The First Democratc Candidate has entered the Race. Who will be the next & who should s/he/they be?

[Drunken Irishman]

106. Maybe because no one has stepped up who's as big of a power player as Hillary?

In 2008, it took Obama. But you take him out of the equation and it isn't much of a primary. Sure, John Edwards would have been a semi-interesting candidate but he was never going to win, especially when the shit hit the fan. After Edwards, though, the bench got thin really quick - and yes, I'm including Biden, who'd go on to become VP.

It's 2008 all over again but without Obama. I don't think that's the DNC's doing - it's just that we don't have a deep bench right now.

Let's be honest, O'Malley, Biden, Sanders, they're candidates who might bring interest to the race but they're not heavy, heavy hitters like Obama and Clinton were in 2008. Biden might be the heaviest hitter since he's the sitting VP, but the fact he's been a failed presidential candidate twice now, coupled with his age, hurts him. O'Malley is still probably fairly unknown and lacks the foreign policy experience that can elevate certain candidates (think Kerry in '04), and he also lacks the charisma and charm of Bill Clinton (who, oddly, was also not a heavy hitter when he came out in 1992). Sanders is the most intriguing, but again, he's limited in his reach, IMO. He's not entirely charismatic, he's not young or youthful and while his ideas are great, there has to be a reason he's not gaining a ton of traction.

Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate who could match Hillary on buzz and substance and she seems to have no interest in running.

The others? Feingold is a retread who got beat in his last election. Sharrod Brown could be interesting but, like Warren, seems uninterested in running. Al Franken is funny, and smart, but does he want to run - and doesn't he already support Hillary? Jim Webb? Zzz...Lincoln Chafee? Guy was a Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat who didn't run for reelection because he was so widely unpopular that, even with his change in party, was going to lose, as an incumbent, in the Democratic primary, so, he announced he wouldn't run.

So, beyond those mentioned, who has it to go against Hillary? Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate who had the background, charisma, youth and just enough experience to take her on and, outside Warren, I don't see that from anyone who could run except maybe one of the Castro brothers but I think they're still four or eight years out from being a true presidential contender.

It really goes back to their bench. They lost a lot of players in 2010 and 2014 that could be viable candidates in 2016 - or viable enough to really take on Hillary.

Had Joe Sestak won in 2010, maybe he'd be more a viable candidate. Had Feingold won in 2010, as well, maybe he, too, could be a player. Same with Mark Udall or even Kay Hagan - and those are just senators. We lost governors in those elections too.

That is a concern for the Democrats. But I do think the next wave is actually impressive and hopefully viable. Kamala Harris is a rising star who, in a few years, could be a viable candidate. So, as I mentioned, are the Castro brothers. But overall, right now, we seem to be stuck between the old and the new. A lot of that was with the decimated ranks in the 90s and early 00s, which saw a semi-comeback in 2008 and 2012, though gains were blunted in 2010 and 2014. But we'll see...