For those who think Hillary Clinton will be "too old" to run in 2020, consider this:

[George II]

Sanders was born on 09/08/1941, will be 79 years old on Election Day in 2020
Biden was born on 11/20/1942, will be 78 years old on Election Day in 2020
Warren was born on 06/22/1949, will be 71 years old on Election Day in 2020
Clinton was born on 10/26/1947, will be 73 years old on Election Day in 2020

I want to see her run again in 2020. By that time all the trash about her will have been hashed out and dismissed, and of all the potential candidates, she has the most all-inclusive background and message.

"I'm with her!"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. "There's no education in the second kick of a mule."

She was a fundamentally decent person who was unfairly maligned and cheated out of a rightful victory. Sometimes life isn't fair. It's time for us to move on.


#freshface2020

[Hortensis]

31. Dem, Hillary is STILL the most prepared candidate

for president we've probably ever seen. Everything she and her fellow Democrats were planning to accomplish starting in 2016 still needs to be done.

And all the many plans, such as bringing prosperity to the Appalachian coal country, so families can stay and flourish there instead of dying away, are developed, just needing updating. Knowing what a born policy wonk she is, I'm sure she's busy doing just that, whether she runs herself or not.

[Baconator]

144. I swear people are just trying to get a rise...

If she was prepared, she would have won.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

159. I would argue she was cheated out of a win

Last edited Sun Feb 18, 2018, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I would argue she was cheated out of a win by Russian interference and more importantly by Comey's interference but what's done is done. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Einstein said doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Her running again in 2020 is insanity.

[Hortensis]

165. Disagree. Plus, she would have won any halfway normal

race by the sweep that was expected for months, and on her coattails we would have at very least taken the senate and a large number of house seats.

Of course we would expect a different result in 2020.

But in any case, if she were to run, for me she'd set a standard at least one other would have to match. And who could that be at this point? No one so far.

[smirkymonkey]

197. I would have to agree with you on every point.

It's time to move on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

200. Life is unfair. She was screwed out of a win.

But this isn't the time for do-overs. I am thankful this really isn't a serious prospect.

[triron]

187. I am reading her book "What Happened"

I was already incredibly impressed by her breadth of knowledge and experience.
Now I am even more so. No one can touch her in these respects. She is also
a very compassionate person.

[HopeAgain]

35. +100

[kysrsoze]

47. If we can find anyone else decent to run, we might as well give up

This notion we should continue what didn't work by backing someone who is a lightning rod for venom, paranoia and smearing, is naive and foolish.

Hell, I'd take Biden any day, as he's unassailable in background, commitment, charisma and knowledge/experience. And then there's Bernie, plus there is a whole slew of potentially qualified people who are considering running. I'd like to see more of Julian Castro as well.

The Clinton thing is over. Time for new blood.

[lapucelle]

84. So the older white man is unassailable,

but the older white woman is "a thing that is over"? Some might say that this is stunningly dismissive and entitled.

While Joe is laudable for his strong record on sane gun laws and for advocating for Russian sanctions loudly and publicly up until his last day in office, some might be concerned about his Iraq war vote and his role in ushering Clarence Thomas onto his Supreme Court seat.

And I'm not sure why anyone who in one breath says "I'd take Biden any day" would in the next breath say "It's time for new blood".

When we look at a man's long record of public service and find mistakes, he is still "unassailable".

When we do the same for a woman, alas, she is fatally flawed.

[Me.]

109. That Really Blows My Mind

and should our VP run, the gloves will be off and every gaff he's ever made plus those charges of plagiarism will immediately come flying to the fore. But then he's a man so nothing matters. Maybe they can blame his flaws on her.

[kysrsoze]

111. Gaffes... thats the best you can do? Like it or not, she is toxic...

to too much of the country and the media. And she is known as two-time loser, despite the popular vote outcome. You want a woman who is unassailable? Tammy Duckwoth. It’s long past time to get over this nonsensical thought that the third time will be a charm for Hillary and everything will turn around. She’s toast. Done. Finished.

[Me.]

115. Lovely Sentiment

Yes, thank SOS Clinton for all the hard work and service you provided a mostly grateful nation. As for those 'gaffes' you dismiss so easily, they were a hindrance/stopper the 2 times he ran before...once when HRC was the preferred candidate.

[kysrsoze]

117. Yeah, thanks to her for her hard work. Agree. But its time to

throw in the towel on her. There is no future in another Clinton run.

[Me.]

118. And Who Are You To Say?

Clearly not one of the 3+ million more citizens who voted for her.

[kysrsoze]

120. Clearly those 3 million didnt get her into office.

What’s the point?

[Me.]

125. Guess You're Not Up On What Happened In The Last Election

Or, are just fine with it, Russian interference and all. Perhaps that explains your determined bias. Only you can say.

[kysrsoze]

127. Im not biased. I just dont want to bet again on a losing horsey

I know full well what happened in 2016, and I know it’ll be difficult enough to deal with all that with a candidate who isn’t tarnished so much. I’d rather have people think I’m biased than be in denial.

[Me.]

130. See...THe Very Point

[George II]

136. So? Have you read ANY news about the election and how it went down?

[kysrsoze]

116. It isnt about her being a woman. Its the effects of a 25 year

hit job. Like it or not, the smear campaign worked and Hillary Clinton’s doesn’t stand a chance of winning if she runs again. It’ll be nonstop Benghazi, “deplorables,” Uranium and email bullshit.

And if you’ll read my comments in another thread, you’ll see I fully support Duckworth. I might go for Kampala Harris, but don’t yet know enough about her.

The point is there are numerous potential alternatives, both male and female. One thing this party cannot seem to do is stop pining for glory days and choose a different path than the one that doesn’t work.

[lapucelle]

124. The only two alternatives you mention by name

are Joe Biden and Sanders. Both failed to secure the presidential nomination, yet you seem open to their potential future run for the presidency.

And there's no mention as to either "the Biden thing" or "the Sanders thing" being over. Strange, that.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong woman stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the woman who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strives to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends herself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if she fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that her place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

[Me.]

126. Quite

[lapucelle]

129. Haven't you heard? The Clinton thing is over.

Now run along like a good girl and finish your homework.

[Me.]

135. I GUess I Should

Because she should be vote-shamed...for having so many more numbers when no one liked or voted for her.

[kysrsoze]

163. If you read down the thread, I mentioned Duckworth and Castro. Try again.

n/t

[lapucelle]

180. Why on earth would I try again? My point is already made

in part because it was made for me. To recap:

We need new blood, but some older men who have been in Washington for decades are exceptions to that rule.

Some of those older men are unassailable despite any mistakes and misjudgment they have made throughout their long careers.

The "Clinton thing" is over because some deem it so.

It is incumbent on those specifically responding to one quite specific post to do research to see if the poster they're responding to has made other comments about other things in other places.

Even if a down thread comment is irrelevant to the specific, circumscribed point that someone has successfully refuted (this candidate is unassailable; we need new blood, but certain classes of old blood are fine; that ______ thing is over), and even if that down thread comment serves mainly as snark to slam one woman with another, the down thread comment is incontrovertible proof that the original post that elicited the response is cogent, reasonable, and free of contradictory and highly problematic assertions.

There is no need for me to try again; and it is certainly not your place to tell me to do so.

[Ken Burch]

146. Agreed with you about Biden.

Why IS there such a strong push here for doing things the same way one more time?

What is the fear of change and a new generation?

[politicaljunkie41910]

209. If you don't think Biden, or any other candidate we run, won't be attacked mercilessly if he runs,

you're deluding yourself. They will bring up his plagiarizing in college; his roll in attacking Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings, etc, until we won't recognize him. They'll probably even try to find a way to blame him for his first wife's death. I don't put anything past them. If that doesn't work, they'll attack his children and his wife until none of us will recognize him as the candidate we know.

[shanny]

66. let alone the third.

indeed, time to move on.

[rock]

78. "... time for us to move on."

We have. We accept the fact that trump won by the archaic rules (and there was lots of chicanery). We are not saying re-run her for 2016, nor are we saying she deserves it from her earlier attempts. We're saying that because she is the best candidate and will make the best president of anyone that's running.

[Bradshaw3]

112. Being the most qualified and being the best candidate are two different things

She is the former but not the latter. Even she admits she is not a good campaigner and, like it or not, that is how our presidents are picked. With Obama and Bill you had soem lack of experience but great communicators. Hillary is just not that, and we do not need her to run again. Or Biden or Sanders for that matter.

Warren is different in that she doesn't have the baggage the others do, in spite of her age.

[rock]

123. Our opinions differ

[WhiteTara]

185. good quote! And quite true.

I like Kamala Harris at this point.

[kirby]

186. What about a third kick? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

202. Sam Rayburn says no !

[politicaljunkie41910]

206. Borrowing a phrase from McConnell, I see. Hhhhmmm!!!!

i don't see how what happened to Clinton was her fault. And anyone who thinks that the Russians won't attack any other Democratic candidate who goes against the Dotard, assuming he's still the president, is deluding themselves. Russia will continue to interfere as long as they've had to pay no consequence for their actions. I know some here think Clinton way ss a bad candidate, (I don't happen to be one of them FTR) but anyone who runs is going to be targeted in the same way she was, only their dirt will be new if they haven't run for president before. They are going to bear the same attacks that she did. Even if she only ran for one term, no one will be as prepared as she is to take the reigns of office from day one. If you think she hasn't learned from her mistakes, you're mistaken. Now whether she'd want to run again is a different story.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

207. "There's no education in the second kick of a mule. "

-Sam Rayburn

As an aside shouldn't a "political junkie" know the provenance of that quote?

[Renew Deal]

2. There have to be some new candidates

And I don’t think Warren wants to be president. She doesn’t have the shameless ambition the others do.

[Hortensis]

42. Sure. But will any be AS GOOD AS Hillary, with her

tremendous ambitions and intensive preparations for progressive advances across all sectors and for all people? That's the question, not whether they're new to the scene.

But for those who want "new," it might be that in 2020 people would be seeing a whole new Hillary, a truer version of the person they really should have seen in the first place.

I don't vote for candidates themselves, btw, and don't need old or new ones, short or tall, black or white. Rather boring is as good as charming. Homely's just fine because I always wish we required them to campaign with paper bags over their heads. Long informative sentences you have to listen to work better for me than catchy phrases (although I expect them to have good staffs to compose some of the latter).

I choose for their character, their ideology and records of accomplishment, then for what they want to do if elected, and then whether I believe they have the stuff to actually make it happen, including the first step of getting elected.

I hope some genuinely good candidates step up as choices. But Hillary still rings all three of my bells, but someone "new" needs to ring them at least as hard.

[kysrsoze]

48. Biden and Sanders, to start.

[Hortensis]

52. Honestly, Biden fails on record, may excel on electability

since a mugged America might be ready for a Democratic Uncle Joe, would still have to see what his agenda would be, but I suspect he's toughened up since his too squishy senate days. Obama would be willing to back him, though, and that means a lot.

Sanders no. I've been watching the "Sanders" left, btw, and most of his followers seem to be waiting for a successor to step up. A couple of breakaway groups mention him rarely if at all on their web sites.

[forgotmylogin]

110. I like Biden and Kamala Harris. (n/t)

[Hortensis]

169. I do also actually, Forgotmy. Obama felt

Biden would make a good president after knowing and working with him for eight recent years, and that offsets those aspects of his long record I don't like. He did lose two runs for the presidency (unlike Hillary who really did win in 2016 and should have won in a sweep), but his losses are off in the past.

Almost a different world it seems now?

[Demsrule86]

54. I like Biden. But Sanders should not run...not after the indictments yesterday and also there

is the mess at the College his wife is involved with and the not releasing his taxes...we need squeaky clean. We need to win.

[Ken Burch]

56. My view is neither of them should run-Biden just takes us back to the Eighties-Nineties past, too.

About the only figure I would present as a possible candidate from their generation might be Warren.

Why do you think there so much resistance here to going to the next generation?

Why would anyone insist on "staying the course"?

We're the party of change-change is what renews us.

[Hortensis]

67. Lol. No surprise there. The surprise to me would be if

you supported any candidate who appeals to the vast middle range of mainstream Democrats in all our highly diverse voting blocs. All the give and take that requires tends to strike some as corruption, or at least lack of principle But we'll see what names are the primary ballot in 2020, and maybe I'll turn out to be totally wrong.

[Ken Burch]

98. Most of the ideas I support do appeal to the "middle range of mainstream Democrats".

Most of them want corporate influence out of our party and out of politics entirely. There's little support for continued military intervention, especially where we're doing it now. And most are for social and economic justice.

There really isn't a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative, 'pro-business'(anti-worker) pro-big defense budget" majority in the party and I doubt there is in the country.

What is the harm in trying to expand the range of the possible? If we hadn't done that in the early 60s, if we had stayed with what the "middle range" felt on civil rights, we'd never have had the Civil Rights Act of 1964 OR the Voting Rights Act.

[Hortensis]

175. You make the same mistake a lot of people do

in assuming that their views must represent the majority. The facts showed clearly yours did not in 2016 as you struggled against the candidate a large majority supported. Trying to base arguments on misrepresentations that don't stand up to scrutiny is very typical of people who want to portray themselves as representing a majority when facts don't support it.

Like this one. Sure, by far most sensible Democrats want "corporate influence out of politics," but they also want government to work with business for the common good. Like the head of GM once really said, "What's good for America is good for General Motors." The majority of Democratic voters see GM not as an enemy but as a national asset to be controlled only enough for it to remain an asset.

And very importantly, the very large bloc of mainstream Democrats don't claim evil corporate boogies are hiding behind any candidate who isn't the one they support. A person doesn't become a corporatist because someone doesn't like her, but only if its real. Sensible mainstream voters may not be able to name all the candidates or know what groups they've had speaking engagements with, but at least their lack of overly partisan passions in itself tends to encourage fairly balanced and responsible viewpoints. Good thing, or our nation would have crashed shortly after its founding.

[Ken Burch]

189. I don't think you realize how condescending that sounded.

If you disagree with me on the issues of the day, fine, that's cool-but you are not entitled to talk to me as though you are the grown-up and your view is the only sensible one.

As to what the polls say, they are showing more and more people wanting at least a partical democratization of the economy-a real re-prioritizing from the last thirty-six years of unrestrained corporate greed and arrogance towards a balance in which human dignity, human empathy, and creativity are also valued-a replacement of what we've got now towards something that treats all people with the respect we deserve.

Also, there were a LOT of people in the primaries who supported the ideas the Sanders campaign championed(and STILL support them)who chose HRC because they believed she was better qualitied(on balance she was) and "more electable" (a far more problematic assertion). Voting for HRC can not be taken as a rejection of what Bernie proposed-it was simply a rejection of the person.

I agree that the person should not be the nominee.

But what is the harm of embracing the ideas?

And what is the harm of acknowledging that those who backed the ideas have some valid points and are worth making welcome in the party(providing only that they treat the rest of the party with respect in exchange)?

Why insist, instead of that on staying with what this party always does INSTEAD of that-of the OLD tactic of dismissing the ideas, treating those who support them like spoiled children, and then acting as though the people we've treated that way still OWE us their vote?

That approach doesn't ever elect us...what's the point of staying with what never works?

What do you think you'd lose from trying something else for a change?

[Demsrule86]

193. It is pretty clear that the election of 16 was rigged by Trump loving Russians...so we can't take

any lessons from 16. The country has moved right sadly (I am very troubled by this but truth is truth)...running a true leftist or a socialist for that matter will cause us to lose. We need someone who can appeal to the big tent that is the Dem party and independents.

[Demsrule86]

192. I like Warren personally but she is not good at running for office. And she is from the East.

We need a candidate who can garner votes from the Mid West and the West...maybe we might even turn some of the South blue...who knows!

[smirkymonkey]

198. I really don't get why this party is clinging to the old guard.

Why are we so afraid to go with someone new? None of these old-timers are going to get non-voters excited enough to make it to the voting booth. We need change and we need to cut the cord with past administrations.

[Hortensis]

62. I don't think we should tack his wife's issues on him, unless

it could be shown he was involved in them. I looked him over very carefully in 2015 and 2016 because I believe we must destroy the new ultrawealthy classes and he certainly agrees, but he unfortunately failed all my requirements rather spectacularly.

For 2020, if the Republicans and Russia promoted him as before, people would recognize it and media would write about it. As it is, the reality that Russia supported him and fooled many of his followers in 2016 is going to be real baggage, not fake.

Far from least, the media are harsh on candidates who've been around a while, and he'd no longer have that fresh "new" candidate advantage, including being pumped up to provide the appearance of a horse race where there really isn't one. It's unlikely that the large percentages of conservative spoilers voting for him in every state they could would go basically unreported a second time, and also some state parties are trying to limit that in future.

No need to bother with Jane if even half of this is half right.

[Demsrule86]

191. I never thought Bill Clinton's actions should be attached to Hillary but in an election that is

what happens. I like Bill Clinton, but NAFTA which Hillary had nothing to do with was blamed on her. And the evil GOP will say that Sen. Sanders helped obtain the loan...they are already doing that. I am not speaking about innocence or guilt but about perception. We need a squeaky clean candidate that can survive the massive well funded GOP attack that is sure to come against our presidential candidate...a person who was named in the Mueller indictment as a beneficiary (not saying he did anything wrong), has not shown his taxes and has a wife with legal troubles is not a good bet for 2020. I would vote for Sen. Sanders in a general even though I am not a fan, but I think he would lose. We need to win in 20.

[Hortensis]

210. Agree. Whoever our candidate is in 2020 will be sprayed

with mud, of course. i always think we should choose for good character, and also for good depth of experience. No matter who that is, though, experience will include some positions taken that cannot be easily understood, or may be genuinely controversial, and those will be used against the candidate.

I was reading about this subject, and very interestingly, candidates not already known to the electorate are the easiest to smear. Empty design boards on which professional swiftboarders can pin details from the person's life and create any story around them they want.

That's why Hillary's past, real and pack-of-lies, wasn't as damaging as some imagine. Love, like, meh, dislike, hate, whatever, all America already felt they knew her. For all but the Hillary-deranged, even the old fake scandals were old, and rendered somewhat doubtful, by her successful years as senator and SecState, a long history with various chapters.

I have no idea how successful a Sanders presidency would have been, but I'm pretty sure the right would have mopped the floor with him and we'd never have gotten a chance to find out. I am curious about what sort of public image they planned to sell the nation. Judicial Watch, only one of the swiftboater groups, boasted before the primaries that they had a number of (fake) Sanders scandals all designed and ready to move forward with if he became our candidate.

[Demsrule86]

217. I go back and forth on this...I think we should choose be candidate we deem best or want and fuck

the GOP, but I want to win. I should put out there that I never believed Sen. Sanders would win a general in 16 and I don't think he can win in 20 either. The GOP will look for dirt no matter what. Hopefully some will be smarter this time and not pile on.

[Hortensis]

220. :) If they don't the others will just double down.

I want us to someday "make America America again" and to have the luxury of voting for a favorite candidate as a statement, knowing the worst that could happen wouldn't be a disaster.

As always, it's up to us. When you think about it, agitprop is really stupid stuff. Those who are even a fraction of the person they think they deserve in their candidates can't be fooled by stupid, malicious lies and won't ignore unwelcome truths.

[Demsrule86]

221. I agree entirely with this post.

You had to want to be fooled. I saw the shit out there and here for that matter...many great DU'ers are not here now. I spent some time in the wilderness myself... I spend a great deal of time on social media, but I never wavered in my support for Hillary Clinton and simply don't understand how anyone could knowing what was at stake.

[Hortensis]

222. So glad that wilderness trek turned out to be

a worthwhile experience. As you say, for some vulnerable people that sadly (and surprisingly in some cases) turned out to be a river of no return. And there are those whirlpools trying to drag the unaware down here also.

Turns out hearing lies often enough can cue the brain that they need to be stored as information, even when the person knows consciously that they're lies. Scary, actually.

Wonder if Trump'll be up twittering tonight too. He hit Obama again 5 hours ago but hasn't badmouthed Hillary directly since a three-fer early this morning.

Link to tweet

[lunamagica]

81. Sanders? Only his hardcore, die-hard followers would vote for him this time

[Demsrule86]

194. I won't vote for him in a primary this time.

A general yes...primary no.

[marybourg]

53. Unfortunately, your intelligent approach

to voting is very much the exception.

[Hortensis]

85. :) We're at least some ballast in the boat, right?

Speaking of new candidates, there was a rush to the Joe III side when he showed up in front of cameras. I wasn't thrilled with such an inexperienced possibility, but the tip of the boat and strength of the happy noise he generated caused some rethink and realization.

With a continued Republican hold on the presidency out of the question, electability may have to be my only consideration in 2020.

But maybe the GOP will finally finish self destructing before then.

[Ken Burch]

59. Agreed that whoever new comes along needs to ring all the bells.

For me that would be

1)Dual-centering social and economic justice;
2)challenging any corporate role in politics;
3)Able to connect with and win the trust of "the base" (almost all of whom would benefit from points 1 and 2) and of those who SHOULD be part of the base but have been left out in the cold in the party for years, sometimes decades;
4)Able to sound practical and visionary at the same time;
5)FINALLY willing to challenge the status quo on foreign policy, since the days of perpetual military intervention really need to come to an end;

That's why, at this point, I HAVE no candidate.

(on edit: sorry for the random "crying guy" smilie that was there for a moment, forgot to space between a quote mark and a parens).

[vi5]

178. Same here.....

Those are all the notes I want hit as well.

Unfortunately I'm told that makes us radical leftists, or naive pony seekers.

[Persondem]

133. Check out Jay Inslee, governor of Washington. nt

[IluvPitties]

3. We don't deserve her.

She has given her life to this country just to get shit from everyone. She is a giant of our Nation's history, and very well deserved.

[VMA131Marine]

4. Barack Obama was 48 when he became President

We should be looking for someone in their 40's not their 70's. Pushing HRC and Bernie feels like the last gasp of the baby boomers to hold onto power. Time to turn things over to the next generation. And I say that as someone born in the last year of the baby boom.

[MrsCoffee]

5. Yes, women of her generation have had so much power for so long.

[VMA131Marine]

10. Kamala Harris? Kirsten Gillibrand?

I fully support having a woman President, but if you think that another HRC run would end in anything but another defeat, you are dreaming. Her negatives, rightly or wrongly, are insurmountable.

[MrsCoffee]

12. Blah blah blah.

[VMA131Marine]

14. I rest my case.

[MrsCoffee]

16. Yeah, I heard the same old shit before she won in 2016.

And we all know that she should be sitting in that seat right now.

[VMA131Marine]

18. Trump should have lost the 2016 election by 10 points or more

HRC made the margin close enough that he could steal a win.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. +1 million!!

[R B Garr]

41. Hillary won both contests against her male opponents by

MILLIONS. Thank Gawd the criminal indictments show how the Russian supported constant attacks on her swayed 75,000 people against her.

[treestar]

74. True, and that was what helped the upset to occur

Now we know about it.

[DURHAM D]

27. Wow.

You don't think the Russians could of managed an 11 or 12 point difference?

[VMA131Marine]

32. I think the Russians made a difference where it counted most.

PA, WI, MI, and FL

[DURHAM D]

33. Oh.

So you have given up on your own argument. Nice

[MrsCoffee]

39. +1

[VMA131Marine]

86. How do you figure that?

If HRC had been 10 points up on Trump then she would have won PA, WI, MI, and FL despite any Russian interference. The Russians moved the vote by less than half a point, but it was enough.

[R B Garr]

99. Thank gawd we have real proof now that criminal indictments

show the attacks on Hillary originated far before Trump.

[ehrnst]

122. +1000 (nt)

[Denis 11]

71. Sadly ,I 100% agree.

Life is often unfair.

[lapucelle]

93. Stein voters and lazy no show voters made the margin close enough

for Trump to steal a win.

They'll get no absolution from history.

[Baconator]

154. ... but she's not.

[liberalhistorian]

75. Wow, that's a really substantive,

informed contribution to the discussion. Why is it so hard for people here to realize that HRC, as much as there is to admire and as much as she was cheated, is simply not an electable, viable 2020 candidate.

[MrsCoffee]

79. Why do we have to hear the same crap about her again?

Seriously.

It was shitty enough last election season. We really gonna go through this again?

[Squinch]

17. TAMMY DUCKWORTH!

[VMA131Marine]

19. +10

Tammy is great!

[kysrsoze]

49. Wait... it's possible at least one other woman in the entire U.S. may be better than Hillary????

Shocking!

Duckworth for Pres... I really like the sound of that.

[lunamagica]

82. No one, man or woman, is more qualified than Hillary

[VMA131Marine]

89. Except that HRC can't win

I like Hillary. I voted for her knowing that she was by far the best candidate. But it's also true that she underperformed. You can say that was because of all the bogus information out there and because Comey screwed up, but all that stuff will be brought to the fore again if she runs and I don't think she can overcome it. It's not fair, but that's how I see things.

[CTyankee]

87. i was thinking about Adam Schiff and her!

Schiff is getting an awful lot of TV time lately. I see him on many different talk shows. he's always cogent, intelligent and comes across as a nice man.

Duckworth is midwest and an American hero. She was born in Bangkok, however, and I would hate to see a run by her for VP overshadowed by the debate over her meeting the requirements to be President or VP.

[jalan48]

103. I'm with you on this. Our country has a lot of problems and I think Duckworth has what it takes to

steer us through the upcoming, troubling times.

[treestar]

73. They aren't. She almost won.

She lost because the polls showed she was so far ahead people didn't vote or voted third party. We assumed too much about the swing states. That can be fixed.

[Jakes Progress]

229. Ahhh. I see the russians have had their way with you.

[spooky3]

30. +1

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. George is a good guy.

Hillary has been unfairly caricatured and damaged as a national candidate. It is incumbent on us to move on.

[NastyRiffraff]

63. Are "your" (sic) Russian?

Seriously, Backwoodsrider? How low can you possibly go? You can think of "no other reason" for this topic so there could not possibly exist a reason? You probably don't believe this, but there is a universe of experience and possibilities beyond what you can think.

For the record, I don't think Hillary should run, for her own sake. I'd love to see her in the White House, but she'd have to face the same shit from the right AND some on the left (you know who you are). She doesn't deserve that. I do want to see her continued involvement in politics and social issues, particularly children's.

[George II]

104. That is highly offensive. Who are you? At least I'm here in the fray....

....I don't come out of the shadows every few weeks and throw stones.

Advocating for Clinton is "Russian"? Okay, with your obnoxious question to me, let me pose one for you, which "Half the US pop" are you in?

[ecstatic]

8. I do too. She was terribly robbed, but the 20 yr campaign against her has been so devastating

Since the election of 2016, I've talked to people who were babies during the Clinton administration, but somehow have so much hatred for Hillary. My little brother, born in 1986, hates her based on carefully selected YouTube sound bytes that show her at her worst ("we came, we saw, he died" and another clip of her supposedly laughing about killing Gaddaffi). I just think it's a lost cause at this point.

[Ken Burch]

55. This is something some of us tried to point out for years.

That if we nominated HRC-magnificently qualified as she is-we'd never be free, as a party, from all the toxicity of the Nineties.

Yes, HRC never deserved hatred. Yes it was absurd that anyone thought she was both radical and corrupt(she was neither).

But nominating her meant all of that was going to come back and we'd never be able to face it down.

And it would have been just as bad, with the identical result in November, if NO ONE had run against her in the primaries and if everyone had said, the day she declared "we will unquestioningly support and defend everything you say and do in this campaign".

The fact that people in this party were saying that never meant we wanted it to happen-it just meant we knew what was coming.

[NurseJackie]

69. Time to move on, Ken. The primaries are over.

And it would have been just as bad, with the identical result in November, if NO ONE had run against her in the primaries and if everyone had said, the day she declared "we will unquestioningly support and defend everything you say and do in this campaign".

The fact that people in this party were saying that never meant we wanted it to happen-it just meant we knew what was coming.

Oh brother! Please stop, would ya? These "told ya so's" and these "woulda-shoulda-coulda's" and the sniping at our party's nominee do not help. Stop indulging the bitterness. It's a lazy stroll down vanity lane and it only serves to open old wounds and divide. I strongly encourage you to take the next LEFT TURN onto Unity Street where there's work do be done.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to look backward and continually find blame and point fingers. The hard work is doing things that build unity and trust. Give that a try.

[Bradshaw3]

132. Your advice is good

Please lead by example and do what you want him to do.

[NurseJackie]

149. Ha!

[ehrnst]

94. Toxicity can take down other candidates as well.

Especially if they keep secrets about things like their finances.

We won't know until a candidate has been fully vetted.

[Ken Burch]

100. If that is a reference to Bernie, I've repeatedly SAID I don't want him to run for president again.

Such as at least twice in this thread-and I've actually said there was toxicity associated with him personally(there's no toxicity associated with the ideas his campaign championed). So we aren't actually in disagreement on that.

I do think he should stay in the Senate-anybody who replaced him in Vermont could only be tragic swing to the right, nobody who'd think of it would fight corporate power or economic inequality.

As long as he doesn't run for president, there's no good reason to hound the guy about his taxes(the worst thing we're looking at there is sloppy bookkeeping, and nobody should be discredited from office because of what their spouse did, assuming their spouse isn't a pedophile or Hitler or something). If the voters in Vermont don't care about his tax records and he doesn't seek the presidency, why not move on?

There's no reason to want the guy totally driven out of public life.

[ehrnst]

121. Strawman much?

"There's no reason to want the guy totally driven out of public life. "

You do your credibility no favors with misrepresenting what people say like that.

[Ken Burch]

141. Ok...if not letting up on the tax thing with Bernie isn't about making him leave the Senate.

What other point could there be to it?

Why else not let it die?

[ehrnst]

166. "The tax thing" as you so dismissively put it, is basic transparency

It's not required, but should be, especially for anyone calling themselves progressive, let alone as a Democrat.

Again..... it's up to Vermont voters if he stays in the Senate. I'm not one, so my opinion on it is much less consequential than is worth your ranting about.

And certainly doesn't equal "wanting the guy totally driven out of public life. "

As if Bernie will ever leave public life.

[Ken Burch]

167. And the people of Vermont have repeatedly re-elected the guy anyway.

If it's not something THEY care about, who are non-Vermonters to make it an issue.

My sense is, it's probably a case of sloppy bookkeeping if it's anything at all. Bernie doesn't have unexplained wealth and he and his wife live modestly. It's not as though they fly off to Bermuda on their own Lear Jet each weekend.

What's to be suspicious about, really?

What is it that people are implying Bernie and Jane may have done?

It's enough that he release whatever records there are if he does run in '20. That's a different matter than just holding the Senate seat.

And by out of public life, I meant out of the Senate.

Non-Vermonters wanting Bernie out of the Senate can only mean wanting Vermont to have a new senator who's sharply to his right, who doesn't challenge anything the rich want. Somebody silent and bland. Somebody "safe". Somebody you wouldn't know was there.

It can't mean wanting to replace the guy with somebody just as progressive.

[ehrnst]

168. "Sloppy bookkeeping?"

Why do you think someone who has made financial transparency - especially in politicians - a hallmark of his long political career, makes his own finances an afterthought?

Would such a politician accept that in anyone else in politics?

Maybe it isn't a big deal, but there's one way to end the speculation, isn't there?

He wants to be on the national stage, and lack of transparency on the part of the PEEOTUS has brough that issue front and center. If a politician wants to be considered the model of ethics, then transparency in things such as health and finances are necessary

I have heard, "There's nothing he's hiding, and his finances are private," from many of DOTUS's supporters. Word for word.

[Ken Burch]

173. He released returns during the last campaign.

And yes, I think it is probably a bookkeeping issue.

My guess is that they probably aren't the world's best record-keepers and simply lost some of the returns or something.

Neither of these people strike me as having even the potential for corruption or criminality.

If nothing else...if there was really anything unacceptable in the returns, wouldn't Trump have sicced the IRS on them?

[ehrnst]

174. He released the summary page of his 2014 tax returns, not the full returns.

No one expect them to be "the best record keepers in the world," again with the strawman....

I have read many times about Hillary being "corrupt" right here on DU, and no amount of exoneration by the courts and even a hostile FBI was enough. And she released all her financials.

What are you talking about with Trump "siccing the IRS on them?" He can't do that even if he wanted to disparage Bernie, which he has shown no signs whatsoever of wanting to.

Again, if any longtime career politician wants to claim the ethical high ground, then financial transparency is pretty basic. If he runs for president in 2020, as is pretty evident, he will be expected to be at least as transparent as other candidates.

[Ken Burch]

176. Not meant as a strawman.

It's simply my theory as to why they didn't release the rest of them.

He should release them IF he runs for president.

Just for staying in the Senate, it shouldn't matter-especially since those here who'd want him out of the Senate would only want that because they want someone more conservative in his place.

[ehrnst]

199. As I said, Vermont will decide what they want in a representative.

And "liberal" doesn't = "Left." Liberal means that you look at all sides of an issue, and use intellect rather than dogma in making up your mind. Being liberal allows you to change your view if you see data that indicates your view about an issue wasn't informed by reality. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a classic liberal. The further Left (or Right) one goes usually there is more dogma that can never be questioned, let alone be viewed as one side of an issue. Manifestos are not liberal in that sense.

Jill Stein is to the "Left" of Bernie, but that doesn't neccesarily make her a better or more effective representative than he is. Quite the opposite, in that case.

And FYI - this is the defintion of "attacking a straw man":

Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

[ehrnst]

226. "Organic vegetable farmer Brad Peacock, 37, agrees with Sanders on virtually everything,

but he believes legislators should serve no more than two terms.

Maybe the Democrat is to the left of Bernie.

http://www.sfweekly.com/culture/there-is-only-one-election-tomorrow-and-the-democrat-is-named-linda-belcher/

[Ken Burch]

227. I support Linda Belcher, but she's running in Kentucky.

I hope she wins and think she can, but how does her story relate to what we're discussing here?

[Demsrule86]

195. It looks like Sen. Sanders is planning another run...and if that is the case how can we lambast

Trump for not showing his tax returns but give Sen. Sanders a pass?

[Ken Burch]

218. Bernie is obviously not personally corrupt, unlike Trump.

His personal life is modest rather than luxurious. Nothing that would mark him as corrupt seems to be there.

And I made a distinction between whether or not he just runs for the Senate(where it doesn't matter) and whether he tries for the White House again(in which case he SHOULD run again).

Also, what I've been saying is that rather than people constantly looking for some reason to go after Bern as a way to stop him running again, why not make a second presidential candidate moot on his part by agreeing now that a significant part of his ideas will be in the platform no matter who we nominate in '20?

It's not reasonable to both say he shouldn't run AND insist that the party steer clear of the ideas associated with his campaign, AND at the same time demand that the people who support those ideas support our platform and our nominee no matter how much distance the party puts between itself and what they care about.

There are some people here who think we'd have the right to demand progressive support even if we lowered ourselves to the '92 or '96 platforms(the years when our platform was
George Bush's 1980 platform other than being pro-choice). I know you don't go that extreme with it, but it was the way our party treated progressives in that decade that played a major role in creating the level of distrust that lost us those voters when we desperately needed them.

That's what drives a lot of what I post-terror that those who make our strategic decisions in '20 would do that-even though there'd be nothing whatsoever to gain in doing that and even though doing that in the first place did our party major long-term damage at most levels of electoral politics.

There simply aren't many voters in play who are between Hillary and Trump on the issues, who'd be pro-choice and slightly LGBTQ-friendly but also want unions wiped out and people on public assistance subjected to further sanctimony and humiliation.

[ehrnst]

225. Plenty of straw men there...

"people constantly looking for some reason to go after Bern as a way to stop him running again."

Who is going to "stop him?" You give a lot of power to DU posters, and the DNC certainly hasn't prevented him from running - quite the opposite.

"

There are some people here who think we'd have the right to demand progressive support even if we lowered ourselves to the '92 or '96 platforms(the years when our platform was George Bush's 1980 platform other than being pro-choice).

Who? Links? I sure haven't seen this. Again, this sounds like yet another straw man....

"It's not reasonable to both say he shouldn't run AND insist that the party steer clear of the ideas associated with his campaign, AND at the same time demand that the people who support those ideas support our platform and our nominee no matter how much distance the party puts between itself and what they care about. "

Again, who is saying this? Links? Otherwise, it's yet another straw man

I think that you project a lot things that just aren't there. You see many dark plots against Bernie, to the point of misrepresenting the statements of people here on DU to support your case.

I think that Bernie can take care of himself, and has his own reasons for not releasing his tax returns, and will be just fine if people don't share your vision of him.

After all, if someday a majority of Democratic voters decide that they want him to be their candidate, he will be. Democratic candidates are transparent with their finances, so that will likely be a requirement.

[lunamagica]

215. How do you know that "the worst thing we're looking there is sloppy bookkeeping"?

Have you seen his tax returns?

[questionseverything]

97. just wanted to say i appreciate you trying to bring sense to the discussion

if we don't examine what happened in the last election, we are bound to repeat those mistakes

the dnc giving the repubs a 2 month start on the debates and all that free airtime killed us ...when we saw the first primary "results" coming in,i was terrified because in state after state the repubs numbers were much higher than ours

I put results in quotation marks because their is hardly anywhere citizens actually oversee our vote counting, mostly the "results" are generated by private companies, owned by 1%ers

[Ken Burch]

106. Thanks. I have no idea why anyone would be resistant to discussion and analysis

Or why anyone would seemingly insist that we run the exact same campaign again in 2018 and 2020.

I agree that there was Russian interference, and that Comey and voter suppression played a role.

But if we assume that those factors were the only things that happened, what chance does that give us for the future?

[questionseverything]

113. agreed, the repubs cheat in a thousand different ways

but that doesn't mean we have to cheat ourselves by denying an open ,honest primary

I feel primaries are the time for ideas to be debated, new courses to be set...certainly not a time for anointing a pre chosen candidate ...and unfortunately that is what the last primary felt like to many voters that SHOULD have identified as democrats

[Ken Burch]

145. There is also a mythology being established here that if only the primary hadn't been contested

or if all other candidates had withdrawn after Super Tuesday, leaving most voters with no say in who our nominee was, that THAT would somehow have guaranteed that our nominee would have been elected-that the Democratic Party would have held the White House if only it hadn't been for at least a limited form of internal party democracy.

[Demsrule86]

196. And there is truth there. There are no guarantees...but we would have had a better chance.

[ehrnst]

223. What "mythology" are you referring to?

Last edited Tue Feb 20, 2018, 07:07 PM - Edit history (2)

The voters chose. What voters are you saying were prevented from choosing?

Other than in caucuses, of course.

And where are you seeing that anyone in any year was "guaranteeing a victory" in the general?

Other than in hindsight?

Can you clarify, because your post indicates you don't have very good sources for your information.

[liberalhistorian]

9. NO!

Sorry, but her time is over and done and she would not at all be a viable candidate. I admire her and appreciate everything she's done and has endured, and am furious at the treatment she's received at the hands of the right and the Russians. However, her time is over and we need new blood.

[Salviati]

11. Honestly, I think they're all too old.

There is only one president, chosen every 4 years. Not everyone who is qualified, deserves to be, and wants to be president can be so. Hillary needs to make peace with that, as I believe she has, as do her supporters.

And if you think the spurious trash about her will ever be completely hashed out and dismissed, then you are far too charatable about human nature than evidence suggests you should be.

[Lisa0825]

57. I completely agree. I voted for her, but they are all too old.

I think any one of them would make a phenomenal President, but I really think we need a younger slate to choose from.

I actually think being RE-Elected would be less certain, the older the candidate is on the first election, and we need to be able to count on 8 years, not just 4.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

13. They're all too old.

[bluestarone]

15. if she is the nominee I SUPPORT HER 1000%

END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VMA131Marine]

20. As will we all

But until that point, we should be looking for the best candidate to beat Trump. And whoever it ends up being, we all need to work our tails off to get him or her elected.

[bluestarone]

38. true

But my point being this only causes more splitting of DU? We have very little control of WHO. I support whomever THEN GIVE IT HELL ON ELECTION DAY!!!!!

[Hekate]

21. Isn't it fascinating that HRC is the ONLY potential candidate who is "too old"

Last edited Sun Feb 18, 2018, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

The misogyny, as always, is enough to gag a goat. Every MAN who ever ran and lost is an "elder statesman" in their Party -- but Hillary just won't "go away."

However, while I thoroughly reject the idea that our enemies should be allowed to choose our candidates, the trash talk about Hillary will never go away. Like racism, like anti-Semitism, like white nationalism -- it just gets recycled.

[RandomAccess]

28. To be fair

Sanders has been called too old here too.

Not sure about Biden, but probably.

ETA: I mostly agree with you otherwise.

[Ken Burch]

44. Not true. A LOT of us feel exactly the same way about Bernie or Biden.

Is THIS what the whole "we can't have any real discussion about the future, we can't have ANY change, we can't admit that there are any ways at all about how we run the next campaign" toxicity about?

Has the whole thing about pushing ONE MORE HRC candidacy and trying to prevent anybody else from being considered?

[BannonsLiver]

58. I just read several theyre all too old posts above yours

A sentiment I agree with. Key word: ALL

[treestar]

77. And they are going to trash talk the candidate whoever it is

Like they did Obama and Kerry and Gore and Bill.

[Skittles]

101. women have to be twice as good to be considered half as good

you know that

[joshcryer]

137. Yeah, she needs to "go away" we need to "move on."

[GitRDun]

22. She is not trusted

It's never going to happen for her. She is far too polarizing.

Time to move on...

[Voltaire2]

23. Hasnt she said repeatedly that she isnt running?

I believe her. I don’t think she is lying. She is not going to run.

[customerserviceguy]

24. It's not her chronological age that makes her old

its the fact that she's old news. Sorry if that hurts anybody's feelings, but there is a reason that once a nominee loses, they usually don't come back again. In modern times, it only happened twice, Adlai Stevenson and Richard Nixon. A prime reason for the second one's success is allowing enough years to pass before giving it another shot.

We need fresh faces, fresh ideas, and someone who is going to be able to be a lasting political force for many years of their post-presdency. That's why Barack Obama was a better choice in 2008 than Hillary Clinton was.

And Trump would love to run against her again. This time, he'd have incumbency and all of the powers associated with it on his side. It would gin up his base no matter what happens with the remaining time on his term.

[mcar]

26. Great point, George!

I don't actually want any of them to run but if HRC did, she'd have my support.

I hope there will be no more talk here about her being "too old," especially from those who support others on that list.

[Gothmog]

29. K&R

[CrispyQ]

34. I don't want any of the names listed to run. -nt

[R B Garr]

36. There is a lot of upside to this. Now she is free to

expose EVERYONE who lied about her. In fact, the indictments and government investigations will speak for themselves.

And now we can see who will continue the anti-Hillary spam.

[Ken Burch]

37. Most of those who raised the age issue(plus her own stated wishes)about HRC running again

Also raised those about Biden and Bernie.

HRC isn't being singled out there.

Why NOT just have 2020 be the year of a new generation?

I respect her. She'd have been a good president.

But why again?

[Golden Raisin]

40. All too old. We need younger blood.

And I say this as a baby boomer closing in on 70.

[Captain Stern]

43. You just tried to convince me that Clinton isn't too old to run...

....by listing four other people that I think are too old to run.

We've done pretty well by nominating 'young' people.

Jimmy Carter was 52 when he was elected.

Bill Clinton was 46 when he was elected.

Barack Obama was 48 when he was elected.

If our bench only has people on it that were born around the time of WWII, then our team's not in very good shape.

[D_Master81]

45. Plus...

she lost to trump already. I would vote for her in a heartbeat, but I dont really want to be Trump/Hillary pt 2. we already know the script. "Crooked Hillary", corrupt, Benghazi, emails. It would all just get brought up again cause it worked last time. I feel terrible for her cause alot more people voted for her than Trump and she would've been a better Pres by a mile, but we're talking about the next election and I cant think of a candidate other than Nixon that lost a general and came back and won it later.

[jalan48]

46. She's already said she's not going to run for pubic office again so...?

[femmocrat]

50. Yes, and IMO, they are all "too old." LOL

They are only a few years older than me, and I'm too old too!

We need new blood and we have a wealth of talented younger candidates!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. Everybody ages differently.

I know some 70 year olds who can outrun and out hike most 30 year olds.


Heck at 50 I can outrun most of the 30 year olds I come in contact with.

[femmocrat]

64. This is of course true.

But I was referring to those politicians mentioned in the OP. Is that Bernie running in the video?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

76. Yes. I know it's hard to tell because he is so fast.

[R B Garr]

80. Especially with the fast forward effect engaged.

You can speed it up into a total blur.

[NurseJackie]

164. Cue: The "Yakkety-Sax" tune :-D

[R B Garr]

184. lol, isnt that the Benny Hill music?

I love that!

[lunamagica]

92. That altered footage is not new.

[think4yourself]

107. But still funny as heck.

[Demsrule86]

51. I want neither Sanders nor Clinton to run...new faces. I think the indictments have made it so that

Sen. Sanders can't run in 20. I do not believe Sen. Sanders colluded though.

[BlueIdaho]

60. I love Hillary... but...

She is in fact too old to run. Our party needs to be looking forward to the next generation not back to the last. Same goes for Bernie and (as much as I hate to say it) Joe Biden.

Bring back the old LIBERAL Democratic platform and let the next generation of leaders carry the message forward. I really think that is the winning combination.

[Still In Wisconsin]

65. No thanks! I voted for Bernie in primary and Hillary in General

I don’t, however, want either one to run again. They are both so damaged now that I fear we would be handing TRUMP another “victory.”

[Ken Burch]

105. That's what I've been saying the whole time. You put it very well.

n/t.

[ooky]

158. This

Running her again is the definition of insanity. Nobody we could run would mobilize and unite the Right like her. While I think she would be a good President, we need to make sure we don’t hand Trump and Republicans that much ammunition. We have got to rid ourselves of Trump.

[Adrahil]

68. It breaks my heart she is not President.

But we need to move on from her.

And Bernie.

And Joe, IMHO.

[lunamagica]

70. Thank you George, I'm with her too!

[treestar]

72. I don't think she is too old, since had she won, she

would have undoubtedly run for a second term.

The good part of the idea is that it can let people who realized they should have voted (who did not vote) or should not have indulged in Stein votes (probably thought they were safe doing it because it seemed like the Orange Manure had to lose) and put things back the way they would have been.

[loyalsister]

83. I don't understand why any of them would want to run

They are all long past the age when most people are ready to relax a little. Mostly because they are tired. It would be ridiculous for any of them to take on one of the most demanding jobs in the world. I thought that about all of those suggested candidates in 2016.
We don't need a candidate who is within the reach of the end of life expectancy. All of our bodies and brains wear out. Most sensible people are ready to take advantage of the time left for some rest and leisure by the time they are in their 60s if not before. There is nothing to suggest that any of those individuals have so much to offer that they or we should ignore the reality of aging.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

88. We need younger candidates.

Period.

Sanders, Biden, and Clinton are all too old. Warren probably is also, although she looks about 20 years younger than Hillary does. However, I don't think she has any intention of running, so forget her.

[JCanete]

90. She certainly wont be too old, but there is baggage that comes with losing a GE that is certainly

not in itself deserved, but does impact how the public sees a candidate who keeps jumping back into the ring. I'm not sure what the psychology at play is here. Nobody wants to hitch their wagon to a "loser?" I do know the media helps to generate this reaction, and the language it likes to use is telling. "Failed presidential candidate..."

In Clinton's case, she also has the unfair burden of warding off the "entitled to the Presidency" meme that has been around for like a decade or more now, and trying over and over again in-spite of losing(though yeah, she carried a shit-ton more votes than Trump and that should matter) naturally feeds into that narrative.

None of those reasons are why she wouldn't be my first choice, and if she were my first choice, I would ignore all of them, but I'm not sure the rest of the Democratic leadership will do the same next time around, given the stakes.

[guillaumeb]

91. Are there no capable candidates under the age of 70?

[leftstreet]

119. At this point, electable is more important than capable

Never thought I'd reach a point where I'd actually think/say that, but there it is

[guillaumeb]

162. Sad, but I partly agree.

But compared to the GOP, the Democrats have many capable candidates.

[Jersey Devil]

95. not too old, but weighed down with too much baggage

She'd have to defend all the old bullshit about her and a brand new round of new garbage on top of that. We need a candidate who can advocate for a progressive agenda without spending an inordinate amount of time defending his or own record and dispelling decades old negative memes.

[gibraltar72]

96. I love them all

That being said if we run anybody older than 60. We should be shot in the nuts.

[Va Lefty]

128. This

[tritsofme]

102. I was her strongest advocate in 2008 and 2016, now it's time for a new face.

That extends to all of the people on your list.

[Vinca]

108. No. And no Bernie, either. Time for the next generation to pick up the ball.

[Bleacher Creature]

114. I'd be honored to support her in 2020, but I doubt she will be willing to go through that all again.

[MoonRiver]

131. Much as I love her, I really hope she meant it when she said she won't run again.

After two major presidential losses (primary and general), I feel her chances to win in 2020 are basically nil, and we need to find new candidates. Just my 2 bits.

[Baconator]

134. Hard pass...

It's like Sideshow Bob... If there's a rake to step on he'll find it and the Democratic Party is going to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if people think like this.

Can we finally learn something and stop fighting the elections of yesteryear....?

She has shown that she is not the best choice (several times)... So move on...

[USALiberal]

138. Hillary lost due to lies, but those lies are believed. We do not need the risk!! nt

[realFedUp]

142. She would be great and healing

For the majority of the country who actually voted for her. No one talks about the fact that she won and in the face of negative media, Russia and huge amounts of NRA/Russian money,

[USALiberal]

143. It is not worth the risk IMO. We need a win in 2020! nt

[Kali]

139. I don't think it is a good idea.

We obviously don't vote on qualifications in this country. We need someone fresh, new and able to connect with lots more potential voters. I don't know who that is but we need to start looking and vetting now.

[wasupaloopa]

140. I am 71 and think my generation has had its

time in power.

The issues younger people face do not effect me as much as it does them.

Just listen to the “kids” talk about guns. They are the future leaders.

[Willie Pep]

147. Ageism isn't cool.

People are living longer and healthier these days. The only time I would say age should disqualify someone is if they have an age-related illness that would seriously compromise their ability to work. Otherwise I don't see age as disqualifying Clinton or anyone else. I also disagree with the idea that older generations of politicians must move out of the way for younger politicians as some kind of principle. Ideally you need a mix of younger and older people working together. There are good and bad politicians from every age group. Age doesn't determine if a politician is good or not.

[X_Digger]

148. They're all too old. n/t

[Exotica]

150. I am mainly concerned about 2018, as that is the immediate thing, but...

All you list are too old, and, with the exception of Warren, have too high potential negatives and/or baggage.

A Clinton/Sanders rehash of 2016 in 2020 will rip apart the party when we should be focusing on the true enemy, the Republicans.
I do not have a preferred candidate, I am open to looking at any actual Democrat who wont be into their 80's (some even close to 90's) by the end of 2 terms. A woman would be nice, but I want to win, to crush that bastard Trump, and if a male candidate comes along who I feel is our best shot, then count me in!

I am far more worried atm about how we can take back the Senate (that is the hard one, as the map is so bad for us in 2018).

[Lisa0825]

155. AMEN to all you said!!!

[samnsara]

151. only if we have a dem congress other wise the GOP will spend all their time..

...crucifying her AGAIN. We simply don't deserve her.

[Sophia4]

152. I'm 74 and in excellent health.

No one over 70 should run for the presidency.

No one.

[R B Garr]

161. That is weird considering Bernies age two years ago, even.

That’s strange how the mention of Hillary changes things, 70’s being too old now...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

213. But Bernie is in great shape.

Age is just a number if you are in good shape.

I've seen 74 year olds people that could run circles around 40 year olds. I've also seen people in their 60s that can't stay out in the heat, need help up stairs and are prone to falling.

[R B Garr]

214. Yes, this kind of conspiracy about Hillary is a JPR

favorite. That’s why the hypocrisy is so evident. To make a blanket statement that NO 70-year-old should run is hypocrisy.

[democratisphere]

153. I'd jump on the HRC bandwagon in a nanosecond if she decides to run again!

No one is more qualified than HRC to be President and put our country back together.

[GaryCnf]

156. Could I ask you a favor?

Could you link to an OP, or even a reply, here on DU where ANYONE said that Secretary Clinton was "too old" to run for POTUS again OTHER THAN one where the poster was saying BOTH Bernie (and/or any other of the names you mentioned) AND Hillary were too old?

But you know what is too old . . .

[bronxiteforever]

157. She said I am done with being a candidate.

She wouldn’t lie like the rancid orange peel that occupies the WH.

[seaglass]

160. I disagree that any of the crap thrown at Hillary would be dismissed, no idea what evidence

you see that the media, the Bernie Bros and Republicans have let up one bit.

In any case Hillary said she would not run again and I take her at her word. I think she is brilliant and should be president right now, but it's over.

I honestly don't understand the point of this thread.

[Boomerproud]

170. Thank you!

The crap has been thrown on her since 1993 I want the OP to explain where ANY of it has been dismissed.

[JNelson6563]

171. I don't want any of them.

No more boomers. This era NEEDS TO END.

[Dan]

172. I think she has indicated her political career is over ....as a politician..

[ollie10]

177. Hillary lost.would lose again

[Motley13]

179. I like all those people, but I don't want any of those people, we need new young blood

that said, if any were nominated I would be happy to vote for any one of them. I just have the feeling the dems are a party represented by elderly people, smart, progressive, but old. I can't see the millennials being excited by any of them.

[Mike Nelson]

181. I would hope...

...to see some different names than those four... but I do admit that whenever they appear, they seem to have not aged at all... btw, I don't believe Sanders would be running as a Democrat; he would be running as a 3rd party candidate.

[Beartracks]

182. The trash will never be hashed out and dismissed, not for Republicans.

Republicans need to keep churning baseless accusations ad nauseam. The Clintons are their lightning rod for raising money and scaring people.

With any luck, however, maybe Democrats won't still be all split up about her.



=========

[fescuerescue]

183. I don't understand why posts like these get so much emotion

A few dozen people on this board aren't going to decide if Hillary runs again. It's not up to us.

It's up to Hillary.

I hope she does run, but getting all emotional here isn't going to have an impact. That energy is probably better utilized is making sure that if she does run, she wins, and if she doesn't the Dem nominee wins.

[Lil Missy]

188. She won't run. n/t

[applegrove]

190. We need new blood.

[kentuck]

201. Bring back Al Gore....he's younger than them all.

And he was the first to be robbed of the Presidency by this modern-day Republican Party.

[elehhhhna]

203. No. Enough disruption. She ran twice and lost the primary to BHO, then the election.

Yeah she was cheated but it's too late.

[Snackshack]

204. The Democratic Party...

Needs to get someone new. If we end up with Sanders or Clinton we will lose. Warren, Harris, Schiff... there are many possibilities for the Democratic ticket that are much less polarizing than Sanders or Clinton.

[democrank]

205. My vote next time around will be determined by one thing....issues.

Not age, not gender, just positions on issues that matter most to me.

[Hoyt]

208. She would have been a tremendous President and I'd vote for her. But, I just don't think it would

be wise to have her as the Democratic nominee. Something might change, but right now that's how I feel.

Agree, 2018 is the key right now -- there are even some primaries as early as March. By summer, we can send GOPers and trump a real message.

[triron]

211. kick for visibility

[Trumpocalypse]

212. You've proven that they are all too old to run

We need some new blood.

[Orsino]

216. They're all a little old (and pale) for the presidency.

If there are no younger and browner people who could be our nominee, then these leaders of ours have failed us.

[R B Garr]

219. Love this thread! If two older men she beat by millions get to

retain their viability, then so should she. Mueller is shining the light on how she actually won.

Hillary for 2020! Because why not. She is awesome.

[Jakes Progress]

228. I'd vote for her over any other possible candidate

that has been tossed out.

She is easily the most qualified and the most suitable person for the job.

Besides. She already won once. Women seem to have to do twice what a man does once to get ahead.

Those tossing shade are bots or dupes. We have the evidence that all the bad info on Hillary was manufactured. If you still won't admit you were duped, you need help.