I oppose Hillary Clinton, completely and without reservation. She's not inevitable.

[cali]

She was supposedly inevitable in 2008 as well. Even without a Barack Obama surprise on the horizon, I don't buy into her inevitability no matter what the polls or big money says. There's a Hillary fatigue that hasn't really made itself apparent yet, but it will if she runs and when others declare that they're running.

I opposed her in the primaries in 2008 because she voted for the IWR, just as I opposed John Kerry in 2004 for the same reason.

Now, I have many more reasons to oppose her.

She's one of the primary authors for the U.S. of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Having been SoS, she owns Obama policies such as the NSA mass surveillance and the expanded drone policy. She's inextricably bound to Obama policies. There is virtually no way for her to separate herself from them- not that there's any indication that she wishes to. Those issues may have been skirted by those on the left in 2012, but there wasn't a dem primary then. There will be in 2015 and those issues will be prominent and the left will not be quiet about them.

Clinton's Middle East policy, particularly as it concerns Israel and Palestine is horribly unbalanced. That may not be as much of an issue, but it will come up. It will be interesting to see if other candidates will have positions that differ even slightly from Hillary's unrelenting pro-Israel position.

Sure I'd like to support a woman for President. Clinton has undoubtedly put in the time and hard work, but she is what she is; someone who is as corporate a candidate as you could find in the democratic party. I can't support that in the primaries and if she is the nominee, for the first time since I was registered to vote, I can envision myself not voting. If I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I likely would, but as I don't, that's not a concern.

She's smart, she's hard working, she's been great for the rights of women, but she's been even better for corporate America.

[Apophis]

1. She's an awful choice for Dems.

[movonne]

55. DLCer...I like Hillary....but not for president.

[merrily]

124. New Democrat, DLCer, potato, potahto.

[roguevalley]

203. If we need to know that our politics is industrial and a closed circle, her being president is proof

[Scuba]

2. I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson share a ticket.

[cali]

5. Appealing as that is, it's a fantasy ticket.

I've written why several times, so I won't get into it here. I'd like to see it anyway.

[avaistheone1]

21. Perhaps the fantasy ticket could be at least one of these too.

Remember, people thought that Obama becoming President was a fantasy too.

[cali]

33. I didn't. Starting in 2004, cemented that belief in 2006 when

I saw him speak at UVM's Ira Allen Chapel. I supported him within a short time after he announced, convinced he'd win.

[avaistheone1]

35. You didn't, but many if not most thought it was a fantasy.

I see more than what Elizabeth Warren SAYS, I see what she can do and I am more than favorably impressed.

[NewJeffCT]

275. I love Elizabeth Warren

but, she would never win on a national level. She beat Scott Brown by only 7 points in arguably the most liberal state in the nation.

[tofuandbeer]

262. I certainly thought Obama was a fantasy ticket. My wife chose him early on...

I didn't think he had a chance.

[Scuba]

51. I have little doubt that voters would embrace the message those two would convey.

As for the PTB letting them run? Fantasy.

[cali]

129. Some voters would, but lots would see them as

evil communists wanting to take away their flat screens.

[jtuck004]

218. We would never get those voters without compromising D principles anyway, so who cares? n/t

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)

[Scuba]

268. Those people already vote Republican. EW and AG could tap into the 40% who don't vote now.

[ctsnowman]

279. This ^^^^

Despite the number of eligible voters increasing by more than eight million since the 2008 elections, voter turnout declined by five million this Election Day, according to a report released by the Bipartisan Policy Commission and the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
The report revealed that despite a tight presidential election that saw an estimated $6 billion spent and an eight million person increase in the number of eligible voters, turnout dropped from 62.3 percent of those eligible voting in '08 to an estimated 57.5 percent in 2012. The figure was also lower than in 2004 (60.4%). There were 131 million votes cast in 2008, 126 million in 2012, and about 93 million eligible voters did not exercise their right to vote.

[Nay]

280. I agree. There's a pent-up anger out there that could easily be tapped by strong language

directed at the sonsabitches who are ruining this country. Honestly, all we have to do is be directly confrontational in dealing with the banks, corporations, and DLC toadies and there would be an outpouring of support from a good portion of the 99%. The reason there is so much apathy is that there seems to be no one to confront the actual causes of many of our problems. All they want to do is tinker around the edges at best, and implement corporate-loving solutions at worst. Change that dynamic and you'll get plenty of grassroots support.

[Scuba]

286. We need to stand on traditional Democratic principles, by advocating for ...

... Living Wage

... Medicare for All

... Strengthen, expand Social Security

... Legalize weed

and

... Cut defense to pay for it all

[NYC_SKP]

142. So was Barack Hussein Obama...

K/R by the way....

Who then do you like for POTUS?

[Marr]

238. We are one more bank crash away from a Warren presidency becoming quite achievable, imho.

[lumpy]

241. Start campaigning then.

n

[MADem]

105. Elizabeth Warren--my senator, btw--is beloved nationally for her stance on banks.

Most people know NOTHING about her besides that. They like the fact that she is earnest and energetic.

They also don't know that she used to be a Republican.

[xtraxritical]

140. I'd love to vote for E. Warren. I will never ever vote for Hillary.

[MADem]

150. Well, I voted for Liz, and I will vote for Hillary should we be lucky enough to see her run. nt

[Vanje]

151. Elizabeth Warren is beloved by me, too!

The banksters dont own her and she fights fearlessly and very well.

[MADem]

154. Many in the commonwealth agree, and we'd like to keep her as our "senior" senator. nt

[Vanje]

161. Don't blame you

She is important where she is....but, OH! how I'd like to see her in the debates.

[Paper Roses]

153. Ditto for state and endorsement.

We need more people with the intestinal fortitude of Elizabeth. She has made good on her promises so far. I hope it lasts. Like her a lot, hope she does not give up fighting the Washington 'do-nothings'.

[cascadiance]

208. Cenk Uygur used to be a Republican, Thom Hartmann campaigned for Barry Goldwater...

I recall as a kid at one time even championing Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey before I knew fully what was happening in the world. I don't think we can hold her having been a Republican at some point against her. Everything I've seen her do presently has been consistent with progressive values that many of us here value and feel important.

The first time she was visible to me was not as a candidate for senate, nor as a part of the plan to build the Consumer Protection Agency. Way before her involvement in "politics" in any way. It was seeing this video online, which hit me hard, because it is such an informed hour from her that showed the difference between the life we of today are living compared to what we lived as kids in the 60's and 70's. I referenced it many places to point out to others the facts of how today's Americans were in a big financial bubble as it was the best explanation for someone who's patient enough to watch this full hour.

This history of how I discovered her, and how I've watched her grow in the scene of creating agencies working for us, and now being a senator working both for those in Massachusetts and us all as Americans, has me more convinced that she definitely IS the best woman to be the first one in the office of POTUS, to set the best example for other women moving forward of why we should have more women in this office too. Obama's been a disappointment, and I hope his career hasn't made it harder for other well qualified and harder working candidates of color in the future for this office. I don't want that to happen for our first woman president. I'm really afraid that we will regret Ms. Clinton (who's family does what the OP has said, has supported H-1B Visa expansion, has been a part of the family that helped start the corporatist and Koch funded DLC cancer of the Democratic Party). We need someone that will set us down a more progressive path. I don't want to hear that she's a "fantasy". Because that is exactly what the media is trying to do to marginalize her and keep her on the edges, like they've done with Kucinich when they had both a woman and a man of color, and a man they probably knew had personal baggage before he started running and championing progressive values (John Edwards). We shouldn't allow ourselves to be manipulated in the same way again this coming election. With global warming already perhaps heading towards humanity's destruction. We simply can't afford to make another mistake.

[MADem]

213. Well, that was a lovely lecture, but I wasn't "holding it against her."

I worked to get her elected and drove dozens of people to the polls to vote for her.

I will, in future, though, note with irony that Hillary working as a Young Republican in High School has been and likely will be held against her should she choose to run--as has happened before (never mind that she was a House lawyer for the Watergate imbroglio).

The guy that runs Daily Kos was a Republican, too. So was Bill Maher before he was a libertarian and then a contributor to Democrats, if not a registered one (no idea about him, really).

And Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, and he did more to destroy social program legislation than any other individual in the past half century.

I think she'd have trouble as a Presidential candidate. She isn't as tough or hardened as Clinton. She's not smooth on the stump when she's outside her "area." She didn't have real competition in the Senate race--she was running against an ig-nint blowhard who thought that sneeringly calling her "Per-fesser" and mocking her understanding of having native heritage with a tomahawk chop were smart ideas.

She is a great senator, and I think she ought to stay a great senator for a couple or three or four terms, assuming she's feeling good.

[cascadiance]

217. Personally, if she doesn't run for president, I think she should be the VP choice...

... for someone like a Russ Feingold or a Tom Harkin, or if we could have another real progressive choice win the primaries. Probably a man too in that instance if we want Warren as VP, as I don't think the Dems would run a two woman ticket, much as I would be OK with that (with the right women on the ticket of course).

That way, if we had a good progressive president and her waiting in the wings to take over after that president's two terms, we could have a nice "dynasty" that might really do the needed changes that FDR needed many terms to carry out then too. Her seasoning herself as VP for a few years would make her an excellent candidate for president later, and without anyone then questioning her "experience" then.

And David Brock also was a pretty heavy hitter Republican before he saw the light too.

I'd be worried that the "inevitability" of Clinton would lead to another election like 2010 where a lot of the progressive base gets frustrated and stays home, and Republicans win then, and our planet gets doomed by the final onslaught of global warming as a result, and the world of Mad Max being what we will have to start living not too long afterwards...

[MADem]

222. She needs to be where she is--LEGISLATING.

Presidents and VPs don't make laws. Congress does. She is, right now, in the spot where she can make the most difference.

Russ Feingold has personal issues and is out of elective politics--he was just appointed a special envoy to Africa by Kerry. Tom Harkin is much too old.

We don't have a VP of banking. And we are long overdue for a female President. We're not at the stage where two female candidates can occupy one ticket. We're still in "There Can Be Only One" territory as a nation. Not quite sufficiently evolved.

[cascadiance]

293. But sorely need progressive LEADERSHIP now, and have been lacking that for decades!

Hillary will not bring us this leadership that's needed.

Russ Feingold's personal issues? Is just not being married enough to keep him out? We certainly have had older and more age affected presidents on the Republican side who've been held up as their icons. I could come up with younger candidates like Jeff Merkley, etc. but then they are too "inexperienced". Which is it? The problem is we've lived for too long in a country with a corrupt election system that has compromised so much of the "experienced" pols we have now. That is why I want someone like Warren on the ticket now. It's hard to find those that we really need to have as leaders that have been "allowed" to get in to places like the Senate for more than one term.

If Warren can become president later, there will be more to follow in her path to the Senate to carry a more progressive flag and agenda in her foot steps. We need that. That's why we don't just need her legislation (and we have at least three more years for her to do that work now), but we need someone like her leadership too.

DLC "leadership" has infected the party for way too long and has allowed the Koch Brothers who funded it to keep it from being an effective party that represents its grass roots and instead more compromised to be servants to the corporatist elites. This chain needs to be absolutely broken in the coming election for things like climate change, election reform, a more sane SCOTUS, etc. to happen. Hillary simply will not be the one to break that chain, and that's why the media is pushing her as being "inevitable" now as a meme even on places like DU, so that subconsciously we'll "accept" this "inevitability" well before primary seasons start. I and others here simply do not accept that this time.

Make no mistake. Hillary is still probably a lot better than whatever the GOP can come up with, but she still isn't a step away from the corporatist state that is absolutely necessary at this point of our nation's history. Warren for me, is that step that is needed now.

[MADem]

300. Well, I rather doubt Warren will run for the Presidency. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

301. $5 bet?

It's in her nature. I think she'll go for it.

And being a former Republican will be a plus - the fact that she's considered a lefty Dem these days shows how incredibly far right both parties have gone.

[MADem]

302. Donate it to your local animal shelter.

Time will tell, but I don't think she will.

I think she might head up the Democratic nominee's campaign management efforts in Massachusetts, though.

[Chan790]

278. Hillary was a "Goldwater girl"

and a self-admitted staunch conservative until halfway through her time at Yale. I just think it's questionable for anybody to ever bring up Warren's former dalliance with conservatism while ignoring Clinton's which is why I mention it. Obama said he'd have been considered a moderate Republican in the mid-1980s. Why do all our presidential choices always seem to be more conservative than the rank-and-file Democrats and/or have warmth for conservative ideals?

I want a nominee that feels the same way I do about conservatism and Republicans; and "sensible moderation":

"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."
-Welsh Labour MP Aneurin Bevan (one of the lead activists and whips in the House of Commons behind the creation of the British NHS.)

We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down.
-ibid.

[MADem]

281. Well, if we're going to bring it up--and I wasn't endorsing doing that, just saying that it has

happened in the past and will happen again, should HRC run, we probably ought to talk about the fact that my senator--not as an evolving university "girl" but as a mature adult--voted for Reagan. And Goldwater was way more "liberal" in many ways than Reagan. Reagan was singularly responsible for more holes in the social safety net than any other 20th Century politician.

See where that goes...?

It is not at all true that people who stay smack dab in the middle of the road get run down--that's why that place is so popular--they can dodge the traffic coming AND going. See, it's people who stay in the middle of their own SIDE of the road that have to watch out, because they'll get run over by their OWN people.

[Chan790]

284. Let's just stop running candidates that don't viscerally and life-long despise conservatism! n/t

[MADem]

303. I think we need to run candidates who will win.

And we need to worry about CONGRESS if we want "progressive" laws passed. The President doesn't make law, and the President can get very little done without Congress on his team.

Democrats should approach every single congressional race as do-able, even if it's a long shot. The GOP needs to be put on the defense constantly, and even their shoo-ins need to be made to work--HARD--for their incumbency.

[valerief]

133. Wow. Only in our dreams, though.

[graywarrior]

145. We'd like to keep Elizabeth in MA because we're sick of special elections

We just had another one to fill Kerry's seat and it was exhausting.

[merrily]

263. Another is coming soon--to fill Markey's seat

But, maybe that is only for his district?

[MADem]

282. That is for the good people of Malden to decide. I hope they make a good call. nt

[DrewFlorida]

166. I love Elizabeth Warren's policy and her common sense. She would have my full support!

[indepat]

210. I would whole-heartedly support an EW/AG ticket, but should they win the nomination and general

election, the forces that influenced BHO to reverse his position on so many fiscal/economic issues would surely try to exert the same influence on EW/AG. Hope I would be wrong on this one because, if so, we would be doomed as a nation and people imo: the 1% would have become so entrenched that nothing could dislodge their power and influence on government and control thereof.

[Whisp]

3. She's not so great for the rights of women in Iraq

For her IWR vote and for her husbands 2 terms of making that country suffer - a relay baton taken from George Sr by Bill and Bill handing if off to the Chimperor to finish the place off.

Lots of talk about human rights, but the record does not support that. But talk gets you some mighty fine speaking fees, doesn't it?

[HappyMe]

4. I agree.

If she runs, I truly hope that there is a primary. I really hate the thought of being steam-rolled into voting for her.

[kentuck]

6. I'm trying to imagine who would be in her Cabinet?

Same old faces, I imagine?

[cali]

10. I think that's about right. It's an interesting exercise though.

[allin99]

12. as the ones we have right now.

[kentuck]

23. However...

As always, I will vote for her over any Republican. Just not terribly enthused.

[bobduca]

253. She couldnt use the Cabinet of Rivals approach

so it would be all Pete Peterson clones, who self-declare as Democrats.

[MotherPetrie]

7. K&R. She would just be more of the same, in a pantsuit.

Funny, that was one of Obama's supposed pluses -- he wasn't a Bush or a Clinton.

Look how that turned out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I tend to agree at this point with a mountain

Resident I met the other day covering the fire. It really matters little who we vote for.

Yes one party is slightly better for immigrants and the poor...but otherwise there is no difference. The whole system is so corrupt.

So come 2016 I will vote in local elections, county, even state...federal, I don't care anymore. None works for the people, unless you are among the super rich. Elections are just a show for the rubes, and help to keep people divided.

Yup, go ahead...call me a cynic.

As to people like Grayson or Warren ever running for President? A) they won't be allowed to, and b) if by mistake they won, pass the fainting couch, they will disappoint the rest of us. It's the empire...period

[cali]

13. add women's rights to that

and the SCOTUS

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. As I said, I don't play

I will vote my conscience...period. And I live in a state where who I vote for matters at the local level...federal, not really.

[cali]

18. Who is asking you to "play"? Jaysus, Nadin. Try not reading

things into a post that aren't remotely there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. I meant it in the sense that SCOTUS, women's rights.

Those are important, but where it really matters...(they do but) TTP, nafta, not going after Wall Street, following empire, not a tinkers damn of difference.

18 years of age, we thought the same about the PRI... We are there as a country at a point where elections are a show to keep the proles calm. Bu we don't chose them...especially at that level...why will HRC not run? Not because she's a woman, a democrat, or there is Clinton fatigue. The rubes will be manipulated again...no, that's not the reason. It has to do with compliance to those who control the flow of money. If they decide she's not good, they will let her know.

If they decide she will be good for business, money will flow and the propaganda will continue.

Suffice it to say, both top candidates will be pro corporatist and pro empire...no doubt in my mind, and they will get an ROI out of it. It's we at the lowest levels who buy into the parties are different. On the edges they are. Those social issues are a means of control and crowd management.

At the fundamental level, "what is good for GM is good for America..." No difference.

And the corruption is epic as well.

Sorry...I cover politics, it does not mean I have any interest in actually voting anymore. It won't make a tinkers...why I said, I won't play ( that game) anymore.

The system needs fundamental reforms...they won't happen by voting.

[Maedhros]

111. That's where I'm at, nadin.

What good is it if every positive accomplishment is accompanied by a greater erosion of the core principles of the Constitution? Is (e.g.) immigration reform accomplishing anything if, at the same time, habeus corpus is abolished, due process is abandoned and the First and Fourth Amendments are nullified?

It only makes sense if we assume that erosion of core civil liberties is a foregone conclusion, and electing the lesser evil means we get some lipstick on the pig.

It's not progress if we don't hold onto the rights we already have.

[CrispyQ]

157. Can you have social justice without economic justice?

I keep voting for the lesser of two evils, the ones who will at least not assault social justice. Can you have one without the other?

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. no

[CrispyQ]

162. That's what I think, too.

And I agree, we are well past changing things at the ballot box. It's too compromised & corrupt.

[Auntie Bush]

232. Oh boy! Let's all stay home, again...like in 2010. Look what that got us.

The Tea Party! Will we ever learn? I guess not from the sounds of this post and many others.
Won't make any difference if we have an even more conservative SC or if we women lose any more rights. Just go ahead and not vote.

[CrispyQ]

234. Can you have social justice without economic justice?

I didn't stay home in 2010, so fuck your post.

~ insert flip-the-bird smiley here.

[Cleita]

126. We still have a good senator in Barbara Boxer and we need to support her with our votes.

I actually now have a decent Dem Rep, now that the extreme gerrymandering has been ended with the new method of drawing districts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Pay to play comes to mind

And Cali is a little better with the citizen's commission.

But pay to play will neuter the best of intentions.

You could say the NSA scandal...hi guys...was the last straw for me.

[cascadiance]

211. I've liked Boxer earlier too. Hope she fixes the one big mistake she just made on filibuster vote..

... next week.

She was mentioned as one of a few Democrats that kept Merkley, Udall, and Harkin's talking filibuster rules from happening at the beginning of this term. She will hopefully now be one of the votes that changes these filibuster rules next week when Reid calls the question to address recent filibuster rules of Obama's appointments. Appointment filibusters should always have had the rule changes being made, as unlike other legislation (which we weren't going to get much good bills to have the Senate vote on from the House anyway this term), appointments are definitely screwed up when the Senate can't have a simple majority vote on them.

[Cleita]

214. Even if she doesn't, we have the likes of Carly Fiorini et al waiting in the wings to replace

her. This is not a good.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

147. Agreed!

First lets work on taking corporate influence out of the federal political scene.
No matter who you run, once they take the money, they are owned.
No matter the campaign promises, the record they build, or our perception.
Once bought they never have us in their plans.
Yes I'm cynical, but look what has happened so far.

As always I will vote democratic, but not with much enthusiasm, or expectations.

When we have free elections, I will change my stance. But I'm 61 and running out of time, and it will take time, lots of time.

[zeeland]

158. Warren and Grayson both have children.

As long as anyone in the Oval Office has children they are vulnerable
to threats and blackmail.

[Blackford]

9. This is why we hold primaries

See you on the campaign trail. I jumped on board the Obama bandwagon immediately (was expecting him to announce months before he did) and I'm now on the Hillary bandwagon and will stay there unless she decides not to run.

Kirsten Gillibrand is my #2 choice right now.

[dmosh42]

11. I agree completely with your thoughts, but when we're faced with Hillary vs 'wacko Republican',...

what then?

[cali]

15. If I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I'd hold my nose and take the plunge

but I live in Vermont which will reliably vote for her despite her not being nearly liberal enough for this state.

[allin99]

14. She's not going to run. Why would she go through all that vitriol and sexism again.

[frylock]

57. ego?

[allin99]

59. i'm sure you could come up with lots more negative reasons...

like the republicans have for years. good times. Reach back to 1991, i'm sure you have them all ready to go.

[frylock]

63. i don't support conservatives regardless of what letter they append to their name

[allin99]

73. i wasn't referring to that, however...

the least i should see so far here is that policy people don't agree with means that the person who runs on that policy has alterior motives for everything, (and the clintons most of all, the bad evils). Which is just not true. Sometimes people just believe in middle of the road policy, same was as people to the left of her believe in theirs. But i also forget many people who are into politics make it about the person b/c that's what campaigns often turn politics into. Which is why R's made up their entire narrative of her since '91.

[totodeinhere]

92. The prospect of the presidency is a powerful draw. And do you really think that she

would pass up a chance to become our first woman president? That would put her in the history books right up along side of Barack Obama.

[MADem]

152. Because she is a public servant, and she's the best woman for the job. nt

[Orsino]

17. And yet I'll stump for her if she's nominated.

Just not very enthusiastically.

We can do better (which would make an anticlimactic campaign slogan), and I detest dynasties.

[avaistheone1]

19. Hillary brings nothing new to the table for Democrats or for this country

other than a pantsuit.

[11 Bravo]

65. Enough with the "pantsuit" bullshit. If you don't like her policies or positions say so, but ...

the inability to mention Hillary without an obligatory sneering "pantsuit" reference should remain the exclusive domain of Freepers.

[cali]

69. I completely agree. I noticed that too and I should have spoken out

it should be about policy.

[avaistheone1]

71. I don't like her policies.

I really don't care if the freepers call her a "pantsuit" or not, "if the suit fits wear it".

[aquart]

231. What, pray tell, is objectionable about a pantsuit?

What horror is it expected to conjure from your sneering lips to my mind?

[MADem]

107. Well said--it is a sexist reference and it says more about the person spouting it than they perhaps

realize.

You get a big thumbs up from me.

[awoke_in_2003]

185. Hear, hear....

I don't care for Hillary, but am tired of hearing about pant suits. Seems a bit sexist.

[Beacool]

190. This place makes me sick at times.

The hatred for the Clintons is just as bad as it is at Free Republic.

[lumpy]

237. No shit. These non-Democrats better figure on creating a third party because the Republican

party is a helliva lot worse. The GOP in congress has managed to screw up this country with their petulant refusal to cooperate with our current leadership on every damned issue bringing progress on most issues to a standstill to the detriment of the US.
So gather together all you haters of the Democratic Party leadership and start your own agenda whatever the hell it is. Maybe you might get some Republican members to join up. If you are in love with capitalism and pseudo-fascism and all the wonderfull things it has brought to us then I would suggest you come up with something more appealing than the stuff that the onepercent support wholeheartedly.

[MADem]

254. Well, all you can do is consider the source.

There are some people on this Democratic discussion board who spend an awful lot of time railing against Democrats--it's like a full time job for a small few. I wonder when "honest ideological disagreement" morphs into "Don't really like anything the Democratic Party stands for," quite frankly. If they hate it so much, why do they stay?

Probably because this is the smartest "room" in town, I'm thinking. Toss 'em out, they grab a sock out of the dryer and back they come...it's like catnip to the kitty, this place. They claim to not like most Democrats, but they just Can't. Stay. AWAY!

You'd think they'd get a life, or work for the party they favor, instead of complaining about the one they dislike. Work does take effort, though...

[merrily]

264. Because their DLC changed the Democratic Party.

Hillary and Al From even went on a tour of nations, trying to spread the DLC gospel to people like Blair. Seem to have done a pretty good job, too.

The DLC has been a very powerful tool in the war on the 99%. Small wonder the Koch brothers gave it seed money.

[cali]

20. This article, written by Clinton in 2011, gives valuable insight into her priorities.

It's long, but worth the read.

from the article:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century?page=0,0

[Snotcicles]

77. Delete

[Beacool]

191. And????

[cantbeserious]

22. Thank You - Well Said - I Agree Completely

eom

[lindysalsagal]

24. I'm surprised to find I'm not alone on this: Nothing to do with Bill, either.

I they have an unusual marriage I don't give a crap. I just don't like her politics, and her RW leanings, prayer groups, etc.

She's a career politician and she will bring alot of no voters to the national election.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

229. You nailed it. We don't need Repuke lite.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

230. You nailed it. We don't need Repuke lite.

[hfojvt]

25. me too

but I think she is inevitable. If she runs, I don't see anybody who can beat her.

I'd still like to see Mark Dayton try.

[cali]

26. no, no, no, hfojvt. remember that was said in 2006, 2007 and early 2008

I really do think there's a reservoir of Hillary fatigue that will become apparent.

I refuse to believe that she's inevitable.

[hfojvt]

36. there was a ton of Hillary sipport then too

and it is still here, and even more so.

I just don;t think we can count on lightning striking twice.

We got lucky in 2008, at least until we got "fooled again". I don't think we can count on luck a second time. Maybe if somebody else starts running right now and builds up a ton of steam.

But heck, try a poll on DU and see if Dayton beats Clinton even on DU where she has almost as many detractors as I do.

[MineralMan]

78. I don't think Dayton's goals include a presidential run.

I like him, but I doubt that he sees that as a future option, frankly.

[forestpath]

27. K&R

[madrchsod]

28. old wine in old bottles

we need new leadership for the future of the party and our democratic process.

[dembotoz]

30. couple years out and we have already given up on fielding a progressive

Hilary is not my 1st choice

[totodeinhere]

93. I don't know who it is just yet but I would be very surprised if a major Democrat

does not run to the left of Clinton. But we shall see.

[TransitJohn]

212. Given up? This is the preemptive action.

It's more like, "Can't let the rank-and-file get a progressive in front." Remember Howard Dean?

[DJ13]

31. I agree, but

She seemed inevitable, unbeatable, and had all the usual neo liberal types lined up behind her, and yet.......the elites pushed Obama over Hillary in 08.

There was a reason she was pushed out of the way, and that answer is important to this discussion.

I think she isnt trusted to be a faithful lapdog by the elites, like they're afraid she might actually do things to represent at least some of the interests of the 99% over them.

Should she be the nominee, I might have to hold my nose and vote for her, but I doubt she would be worse than Obama at this point.

[MisterP]

227. ah, like Nixon

[LittleBlue]

32. I will work with every ounce of my strength to defeat her

She is another 4 years of 1% rule.

She was "inevitable" in 2008. She was defeated. She can be defeated again.

Too old, too entitled, and flat out not good enough.

[MADem]

155. If she is our nominee, you won't be doing that here. nt

[lumpy]

240. Damn straight. DU doesn't aprove of Republicans campaigning on this site.

Some of these Obama haters are scatterbrained.

[tularetom]

34. A lot of TV talking heads are trying to make us think she's inevitable

But if you want to see voters say "meh" and sit out the 2016 presidential election, nominate Hillary and Jeb Bush.

At that point, faced with that choice most Americans will finally catch onto the fact that it makes no fuckin difference whatsoever who the president is, the same people will be running the place.

[1-Old-Man]

38. And a lot of us Democratic Voters will do what we can to see that she is not our Candidate

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Agreed

[lamp_shade]

37. Why am I not surprised.

[cali]

39. Perhaps because I've hardly made a secret of my political beliefs?

[Zoeisright]

244. Yeah, me either.

I certainly wish I could block certain people on this site.

[Heywood J]

297. Look for the ignore icon next to the person's name.

[JaneyVee]

41. I propose we wait to hear everyone's platform on where they stand during

The primaries then make a decision based on our preferences.

[cali]

42. We know where Hillary Clinton stands. We could hardly have

a clearer picture.

[JaneyVee]

60. People evolve. I'm open to hearing from a wide range of candidates.

And whoever eventually does win the primary I will gladly vote for. I am 110% against having this Republican Party in control of any branch of Govt.

[allin99]

82. She's been the same person for her 40 years in politics...

she's not randomly going to turn into not a hawk. She'll be women, children, education, hawk, centrist(ish) on economy, international intervention, and a fighter. there will be the same candidates as 2008 with dif. names and faces. You can line them up in ideology, whoever is the most to the left and the 2nd to the left without being libertarian to the left will get the support from people here. The person with the most anti-corp rhetoric will gain the most support here, and the most exciting candidate will win generally.

things are very simple in elections like that.

[JaneyVee]

91. And America will decide.

[allin99]

97. I just meant about the evolution and...

also whether we should "wait and see". : ).

[truebluegreen]

177. First the Lesters will decide.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

I'm with Nadin: national politics are a farce.

[allin99]

67. they'll be 2 very liberal people...

some guy who's into foreign policy, someone acceptable. It's the same thing every single time.

people on the left will pick the most liberal and also will choose the person who pretends to be liberal and people closer to the left will choose the one with more rhetoric.

And since Hillary has an actual past, she will be the hawk that she is, people with no past will claim they are not and people will say zomg, that person is against war cuz they say so.

There's no reason to wait.

the only dif. this time is that no one will able to say i'm for change b/c no one is going to believe that for a long time. AND it's difficult to say you want to change against a previous dem administration. I think many here are old enough to know the drill.

[JaneyVee]

76. I'm a fan of democracy, so may the best person win the primaries.

America will decide.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

156. If you mean....

America = Corporate power. I agree.

If not, we will see!

[Heywood J]

298. So you'll be pushing the party to hold all primaries on the same day

instead of letting a handful of early states cut down the number of candidates that other states can vote for?

[L0oniX]

135. After Obama I am not going to believe anything these rich people say or promise on the campaign.

It's mostly bull shit ...to get elected ...then the bus gets to roll over a bunch of believers. It's bad enough they are already talking up Chelsea.

[rhett o rick]

149. Sure, like they arent going to mislead us. nm

[kpete]

43. i hate to recommend this

but at 60, i am SO OVER
my generation
being in charge


WE FAILED PEOPLE



peace, (never give up hope, even in these times) kpete

[firenewt]

68. I'm with you on that. We tend to recycle the same old shit and say 'it will be different this

time'. Right.............................

[kpete]

80. we will probably have a choice between

Hillary and Jeb

and I will eat my words and

vote CLINTON


won't feel real good, but then again....haven't felt really good about a president since I was 12 years old.

[totodeinhere]

95. Oh won't that be wonderful. Either another Clinton or another Bush. We desperately need

another alternative.

[AgingAmerican]

144. "Another Clinton" is a misogynistic argument

That women do not have the ability to think independently from their husbands.

[liberal_at_heart]

169. oh give me a break it is no different than saying another Bush.

It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the fact that both Bill and Hillary have taken a lot of money from corporations and lobbyists and have been favorable to them when writing policy in return.

[AgingAmerican]

252. Yes, it is

It's much different.

[totodeinhere]

171. I think that's quite a stretch. My opposition to Clinton has to do with issues, not her gender.

And I would love to see a woman president named Elizabeth Warren.

[DonCoquixote]

172. If she wanted to define her own policy

She has had the mike for her years as Senator and SoS, and sadly, she has not changed one bit.

[Nay]

283. Well, exactly. She's had plenty of chances to differentiate herself from her DLC hubby and

all the rest of the 1%ers, but she hasn't - not in any discernible way. Would she be a tiny bit better on women's issues? Maybe. But that's about it. And if the PTB told her to lay off women's issues, she would.

[Enthusiast]

44. We want someone more aligned with the people's values.

We don't want someone ready to jump into every free trade deal they see. We don't want someone willing to ignore Wall Street malfeasance. We don't want someone that wants to privatize social security. We don't want someone that would put corporate needs above the people's needs. We don't want another pretend Democrat.

[ProSense]

45. Howard Dean

"I opposed her in the primaries in 2008 because she voted for the IWR, just as I opposed John Kerry in 2004 for the same reason. "

...thinks she's "inevitable."

“I think Hillary’s going to win the nomination,” Dean said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023232477

I strongly supported John Kerry, and he was the most consistently outspoken against the war.

That's neither here nor there, and 2016 is a long way off.

I'm rooting for a strong field, including Elizabeth Warren and Martin O'Malley.

We'll see.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Same goes for her little flagbearer Cuomo as well.

Hell, Hillary should damn near be disqualified based on Mark Penn.

Her hacks are super hackey and stink of ineptitude bailed out by strong tailwinds.

It seems to me the intent is to roll her out there, declare inevitability, and scream sexism or treason to the party to question her policies or fit for the times or anything else save in token fashion and even that will result in whining about beating up our nominee and helping the TeaPubliKlans.

Once in office we'll just see a rinse and repeat of excusing the inexcusable but sexist will sub for racist.

[90-percent]

47. I think shes good

Her public service has generally been positive, BUT

She has thirty years of being intimate with the 1% halls of power and I think she'd pull an Obama - appear to be a populist left leaning campaigner and end up in office doing mostly service for the 1%.

I really don't like her IWR vote - I'm a lowly commoner and I knew the Iraq war justification was bullshit before it started. I think she justified her vote thinking it would be a brief interlude like Gulf War 1, which was less than a year total and the loss of perhaps only 300 patriotic American servicemen. I thought so too, I didn't comprehend at the time how much of a corrupt cluster fuck GWB and his crime family would make of it all.

We need an FDR. He was a .01%-er, but my God he cared about democracy and us little people. Hillary would carry on with the middle class boiling frog squeeze we've been enjoying the last thirty years.

Howard Dean seems like he'd go a lot more in FDR's direction. Grayson would be FDR on 98% nitro and Warren seems like she would never ever yield to the 1% on anything.

jim

[fadedrose]

181. I wish Howard Dean . . . nt

But could accept Warren or Grayson.

[Gman]

48. Gee, How nostalgic!

Hillary bashing threads. Just like so many years ago!

[bluestate10]

220. Next comes the Ralph Nader adulation. Um, um, the good old days. nt

[antigop]

49. watch it cali.. you'll be called a "hater" or "basher" nt

[cali]

58. I'm inured to that.

[leftstreet]

114. Get ready to add: "Misogynistic !! Sexist !!"

AARRGGH!!!

8 more years of this crap

[G_j]

50. K&R agreed

& I think the establishment already has chosen her.

[Vanje]

160. Hey. Remember, bout this time 12 years ago....

EVERYONE was saying Leiberman was the inevitable anointed, and only possible candidate to win the primary. (Remember Joe-mentum?)

His campaign was the first to fold.

Its early, yet.

[IDemo]

52. As much as I'm in agreement,

the fact that she's so far ahead in the polls and that she hasn't felt the need to offer a "Sherman statement" denying her interest seems to me to all but put her on the ticket, even if we have 2014 and a convention yet to come.

[Life Long Dem]

53. Bottom line...

I think Obama is going to be very hard to top or to find someone more to the left than he is. What's more important than the presidency right now is Congress. Obama accomplished so much in his first year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x761518

[Peacetrain]

54. I do not have the same reservations you do

I will vote for her if she is the nominee.. I am not doing another Presidential campaign.. I am burned out .. but would vote for Hillary.. Can there be a better nominee.. absolutely.. this idea that the perfect person is lurking out there is not something I embrace.. all people exposed to that amount of power.. will in time disappoint..

[Raine1967]

288. I'd like to tell you something:

My heart fluttered with happiness to see your name here!



That's all.

[Peacetrain]

295. Well my reply to that is:

[watoos]

56. Dean - Castro

[Bombtrack]

61. Totally agree

There are plenty of other great democrats who never sold their soul to the dishonest consultants, Neocons and Walmart's of the world.

[LongTomH]

62. I wish we could get beyond this meme of 'inevitability,' it's bad for democracy.

We need presidential primaries to be forums for discussion of issues. That's why I keep saying we need a good progressive like Howard Dean to run. We need at least someone in the race to articulate traditional progressive, Democratic stands.

Maybe that naive, with a corporate-run media; but, there will be the debates. A progressive could also run a mostly grass-roots campaign talking to people in town hall type meetings.

Just like another poster in this thread, I'm older, over 60; but, I'm not ready to give up and let the rich and the regressive forces they fund have the US.

[RedCappedBandit]

64. I would not support Clinton in the primary.

I, too, would like to support a woman for Pres.

There are other women I would support over her in the primaries.

If she wins the primaries, I'll vote for her anyway. But I won't exactly be ecstatic about it. I feel that it's pretty obvious she serves the same corporate masters as the rest of the politicians that primarily look out for wall street.

[Ikonoklast]

66. I would not vote for another Clinton.

Look at the policies that Bill supported, and see where we are now.

Same DLC crapola with Hillary.

[zeemike]

70. You know when she lost me?

This may sound silly but when she co sponsored a flag burning amendment the first thing she did as a senator...
That may sound like a small thing, but it show me that she could and would sell out to the right wingers.
Fuck that third way crap...we need some new blood...tired of the old blood.
Yes, Warren would be a great choice...and we can pray we don't get fooled again.

[Nay]

285. I forgot about that one, Mike. Yeah, that bolsters my feeling that she would just go along with

stuff because it's popular, rather than do the right thing even if she's the only one doing it.

[MineralMan]

72. Well, that's one voter heard from, then.

Here's the thing: It's 2013. We have a mid-term election between now and announcements of candidacy for the 2016 presidential election. No doubt that will be very interesting, and the first announcements will probably come immediately after the 2014 election is completed.

For now, though, discussion of presidential candidates seems premature in the extreme. Should Hilary Clinton actually run, she'll have competition during the primaries. Then, she'll have to get the nomination at the Democratic Convention.

The only thing I can really say about the 2016 election is that I will vote for and campaign for the Democratic candidate selected at the convention and by the voters in the primary election. I rule nobody out, nor do I think any candidate is "inevitable." We shall see. And when we do, we'll all have to decide what to do in the general election.

It's shocking that people are saying who they won't vote for so far ahead of even the 2014 election. Our attention should be focused on building a larger majority in the Senate and in retaking the majority in the House of Representatives. The presidential election in 2016 will have it's own path and its own list of primary candidates.

I fail to see the utility of "ruling out" candidates at this time.

But, you're one voter, so you can certainly do whatever you wish to do. But, you're just one voter. I'm not sure your utter rejection of Hillary Clinton in 2016 is relevant, really.

[Agschmid]

74. Nice post. n/t

[cali]

81. well, MM, you better run along and post that lecture in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023214466

funny you posted your lecture here and not there. Uh, no, it's utterly predictable and completely disingenuous. And spare me any nonsense about how you didn't see that thread. Unlikely.

Yes, I'm one voter and one poster. Many people here do find this thread relevant. I don't find it relevant that you don't.

[MineralMan]

83. Thanks for the advice.

I believe I'll post in whatever thread that suits me, though. I'll have a look at the thread it your link, though. Thanks.

[MineralMan]

86. Well, I went to the thread at your link, and found that I had indeed

posted in it. Here's my post:

134. If she is the Democratic candidate after the convention,

I will vote for her. I'd prefer some other alternative, though. I can think of a number of possibilities that I'd prefer.

However, I'm not thinking about 2016 at this point. 2014 is just around the corner, and that election is at least as important as the 2016 election.

GOTV 2014!

I said pretty much the same thing there, just as I would have expected. It's too early still, and there's an important election coming up. I'll focus on that one, and then turn my attention to the 2016 election. As I said in the post in that thread, there are candidates I would prefer to Hillary Clinton.

Thanks for the reminder to check the thread.

[cali]

87. lol. not remotely the same thing. you lectured me. you surely did not do the same

in the other thread.

At least be honest.

[MineralMan]

88. I replied to your post, cali.

You see it as a lecture. I see it as my opinion.

I post my opinion wherever I wish to post my opinion. If that doesn't suit you, I'm very sorry, but I will continue to do so.

[Bluenorthwest]

138. At least?

I'd plotz.

[totodeinhere]

98. I don't think that anyone is saying that they won't vote for Clinton in the general if she

gets the nomination. The "I won't vote for Clinton" comments are about the primaries.

[MineralMan]

103. From the Original Post:

I can't support that in the primaries and if she is the nominee, for the first time since I was registered to vote, I can envision myself not voting.

Emphasis mine.

I've seen others say similar things, including two in this very thread.

[totodeinhere]

110. But downthread the OP also said "If I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I'd hold my nose and

take the plunge." I guess I should correct my comment to mean that nobody in a swing state will refrain from voting for Clinton if she is the nominee. But if they are in a reliably blue or red state where the outcome is inevitable one way or the other then they might cast a symbolic vote for someone else or just leave that line blank.

[MineralMan]

115. Yes. However, that was not the question that was raised.

I consider voting to be a responsibility, as well as a right. That responsibility, in my opinion, is to vote for the best candidate to lead between the two who could possibly win. Whether or not I thought my state was a lock for either candidate, I would still vote for the candidate I though was preferable to the candidate from the other party.

Like it or not, and I don't like it, we choose our elected officials from only two parties in almost every case. I will not vote for a candidate who has no chance of being elected. Ever.

[totodeinhere]

119. I respect you point of view but I do think that other people of good conscious

with good intentions may differ on the appropriateness of symbolic votes in non competitive states.

[MineralMan]

120. All I can do is express my opinion.

Not everyone will agree with it, I'm sure.

[closeupready]

75. Agreed. I do not want her to win the nomination, if she runs.

But if she does, I'll support her.

[Snotcicles]

79. Howard Dean / Sheldon Whitehouse. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

84. I don't see how she's NOT inevitable.

Who the hell else would the power brokers let in? Oh, they don't mind if other people run in the "primaries" but they'll be marginalized and their campaigns will be starved and if they get too popular, they'll pull out the smear campaign because goddess forbid we actually have a choice. The only thing that will stop this juggernaut is Hillary declaring that she won't run, which, unless her health becomes an issue, I don't believe for one moment that she WON'T.

[NYC Liberal]

85. I sincerely hope she runs. She was my candidate in 2008 and will be in 2016 if she is on the ballot.

The fact that "She's inextricably bound to Obama policies" is what makes her more appealing to me, not less. By November 2016 we'll have had 8 years with a progressive Democrat in the WH; with Hillary's election we'd have at least 4 more.

[forestpath]

89. K&R. She'd be Bush's 5th term in a lot of ways.

[totodeinhere]

90. And for those who think it's time we had a woman president, I have a much better suggestion.

Senator Warren. Now there is a true progressive.

[RudynJack]

94. Thanks.

I was breathlessly awaiting your opinion on this.

[Crow73]

96. Ironic

This is the add that opened with this thread...



I agree, I don't see me voting for her.

[coldmountain]

99. Hillary actually grew in stature when she joined the Obama administration as Secretary of State

The Republican war on women makes her inevitable unless Democrats win the house in 2014.

[Blue_In_AK]

100. I oppose her, too, Cali,

even though I did caucus for her in 2008 (there were only two left by the time of Alaska's caucus, and I figured "better the devil you know than the one you don't know). I'm sick and tired of the same old corporate bullshit. Sure wish we could come up with someone with new, refreshing ideas. Fat chance, given Citizens United, etc., but we can always "hope," I guess.

[Beacool]

101. Yawn...........

Same old anti Hillary crap, different day. This place is sooooo predictable.

Who cares who you support or not support? If she runs, vote for someone else then.

Fortunately, DU is not the real world and Hillary has millions of supporters. Those of you who choose to stay home or vote third party are free to do so. As for the primary, it won't be like 2008. If Hillary does run, she wins.

[bluestate10]

223. I raise you a YAWN!!!. Does get old, doesn't it? nt

[Cleita]

102. I couldn't agree more. She has served her country now it's time for her to retire and

for her and Bill to get an RV and go see America, the real America, not Washington DC, or Manhattan or the view from a jet flying over it but the America that is 90% of the country. Also, I'm not into dynasties. We still like to think we don't have royalty or an entitled aristocracy.

[Beacool]

106. She'll retire when she chooses to retire.

YOU can take that RV and tour America.

[Cleita]

109. Oh I already did. It was an eye opener. n/t

[Little Star]

201. This thread makes me laugh....

They are all so happy with the young new person who sold them hope and change. They certainly know how to choose a candidate. lol

I don't think I'll trust their judgment this time.

[bvar22]

104. Hillary makes it crystal clear who she "represents" in this video clip:

The Top 6% already have enough "representation" in Washington.
They don't need another President.

BTW: Who was that guy she was debating who said he would Raise the Cap?
He would have made a great President.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises.

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity99%![/font]

[mike_c]

112. what cali said!

+1

[DrewFlorida]

113. Let me clarify your opposition.

When you say you oppose Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, are you saying you voted for George W. Bush and John McCain?
Or are you saying you oppose them as the Democratic candidate, but would still vote for them over George W. Bush and or John McCain?

Every election is a matter of opportunity costs, even if you dislike a certain Democratic candidate, the chances are they would make a much better President than any moron presented by the Republican party. I would go so far as to say Howard Stern would make a better president than Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, and I can't stand Howard Stern.

[Proud Public Servant]

134. No, let ME clarify my opposition

I will support the Democratic nominee. But there are degrees of support.

The lowest level of support is a vote in the general election; the Democratic nominee will get that from me.

But no Corporatist will get my time.

No DLCer will get my money.

And only a progressive will get my vote in the primaries.

Clear enough?

[DrewFlorida]

165. That makes perfect and reasonable sense!

[cali]

141. No. I'm saying I opposed them both in the primaries.

That was clearly expressed in the OP. I can't really help you with your lack of reading comprehension.

[RevStPatrick]

116. Hey... Where's Mr. 80-20?

I've come to respect Mrs. Clinton quite a bit, but I don't want her to be president.
She's WAY too much of a Corporatist.

I felt that she carpetbagged her way into the senate, here in my home state, and I was not happy about it. I've actually never cast a vote for her, and I hope that I don't ever have to.

She's a terrific lady, I wish her the best, but I think it's time for her to retire to the lecture circuit.

[ctsnowman]

287. He was banned. nt

[RevStPatrick]

289. WHAAAAAAATT!!!???

Holy Moley!
When/why did that happen?

Weird...

[ctsnowman]

304. Thursday I think.

Saw it in one of the threads. I don't know what he did. It could have been "4anything".

[colsohlibgal]

117. Tend To Agree

2016 shapes up as another election between a truly awful choice (R) and a well she's not as dreadful as the other candidate choice.

Hillary seems to be full in on free trade and she did buy the Iraq phony war hook, line, and sinker. She has her good points to be sure, but she's a corporate DNC type all the way.

It's why having only 2 choices stinks these days.

[Phlem]

118. A quote from a DU member (and not me).

"she has no skeletons in her closet"



-p

[Whisp]

132. LOL! who said That?

Don't tell me, I think I know.


no skeletons...

[Proud Public Servant]

121. There's just one question you need to ask

Think of your very least-favorite policy of the last 10 years...

...pre-emptive war...
...the Afghan surge...
...letting the banksters off scott-free...
...keeping personal taxes low...
...keeping corporate taxes low...
...the ever-expanding reach of DHS...
...the Keystone pipeline...
...the prosecution of Bradley Manning...
...NSA domestic snooping...
...the still-endless war on drugs...
...the super-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership...

whatever it is, thing of that policy and ask yourself, "Would Hillary have opposed this?" I guar-an-TEE the answer is "no."

[bbgrunt]

122. totally agree. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

123. she's not a liberal, and I will only vote for liberals from now on.

[SheilaT]

125. Talking about the inevitability of Hillary

is rather like the inevitability of the collapse of Social Security. The words "self-fulfilling prophecy" come to mind.

I frequently point out that in 1990 the re-election of George HW Bush was clearly inevitable to all who observed. So all of the more obvious potential Democratic nominees chose to run. Remind me again of how the election of 1992 turned out?

People here act as if there are approximately two, maybe three people altogether who are Democrats and who are on the national radar. It's a long time before the 2016 campaign begins in earnest, and meanwhile I'm under the impression there's an election coming up some time next year.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. Sadly, G4A is no longer with us to tell you that she'll be the most awesome prez since God.

With cross references to LBJ's dogs, Wilson's tophat, and Lincoln's beard.

[JDPriestly]

128. I absolutely agree.

And, silly as it is, she would have a problem with independent voters because of Benghazi and her family's closeness and lack of independence from Wall Street and huge corporations.

She was when she began in politics a great spokesperson for the poor and working people. But she and Bill have hung out with the rich and famous so much that they don't really understand what the rest of us have gone through in the past years.

Besides, Bill Clinton is very responsible for NAFTA. It is a lousy agreement that has uprooted families including working families in America.

NAFTA is bad for us. The Clintons are big free trade advocates. Trade is important, but we opened up to it far too quickly. Too much free trade, too fast. It has shut down our country, and every American is worse off for it.

[L0oniX]

130. Yea ...we need another good cop bad cop show.

[Tarheel_Dem]

136. Well that settles it for me. If you're against her, it only makes me wanna take a second look.

We could do much worse than Hillary, and she's gone a long way to redeeming herself for me personally.

[limpyhobbler]

137. Exactly. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

Absolutely right about the TPP.

It was also Ms. Clinton's State Department that negotiated the insider deals that brought the Keystone Pipeline to the brink of approval. And they tried to seal the deal by hiring oil industry buttwads to write the environmental impact assessment, a serious conflict of interest. Then they tried to cover it up by redacting key bits of the authors' work history in the public documents. But oops some people on the internet downloaded the the PDF files and word got out.

Now the State Department is being sued to to make the files public.

Also never forget that:

the officials in charge seem utterly unconcerned about the conflicts of interest that have plagued this project from the start. Hillary Clinton has stood by while her former deputy campaign manager took a job as TransCanada’s chief lobbyist; stories ... on DeSmogBlog found several big-money bundlers from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign working for lobbyists under contract to TransCanada.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/08/keystone-pipeline-and-obama-s-next-cronyism-scandal.html

I can't support her. We don't get anything by giving our votes away for free. They should have to work for it.

Hillary Clinton Keystone Pipeline Corruption Scandal Infographic ( 2011 )

[protect our future]

256. Yes, Hillary brought the Keystone Pipeline to

the brink of approval, but after making sure it had to be approved she left the final sign-off to the next SOS, John Kerry, so that he would be blamed for it instead of her. When opponents of the pipeline become aware of this, it just might end her chance for the nomination.

[limpyhobbler]

139. Mark Fiore: Hillary Clinton's State Department Oil Services and Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

[AgingAmerican]

143. Doubtful she would have been making these "Grand Bargains"

If she is the nominee, I will vote for her.

We really need to get rid of the electoral college system. One person, one vote will cure many of our political ills and give third and fourth parties a chance. Until that happens, we are stuck with the lesser of two Democratic evils.

[liberal_at_heart]

148. It will take people leaving both parties to get rid of the electoral college. Why would either party

ever get rid of it when it helps them keep their power and keeps out third and fourth parties?

[cascadiance]

215. What we really need is IRV to enable third party choices.

Strong third party candidates should be single issue voters (in terms of continuing their candidacy or not) on whether IRV gets put in to law by one or both of the two major parties. If they feel threatened enough by a third party creating too much uncertainty for either of them winning, then perhaps a strong third party candidate can force us changing this system for the future so that we can have some real third party choices, and it would also then be a lot harder for corporate bribesters to "buy the field" then too.

[Vanje]

146. She probably won't be my first choice in the primaries.

I'll wait to see how the primary slate unfolds. I'd like to see an unabashed liberal in the race.
She wasn't my choice last time either, but she has my respect, though probably not my vote.
The Clintons are too centrist for my particular taste.

That said, I won't denigrate her harshly, because she may very well be my candidate in the general election. If that happens, I want to support her whole-heartedly.

[11 Bravo]

163. If you oppose her without reservation and she gets the nomination, you will have to find a new ...

playground; because tossing the same vitriol at a Democratic candidate that you routinely fling at our Democratic President would be a violation of the TOS.

[cali]

173. no, I won't sorry to disappoint you. As long as

I don't dis her, no problem. And I fucking dare you to find all those posts of mine where I fling vitriol at President Obama. Clue: You fucking can't, because I don't.

Stop making shit up.

[11 Bravo]

184. From the TOS: "When general election season begins, DU members ...

must support Democratic nominees." Here's a hint: oppose is the literal opposite of support, and if you can square your declared opposition to Hillary "without reservation" with that I won't just be disappointed, I'll be fucking flabbergasted.

[cali]

186. You mean we'll all be asked to openly swear fealty? bzzt

didn't happen before, won't happen again. First of all, I can oppose Hillary to my heart's content until and unless she wins the nomination. If she does so, I won't oppose her and tough for you, that's all I have to do.

You have a real reading comprehension problem as well as throwing out unfounded accusations.

I've already said that if I lived in a state where it counted and she was the nom, I'd vote for her. duh. That's not opposing her.

[11 Bravo]

187. Aah, now you add "unless and until she wins the nomination". That's not quite the same as ...

I oppose her "completely and without reservation" is it? I was responding to your OP, not to whatever backtracking you now feel compelled to engage in.

[cali]

194. why don't you try reading the OP, dear?

I make it completely clear that I'm talking about the primaries. duh.

Sure I'd like to support a woman for President. Clinton has undoubtedly put in the time and hard work, but she is what she is; someone who is as corporate a candidate as you could find in the democratic party. I can't support that in the primaries and if she is the nominee, for the first time since I was registered to vote, I can envision myself not voting. If I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I likely would, but as I don't, that's not a concern.

[11 Bravo]

209. Which part of "I oppose Hillary Clinton completely and without reservation" do you not understand?

Hell, you wrote it, own it. Find a dictionary and you will learn that "completely and without reservation" pretty much negates any other circumstance. Duh. The fact that in the very same post you later wrote something diametrically opposed to your thread title appears to be due to what might charitably be characterized as a misunderstanding of what your words actually mean. You also said that if she was the nominee you would consider not voting. Is that statement also inoperable? I responded to to your comment, and if you later decided you didn't really mean it, that's what the edit function is for.

(I hope that clears everything up for you ... honeybunch.)

You can have the last word. I'm heading downtown to catch Paul McCartney after the Nats game.

[cali]

267. I oppose her completely and without reservation IN THE PRIMARIES

which is clear to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension, lovebunny.

[11 Bravo]

272. There now, that wasn't so hard, was it? Just think of the bandwidth that will be saved ...

now that you have learned to say what you mean the first time around, sugar britches.

[cali]

274. It's right in the OP

honeybunch. I just spelled it out for you because of your reading comprehension problem, pumpkin.

[joshcryer]

243. The jury system changed the community standards.

Many anti-Obama posters remained during the 2012 elections and even after. Amusingly.

[liberal_at_heart]

247. That's okay. I can hold my tongue. I will vote for whomever I want.

Luckily our thoughts and actions cannot be as easily controlled as our speech.

[Nye Bevan]

164. So between you and Justin Bieber, not a whole lot of love for the Clintons? (nt)

[cali]

174. Pathetic. A reasoned piece on why I don't support her for President is

just like Justin Bieber drunk and swearing at a picture of President Clinton.

your reasoning leaves a great deal to be desired.

You want to refute my op, by all means, dear, give it your, er, best. I'll neither hold my breath or worry that you'll produce a brilliant refutation.

[bluestate10]

224. "Reasoned" is in the eyes of the beholder. nt

[Arctic Dave]

167. Agree completely.

[Bigredhunk]

168. Of course it's hard to accurately predict this far out

But I think it's either Hillary or an R in 2016. I can't think of a D who holds a candle to her in terms of standing/popularity. Nobody has a better chance than her. I love Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think she ever has a chance of being president. Of course I said that I thought Obama never had a chance of being president because the country wouldn't vote for an African American (when I was caucusing for Edwards in Jan 2004!). There's no way Alan Grayson will ever be president, and I love him too (nor will there ever be a winning Warren/Grayson ticket -- that's just fantasy land).

I'll be very enthusiastic for Hillary, shortcomings of these middle-right Dems and all. There's not enough of a difference between D's and R's for my taste. But all I have to do is think of an R back in the White House and I'm back stumping for the DLC Dem. There is absolutely a difference between Bill Clinton/Barack Obama and Bush/Christie/whomever.

[MjolnirTime]

170. Your not going to stop her. Just like you can't stop Obama.

But you can sure raise hell!

[cali]

175. we'll see. no one thought she could be stopped in 2006 either. Guess what?

Oh, and I didn't try to stop Obama, I was one of his earliest supporters here.

[MjolnirTime]

179. And you'll be just as bitter and vindictive towards her when she's in office, right?

Obama's real supporters have not betrayed him.

[cali]

183. I'm neither bitter or vindictive. To get a picture of that

simply head for the nearest mirror.

[Douglas Carpenter]

176. a vote for Hillary is a vote for the neoliberal status quo - I don't know why progressives and

New Deal liberals keep rallying around the neoliberal status quo vainly deluding themselves in election cycle after election - decade after decade that their neoliberal safe-centrist this time around really is a progressive at heart or at least a New Dealer at heart. Then when they can't delude themselves anymore they get all disappointed in what they should have know well before the first primary campaigns even started. Then they go and repeat the same process all over again - while the Democratic Party becomes more and more and more entrenched as the party of the socially liberal hedge manager - casino capitalist who are cool on social issues, not completely crazy on environmental issues, pragmatic "give drones a chance" "liberal imperialist on foreign policy and slightly watered down Reagainites on economics. Is it not better to fight for something you want and not get it then to fight for something you don't want and get it?

[boston bean]

178. I will support her. nt

[CrispyQ]

236. I will support her over a repub . . . maybe.

I'll never vote repub, but I might not vote. That whole lesser of two evils has gotten me a democratic party that is far to the right of where it was when I first joined.

I'm so disgusted that we have to choose between social justice or no justice in our pathetic, purposely construed, two party system. Oh, sure, we can vote dem & get a few social crumbs tossed our way, gay marriage, immigration, reproductive rights, & those things are important, but the boot is still gonna come down on our neck because they don't care so much for our social rights, as they do our economic rights. And that's because they covet everything we have. No matter how small, no matter how long it took to cultivate it, if you have a $20k account that took you 12 years to accumulate, they want it & they are going to get it. And then they are going to spend it on a 4 hour lunch with a few friends.

They are not human.

[protect our future]

180. I love Hillary for the many good things she has

done for women. But let's face it: She is a corporatist and so is Bill, and Bill brought us NAFTA. If she gets to the Whitehouse, Bill comes along with her.

She may very well choose not to run, but in the meantime let her take all the hatred and all the flack spewed by Fox and Rush and the rest of the clowns. Then someone wonderful for the country can pop up unscathed and unknown to become the nominee and keep the presidency safely in Democratic hands, just like Obama did in '08.

I know many here are supporting Elizabeth Warren and I think she is terrific, but I'm still not so sure that the country is ready to elect a woman as president.

I'm supporting Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio.

[Beacool]

188. So, Hillary should take crap from the media and right wingers just for the hell of it?

This place is unbelievable...........

[DonCoquixote]

182. Here is the issue

Many of us know that when we voted for Obama, we voted for something that was leaning left, away not just from Bush, but also, away from Bill Clinton. Obama turned out to be a centrist, even appointing many Clinton clergy (Rahm, Geitner) and Hillary herself to foreign policy (where she rattled sabers more than her husband did, which is saying something.) To be honest, the party cannot take that again, because while yes, many of us know that we need someone we can sell to the majority of the country, we know that Hillary will lurch to the right even before the election night champagne bottles are half empty.

Now, I would love to see Hillary get her proverbial "born again" experience and become a true liberal, the one both her husband and Obama could have been, but frankly, were too afraid to become. But Hillary could have spoken out a long time ago, even now, when her Hubby spoke for the TransCanada pipeline.

Simply put, the left is tired. Even those of us who hate nader for being mr spoiler in 2000, taking in all that fat money Rush L. told his ditto heads to send, we know that the left cannot be allowed to die on the vine.

[Beacool]

196. Obama was leaning left?

When was that? And don't tell me that he gave one speech against the IWR when he was a state senator. Obama has doubled down on many of Bush policies.

[DonCoquixote]

198. left of Hillary

Which admitteldy, is not saying much, as both are classic Goldwater GOP. He spoke against that awful mandatory insurance idea, and sadly, he took up HER bad idea.

[Beacool]

199. That's a matter of opinion.

I always thought that he was a centrist. I never understood this love the Left had for him. He just was good at B.S., that's all.

[Bjorn Against]

192. I am not a fan of hers either, I woud like to see Sherrod Brown run

He is far more progressive than most politicians in Washington plus he has a proven ability to win the key swing state of Ohio.

[protect our future]

258. I agree. n/t

[ancianita]

193. Welp, you're the first to put it all out there. And you're right, whether I like it or not.

I can't say with any confidence that being president will change her for the better.
If the present 'first' is any indication, she'll change for the worse.
So, yeah, I'll have to agree with you.
I wish she'd just step aside and groom a better candidate, but she's known by all the elites of the world and is the globally 'approved' next president.

If on our end we could just fight for a majority party in each hall of Congress, that would give her a fair start. It probably won't happen because of further corporate corporate rigging.

[The Second Stone]

195. I would cheerfully vote for Hillary as President

She understands who and what her enemies are. Obama does not.

[cali]

197. A chacun son gout

[Beacool]

200. Let's see how many people understand your reference without using google.

[bluestate10]

225. Put out a hit piece then disparage anyone that states any sane alternative to

it. So principled . I often prefer other democrats in primaries other than the one that wins, but once the primary is over, I support the winner. Any one that want to can ridicule me, but once the general rolls around, there is no other fucking choice but the democratic nominee for sane voters. The Hillary haters can moan as much as desired, facts are facts and no amount of delusional planting of heads in sand will change that.

[cali]

266. how in hell is saying "to each his own" ridicule?

yikes.

you call it a hit piece, I call it reasoned and factual criticism.

As I said: A chacun son gout

[lumpy]

245. She would get my vote. I would never vote for a Republican again. I did just once for Nixon,

against H.Humphry, terrible mistake. the Republican party has become even more capitalistic and corrupt since those days. I am essentially a Democratic Party member, at least until a better party comes along. Don't see that in the near future;
Hillary does have the experience, has done admiral things. She has the advantage over other Democrats who are admiral and might qualify for the job. The advantage is that the bulk of US voters have little political Knowledge and pay little attention of what goes on in that quirky world. Most everyone knows the name Hillary Clinton. She has gained in popularity. Name and popularity win elections.

I must say, it is disturbing that people who claim to be Democrats are continually coming down hard on Obama, who I agree hasn't done a super job in spite of the odds of having the worst Congress in US history. They should realize that it is non-productive and doing more harm than good by continually confining their disappointments to condemning and pointing the finger at Barack Obama.
Time would be better spent working for the Party they claim as theirs to ensure we win future elections, if that is their goal.

[fascisthunter]

202. I will Never vote for a Corporate Dem again

even in a Presedential election... Obama proved to me it really won't make much of a difference.

[HooptieWagon]

228. +1 me too.

No corporate Dem is getting my primary vote. And the only way she gets my GE vote is if Palin is the GOP nominee.

[snappyturtle]

204. Big ol' K&R....Thanks cali.

We certainly don't need more of the same.

[JoeyT]

205. Just what we need

another president with a personality cult that freaks the fuck out whenever they're criticized by anyone about anything no matter how mild the criticism.

Even if the idea of the Wal-Mart president didn't revolt me, that would be enough to do it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

206. I would rather vote for Dianne Feinstein.

[kestrel91316]

207. I don't consider a DINO - she's not THAT bad, but she sure doesn't lean left enough

to suit me. Spends way too much time in bed with corporations.

[lumberjack_jeff]

216. Interesting. Fast forward 6 years and now you won't vote for her because she's TOO MUCH like Obama.

A cynic would surmise there's something else going on.

[bluestate10]

219. Thanks for publicly shouting out your position. Now for other news...nt

[Iggo]

221. Without reservation?

I dunno, man.

I reserve the right to vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate in the general election.

Sorry, I don't vote for the other guys. And I sure as hell don't stay home.

[cheapdate]

226. "she is what she is; someone who is as corporate a candidate as you could find...

in the Democratic Party".

True.

"I can envision myself not voting. If I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I likely would, but as I don't, that's not a concern."

I live in a solid Republican state (Tennessee). My vote for president doesn't matter in the electoral college. I'd never do anything that would help get a Republican elected, but I would vote third party again, like I did in 2012.

I voted for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. He won 0.036% of the national vote -- around four one-hundredths of one percent of the total votes cast.

Hillary Clinton is very much like Barack Obama. She's intelligent and accomplished. I like her and respect her. We share some values. But there are many places where our ethics and philosophy are dramatically different.

[tpsbmam]

233. Couldn't agree more, Cali!

I opposed Clinton in 2008 and oppose her now. She and Bill were all the way DLC -- they were at the center of the group. They helped pull the Democrats to the right, helped draft some of Clinton's most disastrous policies (e.g., NAFTA) and too many of her votes as a senator reflected her DLC "centrism" (I agree with Howard Dean, who called it “the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.” Now, ReTHUGS were different then than they are now....and his description was completely apt at that point).

The DLC gave us Al From, the Clintons, Larry Summers & Rahm Emanuel among others. And the policies I most disapprove of with Obama are more Third Way~new form of DLC crap that we'd continue to get from Hillary. I'm done with these conservo-Dems! Totally and completely done. We're getting only slightly better than ReTHUGS and IT AIN'T GOOD ENOUGH!

So no, I absolutely will not support and will not vote for Hillary in 2016. I hope to hell she doesn't run but frankly, I was surrounded by politicians for the first half of my life and I know their egos. I have little doubt that she'll run and many may even once again consider her candidacy & election "inevitable" and convince her of that.

[raindaddy]

235. I agree.

I won't vote for another DLC Dem period. I'm done!

[McCamy Taylor]

239. But Cali, is she better for corporate America than Obama has been?

[blkmusclmachine]

242. +1. Thank You.

FUCK THE ARISTOCRATS

[marlakay]

246. I agree with everything you said

I want a woman president but not her. We need someone who isn't tied to corporations and with all the money it takes in politics these days that is getting harder and harder to find.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

248. She lost me when she pulled the "fake outrage" as good as any Republican.

[4_TN_TITANS]

249. Cali has too much seniority here

I'm thinking about her rational.

[School Teacher]

250. She Voted for the Iraq War

I will not vote for her. She lined up to start the disastrous war. How did that turn out for us? She is too conservative. I am so tired of being fooled by DINOs. I will not forget or forgive. No warmongers for president.

[cantbeserious]

251. Hear, Hear - Agreed

eom

[GreenTea]

255. Get fucking real-

If Clinton is the Democratic nominee you aren't going vote republican.....Only a complete ignorant fool would certainly not sound thinking....So what are you really gonna do dude.....Not vote, or vote for another candidate even if the race is extremely close in your state? - Get real, certainly not sound thinking. - Besides Senators Sanders and Warren - everyone else is receiving money from the greedy cheating corner-cutting over-charging union busting, wage & salary cutting corporations as well as the war for profit military imperialism global empire killers, military industrial corporations ....

[mick063]

260. Here is my "real"

Hillary gets nominated, I vote green or leave the top of the ballot blank.

Don't attempt to scare me with the Republican agenda when all I have is Republican agendas to choose from.

You can thank President Obama for my position.

[cali]

265. oh dear. reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

here, from the op:

Sure I'd like to support a woman for President. Clinton has undoubtedly put in the time and hard work, but she is what she is; someone who is as corporate a candidate as you could find in the democratic party. I can't support that in the primaries and if she is the nominee, for the first time since I was registered to vote, I can envision myself not voting. If I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I likely would, but as I don't, that's not a concern.


I'm from Vermont, dear. The election will not be close in my state. Of course I'm not gong to vote for a repub. I said no such thing.

Furthermore, guess what? Bernie takes very little corporate money. Never has. Guess what again? The same holds true for lots of pols in little ol green VT.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00000528

[area51]

257. Hilary Clinton

is also pro-offshoring American jobs, and she wants people to be asked to prove they have health insurance in job interviews. We don't need this republican crap. Need I point out, she started off political life as a repub?

[ErikJ]

259. She was a board member of WALMART. Nuff said.

[maddiemom]

261. I'm not crazy about Hillary, and Bill was a major disappointment. Our last two

Democratic presidents have seemed to placate the Repubs way too much. Stand-up Democrats (ha! )are sadly caving before any life threatening attempts. Elizabeth Warren needs a teflon shield, but she's great, unlike what we hoped from Al Franken and a few others. With Hillary, I just expected more, but admit she'd been in a position to know what's realistically possible. Thank god for Warren: she's good for coming right in and fighting.

[renie408]

269. And on this, we agree...sort of.

I will vote for her over a Republican in the GE. I would not vote for her in a primary. I would rather see someone else on the top of the ticket for many of the reasons you have listed. But, in the end, if she wins the nomination and the GOP chooses to run what they are likely to choose to run...I will vote for her in the GE.

When I think things are really bad in this country now, I think how much worse they would be with a President Romney.

[Drunken Irishman]

270. LOL! What an absolutely pointless thread.

Seriously. Maybe the most pointless thread on DU in a long, long while. The fact it has so many recs showcases just how much this site has dissolved over the last year. It's not even tolerable anymore because of the constant circle jerk over shit that doesn't even matter. I mean, what next - starting a thread about completely and unequivocally opposing a John Kerry presidential run in 2016?

Jesus Christ, cali, get a fucking grip. Hillary Clinton hasn't even announced yet - we just barely got through the first six months of Obama's second term. This post is more premature than the posts from '10 predicting Obama was all but certainly going to lose in 2012.



Are you guys that hard-up to start a pissing match that you have to go this deep into your bag of tricks? I mean, really? Has DU really become a parody of itself? It certainly feels like it. This site has completely lost its mind since Obama's second inauguration and it's summed up in this post - you're already starting primary wars with pretend candidates who haven't even indicated they'll run.

I WON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY IN 2016!

ALAN GRAYSON 2016!

IT'S ALL ABOUT ELIZABETH WARREN!

WARREN/GRAYSON!

No! It's HOWARD DEAN ALL THE WAY!

My guess is that most these candidates don't even run. But it won't stop you all from pointlessly speculating on it. What a complete waste.

Here's a tip, cali, it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate in 2016 - if they don't win the House and expand their majority in the Senate, Alan Grayson himself would fail to advance any type of progressive agenda. So, instead of focusing on who you won't support in 2016, how about we focus on giving the next president, and this current president, a far less hostile congress? That's where the true change lies because the President is only as good as his/her congress and that won't change just because it's Elizabeth Warren sitting in the Oval Office instead Hillary Clinton.

[cascadiance]

305. It's not pointless NOW when others are saying she's "inevitable" NOW for the 2016 nomination...

... as if we should just go ahead and accept this and start working for her now.

If that is the case then there is absolutely a point for those of us that believe very firmly that the last 20-30 years have shown us that we need far more progressive leadership to fix the damage that has been done by both the Republicans and the DLC infested Democrats over this period. It takes time to build a movement for real campaigns for alternatives, especially if the party is controlled by those who don't want this to happen.

That's not to say we don't work on the 2014 election as well. I've stated a number of times we should focus on making sure that we maximize our ability to get progressive candidates elected in congress too, and the way the Republicans have gerrymandered districts, many Democratically controlled districts have a larger progressive majority than they used to when all of these voters are pushed in to these newer districts, and we should USE those ratios to throw out the DLC corporatists and put in real progressives that we should be able to elect now with less Republicans in them.

It's all about getting people in office (both as president and in congress and in state level positions) to represent US and not the corporate bribesters that we have to fight hard against now to do this until we get Citizen's United overturned.

[Drunken Irishman]

306. Yeah it is...

It's as pointless as those who say she's inevitable. She isn't inevitable because she hasn't even announced she's running.

Talking about 2016 in 2013 is ridiculous - whether it's Clinton supporters pushing the inevitability BS or the Clinton detractors saying they won't ever support her.

Who cares? Why waste the energy into something that is so far off and may not even happen? Like I said, it just starts the toxic primary wars a bit early. You see it in this thread. People are already staking out positions. Can we please go year without eating our own? You'll have a shit-ton of time to complain about Hillary in 2015 and beyond.

But this type of posting does nothing to advance anything. It just solidifies what DU has become - a bunch of out-of-touch liberals who do nothing but bitch.

[cascadiance]

307. You're missing the point. We don't want to spend time "hating Hillary"...

... I can think of many things far better to waste my time on than that. It's about making sure that we have a choice to get BETTER leadership than what the party wants to throw at us then. Those who want Hillary don't have to worry much now. They'll be spoon fed her later by the PTB. But to have another candidate contend with what the corporatist elites want demands we organize early on. And that many of us are starting to think of this now is the reason I think that the PTB are trying to push the "Hillary is inevitable" meme to counteract our concerns and wishes to start organizing early on. They're not stupid. They realize that many of us are going to want to start organizing now, and see who we want to put our efforts behind and not wait too long.

So... We are all "out of touch" liberals do we? You must just LOVE how those Koch brothers that are so in "style" these days funded the DLC takeover of the Democratic Party. Somehow I don't think most of us who don't agree with that sentiment are "out of touch" liberals...

[Drunken Irishman]

308. I'm not missing any point.

Hillary Clinton isn't a candidate for 2016. Starting up primary wars in 2013, when we just entered the first year of Obama's second term, does nothing to advance anything ... instead, it just further divides liberals. What good does it do to tell us you can't stand Hillary and won't vote for her? She's not running yet. No one is running yet. It's just as pointless as saying no one can beat Hillary. It's all tied together - we're starting a primary battle in freakin' summer, 2013. As someone who's been around these parts during primary season, the fact anyone wants to go down that path this early is baffling to me.

This thread is divisive - especially when we don't even know if Hillary is running again.

What is gained from speculating on something that alienates other liberals? Keep it for the primary.

[ColesCountyDem]

271. I won't support her in the primary, but if she get the nomination, I'll work my butt off for her.

I didn't support her in 2008's primary and won't in 2016's, either. Should she get our nomination, however, I'll do everything possible to see that she's elected POTUS. In spite of the MANY things I don't like about her, she stands head-and-shoulders above ANY potential GOP nominee.

[RandiFan1290]

273. No more Reagan "democrats" for me

They've done enough damage to this country

[NorthCarolina]

276. She is DLC through and through. She would not get my vote

as i am more than done with our pro-corporate segment of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party can only find it in themselves to promote third-way, right of center centrist candidates, then it may well become necessary to vote outside the party. I was looking for "CHANGE" with Obama, but simply got a doubling down on more of the same pro 1% politics that is responsible for ruining the lives of millions of Americans for the sake of putting a few more coins in the pockets of the ultra wealthy. Hopefully we will see who drives the party bus, the party leaders with a personal financial stake in maintaining the status quo, or the voters.

[PATRICK]

277. I don't follow the MSM

but it seems the impression ii left on some national-consciousness-thing that she is the Only candidate(certainly the most known) to speculate on. It is usual for both parties to have a low profile for the new slate while their main guy is still in office. In that vacuum even the anointed gets a little stuck and the primaries can be quite a jolt. Hillary is not that active a candidate and doesn't have to be, now. The GOP licking their wounds or chops can tout newbies all they want, but their choices are so abominable they cringe at the inevitable burnout. They have no anointed, few viable crownless kings who can poke their head up either. Or they would use them even now to guide their useful idiots.

The Dems give me the impression(as false as it might be) that they can't rise above anything either. The system leads them. The people are not an issue. One thing Obama does(true of his predecessors in this) is that he does not respond well to challenges within his sphere of power that successors get to be. Kinder to the GOP by far. Champions meekly bide their time so that seems, though normal, that we won't have the choices we need, but someone pre-compromised, finally given permission to stick their head up on the corporate whack-a-mole board.

Not even a third party seems to have enough sails for the wind. or they remain furled, anchored at dock- even when the race does begin. Although a third party in service to the vote impoverished GOP is obviously a very allowed gimmick. Like the destructive Tea Party ploy they need to use anything and everything while, ironically, so do the American people against the entire top of the world. Guess where change will be coming from. According the Necronomican Almanac of 2016, it is the GOP's turn. Hillary will be gamed into an Al Gore math of general disgruntlement. A change we can never believe in will be pushed very very hard. Cheating ready to 'overcome" sanity, democracy, any chance for our species' unmerited survival.

Bit it's too soon, of course, let's be polite. It will be a huge free-for-none party with so much a priori, justified popular disapproval, anything will(be made to)look good. Unless somebody I don't see yet beats the system.

[randr]

290. Clinton sits on the Monsanto board with Rumsfield

As if being associated with him were not bad enough.

[FreeBC]

291. I like Hillary Clinton. I just don't like her politics. She's the anti-Warren.

[Perez Pradosky]

292. I likr hil

Tops a Gopper.

[DissidentVoice]

294. She's too close to the DLC machine...

...the one that wrecked the Democratic Party.

[woofless]

296. I agree.

[Hestia]

299. Being from Ark. and watching the Bill & Show for, what 30 years, my problem is her lack of sincerity

. She comes across as calling for a hit as much as calling on people to fund poverty relief. Neither/either stir any emotion in her when she speaks. I have no doubt whatsoever she could push the button as CIC. Is she likable - no, not at all. But we've had a two-faced, chum the last 5 years, with beer drinkin' and all -the most popular kid in politics. Maybe it is time to look for a semblance of a perceived real grown-up. I'd rather it not be her (please not her), but if it comes down to Hillary Clinton against Rand Paul, I'll vote Hillary, albeit begrudgingly.