Allan Lichtman:Why the democrats need Hillary in 2016

[bigdarryl]

Basically hes saying if the party has a nomination fight within we loose the WH.http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

[bigdarryl]

1. All this talk from some of the progressives Hillary needs

A challenge defies history

[Thinkingabout]

2. I do not have a problem with there being more than one candidate running foe the DNC presidency.

I do have a problem with the bashing of the candidates especially when candidates is going in the same direction of issues. Leave the bashing to the GOP and FOX, we need to build up the DNC candidates.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. We don't need any more fake Third Way types parading around as Democrats. NO MORE DINO's

[area51]

9. +1 n/t

[HooptieWagon]

4. After Wall St deliberately crashed the economy...

... in order to enrichen themselves, I don't think a Wall St candidate can be considered the best Dem candidate. Hillary is well-known, at this point she's going to have a difficult time of walking away a 30 year history of being a corporatist. I think it would be healthy for the Party and Country to have several primary contenders representing a spectrum of positions. Obviously the corporatist Third Way apparatus don't want any debate, and would like to coronate Hillary without opposition.

[anti partisan]

6. Exactly

I thought the reason the GOP needed to lose was to reverse corporate-centric policies. I strongly doubt Hillary "Sachs"-of-Money Clinton would even move the country in the right direction. Maybe she'd put on the brakes a bit but we need real progressive leadership in order to make a difference. Someone who fights for POLICIES rather than POLITICS.

[Thinkingabout]

8. Elizabeth Warren will have to be included in the Wall Street gang also.

[djean111]

5. More and more obvious the DNC does not want a primary at all.

Hedge their bet.

[DFW]

7. He's right in a broad sense: we DO need Hillary in 2016

But we don't NECESSARILY need her as our candidate for President. Her "graceful loser" stance at the Denver convention and her subsequent campaigning almost surely helped Obama's margin of victory in 2008.

If she's not our nominee, and I still give that better than a 50% chance, we definitely want her out there stumping for our nominee, ESPECIALLY if that nominee takes a significantly more progressive stance than she has so far. The Republicans will throw at least two billion into the 2016 race, and we'll need every "wing" of the Democratic spectrum we can get to the polls--especially when Republicans nationwide are doing everything they can to make sure we can't get to the polls.

[bigwillq]

10. Let the people decide.

I don't want a coronation, whether it's Clinton or someone else.
I'm hoping for a spirited primary season; it's what Democracy is all about.
The more choices, the better, imo.