Who does not want Hillary Clinton to be our candidate in 2016?

[fadedrose]

I know a lot of you have mentioned at least 5 others, but I would like only those who don't want Hillary to respond. No "Recs's," please, it's not the point.

A simple yes or no, a reason if you must, I'm really only interested in seeing if our percentage of non-supporters comes close to the so-called national average of Democrats - over 60% - who favor her as our candidate. Comments on the board lead me to believe the media is wrong and I don't believe them...

Maybe someone can start a "Who only wants Hillary" thread dedicated only to true supporters for comparison..

[Frankie the Bird]

1. No. n/t

[bunnies]

2. Raises hand.

Do. Not. Want.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. No. To her and the 3rd Way.

[blm]

4. No. Still waiting to hear what serious issue she took up and led as a senator.

And what significant accomplishments she made as Sec of State.

If she becomes the nominee THEN she'll get my support and my vote.

[Tx4obama]

5. I would like to see someone 'new' as the Democratic candidate - go forward not backward...

... but if Hillary ends up being the best of all the folks come forward that run then I will go ahead and vote for her, but she would not be my ideal choice.

As far as Warren, I would not vote for her in the primary due to her not having any foreign policy background.

Grayson is great as a rep in Florida but he would be too divisive/controversial as a national candidate - and he is on my $hit list at the moment

I don't have a clue yet as to who will be the 'best' candidate - I haven't seen one yet

[MNBrewer]

40. Did the broker of the Israeli/Egyptian peace accord have foreign policy experience?

Nope

Or for that matter, candidate Obama?

[Tx4obama]

42. Regarding Obama Warren

When running for president a person has to have at 'least some' foreign policy knowledge/background/experience under their belt.
And to me it looks like Warren is NOT setting her self up for a run in 2016.

Compare Warren's committees: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Special Committee on Aging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_warren#Committee_assignments

To those of Obama's when he was a U.S. Senator:

Senator Obama's committees / experience

Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006.[89] In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before Abbas became President of the Palestinian National Authority, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi in which he condemned corruption within the Kenyan government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Committees

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Can we at least wait to see who is in the primary?

[karynnj]

7. No - though I will vote for her if she is the nominee

My feeling is that never has anyone been so hyped as Hillary Clinton has - the NYT pushed her even as her husband ran! Yet - with all that hype over years - and incredible party and media support - she lost the primary due to a pretty inept campaign.

[Skidmore]

8. Not my first choice and

she wasn't last time either. I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. I'd rather not be installing another dynasty.

[Cleita]

9. No.

I don't want anymore DLC, Third Way, Wall Street friendly candidate this time. We need another Roosevelt, not another Clinton.

[tularetom]

10. Me!

We don't need another 4 years of centrist policies and we really don't need Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House.

[Borchkins]

11. Not my first, second, third or fourth choice, but I'll vote for her if she's the nominee.

[polichick]

12. No. I'd like to hang out with her but want a populist in the WH

[Control-Z]

13. Seems like an up or down poll

would work more to your advantage. I would readily vote yes or no had you done one. Even when I'm not in a talkative mood I often do polls. They are just so easy to participate in.

[davidn3600]

14. She'd be even more centrist than Obama

She would change absolutely nothing about Washington.

[Spirochete]

15. I'd much rather have

someone else. No more Clinton/Obamas for a while. Try a real progressive for a novelty. Unfortunately, time is running out for that. It's already 2013, and 2016 is just around the corner, apparently, judging by all the Hillary inevitablity posts often popping up...

[Aerows]

16. My sig says who I want

and it isn't Hilary Clinton.

[zappaman]

17. I want the Democrat who has the best chance of winning.

Whoever that may be.

The alternative (whoever the Republican nominee) would be way way worse...

[SheilaT]

18. I don't want her.

And all this nonsense about how she's the best candidate or how she's completely inevitable reveals an amazing lack of knowledge of history.

1991. It was so incredibly obvious that George HW Bush was going to be completely unbeatable in '92 that all the logical Democratic candidates simply didn't bother to run. Remember his second term? Wait, no, who was it that won the '92 election again?

2001. We're still smarting from the fact that W stole the election but took great comfort in the fact that Al Gore would definitely run again and this time would win.

2005. Hard to believe that the Democrats lost again, but took comfort in the fact that when John Kerry ran in 2008 he'd surely win.

2007. Hillary Clinton is by far the best candidate ever, and she'll not only get the nomination in a cake walk but she'll win in a landslide.

Those last three come mainly from the sentiments here on DU (but not only here on DU) in the years indicated. Nothing is inevitable, with the possible exception of sunrise and death.

[shraby]

19. I have a no here. She is too hated by the republicans which will pre-empt cross-over votes.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. she would be no worse than any other "mainstream" Democrat that has come close to winning the

Democratic nomination for President in the last twenty to thirty years or more. But if one wants to see real change instead of the gradual dismantling of the reforms of the New Deal then there is no point supporting one of these mainstream candidates who do support the gradual dismantling of the modern social contract. There only redeeming quality is that they are far less extreme than the Republicans - which admittedly is true.

[Mass]

21. I would prefer that she does not run, but if she runs and wins, I will support her.

[monmouth3]

22. I'd like to see someone else..n/t

[morningfog]

23. I don't.

[City Lights]

24. Me. *raises hand* nt

[NuclearDem]

25. No thank you.

[Whisp]

26. NO (in loud caps) n/t

[Jefferson23]

27. NO, I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our candidate in 2016. n/t

[Taverner]

28. No - I do not want her

If nominated, I will not vote for her

[montanacowboy]

29. No no and no

no more Clintons, no more Bushes

[NV Whino]

30. No, don't want her.

[SamKnause]

31. Hillary

NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tridim]

32. I am against dynasties in American politics.

She is very qualified for the job, I just don't want her to be the nominee.

[Ino]

33. Nope, still don't want her (nt)

[sabrina 1]

34. No n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. No, but like mentioned above, I will happily vote for her if she is the nominee.

[LittleBlue]

36. Me! Anyone but Hillary

Her ambition is way too obvious. I don't think for a minute she wants the office to represent the 99%, only herself and her friends.

[GreenStormCloud]

123. +1 N/T

[HereSince1628]

37. Not me...

[mike_c]

38. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton....

No.

[MNBrewer]

39. Nope

[TheJames]

41. NO. Entirely too Neo-Liberal!

[Vinnie From Indy]

43. Cheers!

[PassingFair]

44. Do. Not. Want. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

45. No.

I do not support Hillary for president. I caucused for her in 2008 only because I "knew" her better than Obama and they were the only two candidates left. I'm done with corporate-appeasing centrists.

[99Forever]

46. No Clinton or any other corporate 3rd wayer.

For any office, ever.

[fletchthedubs]

47. NO

[Melinda]

48. I won't support HRC, nor will I support anyone associated w/the "DLC" (now 3rd way)

Co-opting the rights economic policy has resulted in social injustice across the board, and the destruction of the Democratic Party I grew up with and believed in. I will not support Secretary Clinton, nor anyone who supports the disastrous economic policies the Clinton's built and PBO follows.

[AtomicKitten]

49. No thanks to her candidacy.

Didn't vote for her in 2008 and will not in 2016 for the same reasons.

[DonCoquixote]

50. NO

Though if she wins the nomination, I will choke down my bile and vote, and then proceed to give her hell, just like people did with Obama.

[bowens43]

51. I don't want her to be the candidate

[DCBob]

52. We should explore other options but..

if she is the nominee then Im on board.

[Phlem]

53. Shivers intensely and raises hand. No.

And Fuck the third way all the way.

-p

[90-percent]

54. no

washington insider war hawk

-jim

[Dustlawyer]

55. Hell NO!!! I'm tired of corporate Democrats selling us out! She and Bill did it the 1st 2 times.

[GentryDixon]

56. I voted for Hillary in the Primary.

That was then, this is now. We need to get past the old guard and look forward. But, if she is the strongest candidate, then I will certainly support her.

[coldmountain]

58. HILLARY WILL BE FAR STRONGER IN 2016 THAN 2008

HILLARY WOULD EASILY BEAT WARREN IN MASSACHUSETTS or BOOKER IN NEW JERSEY!

[DJ13]

91. Caps lock is over there <---------

And, NO on Hillary for me as well.

[cloudbase]

57. Nope.

Ixnay. Never.

[cui bono]

59. Do not want. n/t

[rgbecker]

60. No, Elizabeth Warren should be our first women President.

I'll support Hillary if the Democrats nominate her.

[GoneFishin]

61. No. I'll stay home.

Ever since Rahm Emanuel posed the question "where else are [liberals] going to go", my answer has been, "True, I can't vote republican. But I will stay home". If you don't like that answer then fight for a real Democrat instead of republican-lite.

[dflprincess]

94. Don't stay home - you can skip voting on the presidential race if you choose

but you may have local or state candidates that need your vote.

Besides, if you don't show up they'll assume you just didn't care. Showing up and filing a blank ballot (or skipping a race or two) at least says you cared enough to pay attention and couldn't bring yourself to vote for anyone. And political wonks do look at that kind of fall off.

[GoneFishin]

177. Good point. The other races are important also.

[Chan790]

62. No...one-hundred times "No!"

I've hated her since she was my Senator, so much so that I wrote-in a vote for Mario Cuomo. I'm completely serious when I say I will never vote for her...it's a matter of conscience for me.

As far as I'm concerned she's never stopped being the Republican that worked for the Goldwater campaign; I don't support Republicans, even the ones running as fake Democrats, not even if they're married to a former Democratic President. (Admittedly, I have no use for Bill Clinton either. I felt he was corrupt all the way back in the 1992 primaries and have never stopped feeling that way.)

[Prophet 451]

63. I'd settle for Hillary

I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren but since I'm British and so can't vote in primary or general, I doubt Hillary is losing any sleep over it.

[winter is coming]

64. I don't. n/t

[Eddie Haskell]

65. Hear

[Eddie Haskell]

66. here

[FarCenter]

67. No

[broiles]

68. She'a a hawk. Want more War?

[baldguy]

69. No.

America doesn't need dynasties.

[Chisox08]

70. No, because I feel there are better options for 2016

Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown in my opinion would be a lot better then Hillary Clinton.

[scarletwoman]

71. I'd very much rather she weren't. But Big Money will pick our candidate, so it doesn't really matter

Presidents come and go, and the System prevails no matter who they are.

[grahamhgreen]

72. Gawd no! More of the same is not what we need.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. I don't want her, but I don't see anyone else on the horizon

I'd vote for Warren, of course, but I don't think she'll run this time.

[Egalitarian Thug]

74. Another no to another Clinton. n/t

[KoKo]

75. Don't think DU can be a good sample...but I don't believe in Dynasties.

I don't think she should be the Candidate in 2016 just because she is considered "Entitled" because she is a Clinton and people feel she's a known quantity/quality. I for one don't believe she is a "known quantity/quality" because she is not her husband...and from what I've seen of her since she was running for Senate and her voting record plus her role as SOS...where she laughed at Killing of Ghadaffi saying: "We Came...We Saw...He Died" followed by a cackling laugh is the kind of diplomacy I'd want to see in an American President. She's also affiliated with the "C-Street Prayer Group," AIPAC and she and Bill have Tons of Money and his Foundation. It's a conflict of interest to have either or both of the Clintons back in power.

They've had their time and done very well with what they gained from their time in DC.

It's time for the Torch to be Passed on to someone different.

[coldmountain]

78. Hillary will be far harder to beat in 2016 and she was right to laugh at Ghaddafi's death

If DU picked candidates, Howard Dean would have been the candidate in 2004

[KoKo]

84. If she is the last resort then what does that say about our Dem Party, though?

Why don't we have a young and upcoming pack of qualified candidates waiting to receive the torch?

[Art_from_Ark]

183. Howard Dean wouldn't have done any worse than the eventual 2004 nominee did

And he might have done better.

[karynnj]

185. I don't think even Dean thinks that

The dominant issue in 2004 was Iraq and national security. Polls showed that on other issues - like health care, tax policy and the environment, Kerry was preferred over Bush. The fact is that on national security, Kerry was far better than most Democrats - not because he was a war hero, but because he worked on non state terrorism when NO ONE else remotely likely to run for President did.

There is no way that Dean would have completely owned Bush in the first debate on foreign policy. As can be seen now, Kerry is exceptionally knowledgeable and very good on foreign policy. Yes, I know that many here would say that Dean could have been clearer on Iraq because he did not have to vote in 2002. However, polls show that less than 50% of the voters had soured on the war ultimately being "successful".

Not to mention, Kerry was -by far - the stronger debater. If you remember, after the attacks around the time of the Republican convention, Kerry was pretty far down. It was the debates which allowed him to recover and put him in a position that he would have won a fair race.

Like Kerry, Dean would have had the dilemma of having to allocate his general election money over 13 weeks versus 8 for Bush. Maybe Dean would have opted out of public financing, but there were 2 down sides to that. One, Bush would have followed and likely outraised him and two, if the Democrat opted out first, they would have been called hypocritical. Not to mention, it was the MSM siding with Bush and allowing character assassinations - using language similar to Chuck Todd's recent comment that it is not the media's job to say when the Republicans lie.

We never saw a Republican smear campaign on Dean. Kerry was not uniquely vulnerable - in fact, he was harder to smear than most. We can't know how they would have smeared Dean, but as they positioned GWB as a military hero over JK, you can guess they would have hypocritically gone after Dean's deferment - for a bad back at a point where he skied regularly.

Not to mention - for those who will say that Dean would have fought back unlike Kerry - they should remember that he had a near melt down at a primary debate where he referred to not wanting to be a pin cushion in response to comparably mild attacks by fellow Democrats.

[kestrel91316]

76. Not as things stand right now. I've always considered her far too conservative

and corporate-friendly.

She was a Goldwater Girl. And he was in bed with the John Birchers, IIRC. I won't give that a pass.

[RC]

77. Not only NO!, but

HELL NO!

We have had more than enough of the DLC, Third Way, DINO, Republicans with a (D) by their name.
We need to look up the definition of "Democrat" and "Democratic" and get back on track. Enough of enabling those on the Right and being their shadow, while they are leading us over the cliff

[arcane1]

79. Me.

For one thing, 2016 is a long ways away, and too soon to be thinking about a president when we have no idea what will be happening at that time.

[Howler]

80. no

No

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Polls are mere snapshots

But anybody who doesn't believe in polls given it's history in predicting electoral outcomes in silly.


Nate Sliver and others aggregated the polls and damn near predicted the last election down to the decimal point.

[L0oniX]

82. No ...unless Jerry Springer is her running mate.

[RedCappedBandit]

83. No

Yes, I'd take her over any republican candidate.

But no.

[zappaman]

85. Wow! If she gets the nomination, I expect this place to be empty!

[leveymg]

86. No war, no dynasty.

[northoftheborder]

87. Yes. Where are all her supporters? There are a bunch in the Hillary group. Come out & vote.

[coldmountain]

88. DU not representative.from DU you'd think Apple was going out of business instead of breaking record

Or Howard Dean would have beat John Kerry

[X_Digger]

89. No. Too centrist / DLC / third way / corporate. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

90. No thank you!

Didn't vote for her in 2008, won't vote for her in 2016. I'm sure she'll have no trouble cruising to the nomination this time though. After what's happened, few will believe in the promise of an "outsider" candidacy anymore.

[dflprincess]

92. I don't. I'm really hoping someone from the Democratic wing of the party runs. n/t

[madrchsod]

93. old wine in old bottles

[cherokeeprogressive]

95. I don't see how she motivates young or minority voters to go to the polls.

She's an Old Guard, Rich White Establishment person. Yeah, she's a Woman, but so what? She's STILL an Old Guard, Rich White Establishment person.

After electing and reelecting a minority President for the first time in this nation's history, we're supposed to go back to The Good Ol' Days? We go from "Yes We Can!" to "Okay We Did, Now It's Old Rich White Peoples' Turn Again"? Yeah, I'm not feelin' it. Sorry.

She's walked the Halls of Power most of her adult life. She's rubbed shoulders with The Rich and Powerful most of her adult life. She lived in The White House for eight years. She's been a Senator. She's been Secretary of State.

Seriously, how do you sell that to young people and minorities? "It's Her turn."? "She's earned it."? Certainly not with words like "Change" and/or "New Blood" or "Outsider". Without the minority vote, without the young vote, Hillary doesn't get elected in my opinion. Yeah, she's a Woman, but she's STILL an Old Guard, Rich White Establishment person.

No Sale.

[coldmountain]

99. Baby Boomers are still the biggest voting bloc and whites are still a majority

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. In the states with the largest number of electoral votes? By what margin? n/t

[coldmountain]

109. 538 blog likes Hillarys chances! She dominates all polling

"But Mrs. Clinton may be able to break the Democrats’ early front-runners’ losing streak. Her lead in the polls we have so far exceeds that of any other candidate — of either party — in any election cycle in our sample. Many observers have pointed out that Mrs. Clinton also had a large lead in early polls of 2008 and yet lost that race. But her 2016 lead over Mr. Biden (33 percentage points) exceeds even her 2008 lead over Mr. Obama (22 percentage points). And she may benefit from the sense of being “the next in line,” having been the runner-up in her party’s last open contest — a dynamic seen in several recent Republican primaries."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/is-it-too-early-for-2016-polls/


http://www.pollingreport.com/2016.htm

http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls/2016-general-election-matchups/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/2016-presidential-election-poll_n_2451270.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/05/clinton-remains-atop-2016-presidential-field

[cherokeeprogressive]

112. Yeah. You didn't answer the question. Are you coldmountain4anything?

Lemme guess; before the night's out you'll slip and tell DU you expect Hillary45 to win over 500 electoral votes, right? And set the stage for Michelle46, who will keep the chair in the Oval Office warm for Chelsea47?

[X_Digger]

117. You getting that g4a vibe too, eh?

Glad I'm not the only one.

And there's another (sock?) pushing the Chelsea47 thing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

119. From the git-go.

Likes to post in the gungeon too, apparently, just like g4a did. I don't remember g4a posting so much bullshit about The South though, maybe that was a ruse. But boy, once people started posting about Hillary, cm4a sure jumped on the bandwagon!

Saw the Chelsea47 thread too. Thought that was a hoot. I think she'll make a great... hedge fund manager some day.

[coldmountain]

118. Michelle gets in after Hillary's running mate is in for their 8 years

Salazar?

Richardson?

Villaraigosa?

[cherokeeprogressive]

122. Tony Villar? Seriously? Isn't he homeless now? You ARE graham4anything aren't you...

[coldmountain]

113. In 2012 even in California 67% of voters were non Hispanic whites

Field reports that: “White non-Hispanics, who are expected to comprise two-thirds (67%) of this state’s voting electorate, prefer Obama by ten points (49% to 39%). On the other hand, the state’s large and growing ethnic population are heavily backing Obama: Latinos, 65% to 24%; Black/African Americans, 90% to 3%; and Asians/others, 54% to 31%.”

http://www.laprogressive.com/obama-landslide-predicted-in-california-field-poll%E2%80%94largest-margin-since-fdr%E2%80%94and-there%E2%80%99s-more%E2%80%94effects-seen-in-downticket-races/

[DonCoquixote]

131. so,is that what this is about

giving the baby boomers and whites one more shot at the ring before they have to bow out to the people taking their place? Sorry, while there are many white baby boomers I would vote for (Warren for example) the days when someone is "owed" are gone, especially since Hillary has more than enough time and power to denounce, or at least renounce, the welfare-cutting, warmongering, slightly left of Reagan policies that put her and Bill in power.

[coldmountain]

133. Obama's the one that holds Reagan in such high esteem

Hillary never says she's owed anything. Why do you say something that's not true? Reflects more on your character than hers.

[DonCoquixote]

136. so, it is 2013

barely 2014, and she forms a pac to run, and that is not saying you are owed something? Please.

[coldmountain]

139. Working hard to win and helping Democrats to win

Not the behaviour of someone taking it for granted that she owed something.

[Beacool]

165. Nonsense.

Hillary is popular among minorities and you're dong a disservice to her by labeling her as just another white person. If something similar had been said about Obama, some here would be crying racism.

Furthermore, she would be one of the most experienced and prepared candidates we've had in years.

Hillary's candidacy would be just as historical as Obama's. Women are over 50% of the population and it's about damn good time we had a woman president.

[cherokeeprogressive]

171. She's an old-school political insider.

Gender and race aside, I'm at a point now where I'd happily see every incumbent kicked to the curb and insiders left out in the cold.

FWIW, I supported her in the 08 primaries. That seems like a lifetime ago now though.

[PowerToThePeople]

96. No. n/t

[mimi85]

97. No! n/t

[PADemD]

98. No

Iraq war vote
DLC
Corporate friendly

[woo me with science]

100. Not just no, but hell no.

No more Third Way, no more corporatists, no more warmongers.

[bigwillq]

102. No, I don't want her. (nt)

[daleanime]

103. Not really...

there are better choices we could make.

[bravenak]

104. I'll take Hillary.

Over any republican. And she can beat any republican.

[madinmaryland]

105. Reccing for the dumbest thread of the week.

[graywarrior]

107. I want Cher!

[highmindedhavi]

106. Not voting for anyone who takes money from

Banks / Wall Street

[Smarmie Doofus]

108. Good god , no. n/t

[rdharma]

110. No thanks to Hillary!

Nuff said.

[krawhitham]

111. She is a week candidate, she got beat by an unknown black man last time

[Sognefjord]

114. No thank you. Do not need blatant imperialists! Or Walmart lawyers either.

[Eleanors38]

115. No. I want to see others, but am leaning toward Warren.

[Bigmack]

116. I think a lot of people here...

... haven't properly considered the kind of Neanderthal the Repubs will nominate.

I love Warren to pieces, but to keep Cruz/Bush/whoever out of the White House, I would vote for .... well, let's just say any Dem.

[coldmountain]

120. Obama turned out to be Clinton in drag! Why be so against the real thing ?

[DonCoquixote]

126. because many of us who voted

did not want Clinton or a clone of Clinton, period. Obama makes us angry because he sold himself as NOT Clinton. If Obama had to pretend not to be Clinton to win, what makes people think we would actually want the real thing?

[coldmountain]

132. You will not get a pony this time either. Just let Hillary win and work on the house

You will not get a pony this time either. Just let Hillary win and work on the house to help her or hold her accountable rather than vote for another candidate that will mislead you about what they can or will do.

[DonCoquixote]

134. Pony

Look, a lot of us out there are hurting. We do not want ponies, we want our medicine and our rent. Yes, i realized the social issues people seemed to get most of the attention, but there are issues of economics, which is a nice way of saying giving wall street what it wants, how it wants it, has been killing us. I do not expect the former Wal-Mart executive, nor the cheerleader for outsourcing, to help. She got HER pony, and probably a racehorse or two, by furthering corporate scum.

[coldmountain]

145. Why not tell the truth about Hillarys involvement with WalMart? She was not an executive

As a Director, Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, but Only So Far

"She was a logical candidate: the wife of the governor, a Wal-Mart shareholder — with stock eventually worth nearly $100,000 — and a highly regarded lawyer at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in several cases.

But if her circumstances made her a natural choice for the board, her often liberal beliefs did not and she struggled to change the rigid, conservative culture at Wal-Mart, achieving modest results.

Early in her tenure, she pressed for information about the number of women in Wal-Mart’s management, worrying aloud that the company’s hiring practices might be discriminatory.

The data she received would have been troubling: by 1985, there was not a single woman among the company’s top 42 officers, according to “In Sam We Trust,” the 1998 book about Wal-Mart by Bob Ortega.

John E. Tate, who served as a director with Mrs. Clinton from 1988 to 1992, recalled that by her third board meeting Mrs. Clinton had announced “that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?pagewanted=all

[Erose999]

121. No on Clinton or any DLC/Turd Way candidate. I will enojy watching T-baggers heads ass-plode if Hill

were to win though. They hate Hillary worse than they hate Obama.

[coldmountain]

135. What does that tell you that the Baggers hate Hillary so much?

[Erose999]

184. They hate her because they have no idea how the system works. They hate who Rush tells them to hate.

[wildbilln864]

124. hell no! n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

125. NO.

She will be 69 in 2016, and the Presidency is a very high stress job that rapidly ages a person.

It is time to move on and leave the Clinton's and the Bushes behind us.

[TroglodyteScholar]

127. Nah.

Will probably vote for her anyway (after the primaries)....

[lob1]

128. No.

I want someone who represents me, not corporations

[Vashta Nerada]

129. Absolutely not.

We don't need another corporatist in the White House.

[TDale313]

130. No, I don't really want her to be the nominee.

[Mike Nelson]

137. I will support the nominee, Clinton or another...

...let's nominate whoever has the best chance. We can't afford another regression.

[joelz]

138. No

[dkf]

140. No Hillary for me.

She is too hawkish for my taste. If she were President I am pretty sure we would have bombed Syria by now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. No

She is just another corporatist. Besides, we've already had two Bushes. If we want dynasties, we should change our Constitution to make ourselves into a monarchy.

[Deep13]

142. I am only literally answering the question you posed.

"No." Looking at the verb "want," which describes a subjective desire and not either instructions or expectations--reasonable or otherwise. I am not saying I want her to lose the nomination or that I prefer someone else. I'll probably vote for her if she runs.

Rather, I'm not giving it much thought because 1. it's 2013 and 2. at this point I have lost all faith--and therefore interest--in our political system. I am far more interested in popular, intellectual, and cultural resistance to our capitalist hegemonic culture.

[struggle4progress]

143. I'd vote for her if she won the 2016 primary, but she's said repeatedly she's not running. And

while I think she is an extraordinarily bright and competent person, I would really prefer that US politics not become more dynastic

[area51]

144. No.

She's pro-war, pro offshoring, and believes that Americans should be forced to show proof of health insurance in order to even get a job interview.

[hfojvt]

146. How does a non-poll thread tell you the percentages?

And even if 90% of DU did NOT want Hillary, what does that prove? Just that 90% of DU is made up of the 30% of primary voters (a much larger group than DU regulars) who do not want Hillary.

DU, after all, is not a random sample of Democrats.

[davidpdx]

147. No

I think neither Clinton nor Biden will run and the field will be wide open. The only sane hold over from 2008 that hasn't retired would be Richardson and I highly doubt he'd run either.

2016 has the potential to bring in very fresh faces into the president if Clinton and Biden don't run.

[FUMCSDLCBDPOS]

148. No Hillary or any other corporate candidate!

If it were up to me ALL the corporate toadies would be kicked out of the Democratic Party but not being in charge I can’t fix the party but I can withhold my vote from those Democrats who do not support my values.

[Norrin Radd]

149. I do not want her to be our candidate.

[sagat]

150. No

[mattclearing]

151. Just no. n/t

[RandiFan1290]

152. I will not vote for Hillary

I am done supporting Reagan "Democrats"

[PeteSelman]

153. Not I.

She is no friend of labor.

[JustAnotherGen]

154. No

[GeorgeGist]

155. Yes

I do not want Hillary Clinton as my candidate.

The boomers have had their shots and frankly, we blew it.

[HappyMe]

156. Not really.

I'm hoping for somebody more progressive. I also don't like the dynasty thing.

[B Calm]

157. To keep another Bush out of office, hell yes I'd vote for her!

[smokey nj]

158. No, thank you.

[JHB]

159. That question covers two groups...

...those who don't want Hillary and those who don't want Hillary, i.e. firm disfavor of her candidacy vs. lack of enthusiasm for her running.

[TheKentuckian]

160. I don't nor her ideological fellow travelers.

[fredamae]

161. No to Third Way/New Dem Coalition

candidates. That's a bit challenging since the Dem Leader-Wasserman-Schultz Is a Member of the "New Dem Coalition".......
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership-text-only

Imo and for years now--what "we" want does NOT matter to the leadership in either party-candidates are "pre-groomed/selected"--then we get to choose between bad/less bad in primary, midterms and general elections

[snappyturtle]

162. No. nt

[brooklynite]

163. Golly! I'm guessing you all feel pretty good right now...

You had a chance to vent about someone you don't like with no need to do the hard work to find someone you do.

Actually, since its "TPTB" or "The Party Bosses" that are "forcing" Hillary Clinton on you, I'm guessing you can continue to do nothing for another two years and then complain that "they" wouldn't let you have a "real progressive" candidate.

[Beacool]

168. They must live in an alternative world where the majority of the country is liberal.

In the one I live, the majority consider themselves moderates. I have no idea why these people think that an uber liberal could win the presidency in 2016.

It would serve them right if they stayed home in protest in 2016 and ended up with a Tea Bagger for president. Unfortunately, it would impact the rest of us.

[LWolf]

164. HRC is not on my list of those I'm willing to support. nt

[Beacool]

166. This place is as sickening as a RW site when it comes to the Clintons.

I have no clue whether Hillary would want to run, but if she does, I'm sure that she'll win. This won't be 2008.

[Auntie Bush]

172. Even worse than sickening! Maybe even worse than FR.

After seeing these results...no wonder so many think this place is going to the dogs. We won't win the election if the majority of Dems think like this. Thank goodness DU doesn't represent the rest of the public. I want to win! I want a women president!

[Beacool]

175. No, the majority of Democrats don't think like that.

As you said, thank goodness that DU doesn't represent the rest of the Democratic party.

I guess we should be used to the unbridled nastiness, but it's still depressing.

[Auntie Bush]

178. YES, it is depressing and often too nasty for me to continue

but then I feel better the next day and continue. If Hillary runs and this place continues being so negative...I'll quit posting for sure. I already cut down a lot because I don't want to witness all the nasty comments. If you say something nice about Hillary there is an army ready to pounce.

[Beacool]

180. I know what you mean, it's been like that ever since I joined in 2007.

I think that the primaries were so nasty that many Hillary supporters left. There aren't too many of us here. We must be masochists. LOL!!!

[Auntie Bush]

181. From one masochist to another.

I left DU for two years and never looked back because they were pillaging Hillary so badly...couldn't stand the place! However, I did join with Obama and voted for him and have never criticized him. Now all those who were so adamant for him are now bad mouthing him.
I've been more loyal to him than they have. Some people are just never satisfied.

I think there are a lot more Hillary supporters here than it appears...they are just afraid to admit it for fear of all the nasty replies they'll receive...we'll see

[Beacool]

182. I hear you.

Maybe you're right and the Hillary supporters are lurking. I don't know. Me, I'll defend her and her supporters. I'm not afraid of anyone. I also believe in freedom of speech. Funny how so many don't, some seem to spend their time alerting and placing people on ignore. I have never done either.

[Capt. Obvious]

167. On the fence

2007 I was anyone but Clinton.

Now her outstanding service as SoS has softened my view. I'll wait to see who runs. That includes her btw.

[AngryAmish]

169. NO. After all the racism of the 2008 primaries, I've had enough.

[Beacool]

170. After all the sexism of the 2008 primaries, so do her supporters.

[Nite Owl]

173. No

I think she would have us in another war

[1-Old-Man]

174. No

[hedgehog]

176. No

[Myrina]

179. No thank you.

n/t

[tblue37]

186. I don't. She is admirable in many ways, but she is too old, too conservative, and too

tied to moneyed interests.

Also, she would absolutely energize the Republican base.

We need new blood--and it needs to be much more committed to liberalism blood.

[lonestarnot]

187. I would rather see Mrs. Warren.