General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan we have a fresh face for 2020?
Let the Gores, the Clintons, and the Sanders be the elder statesmen and stateswomen of our party. It's time to look forward and not back.
If this was boxing Gore and Clinton would get rematches because their losses were contested and controversial but it isn't. I never thought of it until now but politics is more final, more unforgiving, and more brutal than pugilism.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,822 posts)Someone will emerge as the best candidate, but I doubt it will be either Hillary or Bernie. Bernie (whom I supported during the primaries) will be 78 and I doubt he'll want to put himself through another campaign. Hillary has lost twice, which doesn't bode well for a third try. I don't want either of them to run, and it's much too soon to know who the likely and viable candidates will be.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Not even Gore in 2004 if he wanted it, and he had a damn good case. Nominations have to be won in real time, not promised in advance.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,209 posts)But both parties do it and it generally doesn't work out well for either party. In recent memory, I can only think of one VP who successfully ran for President immediately after serving as VP and that's George HW Bush.
Nixon's first run
Humphrey
Mondale
Gore
Then you get the candidates who lost the nomination once, but got it the second or third time around. Reagan won the second time around, but Dole, Romney and Hillary Clinton couldn't close the deal.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)Both unknowns four years before they became president.
We need someone late forties, early fifties.
Although, if Hillary wants to put herself through it again, I have no problem with that. It's gonna take some experienced hands to undo the damage.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)and I'm not convinced we learned anything at all, I really hope we learned that it is never anyone's turn.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)jalan48
(13,881 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)nikibatts
(2,198 posts)It would be disastrous!
Bernie and his gang were used as much as any tool in the arsenal of the alt-right.
melman
(7,681 posts)'Bernie and his gang'
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)which may be to be a synonym for experience. Are they allowed carry-ons?
lapucelle
(18,305 posts)and said it was brutal.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)which was never produced and nobody outside Kurt has ever said. Bernie hardly has any baggage & it contributes to his popularity and high numbers.
It was never produced and no specifics were given about what exactly. How odd
lapucelle
(18,305 posts)The Republicans had no interest in damaging Sanders during the primaries. Their goal was to soften up Clinton and divide Democrats. If Sanders won, they had a sledge hammer to hit him with. If Hillary won, they could continue to stoke the fires of division that they had so carefully laid during the run-up to the general.
This tactic is textbook Roger Stone. It's not lost on those of us who have witnessed Mr. Stone's handiwork for decades that his filthy, sticky fingerprints were all over the Trump campaign, despite his initial denials. His strategy was brilliant, and it worked.
Al Giordano has promised to primary Sanders in 2018 for his Senate seat. If he does, he has little chance of winning, but he will not be shy about going negative. I guess we'll see soon enough.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/roger-stone-trump-timeline
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)Compared to most politicians these days, Bernie is clean
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)With nothing to back it up. You have something, then cough up the evidence. Otherwise you sound like...
"Lots of people are saying, I don't know, but people say..."
lapucelle
(18,305 posts)who writes for a reliable mainstream news source. That's what is known as evidence. The fact that you found it necessary to edit out your original insult is evidence as well.
Sorry that I was not quicker to comply with your demand that I "cough something up". Hopefully this will suffice.
radius777
(3,635 posts)the oppo research on Sanders was yuge, but Team Hillary didn't want to use it for fear of dividing the party.
Sanders has a very alt-left/far-left (and somewhat strange otherwise) past.
IMO, she should've taken him on harder idelogically, as most of his ideas are simply tax and spend Euro-socialism that doesn't work and leads to economic stagnation. Her center-left ideas were/are far more pragmatic and well thought out. She's a true Democrat, as most Dem presidents throughout history (including FDR) were on-balance center-left.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,436 posts)Given how things turned out last time, I don't think that many Democrats would be keen on a new Democratic candidacy for him (can't he just join the party already since he's supposedly "taking it over" . Of course, if he runs as an Independent, he'd probably split the vote between himself and the Democratic candidate and Trump will get another 4 years, so, frankly, it would just be best IMHO if he not run at all. However, whether he runs or what he runs as is completely his choice and it's the choice of the voters to accept/reject his candidacy, so.............
Me.
(35,454 posts)Not as a Dem that's for sure, once was enough.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)Right now he's one of the most popular politicians and is basically a Democrat in everything but name. Whether or not he chooses to run again as a Democrat or whether the Party allows him to is another question. I believe at this moment he is the most electable politician to the left of the Republicans.
ecstatic
(32,727 posts)Not to mention, less divisive.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)ecstatic
(32,727 posts)Bernie has done some great things, but there are several examples of incidents where he was too slow to respond and react to new information that contradicted his previous understanding. While that works in certain settings, it's not a good trait for a president to have--especially during a crisis. Unfortunately for us, Trump also has that problem.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #13)
BlackCherokee This message was self-deleted by its author.
RelativelyJones
(898 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)I would like to see some of our younger Democrats run...like Joseph Kennedy III, Corey Booker, Kamela Harris, Sherrod Brown (would be particularly good for the rust belt),Chris Murphy, Al Franken and how about Michelle Obama?
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... As his governor term ends.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Baconator
(1,459 posts)... That I don't agree with on every issue but would still vote for.
He has a type of sincerity that was absolutely lacking in the last election.
After him, I'd look to Booker but he is a little to Jesus crazy for my taste.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)And you will never agree completely with any candidate...I voted twice for President Obama knowing that I did not agree with him on trade...was never sorry.
FDRsGhost
(470 posts)He would get eaten alive. I love him but his stances on fracking here are NOT well liked. He'd make a wonderful VP choice however.
renate
(13,776 posts)He seems very appealing. I don't know the first thing about his politics, although I assume they're mostly good, but he was very personable, and that matters. I think the fact that he used to run a brewery could bring some Trump-type voters in because that makes him a regular guy.
moonscape
(4,673 posts)interest stands somewhere between less than 0 and not even when hell freezes over.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #1)
mcar This message was self-deleted by its author.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Bernie. Nope.
Warpy
(111,327 posts)and campaign for him, honestly. The presidency is a tough office and turning it into a gerontocracy is a bad idea. I love Sanders and Warren, but there are younger people with the stamina to run and then get in and do the job for 8 years.
Clinging to the familiar is also a bad ides.
I'll be perfectly happy to vote for someone 30 years my junior if I'm still around in 2020, and I hope the Democrats finally realize that progressivism isn't a disease.
There are so many younger pols out there in the House and Senate who would fit the office nicely that no, we don't need to stick to people in their 70s. In fact, it's crazy to do so.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Warpy
(111,327 posts)Or didn't you bother to read the post?
Forget it. Bye.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Thanks for the reveal.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)as any other potential candidate... gimme a break!
Bernie is entitled to run and win regardless of people who would discriminate against him because of his age, which has ZERO effect on his capabilities ... indeed, it's a PLUS in terms of positive experience.
You could try responding respectfully, instead of hurling insults at people. An apology would be nice... not that I expect one. So, do us all a favor and find somewhere else to play. Thank you.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,651 posts)In Progressive politics. He fires up and motivates the young voters, and is probably the only progressive currently able to connect with swing/Trump voters, and that will be essential moving forward. If the Dems retake the house or senate in 2018, I'll bet that Sanders will have played a major role.
How about Senate Majority leader Sanders? I think he'd be perfect to lead the impeachment trial...
Warpy
(111,327 posts)that they can't win without the progressive wing of the party any more than we can win without them at this point.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Orrex
(63,220 posts)All proclamations about the "right way" to do it in 2020 must take this truth into consideration.
Beyond that, Sanders will be 79 on election day 2020. Older than any President ever to leave office. That's not being ageist; simply stating a fact.
The GOP and the media will hit this point nonstop during all of primary season and during the general election season. They will portray him as feeble and lacking in vitality, and "alternative" media will run endless stories about his failing health and will imply that he'll die during his first term.
I like almost all of what Sanders has to say (except, well, that stuff about attacking the Democratic party). However, the fact remains that he lost the primary. He lost the primary, and he's certainly not entitled to a "turn" simply because his supporters continue to believe in him and belief he should get one.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)RelativelyJones
(898 posts)Either one will spark a lot of bad feelings after the past primary.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Best chance is for a left leaning moderate with personality.
rurallib
(62,441 posts)traditional Democratic values?
The only thing I have seen polarizing about Warren is that the right treats her like shit the same way they treat Hillary Clinton.
Should we let the right pick our candidate?
Baconator
(1,459 posts)The base is as locked in as they can be so a left leaning moderate can draw from the middle and win.
rurallib
(62,441 posts)as someone who not only speaks to those who have been screwed over the years, but also as very genuine and empathetic.
The right wing media has already done such a number on her that many people pick up the meme without checking her out. A major part of it is simply sexist.
When I look at those who really seem to embrace what old Democratic values are I see Warren, Franken, O'Malley, Sanders of course. I haven't fully checked out Gillibrand or Kamala Harris (she is pretty new but I liked much of what she did in Cali.)
I believe Warren is in the middle, but just like Clinton the corporate media will do all they can to skewer the public perception.
Whoever it is will not only have to beat the Republicans, but also the Koch brothers and their allies who spent almost as much as the Republicans last go round, the corporate media which gave Trump a couple billion in free publicity and continues to do so (more than republicans spent) and who knows what kind of interference from abroad.
So the Democrat will have a 4 against one fight in 2020. I think we better have a candidate who speaks to workers and small businesses with sincerity and has a track record behind it.
I still don't see Warren as polarizing plus she already has a huge following.
Long ways to 2020. The very best Democrats could do right now is develop a coherent message for this country's workers and underclasses.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)to make it seem like she must have all kinds of power. That, in turn, allowed them to pretend that she was somehow abusing it.
I like Warren. I also like Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington.
rurallib
(62,441 posts)I have followed him marginally - would have no problem getting behind him
kacekwl
(7,021 posts)We're done already.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I cannot imagine that Elizabeth Warren is more polarizing to the general electorate than Hillary Clinton was, rightly or wrongly. Or that she is more polarizing to Democrats than Sanders is.
She is not that different from Bernie Sanders, really, in terms of rhetoric. In her previous career, economic inequality was her bread and butter. I was always impressed when she was on with Bill Moyers.
Cha
(297,513 posts)candidate in History except President Barack Obama.
But, as RJ rightly stated..
"I agree, not Clinton, not Sanders Either one will spark a lot of bad feelings after the past primary."
Cha
(297,513 posts)That's for DAMN SURE.
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)
Post removed
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)I doubt she could even get on a Democratic ballot.
R B Garr
(16,973 posts)thing to do. It just turns people off to have someone label them with contrived monikers designed to make others feel superior. If you want to test that, look how the Bernie Sanders group lost at the grassroots level recently in Los Angeles. They made a candidate out to be "Establishment" simply because he knew people, like the mayor...
Article title: Sanders wing dealt setback in Calif. special election
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/jimmy-gomez-california-june-runoff-236902
When your talking points at that level consist of calling people "establishment" and "neoliberal", it just emphasizes the phoniness of it all. How on God's Green Earth is getting an endorsement from a mayor 'establishment". This whole name calling and labeling looks to be really overplayed. If someone is venturing into politics at the local level, the alternative is to advertise yourself as a nobody, know-nothing who won't get anything done because they don't know how to function in government. When you boil it down to the essence of what being "anti-Establishment" means at that level, you can see how it is rejected for being the phony tripe that it is.
jackssonjack
(79 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Basically he cleaned up the stinking mess left by Arnold and assorted other GOP rascals like Dukemejian (who beat uber-popular Tom Bradley in the eleventh hour, hmm) and Pete Wilson. Trump is going to leave a huge mess, so Obama II or Clinton 1.5 works for me.
p.s. happy E-day!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I love my governor but I don't want to begin 2020 speculation other than to speculate on the future.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)We're all tired of the same old faces running for President. It is time for the next generation of leadership to take the stage, I think. People in their 40s or 50s who have proven themselves through faithful service to the people should be the ones vying for the White House. I say that, despite having entered my 70s.
I don't think most people want to see the same cast showing up in the upcoming sequel. I don't think that will play in Peoria at all. The voters will decide during the primaries.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Let's move into the 21st century style governance as Democrats fearless and forward thinking.
delisen
(6,044 posts)candidate who can implement?
In other words government off, by, and for the people?
sheshe2
(83,855 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)offered us for sure. And if she were to choose to run, unlikely as that might seem,... Well, I'd have to see. I'm still mourning what we should be doing with her in the White House right now.
Genuine MAJOR infrastructure spending, with MAJOR good jobs creation, anyone?
JHan
(10,173 posts)and Universal basic income. It's really catching up to us and we aren't prepared.
Amaryllis
(9,525 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Like this guy:
rurallib
(62,441 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)currently the Lt. Governor of California.
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)We don't need a left version of Newt Gingrich.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)For one, that article is 3 years old.
That's part of the problem- there's 50 million people on the West Coast but the self-appointed "experts" sit in a manhattan/beltway bubble completely friggin' clueless on everything from marijuana legalization to technology.
I'd rather have Gavin Newsom than some East Coast authoritarian like Cuomo-- who sounds like Jeff Sessions when he says we can't legalize weed "because we have a heroin problem" derrrrrp.
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)I don't believe he has 2020 Presidential aspirations at this moment.
It's still too early to discuss 2020 anyway.
Obviously Martin O'Malley an Andrew Cuomo are two politicians who are positioning themselves for a 2020 run, but it's a long way off and other candidates will emerge as well.
We have a lot of rising stars in the party.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But Newsom and Harris are definitely names to watch. The future moves West to East. Like the Jet Stream.
WomenRising2017
(203 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)We have a lot of good leaders on the West Coast, who are ahead of the curve on issues that actually resonate once you get west of the Lincoln Tunnel.
BannonsLiver
(16,439 posts)Well there's two names that electrify the base and terrify the GOP.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)He would just deliver an identical electoral map to the one Hillary Clinton did and I would also rather not spend a year and a half learning everywhere he has ever stuck his dick.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Well we're sure as hell not going to win any elections chasing after 2004's "values voters" and "megachurch moms".
A majority of Americans support cannabis legalization; that's where the voters are- so where are the leaders?
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I don't think there are enough single-issue Marijuana voters to swing national elections, unscheduling oxycontin though, that would probably win some red states.
Newsom is probably going to come out on top of an utterly uninspiring field of potential Democrat governors. Between him and Villaraigosa (who is just an idiot) I will gladly vote for Newsom. But Newsom has the exact same problem Hillary Clinton did, they represent archetypes that are alien and repulsive to a significant portion of the country.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Than marijuana and oxycontin are, hurr durr derp.
All i know is, as long as I can remember the beltway conventional wisdom geniuses have been wrong on shit like that. Marijuana prohibition is unpopular for the same reason gun control is- at the end of the day, Americans just dont appreciate being told what to do by the government.
Whether i agree (marijuana) or have my doubts (broadest possible interpretation of the 2A) there is no question that that is where the sentiments of the electorate lie.
And for all the hyuk hyuk stoner jokes, weed did better last Nov. 8 than pretty much anything- or anyone- on the ballot.
As for Newsom, his teeth and hair used to bother me, too.
I grew out if it.
BannonsLiver
(16,439 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)One of those liabilities is a "zipper problem".
He will do fine in California, especially if his only serious primary opponent is the worst mayor Los Angeles ever had. But like Hillary Clinton he is not nationally competitive.
BannonsLiver
(16,439 posts)Have a lovely day.
BannonsLiver
(16,439 posts)Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)
NightWatcher This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)jackssonjack
(79 posts)dsc
(52,166 posts)are Obama 08, Obama 12, and Clinton 16. Just saying.
delisen
(6,044 posts)ecstatic
(32,727 posts)to run for office? Do you think Bill de Blasio would have a shot?
lapucelle
(18,305 posts)is that he's a dorky white guy with a cool black family. He's regarded as a buffoon by most New Yorkers. Andrew Cuomo is likely to run, but even Democrats in NY don't trust him.
Vanity Fair does a brutally funny De Blasio diary every month.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/11/de-blasio-diaries-chapter-1
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and not pre-emptively worry about the color of their skin or their genitalia?
LiberalFighter
(51,029 posts)Expertise and competence should be.
delisen
(6,044 posts)These posts have become so predictable -its almost a game-I've been getting bored with Sudoku
When does the next missile arrive?
jackssonjack
(79 posts)She's smart, already incredibly popular and young.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Matthew28
(1,798 posts)moonscape
(4,673 posts)knowledgeable about how govt works to repair the damage of these 4 years. And even so, repairing is much harder than destroying, so they'll need two terms to do it.
Initech
(100,099 posts)We need someone new and scandal free. I'd prefer a Franken / Warren ticket but that's wishful thinking.
LenaBaby61
(6,976 posts)I hear you, but I'm not so sure that would automatically elect a Dem to the presidency. We live in a different time and place now.
Massive scandals, being a crook who doesn't pay or show his taxes, pathologically lying, admitting to pussy-grabbing and not apologizing for it didn't stop tRumputin from winning/being installed into the presidency.
But then again, he did have the GOP's help in voter-depressing/voter disenfranchising/crosschecking/purging the Dem vote in key usually blue states. Plus, he got from the ruskies in God knows how many ways, FakiLeaks helped, ruskie bots,russians in boiler rooms on the Internet putting out fake news and outright lies about Hillary, The FBI and the corporate media, who gave him $2 Billion in free air time. And even with those things helping tRumputin, Hillary STILL won the popular vote and he managed 306 Electoral College Votes. NO landslide by any means.
To be honest, IF we can vote and trust that our votes WILL be counted fairly and properly, Dems need to mobilize people and GET THEM THE HELL OUT TO VOTE. IF PEOPLE (Especially Dems/Disenfranchised) aren't motivated to get out and vote after seeing what this orange, fat, lying piece of human filth "installed" into the White House has done to destabilize our world in just 3 short months, then I don't know what it'll take.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)
Ccarmona This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ccarmona
(1,180 posts)and let the people make the choices.
lapucelle
(18,305 posts)Even Sanders admitted that he ran as a Democrat rather than as an independent because a presidential run requires the organizational resources of a major party. And he did rely on DSCC support during his senate run.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/sanders-yes-im-a-democrat-of-convenience
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)why nt not just let people who want to run do so. If your argument is valid they will lose to some better candidate.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)Plus he's sort of an in-law to Chaffetz. That might help in the investigations.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,086 posts)Thank the Admins for "Trash This Thread."
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Go Joe
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)That is obviously neither Clinton or Sanders.
nycbos
(6,037 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Yeah, I'd prefer we looked beyond our royalty, but I suppose we'll go with whichever candidate is standing in 2019, and we know where the power is.
caroldansen
(725 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Although I am not sure that two north-easterners would be such a good idea strategically, although I would prefer it personally.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)The choice is clear. Do we want to win or not?
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)Polls showed him beating Trump during the primaries. Polls show him much more popular now. What metric are you using?
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)There is no way of knowing. I have no doubt the GOP had stuff on him.Why else would they want him to win? He did not win a primary last time and I think he would be less likely this time...given the bitter feeling of many Democrats.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)He'll win every one of those counties! You know why? Because Democrats with a clear and convincing message will always win!
Baclava
(12,047 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)Winning begins with a winning attitude. Personally, I'm for winning!
Baclava
(12,047 posts)Is that what you're saying?
ZX86
(1,428 posts)He is the most popular politician in the nation. Bar none. I want to win!
Baclava
(12,047 posts)PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Odoreida
(1,549 posts)Andrew Cuomo.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ZX86
(1,428 posts)I can see where that could be awkward for some folks. But Medicare for All and a $15 minimum wage will go a long way to smooth over those ruffled feathers.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)OldSchoolLiberal
(23 posts)I think all of them will be too old to run in 2020
Yorkist
(59 posts).....have come to a point where a tv persona candidate and an X factor campaign is what floats the voters boats then it may be wise to find the best actor for the job.
George Clooney, for example, would wipe the floor with anything the Republicans could conceivably put up against him.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)Right or wrong, the candidate considered to be more charismatic has won every time in the modern era (Reagan through to Trump)
OK, in 1988, neither Bush nor Dukakis were charismatic, but Dukakis took blandness to epic levels.
I love Elizabeth Warren. She has a lot of charisma to me, but does she have the charisma to appeal to voters like Obama and Bill Clinton? She has the same issue as Sanders, though, in that she'll be old in 2020.
I've heard Kamala Harris is an excellent speaker, but I have not taken the time to go out & listen to her speak at length.
I like Kirsten Gillibrand as well, but don't know about her charisma, either.
Julian Castro is a very good speaker, as is Corey Booker. The "Fake News" crowd has already attacked Booker, so they consider him a threat in 2020.
athena
(4,187 posts)Charisma, in our society, is intrinsically male. There is no way a female politician could be charismatic like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton and not be ripped to shreds by the media and the opposition.
Americans' need for charismatic leaders is one of the reasons why I don't believe I will see a woman president in my lifetime. We are a long ways from equality.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)but, I know a lot of people think Michelle Obama is charismatic and a great speaker. I've heard that Kamala Harris is also a charismatic speaker.
But, it's a lot more difficult as a woman - speak too loud and you're shrill or angry, but too soft and you're weak and not ready to be commander in chief...
While I like Hillary Clinton and think she would have been a very good president, she is not as charismatic as Michelle or Barack Obama or her husband. Bill Clinton. But, not many people are that good, male or female.
riversedge
(70,282 posts)a voice though, for which I am glad. I do not want to see posts that try to draft her or others that you mention either.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)There are some bright stars within the Democratic Party. To win, it will take someone that is a moderate. A moderate running is the only way to bring back the demographic group that cost HRC the election - the 45-65 y/o white middle class voter that isn't a racist. The Democratic Party ignored that group of voters last fall. That group also didn't care for Sanders, so he would have done worse with them than HRC did. This group instead voted for somebody (as foolish as it was for them) that actually spoke about their wants - good jobs and healthcare.
This stings to those that want the party to move more to the left, but the fact is, by being moderate and letting the RNC move further to the right, the Democratic Party becomes more inclusive.
A younger person with some type of state government experience, that is also a moderate is the winning ticket.