama on us. It worked very well for them in 2008.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts) 
RC
(25,592 posts)They will change the motto to "Hopefully some Improvement" to keep up with the ever increasing cynical mood of the American People.
on point
(2,506 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)we are now 39 months away from another Bush Presidency----maybe with Cheney's daughter--- if we do not support a Democrat--
do you have or know of someone that can mount a successful primary against Hillary?
If it was today ----I would vote for Elizabeth Warren---but I don't think she can muster a team ---the money---or the nationwide support ---there is just not sufficient name recognition ---even in her own state she gets a 4% ---and Clinton a 55%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/democratic-presidential-primary-2016/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/
juajen
(8,515 posts)The country was very upset and angry; the democrats were not all on the bandwagon, but some did not believe that the President would lie so outrageously and actually invent evidence in lieu of facts. Hillary, especially, was in a tough spot, since it was NYC that was attacked and she was their Senator.
on point
(2,506 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)
I knew we were being lied to and there were no weapons of mass destruction. The con was obvious. Millions in the US and around the world marched against this war. That it was a bad idea was obvious to them too.
I don't buy 'she was in a tough spot'. She was either craven, corrupt, or conned. Any one of which disqualifies her from further office.
Leadership is showing backbone and taking a stand when you have to, it is speaking out against the tide. Again, if she can't do that, or others like her can't do that, they don't deserve to be in office.
The dems need to know if they sell out the people of this country their career is over.
juajen
(8,515 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)she was not well liked by men----but she fought for the money for the NYPD and the NYFD---and held Bush's feet to the fire on making those payments to New York after 9/11----she was in a tough position--but she also that her constituants wanted that war---New York was uber pissed at Al Queda----and they bought the Bush/Cheney lies on WMD--------it was easy to trick a lot of us then because our incensed outrage and blind patriotism -------she ended up bringing home the money to New York after the Republicans dragged their feet on it
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I think I am on a bit of a roll today because of the recent SC VRA gutting, the TExas WEndy Davis happenings----the North Carolina silliness----I really do believe that if we star pumping for 2016 NOW---we will be diligent in getting out the vote in 2014----I love this DU blog----we just need to dance together a bit more---thank you again Always Randy
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)She is a cultural warrior. We need one at this time to re-enforce and cement the changes which have occurred over the past 60 years.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the social issues are what the fabric of our country is about---even if we don't like all that they represent , the bully pulpit that they speak to us from is powerful-----and hearing a guy like Romney talk about the 47% is indicative of the thinking of the current Republican party----the Chaney's, the Bush's , Gingrich, Santorum, Paul's----these people want to se our country back-----they don't seek a big tent-----they have their hands on the drawbridge and can't wait to exclude anyone that doesn't think like them-----we need to turn Texas blue---and Arizona too-----we need to get real busy in 2014 and get Dems in the state houses ----undo the district gerrymandering------and as much as I love the progressive thinking on this site------we need to replace the Republican control----and then we begin a progressive change-------we Elect a few Elizabeth Warrens and Wendy Davis-------well maybe some men too if there's any around -----
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)who would you suggest run for the Democrats?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)Lightning will not strike again, there won't be another Obama coming out of the woodwork in 2016. The way some of you felt about Obama in 2008 is the way that many people feel about Hillary in 2016. Basically, that it's about damn good time to have a woman president and Hillary would be the most qualified candidate, regardless of gender. Deny it all you want, but there's a hunger to see Hillary run in 2016.
The big question is whether she would want to go through that hell all over again.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)she loves this-----for her it is better than 100 Super Bowls---she is not weary----and oh ---there are so many targets in her sights---like Rush Limbaugh----he spent years raking her over the coals---he will be one of the first to feel the pain----here's my take on the good Hillary----when she won the Senate seat from New York ---the then minority leader said "she will have to bark like a dog" before I will recognize her------move down a few months -and ol Trent let's a sound bite go about Strom Thurmond would have been a good President to keep the blacks in this country from getting ahead--------Hillary did not say a word to him-------but immediately went across the isle to one of Trent's own party and said ---"how would you like to be minority speaker-----the man ---said that's not going to happen ---------but she says ---oh yes====you will be the new speaker-----I am going to wind up the Black Caucus now ---they will approach the President ---and Trent will step down because of the pressure----and you will be the next MinoritySpeaker-----the man said ----well what do I owe you for this------"We shall see said Hillary"----
So do you remember those Benghazi hearings a few months ago----those guys just threw gasoline on the flames
I wonder if she has ever "barked like a dog"
Beacool
(30,514 posts)He hoped that lighting would strike and she wouldn't serve. He later had to apologize.
When Mrs. Clinton first won office, Mr. Lott, the Mississippi Republican, welcomed her to town by warning: "I'll tell you one thing: when this Hillary gets to the Senate, if she does — maybe lightning will strike and she won't — she will be one of 100, and we won't let her forget it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/nyregion/30hillary.html?pagewanted=print
Hillary is strong and has taken crap for years from both ends of the political spectrum, but even the strongest people get tired. She might decide that it's not worth it.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)tired is nothing for her --she would run on her deathbed-----a lot of people thought that she would divorce Bill over the Monica Lewinsky issue-----I did not-----I think like Hillary-----ok I can divorce Bill Clinton and ride coach---or ride it out and stay on Air Force One----hmmm---that's my kind of woman----and next ----hmmmm perhaps a lot of credential building in the US Senate ---hmmm a move to a slam dunk state like New York---hmmmmmmmm---(OK on this I am totally surprised --Obama beat her --I still can't figure that one out) but she takes the lickin' and keeps on tickin'----off to the Sec of State------world class credentials---(not to mention the financial support she could raise in all those countries-----she can make Citizen's United look like a piggy bank-----and then the Benghazi hearings ---just to piss her off a bit more (sing Pete Seeger's ---When Will they ever Learn) the Repubs just piss her off one more time-----I love it----some candidates might have half a deck of cards to play politics -----but Hillary---all 52 and then some-----she can rub it in their faces about how she started out working for the Barry Goldwater campaign --and tell 'em ol Barry could not get the Repub nomination because his ideas are too liberal---she can show her original ideas on healthcare ----and if they just listened to her they would be so happy-----on the infidelities -----she can say ---so I'm loyal ---is that a bad trait--
karynnj
(60,956 posts)Are you intentionally trying to discredit Clinton? Nearly everything you say here - though phrased as if positive is completely negative. Are you trying to get people to reject her? (Not to mention, I really doubt that Hillary Clinton has stayed with Bill Clinton through ALL his playing around - which started pretty early in their marriage - because of the power associated with him. Clearly, in spite of that, she prefers to stay with him.)
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the parties in Milford CT would explain it better------I live in CT----everybody thinks that all couples have the same relationship-----don't want to upset you ------and I am not suggesting this happened ----but supposing Hillary was in the same room with Bill and Monica--------I've said that to some people and they get all grossed out-----I don't ----and it is none of my business what goes on in somebody's bedroom----and about me----I have only voted Democratic all of my life ----my Dad was a Roosevelt Dem and politics were discussed at the evening supper table ---daily-----I worked on JFK's campaign-----and on Barack Obama's----was not an early supporter of Hillary------BUT--everything I READ says she is our next President--I don't watch cable tv-----won't let it in my house-----but do get Rachel Maddow on Apple TV
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Bill Clinton won in 1992 Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas , Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee-----
The Clintons support reaches into those Red States heavily
Beacool
(30,514 posts)I didn't remember which states he won in 1992.
Rstrstx
(1,647 posts)He took away a lot of Bush's votes
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Perot got 19 million votes the most ever for a third party candidate----but he did garner 1 electoral vote--Bill was "Bubba" to lot of these good ol boys and they liked him----not necessarily everything he stood for
Carolina
(6,960 posts)It was Bill and Al; people were either unsure of her or flat out disliked her. And that was then.
Bill is very smart and very CHARISMATIC. He spins gold when he speaks. Hill, not so much. Smart maybe but not charismatic.
So she has Bill by her side you may say, but even those of us who were diehard Clintonistas in the 1990s realize the damage done by their DLC (repuke lite policies). To whit: Gramm-Bliley-Leach, welfare deform, telecommunications consolidation, NAFTA...
This ain't 1992 or 1996 again. They don't have that southern charm or reach any more. Besides HE was the charmer THEN. She was, and is, definitely NOT.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)You have obviously never been around her.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)there are some on here that act like Karl Rove on election night thinking Romney won----we all need to get on the same page here or we will start looking like Tea Party whackos
karynnj
(60,956 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)thank you for your post-----Hillary is by no means my fav------but we need an ELECTABLE candidate---our party is on the right side of history and can not afford to be set back by the Tea party or the Republicans ---Hillary is on the right side of social issues------you won't hear any of that 47% stuff from her ------there will be a day in the sunshine for Eliz Warren ----for Wendy Davis------for Julian Castro----and for Richard Carmona in Arizona----it will be soon ----but we need to hold the reins steady---if there is no Democratic candidate that does not have a primary team --money and support in place now ----then Hillary Clinton is the only choice---------the very last thing we want to have happen is a "Nader effect" and dilute her vote ---it certainly helped Bush Cheney to get in--
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I will not vote for her, primary or general. I will vote for the candidate that best represents my views. Hopefully that will be a Democrat.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but if you could look at the issue of the next Supreme Court appointment ---are you happy with most recent rulings by this
Republican led Court?---On who to vote for, let's say for what ever reason you did not like Obama and voted for McCain and he won----you would have Sarah Palin as next in line for president----she seems to be getting drunker as we speak---and if McCain died another drunk Boehner would become Vice-president with Palin as President. I think there is a lot more at stake in this country right now than personal opinion. the Democrats are the only adults in the room. If you solution is not voting for HRC , for whatever reason, there is a lot more at stake.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)must actually have pro-working-class, Liberal values in order for me to vote for them.
If enough Democrats would actually expect their politicians to have liberal and progressive policies, then they would.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I agree with you that it would be great to have more progressive Democratic candidates -----but the Dems we have are not Hobby Lobby fans, are against the dilution of the Voting Rights Act---and so much more-----I think those who voted for Ralph Nader put George Bush into office---not good
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)or CIA/NSA abuses, or indefinite detention, or execution of American citizens without due process.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)a lot of people voted for Nader because they thought they would be giving a "message"----all we got was a mess --no message
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm talking about the 2016 Presidential election.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and they voted for Nader as protest against Gore---for whatever reason---and Bush won----so some on DU say they will not vote for HRC --no matter what----so my question is if not voting for HRC means we have another Bush (Jeb) in the White House ---is that really your stance on this?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)However one wants to soft-peddle it, the message is "Vote for Hillary - OR ELSE!" No, thank you.
Democratic candidates must earn my vote with progressive policies. As long as they can count on Progressive votes without actually promoting Progressive policies, we will continue to get Democrats who govern as Reagan Republicans. It's at this point that I remind everyone that Reagan's policies were what got us into this mess.
Yes, I'm somewhat idealistic. But don't you think we could use a Presidential candidate with some ideals for once? It's been so damned long since we had one.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)No one is bullying anyone----as a matter of fact Hillary is not my favorite candidate ----nor my favorite person-----I think she ruthless----but I think she will do a better job appointing to the Supreme Court than the Republicans -----I try to look at the whole picture ----how can Wendy Davis win in Texas, How can Michele Nunn win in Georgia, and Allison Grimes in Kentucky---these people can do a lot more towards flipping their red states blue ----and when that is done we shift a bit more to the left ----or as I say --become a bit more real---a lot of people love Elizabeth Warren --and I think she is a super candidate---nd a super person---the ethical and moral superior to anyone who has come along---there are two big things about her-----she said she's not running---and she can't win a national election ---right now---supposing HRC wins and appoints Elizabeth to the Supreme Court----do you like that idea? ---I do ----suppose Michele Obama moves to South Carolina and runs for Governor ---and wins with a little help from HRC -----then Michele takes down the Confederate flag from the State House-----and then runs for the US Senate-------this is big picture stuff---in that scenario who would you like to see get swept into office
4dsc
(5,787 posts)WTF are you people thinking here. Hillary will just bring us more centrist politics that favor the corporate world over the people.
I will never vote for her.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but as I have pointed out here before that unless your candidate has an election team in place now----a mere 39 months before the election---then they will not be able to mount a viable campaign-----a vote for Hillary ---while not exactly to your liking ----will be against the Tea Party Republicans and the Neo conservatives that would like nothing more than to be able to appoint the next supreme court justices-----it is tragic to see the Republican appointed justices tear apart the voting rights act ----there is a good chance that Jeb Bush and Lynn Cheney will be on the ticket for 2016-----another Bush/Cheney will set us back to the Jim Crow days----we can ---and must ---do better than that---
help me here ---who do you think is a good candidate------and that can beat the team the Republicans will put up--------the Republicans are in Iowa now stumping for votes for the next election---be mindful
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and do they have an election team in place---39 months and counting
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There are more of us than there are of them.
If not Elizabeth Warren, then someone else, I hope, will rise.
juajen
(8,515 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but if you do not have a ready to run candidate you are looking at another Republican victory if you can convince everyone to vote against Hillary------those supreme court justices that just gutted the VRA are no friends or supporters of the Clintons -------did you watch Bill Clinton at the Democratic convention in his endorsement speech of Barack Obama----pretty moving stuff---
Response to Always Randy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and probably would garner some support on these pages---we have strong candidates today----and it looks like the next two decades if the Republicans can not shake loose their right wing crazies---once these red states become blue it is not going to change for a long time ----the right wing has done and said too many hateful things---thanks for your input Scrignoli
Response to Always Randy (Reply #74)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)he is an emerging progressive from fl --a fighter for what is right and is on the right side of history all the way
Response to Always Randy (Reply #78)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Response to Always Randy (Reply #81)
Name removed Message auto-removed
juajen
(8,515 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)Absolutely not. I will not support her in 2016.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)who have you got to beat her---considering the alternatives here----a soft showing in the 2014 ---or worse 2016 --opens the door for some rough times for all of us------I don't like the way repubs think about the supreme court---I am interested in your take on this
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Who's winning? The only winners in the last election were the rich, the 1%.
I want a candidate who'll fight for me and you, who'll stand up against corporate influence. I want a Democrat.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Rand Paul is in Iowa starting his campaign-----there are about 10 states passing ultrasound bills, many Planned Parenthood clinics are being closed ----this is political war ---we all want a perfect candidate----but in our zeal to be righteous let's not get the other side elected=---no "Nader effect"
cali
(114,904 posts)We don't know yet who we have to beat her, but in 2005, we didn't know that either.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)what I really mean --if you're gonna have a shill ---better the Hill -----than Rand, Jeb, whoever else the Repub's will throw into the ring---again Hillary is not my favorite----but I really think she is the one electable---------and has the wide support to win---but I would be glad to discuss this some more Cali
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Glass Steagall.
Also, Hillary was a huge supporter of the Iraq War.
Hillary was on the board of Walmart early on when they discriminated a lot based on gender.
Hillary has much too much negative history.
And worst of all, Hillary is the corporate candidate.
I'm for Elizabeth Warren.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)It is way past time for a women President, and she is more qualified than anybody, man or woman.
SunSeeker
(58,263 posts)She can't. She has no billion dollar war chest and no political machine to raise one. Neither does Sherrod Brown. Hillary does. I can't think of anyone else who does, and it appears no else here can either, judging by the silence to your repeated question to that point.
I wish we lived in a world where a person like Elizabeth Warren stood a chance. But I think Warren would be the first to tell you we don't.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)not thrown to the wolves in her first term-------she ---WEndy DAvis and othes have a long time to go -----if you love Elizabeth----protect her ---build a grass roots support team for her ----open your wallet and send her a check
SunSeeker
(58,263 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I know what you are doing.
It's too bad you have to do it this way, I didn't agree with what happened, but this is kind of a lame way to throw off the scent.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)or is there something I am missing here----either way ----thank you for participating and contributing
Beacool
(30,514 posts)They are as blind as the Freepers who think that Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have a realistic chance of becoming president.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)A kinder more sane version I hope.....
About graham4anything
Statistics and Information
Account status: Posting privileges revoked
Member since: Thu Feb 2, 2012, 06:38 PM
Number of posts: 11,464
Number of posts, last 90 days: 4090
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 3067 posts in the last 90 days (75% of total posts)
Favorite group: New York, 32 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)
Last post: Wed Jul 10, 2013, 10:58 PM
Jury
Willing to serve on a DU Jury: Yes
Chance of serving on a Jury: 80% (explain)
Number of times served on a Jury: 147
djean111
(14,255 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)I haven't seen him on the board.
Nay
(12,051 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)Thank you for the info.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I am not---don't even know who he is
ms liberty
(11,229 posts)
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)also pure and unequivocal acceptance in addition to tolerance is how we can go forward
polichick
(37,626 posts)Even though the country needs a populist president rather than a corporatist.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)with majorities in the house and senate------some astute appointments to the Supreme Court-----and a President that can negotiate rather than invade -----I know there is a negative sentiment on Hillary (you should hear my diatribe on her) regarding the Iraq war----but I really don't believe that if she were President at the time that she would create a preemptive war-----I also think that during her time on the board at WalMart she did not instigate anti labor or anti women sentiment----she tried to make some change----to raise their conscience---even though she knew she was dealing with a bunch of good ol boy crackers------and as President ----she can go back to them and say "so how are you boys doing over there since I left the Board"-------and she will---
Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)In fact it is the clintons who owe obama for making Hillary his first sec of state and keeping the old girl relevant. Some of us havent forgotten bill Clinton's "serving us coffee" remarks. If hillary thinks she is entitled to our vote, she is In for another rude awakening.
Joe Biden is my favorite right now but that would change if Elizabeth Warren entered the race. I have never liked hillary and when I see her supporters like you act as if they are OWED black votes, that makes me like her even less. I concede Hillary would probably be better than whatever twit the GOP nominates, but you should also recognize we have survived rightwing presidents before and will again. And Hillary doesn't even get the nomination if we say no during the primaries. The arrrogance of Hillary supporters and their ex Goldwater girl candidate towards black people will not help her get into the Whitehouse.
How about doing what candidates who respect our votes do and tell us what hillary would do for us Instead of claiming we owe her something?
The freaking NERVE!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I am not a Hillary supporter. I am a realist. And you have made the faulty assumption about that support. I supported Obama over Hillary(I got to tell you I could go off about her a lot) ---but that does not win elections. I was enamored with Obama since his speech in Boston at the Democratic convention. My entire family(white Irish New England) backed him over Hillary. My nephew worked in his campaign in New Jersey. But one thing I am is a life long Democrat and I like to see Democrats win elections, even if it is Hillary. You might not agree, but Bill Clinton's keynote address for Obama at the 2012 convention was a barnstormer. I did not detect any patronizing, but if you saw it I believe you. One more thing I can say is that Ron Paul is running over the country getting ready for 2016. If you not seen the getup on one his key staff supporters, The Southern Avenger---with his Confederate flag facemask ---it will frighten you do----it frightens me.
The Democratic Party is a big tent---we win elections because of it. It is not because someone owes something---it is prudent politics. I also said that this is the season of women, who are being disenfranchised in a lot of states right now, with vaginal ultrasound laws , the closing of Planned Parenthood clinics, men making stupid laws that try to control women's bodies. Republican women, including Laura Bush , have said they are scared of all of this.
So, just a bit more, the recent gutting of the Voting Right Act by the Supreme Court was completed by Republican appointees. In the next few election cycles we need a Democratic appointed justice so we can undo some of the terrible damage that this decision will do.
So you like Biden----so do I. I loved his comment that he could see New Jersey from his deck as a retort to Sarah Palin saying that she could see Russia from hers. Biden is a great man and he has been on the right side of history through most of his career. He suffered some real tragedy and loss of loved ones early on. If he is going to announce , it better be soon.
Elizabeth Warren is also very good and brilliant. Has she announced, does she have an election team in place----is she funded-----maybe not yet -----but what a future. I also would not want to see her have a premature end of her career because she lost a difficult election.
Nobody mention her yet-----but I would get on Michele Obama's bandwagon in a New York minute (also a Chicago minute) She absolutely has to run for the Senate. Even if she moves to another state like Hillary did.
One more big thing----there is finally an official White House blues band---the concerts that the Obama's have been hosting are wonderful----their recognition of Buddy Guy, Keb Mo, B.B, King---and others are remarkable. I wish Muddy Waters were alive to see it. When Martin Luther King marched on Washington he asked Muddy and his band to come and play---they drove straight from Chicago---slept in their car and put on a great show. RIP McKinley Morganfield.
And good luck to you Dustin DeWinde. (cool nom de plume---mine is Randolph Chambers---thus Always Randy----rather randy of me isn't it)
Beacool
(30,514 posts)What a load of sexist crap!!!!!!!
No, it is Obama who was lucky that she and Bill wanted to help to unify the party after the primaries. Hillary did not want to be SOS. She, Obama, Biden, Bill and several other people have stated that she kept saying no. Furthermore, who did Obama need in 2012 at the Convention? Bill, that's who. Bill's was the best speech at that convention, bar none.
Arrogance of Hillary toward AA? That's a laugh!!!! You want someone who respects your votes? What precisely has Obama done for AA, other than what any Democratic president would have done? Are you better economically, educationally, etc. because Obama is in the WH, as opposed to another Democrat? Please...........
As for who you vote for, it's still a free country. Do whatever you want. No one is going to go begging for your vote.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but I must confess that I did come up with a not so nice name in 2011 as we were getting into the election season-----but the name I had was for old white guys---my name for them was OWID ----Old White Irrelevant Dudes-------and what I was saying to these guys who thought that Romney was going to win was that there time had come and gone----that if they keep hanging on to that old millennium stuff they will cast themselves into irrelevancy---that because they hated certain groups didn't mean much any more ---that if they were haters that no one cared about them anymore-----that they were creating their own circular firing squad---and chasing their own tail----Dylan's words were coming true in "The Times They are A'Changing"-----and then they would shout a few racial or ethnic epithets-----and then I would say to them---Hey ---guess what ----it gets worse when you are a bigot and you land in a nursing home in your old age---------bigots' bedpans get changed last-----it's wet diapers for old bigots------a sweet revenge -----and some would say----but I have saved my money for old age ---and I will be paying cash for my services at the nursing home--------I say back ---too bad for you-----the people in the bed next to you will be on Title 19---and a case worker will come regularly to check on their care -------but the old rich bigots ---they have to fend for themselves-----somehow I have the feeling that I might have a karmic price to pay for my venom------but ---I am trying to make these guys think out of the box-----------anyway---thank you Beacool
Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)But unlike priviged white women who cry sexism for every perceived slight I will refrain from harping on the condescending notes of racism in your post. BTW it was a jury of six white women who set George zimmerman free so forgive me for not indulging your "white women are oppressed too" fantasies right .now. as for not begging for my vote... Well YOU would certainly never get it. But if old girl hillary wants my vote she will damned well ceme up with reasons I should give her said vote. If folks of your generation and temperament thinks its "uppity" to demand my American due, well that's just too freaking bad isn't it
But no hard feelings toots. Be a dear and fetch me a sandwich wont you?
There's a good girl. 
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Are you happy that Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court judge----ALL of the people on this site are against that man and his right wing cronies that dismantled the Voting Rights Act last month------are you happy about Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut----do you think that a woman should have the right about her own health care?----are you in favor of ultrasound invasive vaginal scans before a woman can have an abortion----do you like to have your voting rights diminished because of district gerrymandering---are you in favor of background checks before a person can buy a gun----what is your read on the "conceal and carry rights" ----are you happy with the Zimmmerman/martin case in Florida----most of us on this site answer no to these questions ----what say you my friend ----which side are you on----are you a Repub sneaking on to the DU website to still a little Dust In the Wind-----if not just think of John Lennon's word's and I hope some day you can join us
Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)Dude I ignored the paternalistic nature of your previous post implying that I disagreed with you out of some deficit of knowledge. Hardly. I ignored it because the overall message I got from your post was that your heart was in the right place, and life is too short to nitpick over every I inadvertent slight. . However as this is the second post addressed to me in that condescending manner, you need to cut that nonsense out. I wouldn't tolerate it from a teabagger and I wont tolerate it from you. Respectful exchange of ideas find softcore bigotry of condescension not cool.
That said hellllll no Im no rightwinger . Liberalism is Aamericanism and I ,sir, am an America
Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)Respectful exchange of,ideas fine softcore bigotry of condescension .not cool*
An !American*
That's what happens when you type on the phone instead of turning on the laptop I guess
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but good luck to you
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Beacool
(30,514 posts)My generation? I'm probably younger than you. I pity any woman you date, you are sexist and rude.
As for Hillary, if she chooses to run she'll get millions of votes, she doesn't need yours.
Enough, I won't waste anymore of my time.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Obama got 65 million votes ----Romney a paltry 60 million---but the Clintons ran big in the south-in 1992---they took Georgia, Tennessee , Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and Montana-----Obama did not get any of these states ----and I think that Hillary will get all of the Obama states----so -------let's see Obama got 65 million----------what do you think Dust in the Wind----will Hillary get more or less than Obama----
BEA ---I will do a little copy and paste here to send this to Mr DeWinde----this is a good poll and some very good early analysis
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Take care.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)hold the mayo on that sandwich toots and snatch up a Pepsi. While you're at it.
Thanks lil lady.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Civil discourse is engagement in discourse (conversation) intended to enhance understanding.
Kenneth J. Gergen describes civil discourse as "the language of dispassionate objectivity", and suggests that it requires respect of the other participants, such as the reader. It neither diminishes the other's moral worth, nor questions their good judgment; it avoids hostility, direct antagonism, or excessive persuasion; it requires modesty and an appreciation for the other participant's experiences.
It is time for all of us to have respect for others lest we look like a Fox news show.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Obama got 65 million votes ----Romney a paltry 60 million---but the Clintons ran big in the south----they took Georgia, Tennessee , Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and Montana-----Obama did not get any of these states ----and I think that Hillary will get all of the Obama states----so -------let's see Obama got 65 million----------what do you think Dust in the Wind----will Hillary get more or less than Obama----
Dustin DeWinde
(193 posts)THEN you can start takng bets on her general election margin of victory.
I'm not with you on the whole Hillary thing but I agree with your earlier post about wantng dems to win . Biden/warre. 2016
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,957 posts)Because a lot of us will make sure she never makes it past the primaries, because we do not want Hillary to give away the store (aka the pipeline), and go to war AGAIN.
Beacool
(30,514 posts)This is not 2008. If Hillary runs, she will get the nomination.
DonCoquixote
(13,957 posts)people would have remembered her as the person that either put Mitt or John in the WH. As far as "respecting votes" , Bill and his "we got mugged" antics showed a distinct lack of respect for the black vote that PUT HIM AND HIS WIFE IN POLITICAL OFFICE.
snot
(11,792 posts)I can't support someone who seems to me so likely to do even worse than he has.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Obama is on the right side of history ---probably more than any recent President----back in the day he voted against the war----not a popular thing to do-----he's got guts-----first act as president --he signs the Lilly Ledbetter Act ---fair wages for woman----he is on the right side of history on healthcare, ending the war, gay marriage, immigration and knocking off Bin Laden------pretty good-----and all of that with a congress whose only purpose in life is to destroy him-------when history judges Obama----he will be on top--maybe not with every pundit here -but not everyone here is on the same mission---
Now the Clinton's --in 1992 they took six states that Obama did not----and I think they will take all of the Obama wins as well------the only way we can have a progressive future is to maintain what we have now-----take a look at the post on her today about Cheney's daughter running for the Senate in Wyoming in 2014---she will hook up with jeb Bush and run for President-----UNLESS---we keep on keepin on-----thank you again ---tell me more
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The six states in question are Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, and Tennessee. There isn't a chance in hell she or any other Democrat is going to win Louisiana or Tennessee for the time being. Georgia and Kentucky I think it's questionable as to whether Bill Clinton would've won those in 1992 without Perot. I'm not one of those who thinks Clinton would've lost without Perot. The overwhelming evidence suggests that Clinton still would've won the election. But I think the electoral college map would've been closer and I think Kentucky and Georgia would've likely been in the red column.
Arkansas and West Virginia, maybe. But the electorate in those states has changed drastically since 1992. I'm not sure how far the name Clinton will get them.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)there is some age old racist ignorance in those states ----but when it is a white woman------with her credentials and a husband named Bubba---we're gonna see some change----In Kentucky Hilllary's campaign arm is working hard to get Alison Grimes elected ------in 2014-----that will put the Filibuster King out of business------there is a deconstruct going on right now that builds quite a team for Hillary -----she helps them in 2014 ---they help her in 2016----
we can rewrite the song "Don't it make my brown eyes blue"
"Don't it make my red state blue"
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
UCmeNdc
(9,655 posts)
Splinter Cell
(703 posts)We have to do better.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)---who are you suggesting ----do they have a team in place----are they funded----this next election is in 39 months ---what is your plan
Splinter Cell
(703 posts)The election is in 39 months. Let's start working to get things done, after we've elected people less than a year ago, instead of always looking ahead to the next election.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are not the kind of people we need to lead this party into the future. When it comes down to it, they're just as nasty and muck-raking as anyone on the GOP side.
Her all-consuming ambition is not reason enough to nominate her. We MUST find new leadership for the party. We can't keep falling back on the past and expect to escape the fate of the republicans.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)do you think they are just water skiing ----or running for 2016----I understand your dislike for Hillary----I have never liked her-----Liz Cheney is running for Senate in Wyoming in 2014 and Jeb Bush has a team in place for 2016 ----they will try another Bush/Cheney-------shall we sit ---wring our hands about how much we dislike Hillary----or should we be uber proactive------if you have a candidate ----get a grassroots campaign going now ----if it's Elizabeth Warren ---show her the courtesy to ask her if she wants to run for President in 2016---if she does not------ don't throw her under the bus like a Geraldine Ferraro ----she ran for VP and never had another day in the sunshine after her defeat-----Elizabeth is doing quantum work right now in winning souls to the Democratic party----even some Tea partiers who are angry with banks -----this is team work----tell me who you want for VP running mate with Hillary------not want like you and I build a dream team----want like WHO can WIN------this is no time for our emo approach----there is a battle outside raging-----our front porch is on fire ----let's not try to buy new furniture until we put that fire out=-----please tell me more about how you read this----thank you Splinter Cell for the civil discourse and constructive engagement
cali
(114,904 posts)she's a corporate warhawk.
I will do whatever I can to defeat her. again.
NO HILLARY. NOT NOW. NOT EVER
mvd
(65,911 posts)After President Clinton and President Obama mostly just held off more extreme Repuke policies during their terms, I really want someone who will embrace single payer and the breakup of big banks. Some may say a progressive/liberal can't win, but if we don't try with good progressive candidates, we'll never see one as President. Compromise may be necessary to a degree - I am even more liberal than Warren - but we've compromised way too much. Look what happened with the filibusters when we stood up to the Repuke obstruction.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Obama's first act was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter law----THAT is progressive-----he got the ACA put in place ---he has downsized our presence in Iraq---he also has had to fight people trying to stumble him every step of the way------and it is mostly racist hatred -------one thing that is very positive is that he has put a lot of old racist stereotypes to sleep-----I realize the frustration a lot of people feel on this site------but we should all be aware that our front porch is on fire ---and some of us are shopping for new furniture----let's put the fires out first-------based on the 2012 ---Democrats could win for another 30 years if we don't blow it------we are smarter than the Republicans ----we are respectful----we don't pass ultrasound bills to invade women------our country is entering a polarized period right now-------but I can see the South changing in the next 2 cycles-------those who want to bring back Jim Crow are a dying breed------and the new one coming on doesn't think this way------tell me who you think would be a good candidate ---and is electable----we have 39 months to go until the next election--Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are in New Hampshire and Iowa--we need to unite and fight this next battle
mvd
(65,911 posts)to shake things up too much and the country has gone more to the right with the compromises. Certainly he hasn't been all bad and there have been obstacles as you mention. But from privacy to banks to health care to the economy, I wanted better. Same thing when Clinton was President. Looking forward is important. I do think Warren will get more recognition and become a contender. You never know who may emerge. Hillary does have the good point of being string willed.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)if not Hillary ---who else is ready to declare------Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are in New Hampshire today and I don't think they are water skiing on lake Winnipesaukee-------we are 39 months away from the election --is there anyone ready with an election team------or the money to beat the Republicans---tell me who you would like ----thank you Cali
juajen
(8,515 posts)Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
So, did you vote for the John Kerry/John Edwards ticket?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Bush/Cheney already to weapons of wasr in place----and sold a bill of goods to this country ---and to these Democrats who also took the bait-----HRC was the US Senator from NY----site of the 9/11 attack----I don't know how anyone could have said no -----
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)
and 
for good measure
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)To Hillary.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)who do you want to be President? Have they formed a campaign committee? Are they funded? Are they willing to run?---I understand the emotional desire for personal favorites, but I have learned to let my intellect have a place in my deliberations. Probably the most moral person ever to be in the White House was Jimmy Carter ----they put him out of office with Reagan type destructive politics-----we need to run a candidate that can get elected.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I still oppose her candidacy. I will never cast a vote for Hillary.
So so many reasons that have nothing to do with electability and everything to do with the fact that I have no use for any fake Democrat who supports a PNAC foreign policy, a DLC domestic policy and a TPP trade policy.
If I wanted to vote for triangulating faux-compassionate center-right income-gap-widening perpetual-war anti-labor anti-worker fuck-the-poor America-destroying policies...I'd just vote for Jeb, Ted or Rand. We're moving right and fucking the American people over regardless.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)if the pendulum swings that far over to the right again we may never achieve any of our goals. Do you think Kerry would have been better for the country than Bush? Election theft is only a Supreme Court decision away. Do you have any favorites in the Republican Party that you would like to see in office---Congressmen or Senators---or Governors------2016 has a lot of seats changing and a Republican Presidential win could coat tail a lot of people into office------If Hillary is not your favorite---then who is? ---have they announced----do they have a campaign committee set up------are they funded -----what kind of risks should the Democratic Party be willing to take------
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Hillary's agenda is a slightly, but only slightly, more sane triangulated Republican agenda on the majority of issues. We lose progressive-ground automatically by nominating her regardless who she runs against. Things Clinton supports: a militaristic foreign policy in the ME, tax-cuts offset by entitlement reform, Keystone XL, TPP, more FTAs, more deregulation, more defense spending paid for by a lack of domestic spending and borrowing, business friendly policies, business-friendly healthcare reforms, labor-reform (read: union-busting). Vote Clinton if you want war with Iran! 
It's a Republican agenda in the White House. The only way to not have a Republican in the White House is to nominate a Democrat. It's like drugs, just say no. (to Hillary Clinton) We can figure out what we're saying yes to later...but the key first step is cutting Hillary off before race starts in earnest.
Hillary Clinton may think she's a Democrat but unless she's changing her positions...she's just Jon Huntsman in a rubber mask, a center-rightist running against the fringe right. Just because she's likeable doesn't mean she doesn't also set us back by co-opting the policy initiatives of the corporate right. I'm a Democrat, not a Republican-lite.
If the two best campaign committees for 2016 with the biggest war-chests who have announced belonged to John McCain and Newt Gingrich which one should we give the Democratic nomination to, running against the looney-tunes right? Electability means fuck-all if you're using it to press an agenda contrary to your own interests and party platform, even against an even more extreme agenda.
Hillary Clinton is a shortcut to the GOP's goals. Voting against Hillary is progressive and patriotic. Encouraging her to become another irrelevant non-office-holding RW "independent Democrat" like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller would be better. I'm sure Joe would gladly keep a seat for her warm on Crossfire between him and S.E. Cupp so he doesn't have to feel like the only guest-host traitor to Democratic values on that stage.
Resist Clintonism.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)let's look at who the most recent destruction of the Voting Rights Act------(by the way --in order to get a progressive into office we will need to do some repair work here)---so the Republiicans appointed Scalia-whacko right ring religious nut, Thomas --the biggest oreo cookie in history---he could rewrite Uncle Tom's Cabin ---only make it worse---Sam Alito----nuke all liberals------Let's look at Bill Clinton's appointments---------Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer ----usually on the progressive and liberal side---Would not Hillary do the same------this is big-----because if we lose and the Republicans they will replace Ginsburg------
Let's see how we feel on SC appointments------------I look forward to your comments
Antonin Scalia 3/11/1936
Age: 77 yr 6 mo Ronald Reagan 9/26/1986
Served: 26 yr 11 mo
Anthony Kennedy 7/23/1936
Age: 77 yr 1 mo Ronald Reagan 2/18/1988
Served: 25 yr 6 mo
Clarence Thomas 6/23/1948
Age: 65 yr 2 mo George H. W. Bush 10/23/1991
Served: 21 yr 10 mo
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 3/15/1933
Age: 80 yr 5 mo Bill Clinton 8/19/1993
Served: 20 yr 0 mo
Stephen Breyer 8/15/1938
Age: 75 yr 0 mo Bill Clinton 8/3/1994
Served: 19 yr 1 mo
John G. Roberts 1/27/1955
Age: 58 yr 7 mo George W. Bush 9/29/2005
Served: 7 yr 11 mo
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 4/1/1950
Age: 63 yr 5 mo George W. Bush 1/31/2006
Served: 7 yr 7 mo
Sonia Sotomayor 6/25/1954
Age: 59 yr 2 mo Barack Obama 8/8/2009
Served: 4 yr 1 mo
Elena Kagan 4/28/1960
Age: 53 yr 4 mo Barack Obama 8/7/2010
Served: 3 yr 1 mo
Chan790
(20,176 posts)You have a bad position to defend here. The one thing that may partially save your position in reality is its negation by factors we cannot predict, that is, the possibility that Obama may take the Taft tack and lean on any Democrat to follow him as President to appoint him to the next vacancy on the Court. He's young, it gives him a way to remain involved and serve for possibly another 30 years. In that case, because there is small likelihood of any Democratic President denying him that, it wouldn't matter which Democrat was elected...but lets factor that out.
Further, you seem to be very mistaken to the possibility of something that simply isn't going to happen...the Republicans have no non-steep path to the White House in 2016. It's a demographic structural-defeat, there is no clear path to victory for them when you look at the electoral map and take out the states that we can predict today and shade the safe leaners. They'd have to win in places they can't win anymore like PA, NM and CO in Presidential elections; they'd have to win in places where the population can't wait to vote against them for recent shenanigans like WI and MI; they'd have to compete in places that are trending away from them slowly like VA, NC and FL. To borrow a truism from my New England ancestors "They can't get there from here." Their best bet is to nominate Chris Christie and hope he can hang close enough (within 3% nationally and projected 225 EC) to pull a squeaker out, probably on an "October surprise". That's not a good place to be in for them: stay close and hope for a lucky slide. It's worse when you realize that Christie is down more than that now to a generic Democrat. The odds are better of me being asked out on a date by Kate Winslet...or being elected President. This leads by-and-large to the negation of your previous point...it doesn't matter who has the best campaign machinery this far out when you have a massive structural advantage out of the gate regardless who you run.
This brings it back around to my initial point, that Hillary's own positions make her unfit of the nomination, especially if that nomination is effectively a subsequent automatic GE win. You wish to talk about this in terms of the court so let's talk about the SCOTUS. The Justices we're most likely to be replacing, Ginsburg and Breyer...unless Kennedy or Scalia drops dead...represent the left-most end of the spectrum of the current make up of the court. It is a certainty that if Hillary Clinton is choosing the next Justice of the SCOTUS we're moving substantially rightward--her own legal-philosophy puts her somewhere in among the middle of the court: (from most-conservative to most-liberal) Roberts, Kennedy, Kagan and Sotomayor. Hillary, in terms of judicial philosophy, falls between Kennedy and Kagan or Kagan and Sotomayor generally with few positions both to the right to Roberts and the left of Sotomayor. There is no question however she's more judicially-conservative than Sonia Sotomayor and more judicially-liberal than John Roberts. (To throw the Obama factor in there, she's also more judicially-conservative than Barack Obama who is himself fairly judicially-moderate in his appointees.) On positioning of the court, we're again losing ground to the Republicans automatically if Clinton is the nominee as she's unlikely to nominate justices substantially more liberal than her own judicial philosophy. A court on which Sonia Sotomayor is the most-liberal justice is a conservative court, no matter how the numbers skew in terms of Democratic and Republican appointees. It is a court entirely made up of moderates and conservatives.
I love that rank-and-file Democrats are finally thinking about these things...but even here on DU, there is a bit of what I've referred to as "chicken littling": because they don't really understand events on the ground and what they actually represent, they misinterpret them in context and read gloomy consequences into them or surmise the need for further compromises to moderation where we should instead erect bulwarks to prevent drifting too far outside of our own base and ideology. Take CO...did we lose two state seats in CO yesterday because: a.) low turnout favors the Republicans and recall elections consistently draw terrible turnout meaning the race overwhelmingly-favored the GOP from the outset? or b.) we lost two recall elections on the basis of gun-control...in districts where polling showed the gun-control legislation in question was supported by a narrow-but-solid margin? (Around 53/47, in favor) From this, should we take away: c.)we really need to work on our ground-game in these recall elections to erase the structural advantage low-turnout gives Republicans? or d.) we need to compromise further on gun control?
A Democratic party which elects Hillary Clinton to the White House is one that has lost its way and become truly Republican-light. It's one that has become ultimately divorced from its ideology and base to such a degree that it will eventually either completely alienate its base or falter to its own ideological insurrection from the base or both.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)she wants to take you to dinner------
Ok , seriously , I see your point---BUT--this country is not meant to serve a progressive agenda entirely--just witness the gridlock and stalemate that we witness daily in the house and senate----I dare say that Hillary will go to those filibuster kings and make 'em tow the mark----she can embarrass them into a vote---let's face it-----the only reason there is such gridlock now is because there are so many frekin racists in this country------she will get them in line----because she can------her voice back at the Benghazi hearings could be heard across the country-----I agree thart she could be consider "repub lite" ----but not on women's rights, not on voting rights and certainly not on Supreme Court nominees-------it is time for this country to start moving forward ----we are quickly becoming a third rate player in the world ---economically---educationally ----and have a colossal divide among our citizens-----the Clinton's have a chance to get this country rolling again more than any other candidate-------it is a time for intellect over emotion---let's save our progressive candidates for when we have a chance of getting them elected -----
and btw----thank you for the effort in your response
SamKnause
(14,891 posts)I am a 60 year old white female.
There is no way the warmongering Hillary will get my vote !!!!!!!!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I agree with you about your dislike of Hillary-----but another 8 years of Republicans is hard to imagine---there will be a total reversal of every gain that women have made----I can just imagine who a Republican President would choose for the next Supreme Court justice-----would you like to see Ruth Ginsburg replaced with someone like Sam Alito---surely there will be some replacements in the next 8 years there ----would you like a reversal of the Lilly Ledbetter act-----would like to see Obamacare thrown into the waste bin----and can you just imagine the Voting Rights that will be trashed with the district gerrymandering---our schools will have rifle classes as a gym subject--------maybe Hillary is not everyone's cup of tea---but she's not a Tea Bag------
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)shit in 2008, too.
Frankly, she can take her DLC warmongering ways back to Chappaqua for good.
If she's candidate, I'm done with the Democratic Party. The DLC has been its ruination and HRC with Bill and Liebermann were founding members.
Hillary 2016? NO!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Not this woman; I'll never vote for her! And you're delusional to think repuke women will vote for simply because she's a woman??? What are you smoking/
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)First of all ---thank you for responding to my post and the opportunity for some civil engagement on the issue---you question MY thinking --when in fact I am merely following some sources----if Hillary is in the lead we can not be like Karl Rove and bury our heads in the sand because we don't like bad news------here are some sources----and I ask if YOU would share your sources on the same issues----
----this one says 66% of all women and 35% of Republican women will vote for Hillary-----
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-women-independents-election-2012-12
-----------65% of Democrats support Clinton (probably about the same sentiment as expressed on DU)----
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/clinton-favored-in-poll-as-2016-democratic-nominee.html
Carolina --The Republican Party "SLAP HILLARY" campaign-you might not care for Hillary but none of us can be in favor of violence against women---some "good old boys" thinking that hurting women is funny
http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/21/the-republican-partys-slap-hillary-problem/
-
------Carolina ---have you read the Emily's list endorsement of Hillary
http://emilyslist.org/blog/heres-hillary
So Carolina ----I am not really smoking anything unusual here---these are pretty valid news sources---but please let me see your sources ----I am all about Democrats winning elections---and maybe together we can work on that ----remember that we have Wendy Davis in Texas-----and Allison Grimes running for the Filibuster King McDonnell's seat in Kentucky------I would rather see us all pitch in together ----make a united front -----and then fine tune the winners when we get them into office
Carolina
(6,960 posts)I say simply: many 'reputable' sources said the same shit in 2008!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)we have all seen the horrible results from urging people to stay home on election day------like Sen Brown getting in in Massachusetts
Carolina
(6,960 posts)HRC is not THE leader and hopefully never will be!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)do we have an obligation to the downticket----this is how Sen Brown got in in Massachusetts------Carolina---do you really want another Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court?---the wound inflicted on the VRA by the Supremes was mammoth----I urge you to take a look at the collateral damage that can be wrought---but I certainly respect your position-----
Carolina
(6,960 posts)I never said stay home, but I sure as hell will never vote for Hillary. PERIOD. I don't even think she's that smart. Her 2008 campaign was a disaster based on an arrogant sense of inevitability and poor choices of campaign aides and managers. And recall, she was the one who brought toe-sucking slime Morris back in the Clintons' good graces while Bill was POTUS 'til he turned on them like little Georgie Stephanopoolose (typo intended).
And BTW, if it had not been for some Democrats voting for Clarence Thomas, he would not be on SCOTUS. Recall, it was Biden who was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time and he wasn't particularly sensitive to Anita Hill. Thurgood Marshall had called Clarence a snake and some Dems didn't listen!
We need NEW blood... no more Clintons, Kerrys, Bidens and others of their ilk. Also, speaking of collateral damage, we already have that with the sequester, with failure to take on the too big to failures and Wall Street, with these 3rd way appointments... and your breed of leader doesn't give a horse's ass about the collateral damage of our wars which breeds blowback. So spare me this tripe.
As cali so eloquently put it in another post regarding HRC and third way types: been there, done that, fuck that!
warrant46
(2,205 posts)And Biden's treatment of Anita Hill was shameful
Carolina
(6,960 posts)to Always Randy... Dems like Biden (who also voted 'aye' on IWR) are as much to blame for Slappy Thomas being on SCOTUS as the repuke POTUS who nominated his sorry ass!
I am so tired of Dems like HRC, Kerry, Biden... so AR can take his Hillary adoration and peddle it to his heart's content but many of us will NEVER buy into it.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)The DLC types are what we used to call Limousine Liberals or Latte Liberals
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limousine%20liberal
Limousine liberal (or latte liberal) is a deragatory term used to describe a rich liberal who considers themself a champion of the poor and downtrodden, but lives a lifestyle of wealth and luxury.
Limousine liberals can usually be identified by any combination of the following behavior:
- They support gun control, but they go everywhere surrounded by armed bodyguards.
- They have a soft-on-crime stance, but they live in gated, private communities where there is no threat of crime.
- They tell people to ride bikes and use public transportation to reduce oil consumption, while themselves traveling around the world in private jets and rented luxury SUVs.
- They join organizations like PETA because they believe that killing animals is wrong, but they wear expensive leather belts and shoes.
Limousine liberal is mostly an American term. In Austrialia, an equivalent term is "chardonnay socialist", while in France the equivalent term is gauche caviar (caviar left).
"Famous limousine liberals include such people as Arianna Huffington, Michael Moore, Martin Sheen, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, and Barbra Streisand."
Also If his name happens to be Bono, he'll meet with world leaders to encourage them to raise our taxes to help the starving kids in Africa while hiding his millions in the Netherlands
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Hillary is not my choice-----but she will win----and I am all about winning------I was depressed the whole time Bush/Cheney were in office-------so Nader is my nadir---and the SC people who decided the election against Kerry-------If you really have a candidate that can win I would support her----and I am saying her ---because it is high time that this country have a woman President----check out Emily's list and look at the History of Feminism group here on DU----if you have a bug in your bonnet about Hillary I hope it won't put another Republican in office
cash__whatiwant
(396 posts)Quite frankly I like that shes willing to play dirty at times. That's actually something we need against republicans.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Well some may call it dirty----she is a brilliant politico------and she is on top of her game----the Republican Party is absolutely fearing her---and they should----she will ---publicly ----take the higher moral ground------------but I would not be surprised to see a little collateral damage on the Rush Limbaugh EIB network-----------this is purely sport for Hillary----and she is an Olympic champion----
cash__whatiwant
(396 posts)I cannot wait. Say what u want about her, but weak is not one thing that describes Hillary. I also don't see how being a 90s retread hurts her. Most people wish it were 1997 again.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)life without Bush in the White House would have been grand
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)maintain credibility?
Hillary will not and cannot make it be 97 again and many of our current problems can be traced right back to the Clinton administration. It is like some missed the effects of deregulation, most favored status for China, and the giant sucking sounds of our "free trade agreements".
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)OMG! Hillary will be a WONDERFUL president! crap is the complete lack of anything remotely resembling original thinking.
Let's see. In 2001 it was obvious to everyone on this board that Al Gore was the obvious logical candidate for 2004.
In 2005, it was obvious to everyone on this board that John Kerry would of course run again and win.
Oh, and for you too young to remember, it was stunningly obvious in 1990 that there was no way on God's Green Earth that George HW Bush could possibly lose in 1992.
My point is twofold: Not only is Hillary Rodham Clinton a stunningly bad choice for 2016, but to consider only her is to assume that there is no other Democrat in the universe who could possibly be considered for President. Look back at the previous elections.
What we need more than anything is new blood. Personally, I hope that Elizabeth Warren and/or Alan Grayson run, but what I hope isn't what matters. What matters is the new blood.
Oh, and those of you who are fantasizing about a Michele Obama or a Chelsea Clinton candidacy in the future, forget about it. Won't happen. Those women have lives more or less outside of politics, and running for office isn't included. I'm reminded of those who've fantasized about Condi Rice running. That's a woman who has NEVER been involved in the down and dirty of electoral politics and isn't about to go there.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)This Daily Beast columnist is a conservative Republican and is throwing the election to Hillary now
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/03/16-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-win-2016.html
SHEILA-----New Mexico seems like a sure thing for Hillary too--she holds a 73% favorable with Latinos
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jul/1/clinton-tops-among-hispanics-2016-poll/
Does Udall's seat come up during the 2016 election?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)is already throwing the election to Hillary now, then we can all rest assured that she will never be President. Especially on the Democratic side, the early obvious front runner never gets the nomination. On the Republican side it's quite different. Look again at what was considered absolutely unshakeable about who'd be nominated in earlier years.
Tom Udall comes up for re-election next year, 2014. I don't think the Republicans are going to field anyone, or at least not anyone with a snowball's chance in Hell to win.
In truth, all of this terribly early conviction that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee is essentially name recognition.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)they are already working on the 2014 and are certainly in contact with Tom Udall---do you know of any other candidate that has this type of thing going on--------this is Clinton at her best ----double down----triple down-----get to everybody----this is not mere name recognition Sheila----for the Clintons ---this is war-----
polichick
(37,626 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)http://emilyslist.org/blog/heres-hillary an all woman blog seems to like Ms Clinton
and another women's source:
http://helloladies.com/2013/05/hillaryclinton2016/
Welcome to Hello Ladies. Written at the intersection of feminism and life, Hello Ladies is a news and information source for smart, busy women. Visit Hello Ladies to talk about the things that matter to women — whether it’s work, politics, parenting, news or shoes. Hello Ladies, this site is for you. The opinions expressed here belong to Hello Ladies and are not representative of any other organizations.
polichick
(37,626 posts)
Edit: oops, make that I
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)have they said they are running----time's a wastin' here now
polichick
(37,626 posts)When I said "This woman" in #236, I meant me.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Allison Grimes and Wendy Davis
polichick
(37,626 posts)I'd have to see where they stand on policy positions if they were going to be on the ballot at my polling place.
It would be nice to have a female president but I wouldn't vote for somebody based on his or her gender.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)so I think the best thing for the OWIDS (old white irrelevant dudes) is to have a woman in there kicking ass and taking names-----but she has to be electable-----and someone that they fear------viola---Hillary---look she is the most ruthless politico in history--------I would not underestimate her one bit------but her election will give a sense of fairness to this country-----will be a quantum boost to women everywhere------and boy----won't Rush Limbaugh be sorry
polichick
(37,626 posts)Not sure it'll work this time - Americans are sick of elected officials who are little more than fronts for special interests. In the case of HRC, she also has the hawk thing to worry about - people are also sick of military adventures.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)she did not lead the vote for war in Iraq-----but she was feeling what her constituents felt----and NYC was in shambles---her's was not the pacifist role to take with all the dead fireman and police-----and btw she led the way for those departments to be funded afterwards ------and if you don't have some of those "special interests" behind you ---you are in the audience and not on stage-------look ---this is politics not Idealism 101----getting elected is what it is about--------so Obama got elected ----with special interest money in his war chest-----and the first thing he does when he gets elected is sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act-------I am not so certain that the funding people were happy about that ---but you and I were-----and if John McCain won????? and Sarah Palin--------so try a little tenderness please Ms Polichick
polichick
(37,626 posts)I plan to vote for someone from the democratic wing of the party in the primary.
If HRC gets the nomination and she's the most liberal and populist candidate available, I'll vote for her.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)as long as the country does not hear about a "Compassionate Conservative"------karl Rove coined that term for Bush----and he got in------I am certain they are grooming someone that can capture some of the votes that Romney could not get
polichick
(37,626 posts)the winds of change.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Hillary is a political animal----it is in her blood ---
polichick
(37,626 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)she is the ultimate chameleon-------if you watch what Bill Clinton did as President --he virtually stole the Republican agenda------they were trying to impeach him at the time and he won reelection by a landslide---------ok so he ticked off a lot of us----but he appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court-----that would not have happened with a RW President ----------
I am not in favor of Hillary because of her policies ----it is only that I don't like to see a Republican in the White House------there are so many comments on DU ---that are from the heart ---and emotionally driven--------but it will be a long time before any progressive candidates get near the White House if they are knocking on a Republican's door----so I say win the seat and then work on the winner to make change----
this business of gridlock in the House will eventually bring our country down----------I think a Hillary run will make a lot of Republicans and uncommitted say ----it's ok to vote for a woman----it's ok to vote for a Democrat-----idealism doesn't win issues -----compromise does ----and a lot more of it would be going on if the bigots were not in the way right now-------
We are paving the way for an Elizabeth Warren----or someone super like her
polichick
(37,626 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Eisenhower said ---beware the military industrial complex-------DefSec McNamara said he was sorry for lying about Vietnam------I really wonder if 9/11 had happeed in Chicago --would Obama have voted no on the invasion of Iraq--------remember Clinton was NY Sen at the time
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)they are superb candidates in their state --especially Grimes -because she is running for Mitch McConnell's seat
Little Star
(17,055 posts)I'm going to check them out!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I use over 40 websites to check the news---I don't have cable TV because I find that they are unable to keep up with the news and they only are playing for audience-----So ---I have left wing---right wing----foreign ---women's ----major metro and then summary like huff post-----daily beast----love mother jones
how did you like Emily's list-----
Little Star
(17,055 posts)in History of Feminism about some thing I found while roaming around there. Take a look:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125525723
Thanks again!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and sent a post to Redqueen-----great site----congratulations
gopiscrap
(24,723 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)has she announced? ---if not we are letting our emotions rule our intellect---that is how Brown got elected in Democratic stronghold Massachusetts------thank God for Elizabeth coming back and throwing him in the dustbin of history=====
2banon
(7,321 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Diego has been looking for you
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the 2010 debacle showed what happens when we are complacent or complicit-----we on DU do not need to behave like Karl Rove on election night----if we love Elizabeth Warren ---let us not throw her to the wolves like a Geraldine Ferraro---rather let us build a team for her----or others -----we can do that a lot better without a Republican in the White House or another Republican on the Supreme Court----further decimating the Voting Rights Act, undoing Roe v Wade. etc
Whisp
(24,096 posts)She chose Penn and her spouse and other incompetents to help her in her '08 campaign, which was awful, no other words.
If she didn't listen to them, maybe she would have done a bit better and not make such a fool of herself. All this talk about her being 'tough', when she couldn't even tell those bad advice jackasses to buzz off. Yeh, real tough.
I am very glad she lost, and probably a bit glad she fucked it up so bad because that will come back to haunt her if she runs again.
Hey, Hillitary... You may think you are through with the past, but the past is not through with you.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I haven't seen the Hillitary name thing before --is that because of her vote on Iraq?---
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and I imagine it sure ticks off Hillary when she reads it-------my understanding of her is that vicious commentary and invective is what she lives for and is her greatest inspiration------Rush Limbaugh is responsible for a lot of her popularity he was paid $50,000 every time he did a tirade about her---his listeners hate her----because she poses such a threat to their perceived male superiority----his advertising revenue would go up when he bashed her---------but the weird part of it is that her name recognition just soared because of his bashing ----both on the liberal and conservative side-----so I think when I see it on this site it just strengthens her cause-------
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Hillary has about a 65% approval rating from Democrats on the National level ----but it seems a little higher here ---maybe close to 80%-----so Whisp ---whatya gonna do -----move out of the country if she wins---I know some who moved to France after Bush got elected ----and they came back after Obama won-----it was good to see them again----and Whisp----tell me about the downticket----who are your favorites for Senate and the House
musicblind
(4,563 posts)point in time. That could change either way, as we saw with Obama, before the election.
I approve of Warren, but I currently plan to vote for Hillary. Do you see what I mean?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)thank you for the update
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)I LOVE HILLARY! Goodnight!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but that's ok----it is the best encouragement Hillary can get ----she loves it when people try to stop her--what we all need to do is to stop the infighting here and get on the same page for the midterrms in 2014
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Hardly anyone praised Hillary and found so many nasty thing to say. You'd think this was a Rethug site!
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and let emotion rule their intellect---------I am all about Democrats winning elections-----and leave the bashing for the Tea Party----they seem to be pretty good at it-----thank you for your post Auntie Bush
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Since I joined in 2007 it has always sounded like a Rethug site when it comes to the Clintons. Fortunately, it doesn't reflect the the real world. In the RL both Clintons are very popular.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)It can be pretty depressing around here. Thank God this isn't the real world.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)More money spent on military adventures like Iraq -- she was very enthusiastic about that war and even extremely rude to Code Pink women who warned her that they had visited Iraq and that we should not go to war there.
She and Bill helped bankrupt many American families by repealing Glass Steagall.
Hillary was on the board of Walmart at a time when the company discriminated against women. I'm sure women will love her for acquiescing to Walmart's then anti-woman stances.
Hillary has an ugly temper.
I favor Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren has the ability to explain complex financial and other issues so that ordinary people can understand them.
Elizabeth Warren will win the hearts and votes of women and men alike.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I agree that Hillary is no Mother Teresa but someone has to break through the glass door on the front of the White House----and if Elizabeth Warren is going to announce ---it should be sooner --than later----do you think she will?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)With the Clintons, everything is perfect - their team, their friends, their money, their political alliances - except their actual policies. All show, no substance. I do not think that I could vote for her.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I agree with you-----but the Bush/Cheney thing so concerned me that 16 years of Democratic Presidency is enticing to me----it is my hope that as the old ways die off---we can finally open a new road-----just take a look at the picks for Supreme Court------Bill Clinton did a good job with Ruth Bader Ginsburg-----no Repub would do that -------and in the next 8 years we need someone that make those appointments to replace the right wingers we have there now-----the decimation of the of the VRA needs to be undone----for so many reasons we need the Supreme Court behind us-----like when there is a squeaker election-----
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)fund Ted Cruz to go for a win----what shall we do-----pick a candidate that can not be funded as well?
4dsc
(5,787 posts)Please get Hillary off the front page.
djean111
(14,255 posts)or else her fans are trying to ensure support before anyone else steps up.
Yes, let's concentrate on 2014, and remember that insults and put-downs and smug assertions to non-Hillary fans are not exactly the best way to go about early campaigning.
It is not like the country and the world are in such wonderful shape that my main concern is some "glass ceiling".
I want a non-Corporatist non-Third Wayer. Yeah, I may end up having to hold my nose and vote for a lesser evil, but damned if I am going to be all cheery and rah-rah about it. Interesting to note that Hillary's huge, corporate-given war chest is so massive (as if that makes for a good president). Makes asking for more money seem a little greedy, no?
And Hillary was a sure thing last time, if I recall.
On to 2014.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)do you think that Hillary receives any funding from the Koch brothers ---or Adelson?---and if not, should she not have a war chest to combat their wealth?
djean111
(14,255 posts)chest. I believe that asking individuals to donate more to her now, as if she has already secured the nomination, before there is a field to choose from, is jumping the gun.
I also believe Hillary has her own big corporate sponsors.
She is not The Candidate yet, so why assume she needs to combat the Kochs and Adelson?
I guess I am uncomfortable with a fait accompli, as I don't want to see more corporatism and as a woman, I have no interest in making a glass ceiling a reason to pick one candidate over another.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the Kochs are already donating and so is Adelson---these guys will not disappear----and I think it IS TIME for a WOMAN---even if I don't like her---because the OWIDS---old white irrelevant dudes need to be shaken up and understand that the old rules don't apply----the race issue about competency has been put to bed with Obama------and the continual War Against Woman being waged by the Right Wing in this country needs to halted as well-----so unless another candidate steps up soon---we need to do an all out campaign to put Hillary in the White House------luke warm half measures are not going to cut it --there is plenty about Hillary that I dislike immensely----but we need to get on with this new millennium----
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...because as much as you might wish otherwise, the 2016 race has started for a number of prospective candidates.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I wholeheartedly agree-----it began the morning after Obama was elected for a second term-----Rand Paul, Rubio, Ted Cruz have all ben in Iowa -----and New Hampshire ----months ago------if the Democrats want someone other than Hillary it is time to get them out of the closet
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)we have to sticjk together
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Are you opposed to Hillary being the first woman president?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)actually it is all tied together -----but I agree with you ----OFA---Obama's 501c4 -Social Welfare Organization is supporting mid term candidates --------it is a wonderful way for you to support them as well
http://www.barackobama.com/women/?source=socnet_20120916_JB_TW_WOMEN_FOR_OBAMA_SIGNUP
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)it might be a good one to keep adding to as 2014 and 2016 begins to come into play------it would allow us to see our positions as different candidates appear (and disappear0
Whisp
(24,096 posts)it has got nothing to do with Hillary's 'popularity' - I'm guessing that was your slant.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)bumping of own thread 
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but there are also over 10,000 views of this thread----as far as the thank you replies go , I rather think that expressing my appreciation for the commentary adds a touch of civility that often seems to be absent here. I also believe that it promotes constructive engagement and encourages critical thinking rather than the haphazard one liners and put downs. I think that is better left to those right wing sites who bash not only opponents but also their own.
Nonetheless, I still wish to express my gratitude for your responses.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and critical thinking is needed on this site------if someone has something to say that is contrary I certainly respect and welcome their comments----simple one liners like "I want Elizabeth Warren to be President" don't really measure up to the task of winning an election. In our zeal to have Elizabeth be President supposing we just marginalize her with a huge loss----like others that have gone before her----I know that Obama lost votes from Hillary supporters that stayed home on election day----that is tragic----if someone's political agenda does not align itself in minute detail it is no reason to throw them under the bus-----criticize yes----work for the other candidate --yes----but when the battle begins fro election we simply have to march together ---lest we get another Bush/Cheney------btw---my responses to others are way less than half-----but it seems like the views on this post are reaching 11,000----I only did the original post because of my observation of what is happening from both the left and the right----I worked on JFK's campaign and am a lifelong Democrat----and hate losing to Republicans , especially when they have an agenda that is so offensive to this country
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)For one thing, Hillary has not announced anything. The Obama's don't owe the Clinton's squat.
I find this concept that women will vote for another woman just because she is a woman incredibly offensive.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but the women on Emily's List don't share those feelings---they are constructively engaged in the pursuit of getting women elected to office on all levels -------perhaps you should visit their site and see how they feel--
and if you think that Bill Clinton's keynote speech for Obama was not worthy of some payback you are certainly free to feel that way----I think the Obama's are extremely grateful to him for his address especially when they saw their numbers climb in the days that followed the Convention and Bill's speech----I happened to love the part about the Republicans can't do the math----cool------
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2013, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Nothing. Zip.
Bill's convention speech had nothing to do with anything but Bill's ego. You think he convinced Republicans to vote democratic with his talkie? I don't understand this part at all - what vote could Clinton hand over to Obama by that speech?
The Obama's owe the Clinton's fuck all. Maybe a middle finger or two, tho. Bill has been sleazy in many ways working his slime in the background undermining the President's decisions. He is not to be trusted, he and his wife are in it for themselves and their fancy speech money, and grooming their daughter for big politics.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but I can not find any supporting documents that say Barack Obama's election was injured by Clinton's efforts----------other than your own personal feeling , do you have some supporting evidence----because I would stand corrected-------some say Clinton was the first black President------I do think that is a stretch---but there are not a lot of former Presidents that have chosen Harlem as their base of operation after stepping down -----what is that all about?
As far as grooming children and family for politics ----would you be opposed to Michele running for the US Senate in South Carolina-------after Barack's term--------I think she'd win----she is the great grand daughter of slaves and it would ring so true to see so many wrongs be righted----I think Michele's potential is much greater than any woman currently in politics, including Hillary Clinton.
Their daughter's Malia and Sasha attend the same school in DC that Chelsea Clinton attended when her Dad was President. Also Richard Nixon's daughter and Biden's grandchildren.
Do you think the Obama children will appear on the national political spotlight?
Before his inauguration, President Obama published an open letter to his daughters in Parade magazine, describing what he wants for them and every child in America: "to grow up in a world with no limits on your dreams and no achievements beyond your reach, and to grow into compassionate, committed women who will help build that world."
Here is one of 15 links I found that say Clinton helped Obama win the election.
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/will-bill-clintons-dnc-speech-get-obama-re-elected-54951
Whisp
(24,096 posts)let us give the white man credit for Obama's hard work.
That disgusts me. I doubt you meant it in that way, but that is the way many people hear it, and rightfully so. As much as you think Bill helped Obama in 2012 he and his wife had taken that away in 2008 by some of the dirty talk and innuendo of Obama and the Muslim thing, embracing McCain as the better leader than Obama, mocking Obama's 'fancy speeches' when ironically that is what the Clinton's do for their cash - make fancy speeches for big money to the likes of the Carlyle Group and others that bribe money is owed from for all the favours the Clinton's have done for their super rich friends.
Obama is smarter than Clinton and works much harder than he ever did. People trust and like him more than they ever did Clinton - that is what is sticking under the craw of that egomaniac man and he uses his minions, who are spread all over the media and government, to spread the messages that he still is really in charge. It must irk him to no end that Obamacare will be the legacy to have and Obama will have it (among many other things the media doesn't bring up).
As for Michelle being in high politics - I doubt very much that that is her thing. She would sooner tell someone to screw off than have the patience of Job of her husband for diplomacy. I like that they are so opposite in this way.
Time will tell, but I have a feeling Sasha and Malia won't be dreaming of Wall Street jobs when the time comes, but of something worthy rather than destructive. Money and power have always been the number one priority for the Clinton's, I just don't see that for the Obama's.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)let's face it---without the white vote Obama would not have won the election----and without the black vote Clinton would not have gotten elected-----I can certainly understand your anger if you personally have suffered from all the bigotry that still goes on in this country----but it is not coming from this site-----and I think that the Obama's have more work to do ----they are so capable of turning Red states Blue----that is why I mentioned Michele's ancestry in South Carolina-------down there they are still sending right wing wingnuts to Washington----and it is high time for change-----I also think Wendy Davis can help turn Texas blue-----and Allison Grimes can replace Mitch McConnell---and BTW----II am white ----and my whole family 35 people ---voted for Obama (twice) and worked on his campaign in New Jersey-----but not if we have any more Republicans controlling the White House------or the House---
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Obama owes the Clintons Anything.
Never.
He won because he was the better candidate and you can pull any reason or excuse Other Than That out of wherever to justify why the magical Clinton did not win but it does not make it so.
Obama Won because of his own hard work and his own choices. Saying otherwise takes that away from him, and that is not right.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)and don't want to take a thing away from Barack Obama ----and by the way----I think he is the best President we have ever had--------and maybe will be that for a long time-----BUT---he is more brilliant than the Clinton's and really knows how to assemble a team------Rohm Emanuel, Jim Messina and David Axelrod are wizards as well------this is not a black guy----white guy thing----it is a smart guy thing-----Whisp --you may have a severe dislike for Bill Clinton----guess what? Barack might dislike him even more-----but to watch the two of them yesterday teaming up on the ACA was classic--------I think we all, particularly on this site, have to get into the new millennium (in its 13th year) and continue to win elections as a team ------'cause that is what it takes----without rancor --Randy
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)In South Carolina ----I think it could be redistricted for a win for Michele Obama to the US Senate---what do you think
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the women on Emily's list don't think so--check them out
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)if warren runs in the primary i`ll vote for her
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)“Old wine in old bottles,” says Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) to National Review Online, commenting on President Obama’s jobs speech.
And I do believe that you are a Democrat and certainly a good supporter of Elizabeth Warren, but when I hear continued criticism of any of our candidates I wonder if we might have a few Tea Party infiltrators.
I think Elizabeth Warren is a gem on the political horizon. But it is way too early, and extremely risky, to put her on the national stage when she has little name recognition(save for us on this blog) in the key states in which she would need votes. Would it not be a total tragedy to see her marginalized because of a defeat and someone like Rubio or Cruz to get in because she launched too early. There are not too many that have survived to run for President again after an earlier defeat. So I say let's build a machine for Elizabeth Warren, Wendy Davis, and others on Emily's list that can win the country back to the Democratic side with a lot more progressives than we ever thought possible.
With the current Republican House we all as Democrats, should realize that our back porch is on fire. We need to put it out before we start building a new addition. Hillary is not my favorite and never has been (my entire family voted for Obama twice) and my nephew worked on the early Obama campaign in New Jersey.
I simply don't think , this time, that there is anyone out there That can beat her----especially in the general election-------she strikes fear in the hearts of all Republicans. ---
djean111
(14,255 posts)Because attempting to establish her as a fait accompli this early is just annoying.
And given what has been leaked so far about the TPP - I would think she would want her name kind of shrouded until she sees what public opinion is going to be about the TPP.
What is her stand on "entitlement" slashing?
What is her opinion on single payer?
I feel she is for the first and against the second, quite honestly.
Those are questions she should either answer now (bearing in mind I have learned that anything said while campaigning is complete and utter lying pandering bullshit) or hold off on the early campaigning.
But "supporting" someone just because she is a woman? Not a damned chance. Hey, why not have Carly Fiorina run?
She has lady parts, just like I do, so I should vote for her, right?
Fiorina is not a Democrat, and Hillary is a third-wayer.
I am hoping for better. Hopefully this won't be another hold my nose and vote election - this is getting pretty damned old.
But if she is such a shoo-in, why all the cheer-leading?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I am not so much cheer leading as I am a KO--keen observer---of what is happening----again I ask you if you are simply offering your opinion---which I certainly respect---or are you referring to a poll --or link that substantiates what you are saying----and I didn't say just any woman would win----but it is my opinion that the next election is all about gender--------to me the War on Women --is very real---I put up a post on it yesterday---it is my belief that women don't have the time ---and are too smart to indulge in a lot of the stupidity that men enjoy---------they are more into ---"let's get this done"-----and I am talking about Democratic women here -----yes --Hillary Clinton---Elizabeth Warren--and Wendy Davis----Allison Grimes----Catherine Sibelius-----real women ---real serious about what they do-----and will allow some dalliance-if they must---to humor some of the good old boys----but bottom line is the country will be better served when there are more women in office-------starting with the Presidency----so that other women----and families can finally have some respect----Obama did a lot for that ----but it is time for a woman to be there -----and so what if it's not exactly the "right" one--------we had 8 painful years of George Bush----he really wasn't right-----and take a look at the California GOP convention last week with the campaign buttons they were selling comparing Hillary Clinton to a piece of Kentucky Fried Chicken-------right wing, small breasts, and big thighs-------that kind of crap will come to a vicious halt when she is President ------it's gonna be a new day for all women-----Rush Limbaugh will not be calling any women "sluts" ---if he is still on the air----I have worked closely with women for over 40 years---I have daughters and granddaughters---my wife was a brilliant woman-----and I have witnessed a lot of stupidity from men that needs to be changed ----I would love to continue our discussion and invite it---thank you djean111
djean111
(14,255 posts)-"let's get this done" - that is the bottom line. I am a liberal and a progressive, and she is basically a conservative. And the GOP did not stop obstructing Obama in his second term, and they will not stop working just as assiduously against Hillary. They have had a long time to build up hatred and resentment of Hillary and Bill, and the long knives will be out.
It is a catch-22 - yeah, she could do things by using executive orders, since a GOP house will hate her - but I am afraid of what she would do.
If you think Rush and all the other assholes will change their tune if Hillary gets elected - just look - they still feel Obama does not belong in the White House, and are quite open about it.
I feel we need a fresh face and a fresh perspective. And this far before the 2008 elections, no one had heard of Obama. I was a Hillary supporter back then, and now that I know more about her, I can no longer say that.
You will probably get your wish, you know, but for me, the lesser of two evils, if it is Hillary.
As a woman - I do not identify with her one little bit.
I would detest anyone thinking I voted for her just because she is a woman. As one who slogged through the sixties and onward, being treated like crap in the corporate world, I have learned that I cannot base anything on gender alone. I will not do that. Individual women can be just as crafty and mean-spirited as men, and I look at everyone as individuals, as far as gender goes.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I think I mention this in my post---Hillary is probably meaner than any that will be running for 2016(probably the meanest politico in history)----but I think that is what we need--------I hope you would agree that in the corporate world ---and everywhere else men have not fared well in their treatment of women-----so I think it is high time for women to level the playing field a bit-----a lot of people on this site seem to have an ax to grind with her-----but not so on Emily''s list--------will Hillary try to overturn Roe v Wade-----will she try to overturn the Lilly Ledbetter Act----will she sign a bill that allows invasive ultra sound-----or will she fight those who try------does she think that women have a special internal mechanism that ends pregnancy----SHE in the BULLY PULPIT----will address that kind of stupidity
djean111
(14,255 posts)and medicaid reforms, and the TPP. I do not think she will bother with the woman-centric issues you noted. She can address stupidity, but she cannot cure it.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I know some of her fundraisers (surprise: she got a fair amount from Democratic 1%ers). If she were laying the groundwork for a 2016 run (or even thinking about it), I'd know.
She's not.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Elizabeth Warren will come out for HRC right after the campaign begins----it is crucial to her own fund raising -----she can't very well expect support for her projects in the Senate, if she is opposing fellow Democrats--------I think there are a lot of people on DU that love ---but in their zeal could destroy her if she makes any moves to early----there are way too many examples of candidates that mounted campaigns too early, often underfunded , only to lose the opportunity and fatefully be marginalized in the future---Geraldine Ferraro for one----
I wish Elizabeth Warren would address this now ----so that her supporters could better understand that these elections take a lot more than "an emotional appeal--like Oh I just love Elizabeth Warren" -----that doesn't cut it in the battleground hard to win states-----
Tippy
(4,610 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the big days in my life ----JFK elected to Presidency
Nixon resigns
Obama gets elected
Obama elected AGAIN!!!!!
what can I hope for ----a big Republican loss in 2014 so that Obama can have a sweet two years putting programs in place that will return our country to sanity
He will b e remembered most of all for the ACA---that Republicans still say with a sneer when they say Obamacare-------but they will stop when their constituents tell them how good it is --then they will will call it ACA-----some of them will brag that the concept came from the Heritage Foundation
thank you Tippy for the supportive post
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)especially whil Newt Gingrich was doing the same thing
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)did you hear that AARP------first of all the misogynists can't stand to have a woman telling them what to do----now it is too much for them to have an older person in charge ------I know Mother Teresa would not agree---and not Indira Ghandi---and not Golda Maier---guess what ---Barbara Bush will vote for HRC----and that is both Barbaras ---GWB's mother and daughter
Whisp
(24,096 posts)no chance for Hillitary. NONE.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)other than your own feelings, is there a source or a link that you are quoting---I have not found any source(other than RW media) that says she will lose
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)is there any change
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)it has been a while since we conversed on HRC---has your position changed on her
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)it looks like the Republicans are going to help HRC with a candidate clown car again----Cruz vs Christie---through in Rand Paul and Rick Santorum----this will be after a 2014 R bloodbath with the Tea party people trying to beat the GOP--------I hope HRC does not have to spend money for a primary---but play the game with some D challengers to galvanize the base
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Team', instead of policy positions.
Here positions are stale and unworkable solutions to the countries problems.
Only centrists positions like Medicare for all, ending costly trade agreements, cutting big war spending, and taxing the rich will get us out of our mess.
If she can support great policies, she can win..... But not by supporting the Walton's.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)what is your pathway to achieving this
sendero
(28,552 posts).... (very very unpopular around here BTW) that if these third-way center-right %$^#$%s are the best the Democratic party has to offer, why care if they win or not?
I ask you a "rhetorical" question. If the country is heading to the same low, bad place, getting there faster with Republicans but just as surely, only slower, with Democrats, which course is truly better?
Death by a thousand cuts by your "friends" or a quick death by your enemy? Because only in dying is this country going to be reborn. When things get truly bad enough, the 99% will put a stop to it. History shows it over and over.
So forgive me if I personally don't see the point in more death by a thousand cuts, and that is all HRC has to offer.
Really, her getting elected to carry on Bill's disastrous legacy of "welfare reform", "financial deregulation", "media deregulation", "free trade agreements" and so on, doesn't appeal to me. Perhaps the only bright side would be that - it would probably piss off the right wing fools even more than Obama, and surely that would be fun.
I'm not saying that if it comes down to it I will not vote. And I am damn sure not going to vote for a Republican, any Republican. This is a thought exercise, how do we get out of this rut? What IS our pathway for achieving this? I thought electing Obama was going to be but it seems I was mistaken.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I know there are still a lot of people here that are sore at the Clintons---but today Bill Clinton is in Kentucky trying to help Alison Grimes take Mitch McConnell's seat in the Senate----now that to me is a noble effort----I might not care for some of the Clinton policies in his past ----but I do believe he had to make the party swing to the right a bit to stay relevant ------if we all did just keep the "I want Elizabeth Warren" thing going we will put our party in the dustbin for a few cycles because as much as we might love what she does and stands for-----she'll never get the swing states to vote for here today----BUT --with someone like Hillary in the White House ---first of all getting the country to accept a woman----and then slowly swinging to a more progressive stance is probably a better way---------Hillary is the one candidate to swing many red states blue-----and that will be the start of the progressive movement in many of those states -------to see Arizona and Georgia passing laws to deny service to LGBT tells us we have a long way to go-----
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)is hard at work at DU again, doing what it does best---forcing us to take our eyes off the prize.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I am not sure if you are saying you support a Clinton run for the Presidency
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)that would like to see a candidate that is more progressive than HRC---but the bottom line is "Can they win the General Election"? ----probably none of them can----and if they do not have a team in place it is wasteful thinking for anyone here to think about Elizabeth Warren or others similar
EEO
(1,620 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)but remember that Obama had announced by this time---or was posturing ----do you see anyone doing that now-----who would you like to see run?
EEO
(1,620 posts)Warren would be swell, but this country isn't smart enough to elect someone like her. If it was, Congress wouldn't suck so much.
William769
(59,147 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)
northoftheborder
(7,637 posts) YES---YES---YES
DFW
(60,162 posts)You had darn well be prepared to talk about what you call her "ruthless side," because everyone else will.
Every candidate will have their detractors, and if their supporters aren't ready with answers to criticisms, that is weak support, indeed.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Not one of them explained why anyone should vote for Clinton. only why you think it's preordained that she'll win.
I'm going to wait to see who else is running. I have a year and a half.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)the original post is about a year old now ----I still think that HRC is the winner---if she runs----if Nader runs as an Independent will you vote for him?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)how about the comments I made on the Republicans war on women---is that reason to vote for HRC
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)other Democrats could very well prove a better candidate, is my point.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Other Democrats would make a better President than HRC-===but HRC makes a better candidate---she can win ===I haven't seen any others tip their hat ---or a poll that shows any traction for another
chrisstopher
(152 posts)
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Satire is dead.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Aren't there any democrats that could run instead!!
EEO
(1,620 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)1) Hillary Clinton now has a track record of 17 million people who chose to vote for her for President. Absent a dramatic shift in attitudes, that's a strong starting point. Current polling suggests her support has only gotten stronger since 2008.
3) Hillary Clinton already has substantial following of supports ("Ready for Hillary" who are organizing and raising money for an eventual campaign. RFH is also attracting many of political operatives from Obama's successful campaigns. No other candidates will have anything close to the same resources on Day 1.
2) The likely competition (which does NOT include Elizabeth Warren) does not have anything approaching the name recognition or appeal of a Barack Obama (who had given the Convention keynote address four years earlier.
4) Most of the people who ARE considering running (O'Malley, Biden, Cuomo) are politically astute enough to know that running against her THIS YEAR would likely end their political futures, and won't contest the race if she decides to run, or will run a softball campaign to push their prospects for a VP nomination.
EEO
(1,620 posts)You are like a speculator on Wall Street choosing what stock will be a winner, except you are choosing a political candidate.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I've presented evidence for my THEORY. Please provide the evidence that supports yours
EEO
(1,620 posts)Not always so reliable in predicting the future.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)It is not that I am tied to HRC or any candidate , for that matter, I am being a realist in saying that she can win ---and probably will-----after she wins ---and we drag this country back to centrist politics ,then we can begin the journey to recover our losses-----Women's Right to Choose, new Supreme Court Judges, Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering of districts , hobby Lobby, buffer zones on Planned parenthood clinics --it troubles me when I hear people on this site say----"oh well I like Elizabeth Warren and she stands for what I believe----you gotta get over that and understand thet it is about a lot more than 'I like Elizabeth Warren" ---she is not going to be the president ----and if you don't want to see another Scala on the SCOTUS ---get on the HRC bandwagon now----donate to her campaign-----tell HRC what you don't like about her ----but vote Democratic now
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)by this time Obama had announced to run against HRC-----no one has done that this time-----
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Or, heaven forfend, try to motor through on some mealy-mouthed Bob Shrum values voter campaign where the toughest policy position she takes is whether Jesus was the "most importantest person ever" or only the "most influential"
I actually- as a lifelong Democrat who, yes, likes when we WIN- think the seasoned political argument, the connected power broker and expert players of the game arguments- ARE good and compelling ones. It is a mark in her favor. But it is also worth noting that those finely honed instincts and powerful insider connections (plus a bucket full of "inevitability" did NOT secure her the nom in 2008.
Lastly I think there are important policy questions waiting for the next executive. Obviously foreign policy- and as you can see many of us are still wary of her IWR vote- but also questions like the NSA and 4th amendment freedoms for Americans. Net neutrality. Censorship. The tide is turning inexorably in the US towards marijuana legalization- will Hillary continue to allow the DEA to use tax dollars to arrest pot smokers? Or will she get out ahead on legalization and LEAD, as Gavin Newsom has done?
The Voters deserve real, grown-up answers.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)The only people using that term are anti-Hillary people looking for something to complain about.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I stand by everything I said, there. I haven't made up my mind pro OR anti. But I want her to make the case.
And I'd like to hear some fresh and brave ideas- I know she can do it, we all know she's sharp as a tack- not just warmed over platitudes.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)even if HRC can't meet up to DU standards ---I think her SCOTUS choices will be better than Rand Paul's
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Congratulations on winning an argument I wasn't even close to having, with youuuuuu!!!!
You understand there's a primary process, no?
Be honest, now. Did you even read a single word of my post, before responding to it?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I did read your post ----I like you exclamation points----( I happen to have a proclivity for the dash bar----and have worn out that button on several keyboards-----)--tell me more about the primary ---and more importantly who you think will be running ---and if they have started a campaign committee (I think this is where I should use the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!------and of course some of favorite dashes-----
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yes, it's called a Primary Process, for the Presidential Nomination, I'm not sure where you're getting these goofy non-sequiturs about Eric Cantor and Rand Paul from. She's not an incumbent, she's not even a declared candidate, yet.
So she needs to MAKE THE CASE, it isn't going to be handed to her automatically.
And if your so-called 'arguments' in this thread are indicative of the brain trusts she's pulling in this time around, she's gonna have at least as much trouble as last time.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)have you seen a poll that shows anyone other than HRC on the horizon-----on the issue of primaries I am familiar with the process ---so I pointed out the most significant one this year ---the Cantor loss in Virginia--I think if you read my post again you'll find that it is kind of a summary of how I saw things in July of last year ---the date of the OP----it has received a lot more review than I would have imagined ---but I don't think I would change much if I were to write it today----judging from your continued interest I am guessing that you would like to see someone other than HRC as our next President ---please share that with me and let us continue our discussion---thank you again Warren ---AR
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was pretty clear in what I'd like to see from a HRC candidacy. I have not made up my mind as to who I am supporting in the primaries, as it is currently August of 2014.
Who was the "front runner" for the Democratic nomination in August of 2006, I wonder?
I believe Hillary could be a formidable candidate, however in my experience the Clintons both tend to run on a strange variety of magical thinking and a rehash of this sort of "play to the middle, kowtow to the all-powerful values voter, dont offend anyone" logic which was already starting to be outdated 10 years ago.
That's why I brought up Bob Shrum.
When I saw Hillary speak at the march for womens lives in 2004, she was fierce and unapologetic. That's the Hillary i want. (Not the one who voted for the IWR 2 years earlier because it was the politically convenient thing to do.)
I understand that the Clintons are a product of their experiences, dating back to Bill's loss and then eventual comeback as arkansas governor. And winning the WH after 12 years of Reagan-Bush sure felt magical, enough so that what he was doing- his gameplan- sure made a hell of a lot of sense. Then.
But the world has changed, the nation has changed, and we need new types of leadership for a new century.
I believe Hillary CAN be that leader- but not if her campaign is going to be about talking about her favorite Bible passages instead of taking positions that someone, somewhere, might not like.
i will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless. That is a given.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)is there something that I have said that offends you?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Sorry, little nerd joke, there.
No, honestly if I was that easily offended I wouldn't bother being on DU. But I've made my points, here. You can address em or not, your call.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)a lot of what is said is true here---but the bottom line the candidate has to win a general election not just our little endorsement
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And in the time since, how'd all that Beltway poobah conventional wisdom actually DO at the ballot box, this past November?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)those were all pretty safe Red States ---but the demo is changing and 2016 will reverse the majorities for the Republicans in those Blue states ----no only that but quite a few of those Red states voted for Bill Clinton---and might be votes for HRC----they certainly were not for Obama -----I think that HRC can catch all the Obama won states and quite a few more----but please understand again that HRC is not my favorite ----it is just my belief that she is best bet, at least today, to win the general ------and as far as the alacrity of response --how's this for a ricochet reply
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But we'll have a primary process, and if she wins that I hope you are right about her strength and chances in the general.
That said, there is no reason to believe a vigorous and contested primary season will harm instead of benefit whoever our nom is.
So my plan is to worry about that first, and support the candidate I am most favorable towards, in those primaries.
I dont know yet who that will be- it might be Hillary, for all I know.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Warren Buffet endorsement
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-04/warren-buffett-bets-big-on-hillary-clinton
Ready for Hillary has been up and running for over a year
https://www.readyforhillary.com/home
This is a group --primarily women ----assembled to get women elected to office----they have been VERY successful----
http://www.emilyslist.org/
Here is report on about 6 different and independent organizations assembled to support HRC
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/clinton-groups-coordination/
here are 20 different corporations and entities that have contributed to HRC
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
Warren ---you and I might not see much going on-----but HRC has an army of people working every possible corner on this-----she is determined to win
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)tgards79
(1,463 posts)I want her to run. And I want her to win. And she certainly will get the nomination if she runs, virtually by acclimation. No one will challenge her. But she does need to come up with a story, a vision, a point of view. Carrying on Obama's legacy, much as I would want that, is simply not going to resonate. Nor will restoring Bill's presidency. She needs a fresh 21st century vision that is full of new ideas. Then she would sail to the presidency.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)JaydenD
(294 posts)A lot did in 2008 and she lost, what makes you think this is a done deal this time?
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I think most of what I said a years ago in the original post still stands------only now HRC has ramped things up a bit with her support of candidates like Allison Lundgren Grimes in Kentucky------Bill Clinton is there this week offering support as well------let me say this ----she is not my FAVORITE and never has been -----I just think this time she has most of the chips on her side of the table ---please tell me who you would have challenge her
JaydenD
(294 posts)Hillary herself hasn't officially stated she is running, so picking from a list of practically zero won't do much good. However this turns out, it won't be Hillary the lone candidate with everyone else stepping aside in fear and awe like some messages are running to intimidate.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)
area51
(12,686 posts)"The women vote coming from the entire country will be overwhelmingly for Hillary."
Not by a long shot.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)thank you for your comment ----do you have an opinion on the portion of women that will vote for HRC-----does that estimate include Republican women and Independents?----
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)There is no doubt that I and a lot of others would rather see Elizabeth Warren on the ticket. That is my liberal politico side. But I am a realist more than a liberal, Elizabeth could not get by the right wingers.
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)Always Randy
(1,085 posts)I thought it might be interesting to revisit this thread and catch a few new comments
area51
(12,686 posts)lol, that's pretty funny coming from a guy. No, wait, it actually pretty insulting. 
Always Randy
(1,085 posts)my comment or the part that it is a fact that women can no longer tolerate a bunch of old white men telling them what they can and can not do with their bodies, refuse to give them a seat at the table of decision ( there are no women chairing any committees during this GOP controlled Congress), letting old LImbaugh call a woman a slut, let Holly Lobby go a few more rounds , -----if women let anyone other than HRC in they can watch some pretty severe appointments to SCOTUS------my comment is not demeaning or insulting ---it is real
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts) Always Randy
(1,085 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts) Response to Always Randy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
gobears10
(311 posts)Hillary downplayed her gender in her 2008. Her campaign was based on competence and experience. However, I do think it will benefit her to embrace identity politics in 2016, and highlight the stark differences between the Democrats and Republicans on women's issues. A socially progressive, pro-feminist campaign will definitely help the Democrats, while also genuinely improving the status of women in our society.
The GOP supports anti-abortion laws, closing down abortion clinics, invasive transvaginal ultrasounds, forcing women to wait days to get an abortion, restricting access to contraception, abstinence-only education in schools, etc. They've said really horrible stuff about rape, about how women can only get late-term abortions for rapes only if they reported rape to the police (ignoring how hard it is for rape victims to come forward). Republicans oppose same sex marriage for lesbian couples and rights for transgender people. The GOP also opposes pay equity legislation (the gender wage gap is a really complicated issue that IS often oversimplified, but it's real and a problem nonetheless). Hillary could highlight the need for paid sick leave, paid parental leave (including maternity leave), and early childhood education. Issues that animate women, and their brothers, husbands, fathers, and sons. Particularly low and middle income women (both white women and women of color) and their families. The GOP so far opposes all of these things.
Hillary can also call out socially conservative Republicans for victim blaming when it comes to rape victims, and how such conservatives have made bizarre statements about rape (Todd Akin's statement that if a woman is "legitimately raped," she won't need an abortion procedure b/c the body naturally shuts down the presidency, and Paul Ryan's statement that children conceived from rape are "blessings" . The sexist attacks against Hillary by Republicans are disgusting. Erick Erickson from the RedState wrote, "Maybe Bill forgot to plug in Hillary's jazzy scooter last night." Wtf!? F. Bill McMorris wrote out "Hillary shatters gender stereotypes by being 2 hours late because 'she was getting ready.'" wtf!?! Rush Limbaugh's also been saying horrible, sexist stuff about her (Hillary having a testicle lock box, saying she's controlling, not sympathetic, not soft and cuddly, not patient, not understanding, and a demanding, domineering Nurse Ratchet). I fucking hate him. Sexist dehumanizing piece of trash. To be expected given he called Sandra Fluke a slut when she called for insurance companies to cover contraception. I hope Hillary kicks these sexist fucks in the ass and shows them women can be just as capable as men.
I'm against barriers of prejudice and discrimination (like glass ceilings) keeping women from taking an equal place in the power structures of society. Women made up 53% of the electorate in 2012 presidential election, yet only 104 of the 535 full voting seats in the House and Senate are held by women. That's a national disgrace. The fact that men have dominated elective office, from the presidency, to Congress, to the state legislatures, has resulted in the perspectives and priorities of women being de-emphasized. It's shameful that in 2015, we're still having debates on paid maternity leave, reproductive rights, and contraception access. It's shameful that Republican men are legislating on the reproductive rights of women, and holding congressional hearings on contraception in which women aren't invited.
I'm still not 100% sold on Hillary yet though. I value economic issues and policy the most, and there, Hillary fails to impress me with her Third-Way "centrist" record. She's a corporatist Democrat and too close to Wall Street and big corporations. I also disagree with her hawkish foreign policy views, and her authoritarian civil liberties stances. I've criticized her economic and foreign policies from the left on my wall a lot, and I'm sure I'll continue to do so. I really wish Elizabeth Warren ran. And I care more about substantive representation than descriptive representation. If Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders runs in the primary, I'll vote for them over Hillary. I'll support Hillary in the general election b/c she's much better than the GOP opposition, as I've already told you before.
But if there's an area on which Hillary can genuinely make a positive impact, it's on women's rights. She has a unique position, and I hope she takes advantage of it. Unfortunately, despite being the first black president, Obama has seldom touched on the issue of race, and when he has he has emphasized the conservative themes of responsibility and self-help. I wish Obama came out much more robustly in opposing to systemic racism, and had a full throttled agenda to tackle it.
I hope Hillary seizes the opportunity to highlight how misogynistic the Republicans and their policies are. We need to end this "War on Women."
RandySF
(84,084 posts)