The inevitable Hillary will lead to President Rand Paul.

[JDPriestly]

175. You are right about Rand Paul in this regard (as well as with regard to other things):

He’s not a bright man and will inevitably screw up, when confronted with all these issues..

But, neither are most Americans (bright) and so do most all of us (inevitably screw up).

But (another but), Hillary is same-old, same-old, and she isn't really personable.

It's not that she is a bad person. It is that she reminds a lot of people of the girl in first grade who was smarter than everybody else and tattled a lot. Do you think there is a way to cure that? Also, as a British woman I used to work with said about one of our bosses, "She gets her knickers tied in knots" too often.

Remember Bill Clinton? He even got by with the Monica Lewinsky caper because he was able to convey the message, "I'm just one of you." He exuded humility and the sense that he really loved everybody and wanted to serve the nation. In fact, he passed a lot of bills that increased the corruption in the US. He served the 1% just like all other fat-cat politicians. We just didn't realize it at the time. (I walked and walked up and down hills to help get him elected as I usually do for Democratic candidates.)

But Bill Clinton has great charm and, as I said, projects humility. If he makes a mistake, he admits it and seems genuinely remorseful. It may be an act, but good-hearted people like me buy it

Hillary kind of snorts at people when she thinks they are stupid or when they say something mean to her. That is a huge mistake. Her voice has improved a great deal since 1008, but it still sounds cold and a bit imperious.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, sounds like a Southern good old boy. That will not go over in California or New York, but it could take some swing states. Southern Ohio is an area I am very familiar with, and Rand Paul could be very popular there.

Remember that Gore won the popular vote. He just lost the Supreme Court vote. He could have taken swing states with a higher margin if he had come across as less aloof. On stage, what matters is not who you are, but whom others perceive you to be. Politicians have to be on stage all the time. Obama won because he comes across as patient, smart, and just plain cool. And in fact, that is how he has performed in the White House. I read a lot about racism, etc. on DU, but basically, Americans like Obama because they feel that he can be trusted to stay cool.

We need a strong candidate with truly populist views. I don't think people in D.C. understand how many Americans have gone into bankruptcy, how many lost their homes, ow many are paying high rents although their paychecks have leveled off, how many are still afraid of losing their jobs, how many lost their businesses and are trying to start over. Just last week, a lot of people were laid off in one of my friend's businesses. The economic data does not reflect the reality on Main Street. It just does not. The economy is getting a little better, but really not fast enough, not fast enough. And our infrastructure is in terrible shape. The situation in Ferguson is just one reflection of that fact. The police are on edge in many communities.

We need to break from the economic policies that Democrats ran on in the 1980s, 1990s and thus far in the 2000s. My mother, for example, a life-long Democrat in her late 90s complains that she is getting only a quarter of a percent of interest when her CDs turn over. And she is a lot better off than most senior citizens. We need to give Americans the hope that they can build a better life. I don't see how Hillary can do that since she will run on the same ideas that Republicans and Democrats ran on in 2004, 2008 and 2012.

Frankly, us little folk, those of us who don't gamble on Wall Street have been burned pretty badly by the economy since 2008. The banks were bailed out. The rest of America is struggling. Hillary is not the answer to that pain. Our trade agreements and, outside California, immigration (within California, we love immigration) are viewed as the reasons for much of the economic stagnation and hurt. Rand Paul can believably run on those issues. He can, on the face of things, stand for equality and all the things that we as Democrats really believe in while, winking and holding his hands behind his back, speak to the secret fears of millions of Americans who are still worrying about whether their jobs will be lost to new technologies, outsourcing, overseas manufacturing and competition from new entrants into the job market. Hillary personally is connected to for example the "free" trade policies that have cost Americans their good jobs.

Add all those concerns and many others and you echo my fear -- a government totally controlled by Republicans who pride themselves on their lack of literacy, their inability to understand science, their overconfidence in slogans about free markets, freedom (which they think they own and which they believe in in spite of the fact that Homeland Security shakes them down every time they try to board a plane) and their down-home folksy mannerisms.

Meanwhile, the Clintons are seen in all the right places with all the big donors including at events that connect them with Pete Peterson, enemy of Social Security and other such foes of what most Americans support. Really, if you have to choose between a Democrat who is very smart and shows it off but attends festivities (seminars, etc.) sponsored by Pete Peterson and other foes of the government programs that help ordinary people survive or a buy like Rand Paul of Jeb Bush who attend the festivities sponsored by the Koch Brothers and who say, "Ah shiucks," you know I'm on your side cause I talk just like you do," who do you think will win? Does it make a difference? Yes. To me and you. But to those who focus on events like Robin Williams' death or Kim Kardashian's loves to the exclusion of politics? Not so much.

I like Elizabeth Warren because she knows how to explain things to people so they understand and get the feeling that she is on their side. Hillary does not know how to do that. Hillary knows how to explain things quickly and in proper language that appeals to people in D.C. and big business, but she does not come across in that "Aw Shucks way that gets people elected."

A Spanish-speaking VP might help her, but I don't see one on the horizon. Xavier Becerra would be perfect, but he does not have the name recognition, and California is not a swing state. We need someone who speaks Spanish and is from someplace like Texas or Florida or Ohio. And even then, Hillary could lose big because of her political and personal negatives.

I think Hillary needs a challenger. We need to test her in the primaries. I think we can do better than Hillary. I think we can get a candidate who will be fresh, bring fresh ideas and language and give hope to Americans. I just don't think Hillary can do that.