Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA positions itself to support Hillary Clinton

[JDPriestly]

21. She has had a lifetime to work on warm and humble.

She lived in the White House for eight years with warm and humble incarnate. She was born in 1947. That means that she is approximately 66 now and will be maybe 69 in 2016. It's kind of hard to change your basic nature at her age.

She has enjoyed the privileges of her current status too long. She is too far from the rest of us.

Elizabeth Warren is at least as intelligent if not more so than Hillary Clinton, but she is fresh. She does not have a rather jaundiced, know-it-all attitude. Hillary does. I think that Hillary was the little girl in the 6th grade who was ahead of the rest of her class, impatient with the others and maybe tattled a bit too much. She identifies with authority. Right now, one thing is pretty clear: the American people do not identify with authority. Whether they are Tea-Baggers or DUers, a broad majority of Americans are not happy with anyone they identify as associated with authority.

It's just the way things are right now. Americans want change. In fact we voted for change in 2008 and 2012. I don't think that there is any way on earth that Hillary Clinton can sell herself as representing change. She was in the White House during the 8 Clinton years, and in the State Department during the first 4 Obama years. What is more, many of Obama's appointees are carry-overs from the Clinton years -- a fact not missed on many Americans. Unfortunately, they are not the carry-overs from the best of the Clinton crowd. They are Larry Summers, Rubin, Panetta, those associated with the problematic repeal of Glass-Steagall crowd and problematic policy on other issues.

Then there are Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's association with the foreign policy of the first four years of Obama and the problems that will inevitably arise from the decisions made during her governance of foreign policy (as they do after every president's time in office).

We can do better than Hillary Clinton. And we might need to. Besides, Hillary Clinton has done enough. We really need someone who can excite voters. She has been around too long. She just has too much history. Americans like new people, new ideas, new, new, new. That is what excites us. Look at how much attention and excitement a total ditz like Sarah Palin got!

So we need a more interesting, compelling, new and exciting candidate than Hillary Clinton. Supporting Hillary Clinton is like supporting warmed over French Toast. It is not a good idea.

Warren isn't running, but I think she could be persuaded to run if the elite of the Democratic Party got behind her. She needs to be vetted very carefully (as does her husband especially with regard to financial matters), but as a personality, she could do well.

And if Warren does not want to run, there are other strong Democrats who could be excellent candidates. Some of them do not like to raise money. That is Hillary's one strong point as far as I am concerned. She is willing to slap backs and flatter and grin and wink and raise money. But it is precisely that quality that might make her very unelectable. We would be better off with a candidate who has someone close, maybe a spouse, who does a lot of the social aspect of the fund-raising for the candidate.

We still have 2 1/2 years to find someone.

We cannot afford to lose in 2016. The Republican right is just too crazy. They are a bunch of Dr. Strangeloves. In fact they make Dr. Strangelove look pretty normal.