The inevitable Hillary will lead to President Rand Paul.

[JDPriestly]

121. None of Rand Paul's stands will prevent him from winning the Republican

nomination.

And, the OP mentions only a few of the negative issues that work against Hillary. There is NAFTA for which Bill Clinton shares a lot of the responsibility with a bunch of Republicans who are no longer in Congress or who will not be running. There is the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the failure to watch Bin Laden's every move when it would have been easiest, just too many issues to list. (Blaming all that on Bill Clinton may be unfair, but it will be done. That's politics.)

Jeb Bush will not be blamed for George W.'s failures because Jeb was not in the White House with GW, but Hillary -- she was in the White House, presumably sharing the president's bed, breakfast, lunch and dinner and will be held responsible for the oversights and mistakes of Bill Clinton's administration. Not that Bill Clinton was the worst ever, but inevitably presidents make mistakes. Bill signed a lot of bills like the Telecommunications Act that have made our lives worse not better.

Really, Hillary is, I'm sure a very nice lady. Everybody likes her as an icon of the Democratic Party. But as a candidate for 2016. No. Read the handwriting on the wall in middle America. We want a populist candidate who will hand it to the banks.

Our economy is brittle, rigid. Wall Street is soaring while bank rates are way below the inflation rate. Small savers are suffering as a result. Interest rates are low -- if you have the income and the good credit rating to borrow money now. But a lot of young people in the house-buying, furniture-buying, baby-raising age owe so much on student loans that they cannot think to borrow. Wages are not rising to match inflation. Families are squeezed.

We do not want that in America. Our economy is enrichimg the already very rich and hurting the young people who are just starting to save as well as the seniors who actually rely on interest to supplement Social Security. Guess where the majority of likely voters fall on that chart.

Then there is the monopolization of many fields. Book stores have closed, quickly, quietly, as the big booksellers are monopolizing the retail book business. Google, Microsoft and Apple -- they dominate to the point that they are approaching becoming governments of their own in their areas. (Don't get me wrong. I don't think they are governments, but they sure rule in their areas of our economy.)

Next, the banks, ever fewer in number, ever more powerful, ever less honest, as prone to errors in judgment as ever, but unable to gain balance without taxpayer help when they start to tip. The banking "reform" was too cautious. It is being challenged in the courts and in the regulatory agencies, torn apart, piece by piece and has not adequately improved the precarious positions of the banks or our economy. It has to be more vigorously enforced if it is to lead to enough diversity in banking choices and make us more flexible as an economy.

We need change. And the changes we need are in fundamental economic strategy. That is Elizabeth Warren's strength.

Rand Paul adheres to and advocates for foolish, unworkable, overly simplistic economic theories. To paraphrase: "Just let the powerful run things there way and all will be well." That theory has been preached to Americans for such a long time that even though it has proved unworkable (The crash of 2008 is proof of that., a lot of Americans have heard it so often that they firmly believe it.

The idea that you can bring stability and the flexibility that comes with stability to an economy by removing the cornerstone of government regulation on which the economy rests is ludicrous but easy to grasp and therefore very marketable. It's like the slogan "breakfast of champions." Never mind that it is just calories with not much nutrition. Sounds powerful.

The Koch Brothers are among the most ardent missionaries of that Libertarian gospel. They are wrong. The world works well for them under that economic model, but it turns the rest of us into their serfs. Rand Paul ate the Koch's magic cookies, and, if elected, will place the entire world on the brink of the Middle Ages.

Hillary has no answer to any of the big economic problems facing our country. She is great on women and children. She is terrible on the economy. And I don't need to talk about foreign policy. She made a good Secretary of State but Obama was there to harness her warring tendencies.

We have to nominate someone other than Hillary. This is not the time to offer the nation more of the same. This is the time to introduce a new diet. Either we introduce a healthy diet, or Rand Paul will introduce his sick theories and the economy, our education system, our health care system, our safety net, our minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare -- all of the safeguards that we have built into our country that hold us upright as a people, that help us work together and for each other, will fall out from under us. We cannot let that happen.

Nominating Hillary would be letting the country down.

Sorry if this sounds like my hair is on fire. I may have let a little too loose with the metaphors and fun language (just came back home from an invigorating walk), but you get the point.

I agree with the OP. The Republicans are as likely to nominate Rand Paul as anyone, and if they do, Hillary will be a weak answer. Even if they nominate Jeb, Hillary will not make a good candidate. It is time for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. I'm a woman so I prefer Elizabeth Warren. I think she will appeal to conservative as well as liberal women, and that is who we need to appeal to. A lot of men will vote Republican no matter what. I think the next election will be decided by women.