General Discussion

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)

34. Do you think President Obama won't campaign for SoS Clinton should she be the nominee?

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 11:33 AM

Dec 2014

When he campaigns for a candidate, that candidate will win despite the tantrums by the extreme Left. Latinos and Blacks will support his choice. by at least 65% If it's SoS Clinton, you can be certain that we will not only recapture the Senate, we're guaranteed the White House, as well.

But no matter who the nominee is, we will take back the Senate in 2016. BIGGER voter turnout means Dems win and the numbers are in our favor. And there will be a huge turnout.

As an aside, I would take those "progressives'" credentials with a pound of salt. When there are some who actually praise none other than Rick "blah people" Santorum on a clearly Democratic Party supporting board, I call into question their motive when they vilify SoS Clinton while they praise other candidates - such as a Right-wing religious nut-case like Santorum.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYT Op-ed: Warren Can Win [View all] RiverLover Dec 2014 OP

Of course she can. She's our best chance of not only winning, but of changing the system. Scuba Dec 2014 #1

Yep... Cosmic Kitten Dec 2014 #2

So anyone who votes for our candidate in November, if it isnt Warren, is 3rd way? NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #102

What does your post even mean? I understood what she said. nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #122

i mistakenly responded to OP when I was responding to this NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #135

Not sarcasm. Maybe just misunderstanding? Cosmic Kitten Dec 2014 #134

Besides, if we can't change the system, anyway, what is the point of winning? Enthusiast Dec 2014 #18

+ Infinity Octafish Dec 2014 #28

The illegitimate Madmiddle Dec 2014 #3

Is your plan to curl up and die? Just curious. truebluegreen Dec 2014 #5

Good post. Thanks~ RiverLover Dec 2014 #6

Spot-on post... beerandjesus Dec 2014 #10

Fantastic analysis. Ed Suspicious Dec 2014 #14

Rick Santorum comes off as a religious nut case. That's why he had no support last time. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #19

The problem is.... daleanime Dec 2014 #23

The problem is that to find the, "crazy inflammatory things" you'd have to Google... genwah Dec 2014 #112

Wow. Never thought I'd see a Rick Santorum post so full of praise for him on DU. BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #29

The point was being realistic, not praising Santorum. djean111 Dec 2014 #35

Then you and I read the post differently. When you write: BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #39

I really would have thought it better to assess possible opponents' strengths as they may be djean111 Dec 2014 #41

My apologies. I thought you meant "DLC". It's early on the west coast. That said, BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #43

You're right, I was praising him. beerandjesus Dec 2014 #46

Yes. I know I'm correct about you. eom BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #61

That's precisely the sort of arrogance that loses elections. beerandjesus Dec 2014 #67

Have a gander at my sig. If we lose elections, it's not because I'm too lazy or too privileged or BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #71

You point to "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Democrat" as evidence of humility? beerandjesus Dec 2014 #75

Oh no, I read your post, and yes, I see your point pretty clearly. Not surprised you'd BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #78

God, you're mean-spirited beerandjesus Dec 2014 #80

I apologize if I came across mean-spirited. That wasn't my intention...at least, not in my last post BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #92

Apology accepted... beerandjesus Dec 2014 #97

I'm one of the other posters who read you post. bvar22 Dec 2014 #110

Thanks! beerandjesus Dec 2014 #120

This message was self-deleted by its author reimaginethis Dec 2014 #126

Thank you. beerandjesus Dec 2014 #47

I feel the same about Rand Paul nxylas Dec 2014 #107

Yes, and it's not just his anti-war stance. beerandjesus Dec 2014 #108

The GOP is the party of war. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #131

You're totally right about that, unequivocally. beerandjesus Dec 2014 #133

While I agree with much of what you have written ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #54

And aint that scary as hell! NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #104

I think assuming Hillary is a shoe-in is a big mistake by dem leadership. CrispyQ Dec 2014 #66

Well said, but the phrase "David Brooks is right" kinda made me throw up a little in my mouth. mountain grammy Dec 2014 #100

Me too--hence the allusion to blind squirrels. truebluegreen Dec 2014 #109

Yeah, but we're supposed to hate the alternative. Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2014 #125

Someone as "pure"... what? Cosmic Kitten Dec 2014 #17

I want an FDR Democrat in office hueymahl Dec 2014 #4

Me too hueymahl! And we can't forget about Teddy Roosevelt... RiverLover Dec 2014 #7

Beautifully said RiverLover --- AikidoSoul Dec 2014 #98

Bernie Sanders is who will run and is as close to FDR as you can get, for now. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #105

"The people who will claim he is a Socialist" brooklynite Dec 2014 #111

Yeah, that is my point. we are ALL socialists NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #114

No - almost none of us are... brooklynite Dec 2014 #117

i dont have the energy for this NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #118

You come up with your own definition for "socialist" and are too tired to explain what you mean? brooklynite Dec 2014 #119

It's time for the Dems to make a bold move and Warren would be it. Vinca Dec 2014 #8

You're joking, right? BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #31

That's true. Check out this WSJ article trying to fight GOPrs going w/ EW~ RiverLover Dec 2014 #38

No, they don't. Right-wing Republicans are not secretly populist liberals in disguise. NYC Liberal Dec 2014 #73

And if they say something or think something along those lines, fox will straighten them out NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #106

Sorry, that will NEVER happen, mountain grammy Dec 2014 #101

I will campaign for Warren. I would vote for Warren. I will stay home for Hillary. It's that simple. Katashi_itto Dec 2014 #9

If Hillary wins the general election, we still lose. Hoppy Dec 2014 #11

Yeah, we would. djean111 Dec 2014 #13

Yes, I agree, I have written exactly that before. nt NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #15

Hillary Should Join The Republican Party billhicks76 Dec 2014 #130

File this under "No shit, Sherlock." Ed Suspicious Dec 2014 #12

My ideal scenario DFW Dec 2014 #16

You think Hilary will have enough coat tails to recapture the Senate? Indydem Dec 2014 #25

Do you think President Obama won't campaign for SoS Clinton should she be the nominee? BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #34

Everytime someone bandies about the term "extreme left" truebluegreen Dec 2014 #57

Good for you. I stand by my post. eom BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #60

Good for you. Say hi the rest of the folks at Third Way HQ LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #79

So if you don't consider yourself "the left" who are you? rhett o rick Dec 2014 #123

I still am not sure Hillary will run. What makes you bring her up? I didn't. DFW Dec 2014 #45

Yes, Barney Frank nailed it.. I miss him in the Congress. mountain grammy Dec 2014 #103

So do I DFW Dec 2014 #128

Sure she can... and I'm sure David Brooks the author ( a raging conservative) OKNancy Dec 2014 #20

I read comments to this waiting for someone to point that out. Brooks has an agenda here. stevenleser Dec 2014 #21

wow ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #56

"remind me again how "progressives" always hold their noses and vote" LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #81

Se posts #9 and 25. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #85

For a poster who claimed he was statistical guru because he googled LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #89

Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #94

Yes, you know more than me because you think two individuals refute LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #95

+1 I like logic. good posts, thank you. nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #121

Can you believe this fake outrage? Rex Dec 2014 #129

People have gone nuts with this. stevenleser Dec 2014 #83

Scary, huh? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #88

"Brooks frequently seems more sympathetic toward Obama than the liberal Paul Krugman." RiverLover Dec 2014 #22

LOL - drag out a five year old column to prove what? that he is reasonable? OKNancy Dec 2014 #24

Yep. And yet it's strange that some on this thread not only support Brooks but Rick "blah people" BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #36

I think its great Brooks reaches conservatives & could win some over for us. RiverLover Dec 2014 #40

You have GOT to be kidding me. Barring an economic catastrophe that Cons know Dems are best at BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #42

The WSJ is worried about the right defecting to EW, which is GOOD. RiverLover Dec 2014 #49

"luckily not all rethugs are idiots." No. But the majority of them are. BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #59

I don't think Warren is particularly Liberal LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #82

I'm sorry to admit that your analysis scares the crap out of me AikidoSoul Dec 2014 #99

If it's any consolation, I hope I'm wrong, too. eom BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #115

What do you suppose will be next? greatauntoftriplets Dec 2014 #44

I don't read it as praise for EW I see it as a warning.. to the conservatives Autumn Dec 2014 #52

In a smart USA she could. But we have a dumb USA. Auggie Dec 2014 #26

posting a David Brooks column Enrique Dec 2014 #27

Smacks of an ulterior motive. There are TWO posts that even praise Rick "blah people" Santorum BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #37

Sounds like I scored the Post Of the Day! beerandjesus Dec 2014 #48

I found this part interesting. BKH70041 Dec 2014 #30

Hillary lost the primary last time. I expect she will lose a 2nd time. L0oniX Dec 2014 #32

Warren is getting great free advertising. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #33

Sorry, friends, I read this very differently. sadoldgirl Dec 2014 #50

I wish somebody other than that schmuck David Brooks had written this. (nt) Paladin Dec 2014 #51

that's exactly why she can't be *allowed* to ... MisterP Dec 2014 #53

And that scares me... shanti Dec 2014 #113

HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!! WillyT Dec 2014 #55

66 recs for a conservative op ed. joshcryer Dec 2014 #58

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, Josh? eom BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #62

Better Believe It! joshcryer Dec 2014 #63

Take a look at the monikers of some BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #64

Worse is how he frames Warren as "emotional." joshcryer Dec 2014 #65

It's Brooks' way of lifting Senator Warren up (in order to vilify HRC) and then dropping her hard BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #68

I count a dozen conservative articles on Warren vs Clinton today. joshcryer Dec 2014 #70

In the meantime...71 rec's for this p.o.s. Right-winger's article by DUers...*sigh* BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #87

I just added my rec. I think it is up to 74. Vattel Dec 2014 #96

How nice of you to share. BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #116

This message was self-deleted by its author reimaginethis Dec 2014 #127

Well, I've been a member for longer than that. You just signed up when? Oh yeah. 2014. BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #136

Well said. nt Bobbie Jo Dec 2014 #137

Some here know his work and are capable of seeing exactly what this op ed of his is. Autumn Dec 2014 #69

So he could frame Warren as emotional and combative? joshcryer Dec 2014 #72

Oh, Autumn, pal...it's not as if you're the only one with a brain on this site. We know BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #74

Well BlueCaliDem, pal... I guess it's a matter of perception. Autumn Dec 2014 #76

Yeah...okay. Whatever you say, friend. BlueCaliDem Dec 2014 #77

Positive Warren coverage always gives the conservadems a sad LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #84

Nothing positive about that op ed. joshcryer Dec 2014 #90

Hahaha! beerandjesus Dec 2014 #91

I can't help wondering Newest Reality Dec 2014 #86

"Sen. David Vitter teams with Democrat Elizabeth Warren to fight spending bill" ucrdem Dec 2014 #93

Brooks: "Please don't throw us in that briar patch, Democrats!" Recursion Dec 2014 #124

Boston pundit thinks Liz would be tough foe against Bush & Romney in GE as well RiverLover Dec 2014 #132