Democrats Ready for Post-Holiday Clinton Announcement

[brooklynite]

Source: NBC News

Hillary Clinton is expected to announce in January that she will run for president, Democratic sources say, and the shape of that effort is becoming clear -- with a campaign operation headquartered in the New York City suburbs and a campaign message that plays up the possibility of electing the first female president much more so than in 2008.

Party sources emphasize there is still a small chance the former first lady will opt not to run, and some Democrats say there is no reason for her to begin a campaign so soon. But she is expected to begin preparation for a campaign over the next two months, while also giving speeches on some of her favorite causes, such as appearances at the Massachusetts Conference for Women and the League of Conservation Voters in December.

She could forgo forming an exploratory committee, a step she took in January 2007 during her last run, and simply declare that she is a candidate. Democratic operatives have spent months positioning themselves for places on her campaign staff, but it’s already clear that Clinton’s team will include voices from her husband’s administration, such as former White House director of political affairs Minyon Moore, top aides from her last campaign like then-traveling chief of staff Huma Abedin and trip director Greg Hale, as well as some of her close advisers at the State Department, such as speechwriter Dan Schwerin.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-ready-post-holiday-clinton-announcement-n246366

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Oh goody! I can hardly wait!

It's a pity that President-elect Clinton isn't going to set off on another "listening tour" because I'd give her an earful. But I don't run a bank or have Inc. or Corp. after my name, so it doesn't really matter.

Rufus T. Firefly, Inc.

[DRoseDARs]

34. I would readily support a Warren/Clinton ticket.

Like you, Clinton just rubs me the wrong way and always has, but here's my reasoning on my above statement:

They are both very intelligent and driven. Having Hillary in the VP spot keeps her close enough to lend her expertise and experience while at the same time keep her at arm's length from acting on her center-right positions. Warren, green though she may be, is sharp and would be able to easily recognize bad policy suggestions and take whatever input Clinton gives her and utilize it as she needs to suit her own policy positions.

A Clinton/Warren ticket (or Clinton/Anyone for that matter), on the other hand, gives me great pause. Clinton likely wouldn't listen to a damned thing Warren has to say about anything except maybe a few pet issues. Otherwise, it'd be The Clinton Show.

Warren would energize the base and center-left independents, Clinton would bring the money (*sigh* it pained me to say that, but money in politics is wholly another convo) and regular Dem votes (like those who would vote for her just because she has a D behind her name, knowing nothing of her policies and positions). And the rightwing would go absolutely apeshit bonkers which would be hilarious (bonus if either/both had been atheist black lesbians) and would probably drive more than a few not-insane conservative/Republican voters (yes, they exist in great numbers, their voices are just drowned out by the howler monkeys) either to the Dem ticket or to just stay home on election day.

[okasha]

52. Warren would alienate anyone

who thinks that the Presidency is no place for OJT. Bush never did learn. Obama did, but it's been a painful process.

Experience counts. Clinton has it.

[Autumn]

2. It would be so awesome if Bernie formally announced in December.

Just before New Years Eve would be perfect.

[TheNutcracker]

13. Agree! Hey Bernie! I'm with you, so let's get the people's party started!

[Android3.14]

3. What a waste of time and money

Hers, her supporters', everyone's.

If she wins the nomination, the Dems probably lose 2016. And if she wins 2016 somehow, we lose anyway to that corporate puppet.

[Dopers_Greed]

4. Shortlist for her economic advisors...

Jamie Dimon
Lloyd Blankfein

[kansasobama]

5. If Hillary runs, we will win, not lose

We liberals have failed miserably in 2010 and 2014. Sitting on our butts is not the way to advance the agenda. Sorry, I have to support Hillary. We need a center-left President to move away from hard right. We then need to work on a left Congress and realize we need to vote every 2 years, not four. Until then, we have to vote for people like Hillary Clinton. I am all for her. I strongly believe she is shrewd, will run center-left, and then let liberal causes to succeed. The only way this will happen is for someone political like Clinton to win. Liberals disappoint me. Presente ran campaigns to defeat Hagan in NC. Well, now you have Tillis. So, who gained?

[Raul Hernandez]

11. Excuse me while I finish ROFL'ing...

You call Secretary Clinton center-left?

She is to the RIGHT of Obama on all issues, and her inevitability was "assured" in 2008, only to be defeated by one Barack H. Obama.

The country may be ready for a woman President, but it will not be Secretary Clinton, as her faction just lost a major one in 2014. That faction is called Third Way, DLC, New Democrats, whatever you want to call it.

I'm tired of the party being pulled to the right. I want someone who has always been true to the left spectrum of the party to run - and that is Mr. Bernie Sanders.

He doesn't take shit, and does't give lip either.

[TheNutcracker]

18. Thanks for clarifying where Hillary really is. She is only living human without Keystone opinion!

Wall Streets' new gal, and the Hawks. Spying??? Internet Neutrality??? M O N S A N T O !!!
Not excited about a Hillary campaign at all. Neither are the non active citizens when you ask them about another Bush/Clinton race. Dems not excited....sick of both, meaning voters stay home. Then we lose.

It's just math and recycled candidates.

[onyourleft]

17. Center left?

Since when?

[PFunk]

35. I disagree.

If Hillary runs it will be a big signal to Millennials, Liberals and other dems that nothing has changed and the DLC machine has taken control. Which will result in a even lower, no longer caring dem vote count (no mater what folks say otherwise). Allowing for the repugs to win in 2016.

The thing that dems have to do is to mobilize the base. Especially the liberal/progressive/democratic part. And IMO this wont do. Time to start putting up some real canadates that do.

[Cosmocat]

45. I disagree with the premise

Not advocating for Hillary Clinton either way.

But, how does her RUNNING send some kind of signal?

She is a person and everyone has the right to run.

That isn't a "signal" it is a person with presidential aspirations.

NOW, if her policies/positions are somehow so problematic, then the "millennials, liberals et al have the option to put up another, or other candidates and win the fight.

If people are going to be all up in arms, they need to look at themselves, get in the game and put some for real energy into this lifeless and worthless party.

[reACTIONary]

47. +100! (nt)

[silvershadow]

6. Oh are they? nt

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Well, that made the holidays all the more depressing

[hifiguy]

8. The instrument has not yet been invented which can measure

the totality of my complete lack of interest in HRC.

[turbinetree]

9. Really

Not so Fast. I would like a woman for president from the left and is progressive (Warren) at not one that comes from the third way crowd.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Nonsense! You're going to vote for her. And you're going to like it!

[cosmicone]

12. Looks like there are more people on DU that hate her

than the general public. A sad commentary on what DU has become and where it is headed.

Bernie Sanders is NOT a democrat. He is and will always be an independent. Even if he has a last minute conversion, it would be specious.

Elizabeth Warren was a republican and other than being anti-big-bank, she hasn't done much.

Hillary has been a democrat since her late teens and has the highest name recognition. She is also manifestly electable.

[RufusTFirefly]

19. Could it be that people on DU are actually better informed?

Nah! Couldn't be

Hillary Clinton: No position on Keystone Pipeline.

"Senator Hillary Clinton has taken over $800,000 from lobbyists, more money than any other candidate — Republican or Democrat" (Obama ad from 2008, found to be TRUE and an underestimate)



"I've got good news! You're no longer 'dead broke'!"

[Robbins]

21. Oh really

Hillary is to right of obama on war.She is close to Mccain on iraq and syria

Hillary won't give us her oporion on Keystone.Bill Clinton is for it.

The clinton administration gave us NAFTA.WHy should i believe she isn't for any free trade proposed.

Bill Clinton signed deregulation Into law.Yet I am suspose to believe she won't be friend of wall street especilly with all these stories
of how wall street prefers clintons to Obama.

Bill Clinton defended corporations going overseas to avoid paying taxes.

Bill Clinton hurt single mothers with wellfare reform.Yet I am suspose to believe she will stand up to republicans on SOcial security,SSI,edicare,medicaid,and food stamps.

I am suspose to believe she will stand up for civil rights when Bill Clinton signed DADT and DOMA Into law and pals around with the Bushes.

Women's rights to abortion and just having access to birth control Is under attack.Income inequality Is major issue.Yet the clintons have history of triangulation with Republicans.

[snooper2]

29. We don't hate here, we are done with DYNASTIES! NO MORE CLINTONS!

NO MORE BUSH

[Nedsdag]

38. But, but, but Hillary is not a Clinton.

[brooklynite]

56. Kennedys?

Udalls?

Castros?

[reACTIONary]

48. +100 !!! But....

....about being electable - Doesn't that disqualify her from consideration on DU? I mean, an electable candidate? Can't possibly be liberal or progresive!

[cosmicone]

53. lol n/t

[Renew Deal]

14. Anthony Weiner will be her social media director

[liberal N proud]

15. So she is announcing that she will be announcing?

[candelista]

20. Our future Commander-In-Chief?

&feature=player_detailpage

[RufusTFirefly]

22. This is NOT a reason to disqualify her

My antipathy toward a Hillary Clinton candidacy is well established, but I don't think this sort of argument does the cause any good at all. In fact, although you may have meant well, I think it's kind of a cheap shot.

I oppose Hillary Clinton because she's a warmonger and a Wall Street suckup. She is a champion of neo-liberalism, a wrong-headed fanatical, anti-democratic, and deeply destructive economic philosophy that I strongly reject.

I don't care one whit how she responds to a tossed shoe.

[Maineman]

33. Likewise from me.

[candelista]

59. How about this one, then, "Likewise"?

&feature=player_embedded

[TheNutcracker]

23. Hey Hillary, no recs here, the writing is on the wall. New blood is needed.

And this is from the activists. The GQ voters, are not looking forward to a Bush/Clinton race, anyone that you ask. Sorry. The writing is on the wall.

[RufusTFirefly]

25. The less you know, the more you like her. She's going to be sold to us like the latest fad.

If all goes well from the standpoint of her propaganda team, people will rush out of their houses en masse and vote for her without a clue of whom they're actually electing. The goal is to make her 2016's Cabbage Patch Doll or Pet Rock.

[RBInMaine]

40. Who else RUNNING can win? (Crickets....)

[RufusTFirefly]

42. What a truly pathetic rationale

Who decides who can win? The voters? Or the corporate media?

If you're indoctrinated long enough, you begin to think the ideas you were fed are your own.

The explanations for why we can't have truly universal health care, for example, or a liveable wage quickly become tautological.
If defy you to find fully and accurately informed people who oppose these goals, that is, other than members of the 1 percent, who fear a loss of revenue. Unfortunately, our sources of information are controlled by this very same elite, so it's no surprise that a huge number of people who would benefit from these programs fear them instead.

Deciding who is "electable" in 2014 is a form of self-limitation. It prevents us for defining our dreams and ideals and then finding a candidate who embodies them.

We're so used to this corrupt system that many of us can no longer recognize its utter absurdity.

It can be very illuminating to try to explain "the way we do things here" to people from other countries. When you do, it's not unusual to get an aghast response, "But why?? That makes no sense!"

Explain to someone from Europe, for example, that you're remaining in a job you hate because you're afraid what would happen if you suddenly got sick, and you'll be greeted with an utterly perplexed expression.

[Nihil]

58. Excellent post - thank you!

> If you're indoctrinated long enough, you begin to think the ideas you were fed are your own.

> We're so used to this corrupt system that many of us can no longer recognize its utter absurdity.

[bullwinkle428]

24. I wonder if she's going to announce via a pre-packaged video like

she did in 2008, which was very obviously made months earlier judging by the state of the leaves on the trees observed through the windows in the background.

[Nedsdag]

39. Yep!

Plus, she'll be holding the grand baby and expressing that she is running for her future and everyone's children and grandchildren's future.

[Plucketeer]

26. And here I was - hoping...

for something other than Turkey for the hollidaze.

[SoapBox]

27. We're doomed.

Ugh...Pukes and Baggers will control the White House and Congress.

The voting "majority" will not elect her. PukeBaggers will be rabid in their opposition, rallying even DINO's too.

She is tainted.

[RBInMaine]

41. Who is your alternative who can WIN?(Warren isn't running and couldn't win, and Bernie can't either.

[RufusTFirefly]

44. Are you a soothsayer? How can you possibly know this?

Or do you just ingest and regurgitate what the corporate media tells you?

Experience shows that the opinion of the public can be changed very quickly, and usually for the worse. In California, close to 90 percent of the public approved of a proposition that would mandate the labeling of genetically modified foods. Approximately six months later, when the election rolled around, the proposition lost. In the interim, public opinion was changed by a multi-million-dollar propaganda campaign that was financed by Big Ag.

[reACTIONary]

49. Don't worry. ..

...Clinton will have a multi-million-dollar propaganda campaign! No problemo!

[RufusTFirefly]

51. I'm sure you're right. Complete with message board spin doctors. n/t

[marmar]

28. In other thrilling news ......

..... paint is expected to dry.

[Orsino]

30. What a nothing headline, and a less-than-nothing story. n/t

[HappyMe]

31. It's funny that she

makes an announcement that she will be making an announcement.

[brooklynite]

32. ...which she didn't do.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. Please Have a Backup Plan

She may not be as popular as expected

She's no spring chicken

Bill has baggage too

What will Democrats do if operatives emerge with "Bill Clinton Slept Here" signs - It could distort perceptions

She's a Wall Street pro-growth fracking banking moderate - not a liberal economically

Margaret Thatcher with liberal social values will not energize the Democratic base

Her State Department airplane is already called Benghazi-One

Does she deserve the mess the 114th Congress will create?

With such impressive credentials, truly, can she articulate a vision for change?
Crusaders win elections. Running in place does not, usually.

I've just got a feeling, the next Clinton president will not be soon, and will not be Hillary.

But I'm inaccurate about everything, so your guess is probably better than mine.

[brooklynite]

37. Any negative issue about Bill was addressed in the 2008 Primary...

...and is only going to resonate with people who weren't going to vote for her anyway.

[bucolic_frolic]

46. Hope so

It's just that there are the undecideds, those wimpy, non-affiliated, non-issues
oriented, often non-voters who can be swayed by whispers, repetition, push-polling,
TV advertising.

These are the people who decide close elections.

[reACTIONary]

50. Crusaders win elections?

Once in a while, I guess. Reagan might be a good example. Personally, I'm not sure if I want a crusader myself.

[jberryhill]

54. ..thus concluding the holiday cheer among many here at DU

[Kablooie]

55. What if the announcement is that she will *NOT* run for president?

I'm just asking.

[brooklynite]

57. I already have a backup candidate I've talked to

But I heard Hillary speak a few weeks ago. I'd be extremely surprised if she wasn't running.