(MD Governor) O'Malley says he's considering White House run

[charlie and algernon]

Source: Capital Gazette


JERUSALEM (AP) — Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley, says he is considering a run for the White House in 2016.

O'Malley said Wednesday in Jerusalem that he will dedicate more "reflection time" in the later part of this year to deciding whether to seek the Democratic nomination for the 2016 race.

O'Malley is frequently touted as a rising star of the Democratic Party. The former Baltimore mayor has successfully promoted a progressive agenda that includes same-sex marriage, gun control laws, banning the death penalty and immigration reform.

O'Malley is on an eight-day tour of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian territories with a delegation of Maryland officials.


Read more: http://www.capitalgazette.com/ap/international/o-malley-says-he-s-considering-white-house-run/article_f7dac083-f6b1-58dd-b6d0-e9c1e91da144.html

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I'd support him

although the field could get crowded between now and 2016.

[bigworld]

11. I live in Maryland

and while the guy's a good governor, I think it's pretty darn easy to be a Democrat in Maryland. I'd rather see someone from another state who's had to fight a little harder and had to win over some Republicans.

My thought is he's running for _vice_ president.

[loyalsister]

82. I heard that speculation about Jay Nixon

who, is from a state that requires fighting... but he doesn't.

[BlueCaliDem]

51. Me, too. Nothing against Hillary, but I like O'Malley's style.

He is a progressive Democrat with a progressive record. He's good-looking {that always works well with the ladies - think Clinton} and although he's got this really warm and engaging smile, he's as tough as nails. I've seen him as a surrogate for President Obama on shows where he went head-to-head with lying surrogates for Romney, and he crushed them. Aside from the fact that he reminds me of the handsome doctor on Gilligan's Island {I've always had a crush on the guy} he's smart, articulate, quick-witted, and decisive.

He would make a fantastic president - and his looks would work well in the South because he's white, male, and for those who voted for President Obama, he was a strong unwavering supporter and surrogate.


However, should Hillary decide to run, there's no use even trying. She's a "she" and many people believe it's her time to be president since she fought a hard fight in 2008 against one helluva Democrat and it would really, really be nice to have a female president - one who has it all to be a very good leader of this country.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

54. From time to time when his band is playing, me and some friends go to hear them. He's damn talented.

TV and pictures do not do this guy any justice. He is VERY good looking, and can play the hell out of a bass guitar.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. And his progressive policies are pretty damn good, too. ;-) eom

[24601]

61. Good looking should be irrelevant. Say that about a woman and without a doubt you're a sexist.

What counts is positions & policies.

[BlueCaliDem]

67. O'Malley's positions and policies: very progressive.

I believe I made that statement clear in my post. Another post on this thread points it out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=464977

Whether you like it or not, an unattractive candidate for President will not win no matter how perfect his policies are to the majority. Attractive candidates are more readily accepted and welcomed.

“70% of what people react to [is] how you look; and 20% is about how you sound; and only 10% is what you say.” — Eddie Izzard, Dress to Kill, 1999 http://contemporarycritique.wordpress.com/tag/eddie-izzard/

It's just the reality of the human psyche since our primary perception is through sight. Just as taller people earn more than their shorter counterparts, regardless of experience and skills.

[antigop]

70. Age makes a difference

Cue the "69 is not too old" posts....Countdown...3...2...1

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. I am a woman and I think he's damn good looking. Nothing sexist about it.

[Thor_MN]

80. Ummm, isn't that the very definition of sexist?

I know that if you turned it around and a male says Kamala Harris is good looking, it raises a firestorm of people calling him sexist for saying it...

[DebJ]

75. But it is so much more fun to watch them when they are

hotties, LOL. Obama is right up there.

[TygrBright]

2. Dude, I'm all yours in 2024

Until then, I'm Hillary's.

It won't hurt you to wait. Get a Cabinet appointment, heck, maybe a Veep slot even.

Qualified women and people of color have waited for CENTURIES. You can wait another ten years.

And if you do?

I'll totally be hosting your "getting to know you" parties in my town.

helpfully,
Bright

[abq e streeter]

8. Exceallent point. Her being a woman is FAR more important

than her DLC/Third Way corporate sellout policy positions .

[TygrBright]

9. You don't think Marty's a progressive, do you?

'cause believe me, he is NOT.

As conservative Democrats (the only variety realistically electable for as far ahead as I can evaluate) go, he's a decent, competent, somewhat hardnosed pol. He'd do no more harm than any other Democrat elected since Carter.

diffidently,
Bright

[abq e streeter]

12. No reference to him whatsoever in my post.

Strictly a response to "we have to have Hillary for the sole reason of her being a woman". I'm am a BIG supporter of Elizabeth Warren...because of what she believes and what she does, not because of chromosomal make-up.

[TygrBright]

18. Change "a" to "an" and insert "electable" after it. n/t

[abq e streeter]

24. I have said elsewhere that if she's the nominee ,I will most certainly vote for her.

I also do not think, that at least at this time, Warren is electable either. It's a sad commentary that electable apparently means 3rd Way/DLC sellout. This is strictly about supporting her JUST because she's a woman, and I mentioned Warren as a woman I'd support over virtually any man, but because of her beliefs and actions, not any other reason.

[hootinholler]

31. Elizabeth is absolutely electable

Especially so because of the ruckus on the Banking committee she's been making. She resonates with the public in ways no one else is even coming close to.

Hilary will have to fight harder than when she ran the last time to get the nomination because Joe Biden is gonna eat her lunch.

[cali]

83. no she's not. not even a little bit.

she doesn't have the political experience. she ran one lackluster campaign in MA. She got better as she went along, but it wasn't great. she's not a political natural. she won't have the people she needs to back her, backing her. getting elected is not about governing ability. it's about political chops

[JDPriestly]

60. I also support Elizabeth Warren.

She would win hands down.

[bahrbearian]

13. Surely you don't think Hillary is a Progressive?

[TygrBright]

21. Hell, no. I don't think Progressives are electable.

Which says nothing about what I WANT (I'd think I died and gone to heaven if Elizabeth Warren could get elected, but she couldn't, they'd kill her first.)

We are at least four Federal election cycles of hard, dirty, unremitting work from being able to get anyone who shows any overt progressive inclinations elected President. Maybe five. Barring unforeseeable major earth-shaking events, which may yet happen, but you can only contingency plan for them, they can't drive your basic strategy.

Between now and then, IF we are willing to put in that hard, dirty, unremitting work, we may be able to get progressives electable at local levels, then state levels, then possibly more widely at the Congressional level. We will always be able to get a couple of token progressives in the Senate because of the inertia factor there and the fact that they don't directly control much in the way of regulation and/or budgetary priorities.

Our Beloved Oligarchs are old hands at playing this game.

In a strange way, the Wingnut fringe are strange-bedfellow allies of ours, as they have (at the moment) more real leverage against our Beloved Oligarchs, and hence may provide us with some useful stalking horses at the local and state levels.

The Presidency has more symbolic/leadership value than actual policy value. I'm resigned to having it be a parking lot for figureheads for the next decade or two, if needed. In that respect, I look for maximum return from that figurehead role. Right now, that means anyone who isn't an old white guy, and who is ELECTABLE.

So, yes, I'm in Hillary's camp for now in spite of preferring Elizabeth Warren. If Elizabeth were to run it would be for the scare-and-contrast value, which could be very useful and I'd support her, too.

semi-coherently,
Bright

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. Where are you getting this from? Martin O'Malley is NOT a conservative Democrat.

[TygrBright]

34. Nothing against Marty, I like him. But he IS a conservative Dem.

Or he never would have been elected governor of Maryland. That's not pickin' on Marty. ALL Dems are pretty much conservative any more these days, with the exception of a few standout tokens.

They would not get elected, otherwise.

I lived in Maryland when Marty was first elected Mayor of Baltimore. He talked a good old-fashioned Roosevelt Dem line and did his best to be as progressive as possible. But when push comes to shove and the money's on the table he will walk softly around our Beloved Oligarchs and carry as much of their water as is necessary to stay viable and electable.

That's NOT an insult, coming from me. At the level Marty operates, pragmatism is a virtue.

Just don't expect him to be any more progressive than President Obama has been.

expansively,
Bright

[kwassa]

35. You have not followed his recent career.

O’Malley has successfully promoted a progressive agenda that includes legalizing same-sex marriage, introducing some of the U.S.’s toughest gun control laws, repealing capital punishment, and enabling some students who are not in the country legally to pay in-state tuition, seen as an important part of immigration reform.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/04/24/omalley-considering-white-house-run/

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. I need more evidence that O'Malley is a conservative...

Democrat, and only parts of the state of Maryland are conservative. The major, most populous areas in the state are Prince George's County, Montgomery County, and the City of Baltimore. None of those areas are conservative. In fact, they are quite liberal. Martin O'Malley is from Baltimore. Baltimore is NOT conservative. Though O'Malley is a Catholic--as many Marylanders are--he is staunchly pro-choice, pro-gay rights (he lobbied hard for and signed the marriage equality act), he has raised taxes throughout the state which has made him less than popular; and he is staunchly for the teachers unions which are VERY powerful throughout the state. He is a stalwart for environmental preservation, a Smart Growth proponent. Oh, any by the way, O'Malley just signed a law abolishing the death penalty. AND...signed a DREAM-ACT for Maryland. Some conservative he is.

The previous Democratic governor, Parris Glendening, was also a center-left Democrat. Actually, he was more left than any previous Democratic governor had been. His brother who died of AIDS urged him to push for increased funding for HIV/AIDS research and to ban discrimination against employees with HIV. Maryland was one of the first states to do so. Glendening was also one of the first Democratic governors to advoate for gays/lesbians and even marriage equality.

Yes, Maryland has had some Republican governors in the past, but apart from Ehrlich, those other Republican governors were moderate, not conservative (and often liberal on some issues). Ehrlich served one term as governor and that was only because Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, his Democratic challenger, ran an abysmal campaign.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, my friend, but you'll have to do better than that.

Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/us/omalley-steers-maryland-to-the-left.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Maryland has become BLUER, not more conservative. In fact, the state legislature has almost always been controlled by Democrats during the last few decades. Sure there are a lot of rural Democrats who are more conservative. I'm sure there are a good many corporate Democrats as well. (I used for work for Pete Rawlings (RIP) who led the Appropriations Committee.) Maryland politics has always been marred by the fact that many politicians come from either Baltimore, PG County or Montgomery County. (Nancy Pelosi, Ben Cardin are from Baltimore, for instance; Steny Hoyer is from PG County.)

Luckily the state is becoming more liberal as well.

I think Martin O'Malley will have a tougher time as a presidential candidate, and I do think he'd be more liberal than Obama. But he has basically evolved as Maryland has evolved. I don't discount that he may have been more moderate to conservative on certain issues as the Mayor of Baltimore. Often, mayors have to be more conservative and more corporatist in order to attract businesses to the city. Baltimore is a city ravaged by crime, povery and disinvestment. So, of course, it's probably more appropriate for him to be tough on crime, business friendly, etc.

However, the Martin O'Malley that we've known now for 8 years has been anything but conservative. Needless to say, I'm thrilled about that.

[antigop]

48. Evidence? You want evidence? No...you need to get in line and accept the "inevitable". nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. LOL!! What's the inevitable?

[antigop]

57. Well..you know... the "inevitable" (in quotes). nt

[Jake Izzy]

49. He is a conservative relative to other Democrats, but not compared to Republicans

He is a moderate, somewhat to the left.



http://www.ontheissues.org/Martin_O%60Malley.htm

[TeamPooka]

50. I think the 2016 Presidential Dance is "Ladies Choice". nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

55. For DU, this guy is Atila the Hun!! Relative to other Democrats is *relative* because the party has

such a big tent.

[DebJ]

76. I wonder what you would call a Pennsylvania Dem then...

I call them Maryland Republicans.

[JaneQPublic]

78. Are you familiar with O'Malley's recent liberal legislative wins?

You may be familiar with the start of his career as an elected official, but clearly not his achievements of the last couple of years.

I'd like to know of another governor that has backed and won a more liberal slate of legislation than O'Malley has recently:

Marriage Equality
Tough gun regulations
Offshore wind energy
Taxes for road improvements (and road jobs)
No tuition increases at state colleges and universities for several years
Veteran full-employment law
The Employment Advancement Right Now (Earn) jobs training initiative
Legalized medical marijuana
State version of the Dream Act
Same-day registration and voting

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-lawmakers-approve-medical-marijuana-near-end-of-a-busy-session/2013/04/08/cc52c786-a077-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_story.html

And here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/us/omalley-steers-maryland-to-the-left.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Beacool]

15. What was the excuse to elect Obama then?

Was being biracial FAR more important? He sure as heck is not a progressive either.

[BlueStreak]

23. Obama actually talked about real progressive ideas

As it turned out, he has such a strong pragmatic drive, that has offset most of his progressive ideas.

Hilary's background is well known. She has an awful lot of third-way baggage to get past. I'll certainly give her a listen, but I'm not supporting her just because she is a woman.

She certainly should not be considered the default candidate.

[Beacool]

28. That's fair.

[Auntie Bush]

43. Ditto for me!

Hillary now! O'Malley next...but not now.

[Heather MC]

44. Sex, Race Shouldn't matter, may the best Qualified person win

For the Record I am black and Obviously Female. We will have true Racial Unity When a black woman is considered a viable Candidate!

Until then, I will Support the best qualified person, no matter their race, color, religion, sexual orientation, or sex.

REMEMBER 2014 comes before 2016

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. Fellow black woman chiming in!! I agree with you wholeheartedly!! Ain't gonna happen, unfortunately.

Remember, "bros before hos"? Sick and sad.

[Heather MC]

62. My Sista!!!!!!! I thought I was the only one!!

I tell people all the time Black women got the right to Vote by Accident.

We rode in on the coat tells of Black men, and white women.

I Vote Michelle Obama 2016!!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. With Kamila Harris as the VP. ;)

[Heather MC]

65. Perfect Off to Kinkos to make emergency late night campaign posters!!!!!!

Oh girl, only in a perfect world!

[JDPriestly]

59. Hillary is not a progressive. She is too conservative.

I will only vote for her as a last resort.

[Bradj5]

69. Hillary voted for the Iraq war!

She is a non starter for me. Id look at O'Malley though

[denverbill]

3. I'd be more impressed by candidates who don't feel obliged to pay homage to Israel before announcing

It's unfortunate that Israeli approval is a prerequisite to becoming President of the US.

[abq e streeter]

7. Not one syllable in the article about "paying homage', or asking for/ needing "approval"

He also visited the Palestinian territories, but go right ahead with your thinly disguised "Israel (those JEWWWS) owns us" bullshit.

[Renew Deal]

4. Well, someone has to lose to Hillary

[loudsue]

5. Hillary already seems to have her nomination wrapped up on DU. I don't want Hillary.

I would love to see Elizabeth Warren in the race.

[abq e streeter]

6. Same thing in 2008....Countless posts here on her inevitability as the nominee.

I too hope we can do better but will have no choice but to support her if she is the nominee in '16. But I hope not.

[thesquanderer]

10. Agreed. I want someone more progressive than Obama.

And I don't think Hillary is that.

Warren, yes, but she may still be too green to be a serious contender in 2016. "Inexperience" almost sunk Obama in 2008. Both first term Senators, but at least it wasn't Obama's first elected office as it is Warren's.

But I don't buy that the candidate must be female, either. I will simply get behind the most progressive candidate who I feel is electable.

[colorado_ufo]

14. Correct.

If Elizabeth Warren (whom I think is tremendous) ran against Jeb Bush, people will gravitate toward what they perceive is "safe," that is, the person they perceive to have more experience. Hillary would have a distinct advantage over JB, having had the foreign policy experience of being Sec of State. I would also like someone more progressive, though, and I am also not happy about Hillary's vote for the war in Iraq. However, most of us have had a 20-20 moment of hindsight.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth can broaden her experience. As said, the "inexperience" almost sunk Obama; add that to the "female" factor, and there are too many strikes against her at this time.

What we want has to always be tempered with the more important goal of keeping a Democratic presence in the White House.

[totodeinhere]

17. If Senator Warren waits until 2024 to run she will be 75 years old then. I would say

go for it now while you can. I would support her over Clinton in a heartbeat. But then there are any number of true progressives whom I would support over Hillary.

[totodeinhere]

16. She had it wrapped up last time too until a guy named Barack Obama came along.

Is there another Barack Obama out there this time who can spoil Hillary's intentions again? I don't know but like they say in politics anything is possible.

[Beacool]

19. Unlike Obama who at least had been a state senator, Warren had zero legislative experience

before barely winning the Senate seat in a blue state. Why do people here think that just because she's the new darling of the Left that she would be ready to start campaigning for president in the next year and a half (after the 2014 midterms)?

After two terms in the WH, it will be hard enough for the Democrats to hold it for three consecutive terms. It will take someone with the ability to raise huge amounts of cash, who is a well known commodity, extremely popular and the most experienced candidate in the field; to hopefully win against the Republican nominee.

Forget about 2008. After Bush, his wars and the economic collapse, a turnip would have won the WH in 2008 if it had a D next to its name. 2016 will be a totally different ball game.

I equate Warren as the Left's version of the Right's Tea Party members. They may be the favorites of both party's extremes, but won't fair well in a national election. Notice how when all things were said and done, in 2012 the Republicans ended up with Romney. Someone who the base considered a moderate, instead of Bachmann, Cain, et al.

[BlueStreak]

26. Is this the "3 AM call" argument?

It seems to me that Obama has proven that Warren's background need not be a barrier.

The American people don't seem to thing these things are problems. That's nothing but the beltway echo chamber working.

I would go one step further. I would argue that no "Republican lite", including Hillary, can be elected in 2016. Look at Gore and Kerry -- both took very carefully triangulated positions on everything.

The Beltway is completely out of touch with where Americans are. The only Democrats who can will will be ones who break away from the beltway cocoon.

It is possible for Hillary to re-make herself. There is time for that. If she does that, she will get a lot of support.

[Beacool]

29. I think that DU and other sites like Kos, Salon, etc. are the ones out of touch

with the average Democrat. The average Democrat is not as LW as the denizens of these sites, just like the average Republican is not as RW as those who frequent Free Republic.

As for Hillary, I have no clue whether she wants to run or not. Bill stated a few days ago that he would like her to rest from politics for about a year and then see what she wants to do. Sounds like good advice to me. My only point is that we better have the big guns out in 2016 and I don't see at this point Warren being the most electable candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. I think 2016 depends largely on the Republicans more than who we nominate

You're going to have a President who isn't unpopular but also isn't popular enough that voters are super inclined to give him a third term in the form of electing his successor. They will be inclined to want a change and look towards the other side. However, if the other side is as dysfunctional as it was in 2012 then we can probably win again. If they get their shit together, we have a serious problem no matter who we nominate.

[Beacool]

72. Good point.

I think that it will also depend on the state of the economy. If things have improved, voters may want to continue with the party in charge. If things are bad, they will probably want a change.

[Renew Deal]

20. Just having a little fun

I haven't forgotten 2008.

[Beacool]

30. Well, too bad.

She's still the most popular politician in the nation. Gallup's poll that came out yesterday is just one of many. Furthermore, she's been the most popular since 2010.

So, millions of people do want Hillary to run in 2016. The question is whether she wants to go through that ordeal again.

[StevieM]

36. I'm starting to think that she will run

And if she runs, then she is likely to win IMO. It isn't true that she was as much a front runner in the run-up to 2008 that she is today (although people love to deliver that narrative). In 2007 the race started out kind of like a latter-day version of Gary Hart vs. Mario Cuomo in 1988, before Hart was knocked out of the race, and Cuomo chose not to run. The early polling had Clinton up by about 15 points. She was polling in the mid-30s with Obama in the low 20s. Than she went out and built up a big lead, which was made out by the media to be a lead that she inherited from her husband and had all along. Hillary was made out to be a de facto incumbent who was running for Bill's third term, but until that point the entire story of her career was about the fact that she wasn't Bill Clinton and was never able to inherit his advantages--she had to struggle and persevere to win people over on her own.

I like O'Malley a lot and I think Elizabeth Warren is terrific. I would be more than happy to support either one of them if they were the nominee.

[Beacool]

45. That narrative was mostly media driven.

They are the ones who kept calling her "inevitable". They are already doing it now too. She hasn't even decided whether she wants to run again or not and the media is saying that she would be almost unbeatable. I don't know why she should have the inevitability crap thrown in her face when she's not the one pushing that meme.

Hillary is a hard worker, she never took any campaign for granted. I do hope that she chooses to run in 2016, but it's her decision to make.

[antigop]

38. It's the "inevitability" meme. nt

[MoonchildCA]

46. Ditto.

I'm right there with you. Although it would be great to have a woman, and I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, I've never been excited about Hillary. Elizabeth Warren is great, but I don't think the real rulers of the world, the monied corporations, would ever let that happen. Bernie Sanders is my dream candidate, but that's not happening either.

I'll wait and see who the pool is and vote for the least conservative of the bunch, and by "bunch" I mean two, because that's all there is ever left to choose from by the time primaries make it here to California...

[montanacowboy]

22. FANTASTIC

HE WOULD MAKE A SUPER PRESIDENT

[eringer]

25. O'Malley would be a great president

Read his bio. He is catholic. His wife is a judge. He is a family man. And he is a progressive and is very intelligent. Find the interview he did together with the governor of Virginia. He was masterful how he took the republican party apart with the governor of Virginia sitting right next to him.

[deutsey]

33. And he's got a Celtic rock band (O'Malley's March)

They'll be playing at the local theater sometime soon.

[rightsideout]

27. Go O'Malley!!

He would make a great president. I met him and the Lt Governor at the Greenbelt Labor Day Parade a couple years ago. They were checking out our electric vehicles we had in the parade.

But I've noticed alot of my High School Facebook friends, who seem to be majority Conservative (explain this to me), can't stand him. They call him Owe Malley. I'm constantly sticking up for the Governor when they go after him.

[antigop]

39. Martin Joseph O'Malley (born January 18, 1963)-- a lot younger than HRC

Last edited Thu Apr 25, 2013, 01:23 PM - Edit history (2)

according to Wikipedia

Just sayin'.

Just reporting a FACT.


Cue the "69 is not too old" posts...countdown...3...2...1...

[MoonchildCA]

47. Oh my! He's younger than I am.

Well, I guess that was bound to happen eventually.., Obama came close...

[Turbineguy]

40. Two Irish guys in a row?

They'll never fall for it.

[antigop]

42. hee, hee...waiting for O'Malley to say: "We've had enough Clintons."

Cue the "haters/bashers" posts. Countdown: 3....2...1...

[Alva Goldbook]

52. O'Malley Would be a good pick.

Cory Booker would be a good pick too. Not sure he'd be ready for prime time by 2016 though. I do know this: If we think that Hilary can do it in 2016, then we're going to be in trouble. I will admit that I was never a big fan of the Clintons, or any other DLC Dem for that matter, but the reality is that as much as I'd like to see a woman become President, Hilary missed her chance in 2008. By 2016 she will just be too old to serve.

Reagan was elected when he was 69. And the job damn near killed him. The job has got to be even more difficult now. We all said that McCain was too old to serve. Hilary would be 70 years old in 2016. If she served 2 terms, she'd be 78 when she left office. I'm sorry, but no one that old should have access to the nuclear codes.

If we make air traffic controllers retire in the mid-50's, we shouldn't elect a President in their 70's.

[truebluegreen]

58. I 'm fine with that.

[Historic NY]

63. Lets see what happens in a couple yrs.....as a field shapes up.

[Nye Bevan]

73. One nice thing about him running: DU will become much more friendly towards Roman Catholicism (nt)

[KamaAina]

74. GO'Malley!

[bitchkitty]

77. He sounds like my kind of candidate.

For banning the death penalty and same-sex marriage - so far, so good. Found this pic - he's so handsome! Not that it matters but let's face it, it helps.



Pic from http://www.8womendream.com

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. Does he want to expand the safety net or contract it? Does he support Medicare for all?

Does he want to increase the military budget and increase the amount of U.S. military intervention or does he want to decrease the military budget and decrease the amount of U.S. military intervention?

His positions on same-sex marriage, gun control laws, banning the death penalty and immigration reform are all very good. But too many Democrats have taken the position of being liberal on social issues and Republican lite on economic and foreign policy issues. I would like to know where he stands on economic and foreign policy issues. I would like to be able to vote for a candidate rather than vote against one in 2016 - That is something I have not done in 40 years.

[wordpix]

81. I like O'Malley but I'm for Eliz. Warren - I think we need a woman and Hill is too old

I say this b/c I am old (60) but Hillary is older. Even if you're in perfect health, you slow down when you're older and need to sleep more. You can't get up and go in the a.m. like you used to. You're more prone to things like flu and stomach bugs (I get the latter every year and almost never did when I was in my 40's). OTOH, you possess wisdom and experience, which Hillary has. I'm a little divided on the "old" thing butwe need someone who can get up at 2 am if there's a crisis and work through the night.

The biggest issue about Hillary is she voted to go to war in Iraq, which is a big negative.

[Beacool]

84. Errr..........not to burst your bubble,

but Warren is less than two years younger than Hillary.

As for stamina, you've never been around Hillary. Ask any of her staff, she tires people half her age.

[wordpix]

85. OK, I stand corrected, thanks but

Hill's vote to go to war in Iraq was a huge mistake that still makes me skeptical. She is supposed to be so smart and thorough, but there were plenty of people in the intel community who thought BushCo was way off on the "slam dunk" WMD intel. For some reason, she didn't know there were so many non-believers who thought Bush-Cheney were full of BS? What gives?