Run, Hillary, run, say Senate's Dem women

[Agschmid]

[center][/center]

All of the Senate's Democratic women have reportedly signed a letter throwing their support behind Hillary Clinton's expected bid for president in 2016, the latest indication the former secretary of State would clear the field if she ran.

According to Capital New York, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) told a gathering of Democratic women hosted by EMILY's List of the letter.

“All of the Senate Democratic women have written her a letter encouraging her to run,” Hagan said at the Monday event.

Hagan said she does, indeed, support a potential Clinton presidential bid, a shift from 2008 when she avoided backing either Clinton or then-Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.

According to ABC News, the letter was organized by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as a "private show of support" for their former colleague.

The former secretary of State has not yet decided on a run, but Democrats expect her to enter the race and largely clear the field.

The reported letter is the latest indication that Clinton's candidacy would likely dissuade other contenders from running.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have all been mentioned as possible Democratic contenders, but if they've signed onto the letter, that signals they'd step aside for Clinton.

At least one female senator, Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), has already announced she'd support a Clinton presidential bid, backing the pro-Clinton super-PAC Ready for Hillary.

Hagan, Clinton and Boxer's offices did not respond to a request for comment.

[HERVEPA]

1. Is this retro week for you? What's with all the years old articles?

[artislife]

2. And multiple OPs

[Agschmid]

3. Who are you CNN?

Trying to limit debate?

[artislife]

10. Who are you? Pravda?

Same OP at least twice -----today!

[Agschmid]

11. Yes and?

Is there a rule I'm breaking?

[artislife]

14. Just like Hillary

"Is there a law I am breaking?"
or Clinton
"It depends what "is" is"

No, you are not breaking a written rule, but ...ooh I just almost got caught. Oh what I had to delete....heh..very clever.



Lets just say, repeating and regurgitating old news may be a symptom of no substance.

It is also very boring for many who would like to not have to read the same stale OPs again and again.

[Agschmid]

16. I personally couldn't agree more...

Maybe you'll let some others know...

Lets just say, repeating and regurgitating old news may be a symptom of no substance.

It is also very boring for many who would like to not have to read the same stale OPs again and again.

[artislife]

19. And yet, like Hilary

You still practice what you "abhor".

I used that word, admittedly, not you.

But there you go.

Enjoy working for your candidate. Absolutely fantastic news that you are in her camp!!!

[winter is coming]

23. Looks like a clumsy attempt to imply endorsements which haven't actually occurred. n/t

[Agschmid]

4. Well this is in response to a video from 2004...

At least my shit is from the same year.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. As if there was ever any doubt....

this just proves that the entire Clinton campaign has been a sham since before it officially started.

[SunSeeker]

6. Warren is in on that "sham."

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Your point?

[SunSeeker]

8. The conspiracy theories here are getting out of hand.

Now Warren goes under the bus too, relegated as a Hillary Clinton co-conspirator.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. Hardly.

I think that there was pressure within the Democratic establishment to show support for Hillary. There is still a Clinton wing of the party and they still have influence.

The simple fact that Sen. Warren signed something that encouraged Hillary to run doesn't elevate her to some kind of "co-conspirator". The Clintons simply used their influence to make it look like Hillary was being convinced to run when she was already planning on running.

I don't blame any of the people who signed the letter. I blame the Clintons for the deception.

[artislife]

12. Arm twisting?

At the very least, any woman who was a Dem who didn't sign would look like a tool.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. I didn't say that.

I said "influence". I also said that it was the Clintons who were guilty of the deception.

There wasn't any doubt that Hillary was running. Making it look as if Hillary needed convincing is an attempt at deception.

[artislife]

21. I know, it was me who wrote that

I didn't mean to imply you said that.

I was taking it a step further.

[SunSeeker]

22. So Clinton "deceived" Warren into signing that letter?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. Yes...run Hillary run...run as fast as you can from your prior positions and flip flop. lol!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Agschmid]

18. Remember things that happened two years ago are old news...

And should not be reported on the Internet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251697507#post14

[GeorgeGist]

17. Democracy at it's finest ...

clear the field

[frylock]

20. How many women in the Democratic Congress DIDN'T sign this letter?

This letter always struck me as being like the birthday card that gets passed around the office. Maybe you don't particularly like or agree with the person whose card you are signing, but you sign the card anyway. In any case, Hillary is running, just like the letter urged. I, like others here, question the reason that you would feel a need to post this ancient news. Twice.

on edit: I'm shocked to see McCaskill was the first to jump on the gravy train.... errrrr bandwagon. Just shocked.