Wanting a field of nominees to consider before the primary is not the same as hating Clinton

[ReasonableToo]

A monopoly gives us the product they want us to have rather than competing for our business with a superior product.

Where are the other viable Democratic candidates?

Regarding Martin O'Malley, here is a great "reply post" by elleng: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026322086#post84

From International Business Times...(I don't know politics of this site)
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-hillary-clinton-isnt-democrats-only-candidate-1786932

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear might quickly go to the top of the list. He’s a Southern Democrat -- an increasingly rare breed -- from a state that's doing relatively well. He implemented the Affordable Care Act, which has been seen as wildly successful after thousands of people gained access to Medicaid and purchased private insurance. He’s helped build a thriving tech hub in Louisville, and the state’s unemployment rate has dropped significantly during his term. The two-term governor won twice in a Republican-leaning state and can’t run for re-election again.

Montana's Democratic governor Steve Bullock is also a viable candidate. He’s only in his first term in the mostly conservative state -- and his freshman status would make a 2016 campaign more difficult; however, it could also set up speculation for vice presidential nominations or future campaigns.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper was barely re-elected in his perennial swing state last year. But his experience as governor could make a strong platform, even if the state’s legalization of marijuana might be a liability in the South. New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan would also offer an appealing candidacy, especially since she represents an early swing state and would have an easier time in the primary.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick left office in mid-January and has joined a Massachusetts Institute of Technology innovation project -- a good public and private background from which to launch a campaign. Before Obama was elected, it was a badly kept secret that Patrick had designs on being the first African-American president, but he has ruled out a run for 2016. In a wide open field, governors like New York’s Andrew Cuomo or Delaware’s Jack Markell could have a shot. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, while too new to consider a 2016 run, could be a realistic option farther down the road.

There are many more listed in the article.

Clinton was not in my top 3 choices in '08. Why should I move her right up to the front of the line now? Let's hear from a few nominees. Let them make their pitch and let us decide!

[Kalidurga]

1. We really do need a larger field

I want to see someone run that the Republicans can't throw talking points at, now that would be a hoot.

[yeoman6987]

2. Democratic politicians need to step up and announce

So far, we haven't seen too much interest. However, it is early thankfully.

[Kalidurga]

3. I think the interest is there

but it's a matter of money. Since our politicians at this point are bought and paid for by big pockets. I don't see anyone raising the funds they need anytime soon. They will have to announce whether they are ready or not and hope that they can amass the funds they need via small donations.

[leveymg]

4. Put Hillary in charge of raising money. She's good at that.

She can have Mrs. Harriman's old job. It's a natural fit.

[ReasonableToo]

5. It's sad that it begins and ends with money

It would be nice if viable canidacy begins and ends with good ideas.

Where's our "C-PAC" forum that gives a microphone and 15 minutes to a variety of party reps?

[Kalidurga]

7. IMO it is not sad, it should be criminal

[ReasonableToo]

8. Agreed

[ReasonableToo]

6. someone with charisma to go along with good ideas would be nice [end]

[Dems to Win]

9. Dem leadership seems very committed to having no vigorous challengers to Hillary

The Democratic Establishment made the deal with Hillary in 2008 that if she stood aside for Obama, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party would get behind her in 2016. Thom Hartmann has talked about this on his show recently.

Harry Reid encouraged Obama to run in 2007. He's not done that with anyone this time around, and he won't.

No well known potential candidates will step forward because they know they will get no support from Dem leaders or big fundraisers. It's Hillary's turn.

O'Malley is on record supporting Hillary in 2010. If he runs, it wont be a serious effort, but it will serve as a place for the Anyone But Hillary voters to mark their primary ballot, so they can then be convinced to follow along with the party in the GE. If Hillary is truly unopposed, those ABH Democrats might be so angry they would be tempted to stay home in the fall. Better to give them a name to vote for at primary time. O'Malley might then be rewarded with Commerce Secretary or whatever cabinet post he wants.

Bernie Sanders might run because he wasn't party to the 2008 deal and his candidacy won't depend on conventional fundraising with the party bigwigs. His campaign would have to be entirely fueled by outside the beltway money and volunteers.

I'm afraid we're not going to have a slate of several well known candidates to consider. I don't really think this is wise for the party, but it's what I see happening.

[ReasonableToo]

11. I wish I could disagree

[davidpdx]

18. Well put

I agree with you. A Sanders run would be an attempt to push Hillary to the left. I don't think he'd win, but I'd consider voting for him in the primary. In terms of O'Malley I don't know a lot about him, but it will be interesting to see how vigorous of a campaign he runs and whether he is serious about trying to compete for the nomination.

[hedda_foil]

10. Unfortunately, every one of them belongs to the same party as Third Way Manny.

Or Corporate Democrats if you prefer.

[snot]

12. I'm sorry; I've never felt this dispairing about Dems before . . . but yeah . . .

I am losing hope.

I just don't know if I can stomach Hillary. We've fallen very, very far from the liberal ideals I thought our party stood far.

By voting for this kind of machine, don't we just perpetuate it?

Would the REAL Democratic Party please stand up?

[ReasonableToo]

15. Exactly

Having only two parties is bad enough. Having a presumably small group of people pulling strings of both parties is downright maddening. When we look at Obama's cabinet, how can we assume anything but this?

I wish the next Manning/Snowden would come from this group.

Occupy Democracy!!

[McCamy Taylor]

13. I want at least 9--then they can form a baseball team, too.

[ReasonableToo]

16. Or at least a basketball team...

[FSogol]

14. K&R. n/t

[gwheezie]

17. I support hillary and agree

I hope there are several contenders for the nomination. A primary fight will generate interest and enthusiasm and I think only draw more voters to the GE. We can't run by assuming anyone is a sure thing.

[libdem4life]

19. Please see Post #3. It's not a Democrat's fault...SCOTUS set this billion dollar thing up.

And let's see, who set that up? Oh Snap, it was a Republican. Imagine 2 more Justices packing the Court with similar Stellar Ideas for the Middle Class and Underclass...not to mention Women.

So we eat our own having to play by their game rules. See, the reason we don't know the "inevitable" Republican is because the others haven't quite yet qualified themselves by having to kiss the ass of Adelson, which won't happen anyway but they will kiss away. They'll peter out, no pun intended. Then we'll have the White Knight. And people didn't have a year to dig up his scandals...he'll be fresh on their minds...the money will flow...Hillary will have already have been pilloried by her own Party.

It's a Republican's Dream.