If not Hillary, Who?

[ourfuneral]

Look, I'm new here, so please excuse my boldness, but Secretary Clinton is the only choice for '16. Hey, I love Joe Biden: He's the most underrated and underappreciated member of the Administration. He would have forced Harry Reid to punt any "gentleman's agreement" on the filibuster, and his "Counterintelligence backed by Special Ops rather than Boots on the Ground" approach to foreign policy is spot-on. But he'll be 73 on Election Day. Hillary will be 69, and we all know that women live longer than men. Clinton II will be a kick-ass/take names/no prisoners president and we all know that.

O'Malley and Cuomo can wait their turns with Warren. Hillary Rodham Clinton for President!

[MannyGoldstein]

1. She's inevitable!

Just like last time.

[peacebird]

2. LOL!

[ourfuneral]

4. Senator Warren, you're no Barack Obama

Hillary won't have History against her this time.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. No, she's certainly not!

Unlike Obama, Hillary, and the rest of the Third Way, Warren believes in fairness for the 99%.

And I think the 99% are starting to understand this.

[Octafish]

84. Yeah. She believes in putting banksters in jail.

Probably would do the same to war criminals, which would also be different.

[jsr]

20. She's unavoidably inevitable.

[winter is coming]

32. I love the whole "Ready for Hillary" meme.

'Cause you know, she didn't get the nomination in '08 because we weren't ready to elect a woman or ready to appreciate her awesome wonderfulness. It reminds me so very much of the typical GOP response to failure: obviously there's no need for change or self-reflection; all that's needed is to explain things better to the ignorant proles.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Time to giver that meme a spin... nt

[brooklynite]

69. ...which tells me you have no idea what "Ready for Hillary" is about...

RFH is a campaign in waiting: it's an effort to get people to commit to support her in advance, so that if/when she decides to run, she'll have volunteer and financial resources available.

For the progressives who keep saying "anybody but Hillary", organizing a "Ready for (fill in the blanks)" movement might not be a bad idea.

[winter is coming]

72. A "campaign in waiting", my ass. It's a propaganda campaign, intended to intimidate

other candidates from entering the race and to save Hillary from the embarrassment of possibly announcing her candidacy to a half-filled room.

[leftstreet]

3. I wouldn't miss this thread4anything

Welcome!

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Oh, that's awesome.

[bobclark86]

5. There's a buttload of candidates...

who can actually motivate the center-left of the party to get off their asses and vote. You need young, enthusiastic progressives.

Speaking of the "anointed one" mentality of the Hillary lovers, you guys remind me of the GOP, with its steady stream of runners-up grabbing nominations 4 years later. If it turns out like that, we'll have a Hillary-Santorum debate.

No matter who gets the GOP nod, a Hillary win will mean this: College kids, the working class and minorities will stay home, and the right will have an apoplectic fit.

In all, a Clinton primary win will result in record turnout in November 2016 ... for old white conservatives.

[Beacool]

70. B.S.

The working class and minorities (other than AA) voted for Hillary in the primaries.

[tabasco]

80. Link please.

Thanks!

[Beacool]

83. Do your own research.

Working class people voted for Hillary, union folks, almost every minority (except AA) and those making under $150K were her base. She also won more votes from registered Democrats than Obama (remember that some states have open primaries). Obama's small pledged delegate advantage came from the caucus states. That's where the Clinton campaign failed. The only caucus she won was Nevada. Neither one of them had enough delegates to win the nomination outright, enter the super delegates.

The idea that Hillary wouldn't attract the votes of working class people and minorities is risible.

[bobclark86]

85. Don't make unsupported claims...

without backing it up. That's on you. Without it, you're either full of shit or you are lazy. Take your pick.

Speaking of backing things up, read this...
http://theweek.com/article/index/252160/why-is-hillary-clintons-popularity-sliding

In a nutshell: Hillary's popularity in the last 10 months has dropped a net of 18 points.

As far as people actually voting, we couldn't beat GEORGE W HALLIBURTON BUSH for fucksakes. You know, the douche who invaded two countries with dick for provocation, costing more than a trillion dollars. Yeah, we couldn't beat THAT fuckface.

Why?

Because the Democratic base didn't go out and vote.

Why?

Because it was a boring-ass old white person.

That's why I'm morally opposed to just handing some old white person the Democratic nomination without even thinking about somebody young and progressive. Add to that just how toxic Hillary is to the right -- hell, you'll probably get dead Republicans reanimating to come vote against her. If you read press releases from guns groups about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, they STILL call Hillary out by name, as it energizes the base, even though she isn't the SOS anymore.

Yeah, let's go for somebody a little younger, a little more progressive -- who DIDN'T vote to invade Iraq -- and somebody who won't cause an epic shitstorm to get everybody even remotely right of center to cause traffic jams on their way to vote against our candidate.

[Beacool]

86. In case you haven't noticed, everyone's popularity has gone down. People are sick of politicians.

Obama is underwater (his negatives are higher than his positives), Congress is in the basement and the Tea Party is in the 7th circle of hell.

So, according to you, voting for Hillary is akin to voting for some middle aged white guy? Of all the condescending comments!!! Hillary's run would be just as historical as it was in 2008. The problem that year is that so was Obama's. That won't be a problem in 2016. I have no idea whether she will choose to run again or not, but if she does, she will be a hell of a candidate.

BTW, since when are Democrats afraid to run a candidate because the RW nuts will oppose him or her? Obama was the one who kept promising to unite the country and look how well that turned out. The Clintons don't have those delusions, they know that they are dealing with junkyard dogs.

You posted the link, did you even read the article?

"Clinton's polling slide did begin around the time a supposed bombshell report, later debunked, claimed internal White House emails revealed a cover-up. And Gallup, which has also found Clinton's popularity on the decline, said back in June that congressional hearings into Benghazi had "called into question her leadership during her tenure at the State Department."

It's also possible Clinton is being dragged down by her former boss. Battered by the government shutdown and ObamaCare's terrible rollout, the president's approval rating has fallen to a record-low 42 percent, according to the same NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll."

[tabasco]

88. LOL!

Kind of what I expected.

[Beacool]

89. Suit yourself.

[bluestate10]

7. Elizabeth Warren would make an excellent candidate. She thinks well on her feet and

clearly elucidates her values, which are populist values which will play well with Americans if they are stated well. Warren proved that she is a tireless, aggressive campaigner.

[stevenleser]

43. She said she is not running and has endorsed Hillary so she is not an option. nt

[NoOneMan]

53. endorsed?

You mean she wasn't the lone female holdout signer on a letter supporting her run (but a far cry from an exclusive primary endorsement)?

[stevenleser]

65. You mean we shouldn't expect the person touted as true to their values to be just that?

You have a pretty low opinion of Senator Warren if your lone retort is to say she caved here.

[NoOneMan]

67. My "retort" was to point out it wasn't an endorsement, as the lie suggested

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 – a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/


Wow, funny how you get that Warren endorsed Hillary for President in 2016 from that. Afterall, exclusive endorsements are normally quite public affairs. And believe it or not, you can encourage someone to run while still intending to run yourself (not to say this is the case).

[stevenleser]

76. LMAO, parsing "encouraging someone to run" as not an endorsement?

[NoOneMan]

77. Yep. Its not whatsoever

Unless you are also lying to yourself.


Here is the quote you are twisting into "Zomg! OMG! Warren Endorsed Hillary for president in 2016!":

“All of the Senate Democratic women have written her a letter encouraging her to run”

That's it. That's what you are running with. Wow

This is when you save face and say: "Sorry. I feel stupid"

[cynatnite]

8. I am a huge Hillary fan, but I don't understand the need to call it for her now...

when no one knows if she's even running. Not only that, she hasn't won anything.

As much as I'd love to see her in the oval calling the shots, I'm against being this presumptive especially when it's still early.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

23. But she's the media favorite...

...they get another crack at recycling Clinton scandals. Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi and Other Clinton Scandals (Benghazi anyone?)

No way does the media want Elizabeth Warren! They can't $ell that race to anyone.

Go media! Do the picking for us!!!

[BainsBane]

9. This presidential sooth saying is all bullshit

and a waste of everyone's time. Wait until the election, for God's sake.

[Logical]

13. LOL, it is a "discussion" board. Read about it. n-t

[BainsBane]

17. I believe it hurts Democrats

We focus so much on Presidential elections that Republicans gain clear advantages in midterms and at the state level. That gives them control of redistricting and enables them to hold on to House and state legislative majorities despise receiving a minority of the votes.

[Andy823]

31. I totally agree with you

The elections next year should be the main concern right now. We have to get the teapublicans out of the House, out of the senate, and out of state and local governments. I now in many places that won't be easy, but there are a lot of states that can vote out the republicans that were put in office back in 2010. And we can forget that the morons in the House are going to go through the same BS we just wen through again in January, and maybe even a couple of more times before election time.

The goal of anyone who wants to change the crap we have gone through since president Obama took office, the republicans vow to do everything in their power to keep this country from going forward, is to get with the program for the 2014 elections, then worry about 2016. We need to get out the voters and do all we can to get these clowns out of office!

[Logical]

36. OK, maybe a good point. n-t

[bobclark86]

48. I don't think a focus on the White House is why the GOP does so well at midterms...

Gerrymandering charges aside, the Democratic base just doesn't care unless there's a shiny new face on something. I mean, we couldn't even beat George Bush AFTER he invaded two countries. Why? Because it was some stodgy white person against him.

The GOP, however, is made up of crotchety old white folks who don't have anything better to do than collect their social security and Medicare, and then bitch about entitlements.

One group goes to the polls more often. That's all. Had the 2008 candidate NOT been a young(ish) black guy from outside the Beltway, things could have gone very different.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

102. Don't forget their young white offspring who I bet couldn't even name the last 5 prez & VPs nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. +1000

[Savannahmann]

10. Why must we decide now?

Three years before the election? What if Goddess forbid, she dies from a heart attack, plane crash, car accident, slip and fall in the shower? Do we surrender and just hand the election to the Rethugs?

SOS Clinton was inevitable once. Nobody saw Obama as a serious candidate, until he was. So let's go through the motions, and see who catches our imagination and let's select the best candidate. No one is inevitable at this juncture.

[RichGirl]

11. I love Hillary....BUT...

I don't like people in same family for president. Too monarchish. What next...Chelsea???

Also, I'd like fresh new and younger faces.

My dream ticket: Elizabeth Warren and Ronan Farrow.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

16. yes. no more (Bushes OR) Clintons

Obama is a Clinton for all intents and purposes.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

12. lol I was thinking about starting this thread tonight...

Who?
Howard Dean (looks like Elizabeth Warren is out

In reality, I can't see anyone running against Hillary, now. Maybe someone will pull a "Bill Daley" who pretended he was going to run for governor of Illinois, raised money, then bailed out and didn't have to return all of the money he raised. Bill Daley, Rahm Emmanuel, and Barack Obama...

[brooklynite]

94. Howard Dean on 2016: "At this point, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/howard-dean-on-2016-at-this-point-im-supporting-hillary-clinton/

Don't you hate those DLC sellouts?

[sendero]

14. As a friend of mine once said..

.... about a management job opening up at our company "the only people qualified to do it wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole".

IMHO, there are very few good people left in politics. It's a toxic game, most of our "leaders" are just puppets of the true ruling class, and good men and women want nothing to do with it.

There are the occasional exception, but the Democratic field is particularly weak at the top IMHO.

[bowens43]

15. hillary=obama=gw=bill blah blah blah time for something new

its still 2 freaking years away give it a fucking rest

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Bernie Sanders. Or, at least, a liberal.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

35. I can only think of 3 people in Congress that carry themselves like candidates...

...and by "carry" I mean they make populist statements:

Bernie Sanders (says "not interested" every week on Thom Hartmann)
Elizabeth Warren (apparently, she's thrown her support behind Hillary)
Alan Grayson (I could see him running)

Outside the beltway
Howard Dean
Dennis John Kucinich

[840high]

39. Like.

[solarhydrocan]

19. Do you support the Trans Pacific Partnership?

Hillary does, and worked on the content.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Trade Agreement for Protectionists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trans-pacific-partner_b_4172087.html

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) stands at the top of the Obama administration's trade agenda. The argument from its supporters is that this agreement is part of the never-ending quest for freer trade. The evidence from what we know of this still secret pact is that the TPP has little to do with free trade. It can more accurately be described as a pact designed to increase the wealth and power of crony capitalists.

At this point, with few exceptions formal trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, are not very large. If lowering or eliminating the formal barriers that remain were the main agenda of this pact, there would be relatively little interest. Rather, the purpose of the pact is to use an international trade agreement to create a regulatory structure that is much more favorable to corporate interests than they would be able to get through the domestic political process in the United States and in the other countries in the pact.

The gap between free trade and the agenda of the TPP is clearest in the case of prescription drugs. The U.S. drug companies have a major seat at the negotiating table. They will be trying to craft rules that increase the strength of patent and related protections. The explicit purpose is to raise (as in, not lower) the price of drugs in the countries signing the TPP.

Note that this goal is the opposite of what we would expect in an agreement designed to promote free trade. Instead of having drug companies at the table, we might envision that we would have representatives of consumer groups who would try to negotiate rules that could ensure safe drugs at lower prices. Instead of using a "trade" agreement to try to push drug prices in other countries up, we could actually use trade to bring the price of drugs in the United States down to the levels seen elsewhere...SNIP MORE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-trans-pacific-partner_b_4172087.html

Hopefully the nominee will be someone that does not support the TPP.

[antigop]

57. HRC played a leading part in drafting the TPP, according to Business Week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[Bonobo]

21. It's true.

We need someone to keep the seat warm until we can get Chelsea or Malia in there.

[bobduca]

28. Permanent Democratic Monarchy!

yay blue team!

[JDPriestly]

34. The Republicans are not likely to offer a candidate that sensible people can vote for.

It's possible, but extremely, extremely unlikely.

The Republican Party has only itself and its extremists on the right to blame for its lack of appeal to the majority of Americans.

[bobduca]

37. I agree, so let's give someone from another family a shot...

How about we put forward a candidate with no Presidential relatives ?

[JDPriestly]

45. Excellent! Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

I've heard that Bernie Sanders might be interested in running.

[jsr]

22. Yes, it's going to be Who.

[Drew Richards]

24. I like joe

[Courtesy Flush]

25. Anybody who remembers the '90s knows

that Hillary has been baptized by fire. She's been through the Limbaugh meat grinder, and survived. At this point, she can't be swift boated, and there can't be any bombshells left to fall.

Sadly, this is a major factor. More important than whether she is the best candidate.

[Whisp]

26. The 'whos' will come out early in 2016 officially

like most if not all did in '08.

It's ridiculous to think there is no one else when there were 8 last round.

[gopiscrap]

27. Bernie Sanders

[DonCoquixote]

29. Clinton II will be a kick-ass/take names/no prisoners president and we all know that.

Really, maybe kicking left ass, but not kicking right wing ass. She will coddle up to her 'friends' on the right, all while Arriana H. Jane hamsher and Lynn Rothscvhild cheer her on (especially when she cuts social programs like her hubby did.)

[winter is coming]

55. You must have half of DU on ignore if you believe "we all know that". n/t

[DonCoquixote]

68. actually I was quoting

someone else's reply, with a heaping dose of sarcasm.

[mike_c]

30. damned nearly anyone....

ABH.

[JDPriestly]

33. Hillary and corruption. That's the problem.

She is not independent of her funders and big industrial backers.

She is a DLC. She is not a Democrat in my personal view.

I would like to draft Elizabeth Warren.

People say she should spend more time in Senate, but the fact that she is not so much a part of the political corruption and the D.C. inbreeding is what I like about her.

I know she isn't running, but I strongly believe she could be drafted.

Hillary is not a realistic choice. I don't want to go into too much detail about all her negatives, but there are too many, just too many.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Ah, perception management, gotcha

[Smarmie Doofus]

40. Warren's good. Unlike Clinton, she's an intellectual titan, progressive and people *like* her.

Problem is she lacks foreign policy creds.

Gotta fix that somehow. Otherwise GOP's back in power.

[FarCenter]

41. Pick someone with executive experience -- one of the Governors?

Arkansas, Mike Beebe
California, Jerry Brown
Colorado, John Hickenlooper
Connecticut, Dan Malloy
Delaware, Jack Markell
Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie
Illinois, Pat Quinn
Kentucky, Steve Beshear
Maryland, Martin O'Malley
Massachusetts, Deval Patrick
Minnesota, Mark Dayton
Missouri, Jay Nixon
Montana, Steve Bullock
New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan
New York, Andrew Cuomo
Oregon, John Kitzhaber
Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee
Vermont, Peter Shumlin
Washington, Jay Inslee
West Virginia, Earl Ray Tomblin

[ourfuneral]

46. Just pleased that I could Serve Tonight

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. For starters? How about someone who's not an Old Rich White Establishment Person?

Which also leaves Joe Biden out, but I'll say THIS about Vice President Biden... Candidate Barack Obama and then President Barack Obama put him one heartbeat away from the Presidency for eight years running. What would that say about Barack Obama's judgment if he didn't support HIM over Hillary Clinton?

Frankly, after 8 years of the first non-white, non-establishment, non-filthy rich politician in the office of the Presidency, I don't think Hillary Clinton is going to excite an electorate that is growing younger, more liberal, and more diverse every day.

But that's just my opinion...

[ourfuneral]

50. Hey, as already stated, I love Joe Biden

But we both know where the tide is taking the party, and I've no desire to play King Canute.

[HereSince1628]

49. Oh, the guys with the money have MONTHS to figure this out.

[datasuspect]

51. big money has already hired the next president

that person just doesn't know it yet.

[brooklynite]

93. ...and the progressives have MONTHS to sit behind their computers complaining...

...as opposed to, say, organizing to find a candidate they like.

[HereSince1628]

97. Who is complaining? I know the system, I'm being reassuring

to all those worried folks.

[brooklynite]

99. The the aggregate of all the Hillary threads...

and the consistent message is that "they" are denying us a choice and "we" deserve a real progressive to vote for. Somhow the notion of actually working to get the progressive never occurs to anti-Hillary people.

[NoOneMan]

52. There are 3 years and a primary to answer that question

A question that is ridiculous to ask today

[polichick]

54. How appropriate for this to have been posted by "ourfuneral"

[ourfuneral]

62. It will be, if a Democrat isn't elected in '16

And, whether you like it or not (I do like it,) HRC is our best shot. By a light year.

[polichick]

66. If we keep electing corporate Dems...

it'll be our funeral, as in forget having a party that represents the people.

imo the candidate who has the best shot of being elected is one with the balls or ovaries to stand with the people against the 1% - and that ain't HRC.

[pinboy3niner]

87. The OP author's PPR makes it appropriate on multiple levels

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=308759&sub=trans

[polichick]

90. Yikes!

[kwassa]

56. Martin O'Malley, that's who.

but you knew that already.

[tabasco]

81. Correctamundo.

He's not afraid of bashing pukes.

[Iggo]

58. I'm voting for whoever the nominee is in the general election.

You guys can tear each other apart until then.

[B Calm]

101. +1

[Lil Missy]

59. I am 100% behind Hillary for President, and so are most Democrats. n/t

[mitchtv]

60. I like Dean

[Iggo]

79. Me, too.

I don't think he's running, though.

[ScreamingMeemie]

61. We don't have to go dredging the same lakes for the same tired candidates you know.

Hilary would get a vote, but nothing else (cash, door to door) from me.

Let's take this time to actually look for qualified candidates.

[SheilaT]

64. Let's see, at the end of 2000

it was obvious to the most casual observer that Al Gore would inevitably be the nominee in 2004.

At the end of that year (2004) it was perfectly clear that John Kerry would be the nominee again and would win that time around.

Not to mention, in 1991, after the Gulf War, George HW Bush was so incredibly popular that it was obvious that no Democrat could possibly win the election in '92, so every single potential candidate up to that point withdrew from consideration, and the demoralized Democratic Party had to nominate a little-known governor from an obscure southern state.

In other words, what seems inevitable three years before the election is extremely unlikely to happen.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Hillary and think she would make a terrible candidate and President. We need a real liberal/progressive candidate, not same-old same-old.

[Egnever]

71. Howard Dean

Wont be happy till he is president!

[hrmjustin]

73. I am supporting Hillary in 2016.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. a populist liberal such as Warren or Sanders, and I don't give a damn if people think they don't

have a chance or have the wrong party affiliation. I will either vote for a populist candidate or I won't vote.

[brooklynite]

92. Do you give a damn if THEY'RE NOT RUNNING?

If not, then it seems as though you're just fantasizing?

BTW - since Elizabeth Warren is supporting a Clinton run, does that destroy her progressive credentials?

[krawhitham]

75. anyone but Hillary Rodham Clinton

She is a weak candidate, last time she got stomped by an unknown black man

[Beacool]

78. I'm supporting Hillary if she decides to run.

And so will millions of others, but it won't be a coronation. That is media driven, they want to cause drama because drama sells. Both Clintons have said that people should focus on 2014, that it's too early to think about 2016.

[CK_John]

82. Bill de Blasio or Cory Booker.

[brooklynite]

91. I sometimes wonder if responses like this are intentionally silly...

Politicians who just took office should immediately focus on a new campaign?

[madinmaryland]

95. Nice post, graham4whatever! Regardless, welcome to DU...

Sorry, but Martin O'Malley would make a good candidate for POTUS.

[pinboy3niner]

96. The poster is already gone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=308759&sub=trans

[JVS]

98. Someone else.

[jmowreader]

100. I just thought of this one: how abt Al Franken?

Forget the Stuart Smalley line, Franken is a good progressive from the Heartland who can communicate with anyone. And so far he hasn't attracted the trail of shit Republicants have saddled Hillary with.