Who will Obama's strong supporters back for primary nomination?

[Vanje]

I'm musing. I know its early yet, but I'm curious.

I've seen DU members excited about a Hillary Clinton run,
an Alan Grayson run,
an Elizabeth Warren run.
Will there be a Biden campaign? A Kerry campaign?
Maybe Dean will dust himself off, and toe up?

I'm looking forward to seeing who the contenders will be. I'm hoping to hear some candidates proudly state their liberal/ progressive bonifides.


I dont know what his supporters will do with Obama out of contention.
Who will Obama endorse? It would be awkward for him if more than one of his White House team throws hat in the ring.

I wonder if his strongest backers have been thinking about who they will choose for the party nomination.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Warren 2016 (nt)

[Vanje]

2. I'm developing a lean in that direction, myself.

....but still hanging loose.

[Tx4obama]

6. IF Warren intends to run in 2016 then I think she will have to change gears pretty soon...

... because so far I don't see her doing anything currently to add any 'foreign policy' background/knowledge/experience to her résumé

Warrens BIO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_warren
---

Compare Senator 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

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

[Chan790]

22. If it were me...

I'd hold up my lack of foreign policy experience as a flag to be proud of; the depth my domestic experience and fiscal knowledge as what's important.

We don't need another foreign policy President, we need a President that will dedicate their time in office to repairing domestic and economic issues and avoid military and foreign entanglements. We need an American Presidency.

(I don't necessarily know that I believe that but I can spin and sell that.)

[Scuba]

15. +8,749

[hedgehog]

69. Me too!

[JDPriestly]

82. Yes. Warren.

[Tx4obama]

3. Most likely the Democratic nominee will be someone OTHER THAN Clinton or Warren. See article below

The Rise of the New New Left

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html

[PoliticAverse]

7. Did you read the whole article? Warren is the candidate they mention as best fitting their thesis.

Still, Hillary is vulnerable to a candidate who can inspire passion and embody fundamental change, especially on the subject of economic inequality and corporate power, a subject with deep resonance among Millennial Democrats. And the candidate who best fits that description is Elizabeth Warren.

[Tx4obama]

9. Yes, I read it. Did you miss the last paragraph where it says...

-snip-

Of course, Warren might not run. Or she might prove unready for the national stage. (She has no foreign-policy experience).

-snip-

Edited to add.. Also, see Comment #6 on this thread too.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. What was Senator Obama's foreign policy experience when he was elected?

'I lived in Jakarta!' does not really count.

[Vanje]

25. It was a concern during GWB candidacy too

Bush soothed concerns by putting experienced people in place. So we got Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice.
That went well. (sarcasm smiley inserted here)

[karynnj]

28. He was on the SFRC - albeit just since 2005

He and Lugar sponsored a bill that was the successor to Nunn/Lugar which dealt with collecting loose nuclear material. His national security speech was partly written by Richard Clarke, who was supporting him in August 2007 - even though Clarke thought Hillary would win. Clarke's comment to a close personal friend of mine then was that "Obama was a very quick study and he asked the right questions."

No one will be an expert on every (or many any) issue facing the President - the question may be whether he can put together a good team of people with diverse ideas - and to have the ability to hear not just all their opinions, but their interactions -- get the picture - and make the final decision. Clarke's personal insight goes to the heart of this.

[Tx4obama]

45. See Comment #6 which contains 'some' info regarding U.S. Senator Obama. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

21. So you turned 'might' into 'most likely'. n/t

[Victor_c3]

14. Great article

I loved the analysis and insight given. I'm going to be quoting and using a lot of those points in my conversations, for sure.

[davidpdx]

58. I'll take it one further and say it will be someone other than Clinton, Warren, or Biden

That takes pretty much every big name person out and leaves the field wide open.

It would be interesting to put together a list of names of other possible nominees and find out what their name recognition is.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. While we may support Warren or ..., Obama's strong supporters will probably back Al Franken.

An amiable appearing guy. One who knows how to say the right words.

[Vanje]

5. Is Franken considering a run?

I would not want to miss candidate Franken in a debate performance.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. See I assumed by 'strong supporters' the OP meant people who support beyond votes and

some hours, with large contributions and strong public voices, like Clooney. Large donors.
People who think they are 'strong supporters' because they think they are and because they snarl at folks on DU in the guise of 'supporting Obama' are just supernumerary figures.

[Vanje]

27. I was thinking of those DU members

who are loath to express, or see expressed, any strong criticism of the president or his policies.

[dionysus]

65. preposterous. Franken is a good guy but in no way eligiible for Pesident (yet)

he has nothing that indicates he should have that office.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. Biden

Or Sherrod Brown.

[Downwinder]

10. Have to wait and see where Penny goes.

Follow the money.

[DFW]

11. Obama will wait to endorse the nominee. His supporters will be all over the place.

This is not 2008, and his wife is not a major contender, so Obama will stay above the fray.

As for his supporters, I think it will be a free-for-all: "Let a hundred schools of thought contend." I would hope, this time, a little more peacefully.

Unless the Republicans come up with a non-extremist (so far not on the horizon), the next Democratic nominee has a good shot at the White House if the primary process is not a blood bath. Of course, we could chop ourselves to pieces in the primary and let the Republicans win by presenting a united front with their nut case nominee, but I would hope that we could conduct our primary contest with a little less acrimony than we did in 2008. Frankly, I don't see Grayson, Warren, Biden, Kerry, Clinton or Dean making a serious run for it--YET. I'm pretty sure about most of them, but I wouldn't yet completely count out either of the aforementioned whose first names begin with "H."

[karynnj]

29. +1000

Interesting that you think Dean might. That could be interesting if he were willing to put himself through that again. I would not rule out Biden.

[DFW]

34. At the moment, Howard is not interested, BUT......

If Hillary bows out and no one inspiring announces, he might be persuaded. He is still of the firm opinion that younger blood should be stepping up to do this job, but he won't completely rule it out if there appears to be a vacuum of talent. He would never challenge Hillary or, frankly any of the other aforementioned. He would do it only by popular acclaim--he is not interested in a big primary fight.

As DNC chair, he had to stay above the ugly fight between Hillary and Obama, and he's definitely not interested in being involved in something like that. Before the 2008 primaries were decided, I was at a small fundraiser in May in NYC with Howard and Al Gore, and both of them had bitter disappointments behind them. Howard mentioned that Al Gore had called him after he had to bow out in 2004, and told him not to get depressed, because winning the race from the Republicans was by far the bigger goal. Howard took that to heart, and went for the DNC chairmanship. He was the most successful DNC chair we had in memory, taking Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. He hasn't forgotten the bigger goal. I know Howard well enough to state for sure that he won't run just for an ego trip.

Biden, for all his qualifications, would have to convince the country that his age would not be an issue--not an easy hurdle, especially after all the stuff we threw (with good reason) at McCain in 2008. Biden is far more compos mentis than McCain, but no one can guarantee he'll be that way in five years.

[Vanje]

35. I can't imagine that Hillary Clinton would back out.

I cant see that happening under any likely scenarios. though I would be pleased to see Dean in the race.

I cant remember where I stumbled upon it, but I think I read a while back that Biden wasn't acutely interested in running, because of concerns about his age. Biden does seem very robust in body and mind. He's keeping a rather low profile vice-presidency. If he were considering a run for pres, I'd think he would be showing his undeniable chops in public more frequently.

[DFW]

39. Interesting terminology.

"Back out" only works if she was already in. She could just as easily be playing lightning rod for right wing media hate and money. If she's not planning to run, I think she'd be doing exactly what she is doing now. If there is some younger personality out there with potential, drive and ambition, and that person has reached out discreetly to all the parties, they would be a sitting duck for the Republican hate machine if they made noises now. However, if they pop up in late 2015 and make a strong showing in the primaries with only token opposition, they could catch the right wing hate machine off guard, and all that energy and money on the "Hate Hillary" campaign they are already waging will have been wasted--something that would make a non-candidate Hillary smile with deserved glee.

IF she's in, then I agree, I can't imagine her backing out. But she has to declare she's in first, and I see no logical reason for her to declare her intentions for the next two years.

[Vanje]

42. For a month or so, Ive been hearing fundraising ads for a Clinton run.

I hear the ads on Pandora internet radio, from a PAC or something , not THE actual Hillary Clinton Campaign, but its an oar in the water.
And theres this:
https://www.readyforhillary.com/petition?ms=gs.t.hrc.p.aq.5302013

I don't think HRC is tired.
And I dont think she is intimidated by the GOP hate-machine.

I disagree with her frequently, but I'll say this: Hillary Clinton is a fierce and smart fighter.

[dionysus]

66. +10000 for Dean

Dean\Biden? Dean\Clinton? Dean\Warren?

I still have my 04 Dean signs

[karynnj]

36. Biden also has to deal with the media intentionally using negative images for him.

Even the comment that he is too old, is interesting in that it does not come up with Hillary - and she will be 66 next month. That is 4 years difference - but 4 years at their ages is not all that much. You could speak of his 2 brain aneurysms, but they were decades ago -- when Hillary's concussion (less of a health issue) was just last year. (Before he became SoS, Kerry who is 69 and who was still doing 100+ mile bike rides for charity was also said to be too old.)

I was impressed in 2004 how full Dean's support of Kerry in the general election was - so that might have been the first response to Gore's advise.

In addition, Biden would have to counter the unfair "gaffe" meme. Again, the media sees what it wants to see. I am more impressed with Biden than I was in 2008 or when I watched SFRC hearings between 2004 and 2008. Like you, I suspect that there will likely be some younger generation candidate that comes forward. What is interesting is if it could again come down to Hillary and not Hillary.

[DFW]

40. It could well, be, but only if Hillary wants it

I think that this time, if she wants it, it's hers for the asking. I also think Obama will back her both overtly and in the background. As Howard has pointed out, when out of power, the party chairman is the nominal party head. But when IN power, the sitting president is the nominal party head. If Hillary really wants the nomination, and Obama really wants her to have it, I see REALLY tough going for any primary challenger.

[karynnj]

41. Agreed

For those reasons and the reasons of 2008:

For anyone else to win, I think

1) There had to be one and only one viable opponent. In 2008, this happened when Edwards imploded after Iowa - before the scandal and long before he opted out - on the verge of winning no delegates on SuperTuesday.

2) The other had to run a very good campaign in terms of campaign maneuvers as well as message.

3) Hillary had to run no more than a mediocre campaign in terms of her team - more than her alone.

4) Some major voices in the party had to endorse early - here Daschle, Kerry and Kennedy did - and Obama had many of their people working for him.

Looked at in 2006 - this was near impossible - especially with the 23 event Super Tuesday for which no candidate's on the ground events could work everywhere - and where name recognition, party support and media support - all of which Hillary had - would be hard to overcome.

Even if 2016 were a do over of 2008 - which elections never are, I doubt the result will be the same -- in particular I think Hillary's campaign will be far better run and not as cocky as the 2008 team was. I also can think of no other example where opposition to the frontrunner really converged behind one AB(C in this case) candidate.

[Chan790]

44. I don't.

I see the same level of popular support for Hillary this time (and from the same people) that made people (Not Clinton or the Clinton campaign) use words like "inevitable" last time. Those words hurt her last time and they continue to hurt her as the support I see this far out this time for "Not Hillary" is much larger, organized and robust that it was last time at this point.

Given I'm biased...I'm strongly opposed to her candidacy...but I think her chances are worse this time than last time. Minimally, I think a fight during the primary season to destroy her any any cost from both the GOP and the Not-Hillary crowd will leave her too damaged to win in the GE.

[DFW]

48. I don't think there will be a huge Democratic "not Hillary" push if she runs this time

The Republican hate machine, on the other hand, is already there and practically moving offsides, so to speak.

I don't favor her candidacy, but wouldn't oppose it, either. I agree with Howard that younger blood should do this job. I don't see it as at all inevitable, although it would be very destructive for the party if she announced and there was a huge movement afoot to thwart her.

I think any such movement would be largely "helped" by secret Republican money with the intention of tearing the Democratic Party in two prior to an election we should win if held fairly. But be sure of one thing--the 2016 election will NOT be held fairly. Republican dirty tricks teams, voter disenfranchisement, and outright Republican electoral fraud (e.g. voter "registration" teams who later toss the registrations of Democratic voters in the trash, as seen in 2012) will be in place and extremely well financed. Boards like this one will be flooded with "new" members who will disappear the day after the election. They will be around solely to spread anger and discord, and they will be financed by dirty Republican money.

On the other hand, I think if she runs, she will have learned from 2008 (as well as being the country's top diplomat for 4 years), and not be as easily damaged as she was in 2008. I wouldn't want to be the campaign manager of any primary opponent of hers if she announces in a timely manner, i.e. around New Year's Day 2016. Just proving you are NOT being secretly financed by dirty Republican money will be a task that will distract you from all serious discussion for far too long. Still, I'm still of the "lightning rod theory" faction until such point as she tells the world otherwise.

[karynnj]

51. I completely disagree that anyone against will be likely

financed by Republican money. That is a pretty serious charge. No one is entitled to the nomination. If the Clinton team put out suggestions that an opponent was fianced that way -- with no proof - I know she will completely lose me.

There is already an oppressive inevitability that is all pervasive. If it continues to discrediting any opponent as Republican financed, I don't think I would be the only one offended.

[DFW]

67. I don't see any inevitability at all

I'd be rather upset if there were. I think it's all a media creation. They all want something to talk about and if there's nothing there, they make it up.

As for Republican money sowing discord in Democratic ranks, it's more than a serious charge. It's history. They've been doing that since Nixon. Everyone remembers the name "Watergate," but what his henchmen were breaking into was the HQ of the Democratic Party.

And for the record, I don't think they'd do it to help Clinton. I think they'd do it to prop some OTHER an opponent they'd rather run against--someone less battle-tested and with a more vulnerable profile.. There's a reason they're going after Hillary this early--they have no strategy (or candidate) they think they can beat her with in a fair fight--at least not with the lunatic asylum of characters they have to offer so far.

[BillyRibs]

12. Depends on what the King makers Say.

Cause we don't matter. We are just given the illusion of choice. The only thing we may have a bearing on is house members.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. Looking at your avatar

And residing at this time in the very center of it . . . At a "feeling" level I have to agree. That and I'm watching Steve Kornacki who a few weeks ago put his smarmy editorial on Barbara Buono's campaign when he had her on his show.

Things are different in NJ. We are learning that Party Bosses and "star power" and a few photos with Obama mean you get anointed as the winner far in advance of election day.

So at this point if that translates to a National Election - Christie wins in 2016. So this op - while Hopeful probably does not resonate with many NJ Democrats who are seeing how the game is REALLY played.

Sandy will haunt anyone who has Obama endorse them in a 2016 General Election if (when?) Christie wins the Republican nomination.

[Vanje]

30. Joe-mentum

Early on looking toward the 2004 primary, the king-makers offered us Joe Leiberman. It was said by party-powerful that he was unbeatable. No other possible contenders were mentioned in a serious vein.

The New Hampshire primary relieved the party big-hats of that silly idea. Leiberman was trounced, and was the first primary candidate to withdraw from the race. Then he lost primary election for his senate seat, and won his own seat in a third party bid.


He hasnt been heard from much since having his mouth surgically grafted onto John McCains butt-cheeks during the 2008 general election.

[karynnj]

38. Lost?? He was in a three way tie for third - except he had 2% less than

the other two. (:

I think the powers that be do have huge input. They control much of the media on the possible candidates and they provide a lot of the campaign contributions that are needed to run a viable campaign. This changed somewhat with Dean in 2004 and the idea of internet fund raising. However, with little positive media it is hard to get the visibility in the first place.

In fact, I think Iowa and NH may be the ONLY place where the huge advantages of being the favorite of the media/powers that be are not overwhelming - but they are still there. I think 2004 may be one of the few examples where that was true. Though many want to rewrite history, before Iowa Kerry had so little support of the TPTB that he lent his campaign all the money he could to get his message out. In addition, the media mostly questioned when he would drop out. No one predicted his win in Iowa.

[blue14u]

13. I would love to see

Warren for 2016 resident. She has time to work on getting the

knowledge she needs to be a contender...

If it can't be Warren in front, at least a VP nom would make me a happy leftee..

[rug]

19. Haven't been told yet.

[JoePhilly]

20. When will the anti-Obama folks find a candidate to primary him?

Oppps. Too late.

Just like then, I do expect the same thing from them by the time 2016 rolls around.

Lots of complaining.

No really acceptable progressive candidate.

[polichick]

23. Or perhaps the structure of this party enables the corporate candidate.

[JoePhilly]

26. Finding the perfect candidate is hard ...

being perpetually disgruntled is easy.

[Vanje]

31. I am particularly un-disgruntled at the prospect of the primaries

I think a true lefty might get some traction with the electorate.
I look forward to seeing if it plays out that way.
People are ready for a change.

[polichick]

37. Sticking with a party that perpetually sucks is...

idiotic.

[karynnj]

24. I don't think we know all the people who will run

Of your list, I think we can rule out John Kerry and Alan Grayson for very different reasons.

John Kerry is the Secretary of State, a position that cannot - by law - be political. That is why the johnkerry.com web site disappeared as soon as he became Secretary of State and why he - BEFORE he was confirmed endorsed his long term friend and political ally (especially on the environment) Markey - even then speaking of how he would be leaving the political world. This means that Kerry could not endorse, give money from his PAC, fund raise, or lobby for ANY candidate in a primary or general election. This includes not being able to raise money for himself. From a snarky Boston Herald article a few months before the 2012 election, it was clear that Kerry ran down the money in his PAC to help 2012 candidates - their point was that he was banking on being SoS - and not running in 2014. Now, while Kerry could have easily raised enough in 2013 and 2014 to repeat getting the 66% he got in 2008, that means he has little money in any political account.

As he cannot do the political work that must be done by at least the beginning of 2015 if he is SoS, there are only three possibilities for not being SoS at that point. He resigns over an important disagreement with Obama and then runs on that for 2016. Extremely unlikely and something that would genuinely tear apart the Democratic party. He resigns for personal reasons (Teresa's health most likely), but that would in itself raise a big negative for a Presidential run. The third is that Obama - in essence - fires him. This is unlikely and hard to see how it helps a run for President.

I would argue that the MORE successful he is as SoS, the more unlikely anyone would support him leaving that role - when the world is a mess - to make a Presidential run. I think that would include Secretary Kerry himself. What is clear is that he has put his entire heart/mind/soul into his job as SoS.

At this point, he has the potential of being an unusually successful as SoS - as the Israel/Palestine talks and the Syria CW agreement suggest may be possible - even if they do not work out 100%. (He also may be the American diplomat best able to help on Pakistan/Afghanistan/India and on Iran)

If all that were not enough, there is the health of his beloved wife. Both John and Teresa spoke of campaigns being grueling.

As to Grayson, he would never even win a statistically valid poll done on the members of DU - and the people who would support him in the country are over represented here. He is unlikely to have even as much support as Dennis Kuchininch had in 2004 or 2008.

As to who is likely - I could see Biden and Hillary running. I also suspect that there will likely be someone a generation younger than they are. Maybe a governor - if the issues are more economic or someone like Senator Gillabrand . Warren, who is Clinton's and Biden's age, could be another possibility if the issue is economic.

[Vanje]

33. Thanks for the thoughtful informative post

and the insight into John Kerry's position.

I think its good to have a Grayson or a Kuchinich in the race, not because they have any chance of winning, but to bring their issues into the debate.

[Arkana]

32. Too early to tell.

The President himself will not endorse a primary candidate--it's un-Presidential to do so. He endorses the nominee.

[Drunken Irishman]

43. I like Biden...

I think he'd be a fantastic president. I also think he's probably not likely.

Other than that ... I'd support O'Malley or maybe Warren. The latter, I think, would struggle in a general election campaign. But...

[NYC Liberal]

46. Hillary 2016. Nt

[gopiscrap]

47. I would say that they will support Hillary

but I would love to see a Warren/Grayson ticket!!!

[mgcgulfcoast]

49. i like dean or hillary

i dont want to be a downer but i think elizabeth warren would be an almost certain defeat.

[TheDeputy]

50. The best candidate.

I will back the best. I will wait and give each candidate a chance to win my vote. I am not giving my vote away.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. So you just sail past and discount Joe Biden huh?

He has poll position atm...

[Vanje]

54. Its cuz I'm a hater

Re-read the OP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. Why don't you...in your own words used against me earlier today

bite me! See how that works?

[BeyondGeography]

53. If Hillary runs she'll be the nominee, imo

and, unlike in 2008, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. The only alternative love interest I see is Warren, and I put it that way because it will take intense levels of support and commitment to challenge Clinton. Of her potential challengers, even though it's very early, only Warren seems able to generate to-die-for levels of passion, and I think there will be a big audience for her brand of economic populism, which is very much grounded in stronger government. The contrast with the Clintons (because you have to throw Bill in there; if you don't, he will anyway) would be healthy.

At the end of the day, though, Hillary has the foundation with women and, in particular, minorities, to withstand just about anything Warren could throw at her and, being a smart politician and very strong campaigner, will move left as needed. She might get my vote, but I don't think she'll need it.

[craigmatic]

56. I'm voting for whoever isn't ashamed to be a liberal.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. Hard to say until we know for sure who's running

The strongest possible contender for 2016 would probably be Hillary and it's likely that she would either steamroll the competition and/or clear the field but she hasn't committed to running, so, hopefully, party leaders have some other strong contenders in the wings. I might take a look at Dean if he runs again. I really like Wesley Clark but nobody paid any attention to him in 2004 and he doesn't have a lot of name recognition. Basically, I'm open-minded. I'll support whoever I think stands the best chance for winning. I'd like to see a woman be elected sometime in my lifetime. We've already broken one major barrier. We will surely break others as we go along.
I don't know who might be running on the Republican side but if 2016 is anything like 2012, I'd say that their bench is pretty weak and whomever runs in 2016 is going to face the same dilemma that they faced in 2012: Simultaneously appealing to the far-right base to win the primary and moving and holding to the center to win the actual election. Are there any Republicans that we know might be interested that could even manage such a feat? I think that I heard that Santorum could be a strong contender in 2016 and if that's case, we'd have to be in pretty bad shape to lose to HIM!

[blkmusclmachine]

59. Not another slick-talking Corporate sell-out.

Please.

[madinmaryland]

60. Jeb Bush?? Based on the way some DUer's talk about Obama supporters.

[Vanje]

63. Thats silly

[libdem4life]

61. No matter how I do the math or the politics right now, it's Hillary. All the RW dredging

up scandals are now decades old...nothing new to see here. She has forged on ahead and become highly respected on the global stage, to their dismay. She is up for the fight for the long run. We need the Presidency for 8 years to not only undo the past decades, but to set a stage for a better life for our families.

Warren has the money grubbers in her sites and she's at her best keeping their sticky fingers at bay. I don't see her running. Joe's time has come and gone. Kerry has been a Dove and that still doesn't set well with the average, middle class voter. Not sure he wants it either...his wife is not up to it. I'm not sure the others can raise sufficient funds to deliver the knockout punch we need to accomplish all of this.

I believe Hillary could be dragged a bit to the Left, especially in a first term. She was first out of the chute in Bill's administration with the health plan that was DOA. She's not my favorite by any means, but she can take and dish out with the best of the RWers and she's eminently more seasoned now.

And the fact that she scares them...that's good. Absent any new information...I hope we don't self-destruct because the Tea Party is somewhat on the run and it's a good time for Democrats and that Big Tent thing.

But I'm Liberal, so I can change my mind.

[MrsKirkley]

62. I want someone who will demand that Congress pass a public option and not back down.

For profit health insurance companies treat claims the same way auto insurance companies do and I hate them for it. Nobody dies when auto insurance companies refuse to pay for auto body repair. When health insurance companies refuse to pay for lifesaving treatment by calling them "experimental".................
I want to see them put out of business, except for cosmetic procedures. I'd also like to see someone interested in ending free trade and off-shoring of jobs.. Someone like Bernie Sanders

[dionysus]

64. out of your list i like Dean.

if Warren, it'll be the next cycle.

[Chan790]

68. I don't know...

but I have a litmus test:

*Opposes TPP.
*Supports expanding ACA towards universal coverage and getting the insurance companies out. (They don't have to be shooting for the whole enchilada but they have to be seeking movement in that direction.)
*Regulating Wall St. and breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks.
*Supports reinstating most or all Glass-Steagall protections.

I'll add more as time goes on.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. Contrary to what the ODSers believe, many of us "Obama supporters" are open minded

and do think for ourselves. Just as I did in 2008, I will support the candidate who best aligns with my philosophy. Ironically, I didn't support Obama or Hillary. I was first a Kucinich supporter. Now he's on Faux News. I then moved to John Edwards who ended up in bed with his mistress. I couldn't support Hillary for several reasons, one of which was her DLC bonifides. So, I went with Obama in the end. I was thrilled with that choice in 2008 and I am still THRILLED with my choice today. President Obama has been an outstanding president. Period. And no amount of ODS will change my view on that.

[Vanje]

71. I went through similar, if not the very same process

through the 2008 primaries.
I'm still at mad Edwards for using my campaign donation to pay for a mansion for his concubine.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. I know. It was disgusting and really opened my eyes. Look, no politician is perfect...

...and certainly not Obama. He's not perfect, but I think he's been a great president. He's gotten a lot of bullshit from ALL sides of the political spectrum. I don't agree with everything he has done, and he was never my first choice. But I continue to look at the larger picture, and when I take everything into account and consider everything that this country and been through--and the very long list of accomplishments despite all that turmoil--I think he has done an outstanding job. And we will have 3 more years to go.

[Whisp]

73. Love to see Warren in it, and no Hillary.

and anyone in between would be acceptable.

but no Hillary. nope. go away.

[Vanje]

74. I'm with you on Warren.

I hope she runs.

But I'd like to see a vigorous primary field with every possible Democratic voice represented.
A smorgasbord of democratic candidates. All the flavors. So I dont mind seeing HRC in the race.
I think (hope) that the 2016 Dems will choose a candidate with less ties to the status quo.
I think we're ready for a liberal.

I'm not afraid to hear HRC's views compared and contrasted with the others, though, I'm EXTREMELY unlikely to favor Clinton in the primaries.
She's smart, driven, organized, and a fighter. I think she might set the pace for the field, and maybe deflect some of the wrath of the looney Right.
If she should win.....(and I dont see that now, though a lot can change), I'll swallow hard and back her with no reservations against what ever odious specter rises from the GOP primary.


edited for spelling , typos, grammar, syntax, and mistakes.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

75. Michelle for President!

She would be a great lady president!

[Peacetrain]

76. Far too early.. gotta get past 2014

and let the canidates thin the herd a little battling it out in the primaries and caucuses. .. and then I will settle in with one canidate.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. I like Martin O'Malley!

longshot...but I do like him...

[LuvLoogie]

78. Hillary

[Historic NY]

79. Who's raising money?

You do know a primary takes money.

[Deep13]

80. They'll do what they're told and back Hillary.

They're quite impressionable, you know, if the rhetoric of 2008 was any indication. Anyway, that was the deal. Hillary endorses Obama in exchange for SoS and an Obama endorsement in 2016.

[Jamaal510]

81. Warren and Biden are my top 2

if they were to run.

[WI_DEM]

83. The President will endorse the Democratic nominee and take no stand in a primary

traditionally that is the way it is.

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. Obama will be President for damn near three and half more years

[Vanje]

85. I am getting ahead of myself.

but curious, and maybe a little hopeful about what the future may bring.

[treestar]

86. +1

It is as if 2014 does not matter at all.