Why I am hesitant to vote for Hillary for President in 2016?

[kentuck]

In my opinion, she would be much like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, in that she would appoint the usual suspects to positions of power and would be dependent on their thinking to govern. Just the idea of being the "first" would be the historic legitimacy to govern. In that respect, she would be handicapped as President, in my opinion.

That does not mean that an established male candidate would be any better. It is just that Hillary Clinton would be more inclined to appoint people to her Cabinet like her husband and President have done. That is the last thing our country needs at this time, in my opinion.

The ideal candidate would not be tied to the Washington and Wall Street establishment. They would not be adverse to the radical reforms that are needed. They would not be tied to the ideas of people like Larry Summers or Tim Geithner or numerous others that advise the present Administration. Perhaps you think a continuation of present policies and ideas would be a good idea?

(edited by reason of persuasion of other DU'ers)

[Demit]

1. Or any woman?

Explain.

[kentuck]

4. At this time...

I do not see any woman that is mentioned as a possible candidate that has shown the independence of ideas or policies that differ from the status quo. I do not want anyone that cannot see that dramatic change is needed.

[KamaAina]

57. Elizabeth Warren?

[cascadiance]

61. + infinity!

[Scuba]

131. She's my candidate!

[Coyotl]

137. Warren/Wyden 2016 would get my vote.

Go with people you can trust

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

139. Old Story

Adlai Stevenson used to tell the story about being on the campaign trail, and a supporter shouted, "We love you, governor, you'll get the vote of every intelligent American," to which Stevenson replied, "That's not enough, madam, I need a majority."

I feel the same way about Elizabeth Warren. I think she's be awesome, but I just don't think she has the name recognition (outside of DU) or the "brand" to make to the White House. Obama's victory was not just historic because of his race, it was because he was a half-term Senator virtually unknown outside his home state. The White House is typically occupied by career politicians or others (like Eisenhower) who have a strong national following.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, and of course if she runs and receives the nomination, she'll get my complete and undivided support.

[Coyotl]

141. Even Bush played the outsider against the Beltway. It is a necessity today

given the state of politics, to not be an insider seeking the job. Obama, Bush, Clinton, all played the role of outsider or newcomer. Consummate insiders like Biden do not have much chance getting elected today, and Hillary is in that group.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

146. There's a difference between playing the outsider and being the outsider

Bush Jr. was surrounded by a phalanx of Old Guard Republicans (Cheney, Powell, et. al.), and Clinton was an outsider who was fairly well known from the DGA and his appearance at the 1988 convention. He also had the good fortune of getting the nomination at the very moment that the Bush Senior Administration went into a political nose-dive. Oh. And there's that Perot fellow who helped immensely.

[Oakenshield]

107. Erm....what?

Elizabeth Warren doesn't strike you as independent?

[MelungeonWoman]

115. She's a former Republican with a background in banking.

If elected, I would expect Warren to govern somewhat to the right of Obama, whilst progressives that worked to elect her will be chided with the fact that WE ALL KNEW she was a former Republican.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

That said, I'm not particularly enamored with Clinton either.

[Oakenshield]

118. No offense...

But if that cynicism/wisdom comes from experience, I hope to never be as experienced as you. My head would explode if she transformed like that upon being elected. If I may ask, who then would you prefer to see in the whitehouse?

[MelungeonWoman]

122. No offense taken.

I'd prefer Sheila Jackson Lee, but I understand that's not likely to happen. Perhaps Dean or Sanders? Truth be told, I doubt I've seen the person who I'll end up voting for. I almost voted for Stein last time until she got arrested and I realized she wasn't serious. The only reason I voted for Obama was Hurricane Sandy, I just hated the thought of Romney in charge during natural disasters. I feel even more discouraged now than I did then about the current state of affairs but I try to remember that the worse things get, the more people pay attention. Right now I'm pinning my hopes on people paying attention to the realities around them and choosing based on that, instead of whatever faux scandal the media can come up with.

[LuvNewcastle]

152. I like Dean too.

Sen. Warren is my first choice, but I don't think she would get very far in 2016. She's in her first term and it's her first elected office. I just think that America would be leery of another first-term Senator, especially considering her lack of government experience. I'm not even sure she'll run. I'll vote for her if she runs, but I think she needs to get a little more seasoned.

Dean is already a national figure, and I feel we would at least know what to expect from him if he was to be elected. He isn't what I would call a progressive, but I have a feeling that we could trust him. I think he at least would follow his conscience most of the time. Dean is probably as good as we would be allowed to get.

[Scuba]

132. I'm also a "former Republican". The fact she left that party is a plus for her.

I'm really tired of the "former Republican" smear being trotted out each time she's mentioned, as if that somehow means she's impure.

[Little Star]

140. Tell that to us Hillary supporters. We're sick of hearing.....

she was a Goldwater Republican too!

Elizabeth is my senator and I love her, so I'll stand with you opposing these kind of smears.

[Recursion]

2. It sounds like you don't want anyone in the cabinet who could make any headway

with the actual existing industry and bureaucracy. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

[lumpy]

14. So I guess the only solution is to vote for someone who hasn't any experience in any area of

politics whether it be a mayor, gov.,or any position in any government.

[RC]

63. No, his solution would to be to vote for more 3rd Way, DLC, DINO that is working so well now.

[Scuba]

133. C'mon, that's really lame. How about Krugman? He'd be a nice start.

[CTyankee]

3. That's not a reason to pre-emptively be against her. We don't know who she would appoint because

she has never been in that position before. It borders on sexism to think she thinks like her husband. Good lord, I thought we had all evolved past that old meme...

[kentuck]

9. I have not seen any indication that she would be an independent thinker...

..or that she even recognizes the change that is needed. That is not meant as a sexist statement - just the political reality. You can dismiss it as sexist if you like.

[CTyankee]

17. Well, she's never been president so we just don't know, do we?

She made a damn fine SoS and was a good U.S. Senator. I see those two jobs as evidence that she is an
independent thinker. I do not see you "political reality" at all...

[kentuck]

19. We disagree.

[CTyankee]

90. and this is documented how?

[Beacool]

101. Where did you pull that from, a RW site?

The whole post is utter nonsense and total ignorance of her work as SOS.

The crap one reads here........

[Little Star]

144. .

[Little Star]

32. Have you ever seen any that she wouldn't be an independent thinker?.....

You couldn't have because she has never had the chance to have that kind of power (presidential power). So what's your point?

She showed plenty as first lady & as a senator.

[kentuck]

35. My point is my opinion.

You can disagree if you want.

[Little Star]

43. Okie dokey. What ever "my point is my opinion" means.

[kentuck]

52. You asked?

"So what is your opinion"? I stated clearly, I thought, that it was my opinion.

[lumpy]

5. Kentuck, would you be averse to voting for a black candidate for president as well ?

n

[kentuck]

120. I voted for Obama twice.

And he won the election big both times.

I am not averse to a black candidate or a woman candidate or a black woman candidate or an African-American candidate of any persuasion running for President. However, I think the next black President will be a Republican.

I simply think that we are at a time and junction when people do not want to see the status quo continued. I think there will be discontent within both major Parties until it is perceived that "change" has happened. It may not happen in the next election or the next, but it is going to happen.

[elleng]

6. so don't get your hesitation about 'any' woman.

Do understand re: Hillary, but Elizabeth Warren could hardly be thought of as 'tied to the Washington and Wall Street establishment. They would not be adverse to the radical reforms that are needed. They would not be tied to the ideas of people like Larry Summers or Tim Geithner.' Or Senator Gillibrand.

[kentuck]

12. Elizabeth Warren might be the exception?

She has spoken out against the powers that be. Perhaps I needed to edit my post?

[elleng]

15. PERHAPS!!!

She's been speaking out against the powers that been since WAY before she entered the world of politics!

[kentuck]

21. But...

She has not been mentioned in the top echelon of possible women candidates, I don't think?

[elleng]

23. top echelon being whom?

anyone BUT Hillary??? Around DU, she's always mentioned, with the caveat sometimes that maybe she should complete her first term as Senator,

[kentuck]

25. Hillary, Gillibrand, Napolitano...

For starters. Although Gillibrand is the most unknown quantity of these three.

[cascadiance]

67. According to new Quinnipiac poll she's third only to Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton now...

... and this is way early in the 2016 race... If Warren's anywhere on the radar at this point, which this shows that she is very much so, then that's half the battle for her, since if she takes on Wall Street, etc. her biggest battle will be getting campaign money and press visibility that's aligned with corporate serving candidates. I like her the most as a possibility for a non-corporate serving candidate at this point, as many here on DU do as well... All of the other women you mention here are second tier to Clinton and Warren at this point, with the possible exception of Gillibrand here who is fifth in this poll behind those mentioned as well as Barack Obama coming in fourth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/06/why-you-shouldnt-underestimate-elizabeth-warren/

[theHandpuppet]

142. Why not a Clinton/Warren ticket?

Just sayin'.

[cascadiance]

149. Many others here have said the same thing...

Putting aside that I don't think I want Clinton on the ticket as a corporatist Koch funded DLC candidate...

Two women, even both progressive like Warren is would not be an effective mix of a ticket to maximize the draw of voters to the ticket. It's like why we typically don't want to have two men from the same state or general geographic region on the ticket either.

I spiritually don't have a problem if we had two women that both were good progressives on this ticket, and maybe a number of years down the road, we could have that ticket and win with it, but I think the first time a woman gets elected as part of a presidential ticket, it won't be on a ticket with another woman on it. That's nothing against women, it's just being pragmatic so that we can have a winning ticket.

And given reason 2, it is why the party with still a lot of "third way" influence on it and the corporatists will never allow this to happen anyway. They will use the pragmatics of the second reason to prevent a progressive that they likely will hate being on a ticket (Warren) so that they can have just Clinton along with another corporatist on it.

[Little Star]

46. As first lady she sure did think independently regarding health care....

That seems more independent than, bold & brave of her also.

Without power she never stood a chance but she sure as all heck gave it a good independent thinking try.

[sabrina 1]

123. She voted for Bush's tragic war and has never admitted it was an enormous error, to put it mildly.

Too many innocent dead people for me to forget because politicians didn't have the guts to stand up to Bush.

THAT was the test for President for me and I have never supported anyone who voted for that war since and never will. To demonstrate such bad judgement on one of the most important votes of the past decade, tells me such individuals do not belong in the WH.

I would support Elizabeth Warren, but frankly I am now far more interested in Congress and will be focusing all my energies there. If we have a strong Progressive Congress, the WH, hopefully a Dem, will not have any excuses to fall back on about not protecting SS, not being able to stop the MIC from starting and/or continuing all of the wars we have been engaged in sucking up money for the MIC when it is sorely needed here.

[kentuck]

125. That's a commendable thought, Sabrina...

But unless the President picks a strong progressive Cabinet and unless we pick strong leaders to head the Senate and the House, little will actually get done.

In my opinion, the Democratic nominee needs to spend a lot more time picking his Cabinet and not have any automatics for important positions. We need a lot of wholesale changes if we want to change this government.

[sabrina 1]

128. Yes, if I support a Democrat for the WH, I am NOT supporting a Republican Cabinet. This is something

we have learned over the past number of years. The same old recycled, Cold Warriors, or 'Terror Warriors' keep coming back and it doesn't seem to matter anymore whether the winner is a Dem or a Rep., we are going to get Republicans in powerful, key positions in the Cabinet. Is there something wrong with Democrats that we can't find any for presidential cabinets?

Unless we try to do something about it.

[CTyankee]

134. I couldn't agree with you more. And I think more women in TOP Cabinet offices such as SoS and DoJ

is essential.

I don't get it. There are well run democracies with market economies all over the world who have no problem with women in leadership positions. We are glaringly lacking in seeking out and hiring our talented and qualified professional women at all levels of government. We need to take a look at what WE do here in the U.S. to change this situation and step up with the rest of the civilized world....

[sabrina 1]

150. It is strange that there has still never been a woman in the WH and even more strange, that it is

still even a matter of discussion. Most civilized nations have had women leaders at one time or another and it isn't even a big deal. If someone is qualified, that should be the standard.

[bravenak]

7. Any woman?

Well sheiiiiiiiit! As Clay Davis would say.
I'm glad you're not really prescient.

[NightWatcher]

8. Plus the chicks get all crazy once a month, right?

[Thinkingabout]

99. Better read up on the human body, kinda sounding like Todd Akin in your remark.

[NightWatcher]

113. that and they have super powers to control the weather during menopause

[Thinkingabout]

119. You still need to do some research, you missed again.

[hlthe2b]

10. She obviously has been influenced by both, but I'm more concerned that she or any other FIRST female

President NOT feel compelled to outdo the RETHUGS in terms of "tough guy" politics fvia-a-vis national security and foreign policy from fear of being labeled "soft"... That said, I feel more confidence in Clinton getting past that than others.

Certainly she's learned centrist policies and placating the "right" from two of the best predecessors. So, there is no getting past those influences, though I do think her age is a plus in potentially setting her own course and policies.

[sufrommich]

11. "or any woman"

We need a " what the fuck??" smiley.

[quinnox]

16. heh heh, we have one!

[sufrommich]

22. D'oh! So we do.

[Egnever]

13. You have ruled out any woman

before even being presented with choices?

Theres something very wrong with that.

Hillary has issues to be sure and I will very much have to consider my options should she run. But her being a woman wouldnt factor as anything but a plus in that decision. It is high time we broke that glass ceiling.

[kentuck]

18. Edited...

But the names that have been mentioned as possible candidates, I have not been impressed with, except with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren. Just my opinion.

[Initech]

20. I definitely agree that things need to be changed.

And electing the same people over and over isn't going to get it done. The thing is the republicans and teabaggers are afraid of Hillary and rightfully so. But if we elect her we elect the same leaders. I want someone who's not going to be afraid of über corrupt banks and Wall Street. I'm personally hoping Elizabeth Warren comes out ahead in the primaries.

[CTyankee]

24. Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to see some male discomfort here with the idea of a

woman president? I ask this as a question because I was just on another Hillary thread and got the same feeling.

I hope I am wrong. I WANT to be wrong. I would hate to think that there is such sexism here on DU...

[kentuck]

29. I think you are mistaken to call it "sexism"?

As if that is the only reason anyone can be against a woman candidate.

[CTyankee]

31. Ok, deal. I want to be wrong, as I said.

I'm willing to wait and see.

Could you vote for a Warren/Schweitzer ticket, for example? Or a Warren/O'Malley ticket?

Could you vote for Kirsten Gillibrand with either of the two aforementioned men as VP candidate?

Is there another woman you think would be a good President?

[kentuck]

40. Another woman that has been mentioned by the MSM?

I can't think of any but I am open to suggestions.

[CTyankee]

45. Is there a male mentioned by the MSM that you would support?

I ask because you say MSM and that is a broad term. It was the MSM that picked up on Obama's candidacy and he didn't have as much experience then as Hillary has now and Warren would have by 2016.

[kentuck]

49. To be clear.

I would vote for Hillary if she was the nominee or any Democrat over the present gaggle of extremists in the Republican Party, although I would not be inclined to support them in the primary or to work for them in the general election. I would be very disappointed with the American people if either of them are the candidate.

As for the possible male candidates, I like what I have heard from Rush Holt and O'Malley but I don't think they have much of a chance in this game of political roulette?

[kentuck]

121. Of those mentioned, I would prefer a Warren/O'Malley ticket.

I like Kirsten Gillibrand also. However, I don't know how strong she would be going against the established status quo? Would she have the courage and strength to follow her own convictions?

I like the independence of Gov Schweitzer also but he may be a little more "conservative" than some people may realize? But I would vote for him if he were the candidate.

Personally, I think in our present times, any of them would be a better candidate than Hillary? I may be wrong. Hillary might be a strong, independent, reform-minded President? Somehow, I doubt it.

[CTyankee]

135. I hope you were thinking the same thing about Barack Obama back in 2008: would he have the courage

and strength to follow his own convictions? If you asked that same question of him as you now do of Gillibrand, then I applaud you. If not, I must ask, "why didn't you ask the same question of HIM?"

[Demit]

50. Maybe if you stopped saying "woman candidate" people wouldn't be mistaking you.

Alternately, please start using the term "man candidate" for whenever one of them pops up in the discussion.

[kentuck]

53. Because we are talking about "firsts"..

She would be the first credible "woman" candidate. I'm sorry if you cannot see the distinction.

[Demit]

80. No, you're talking about your dislike of Hillary Clinton

Why you are conflating your dislike of her & how she would govern, with her being female, I don't know; you haven't explained it with much coherence. Except to say you feel that her being female means she would be "dependent" on others' thinking to govern. In some way that men are not, is your clear insinuation.

Your original post said "or any woman." You backpedaled away from that by saying you meant there aren't any other serious female candidates (three years out from the next election!). Then, when you realized the phrase "or any woman" was saying more about you than you wanted, you edited the phrase out entirely.

This sentence of yours is one I simply can't parse: 'Just the idea of being the "first" would be the historic legitimacy to govern.' It's as muddled as your thinking on which you dislike more: Clinton because of her policies or Clinton because of her gender.

The whole idea of the United States thinking it will be some kind of momentous record-breaking thing, when we finally elect a woman as president, is just head-shaking to me. Blithely ignoring all the countries who have had female heads of state and congratulating ourselves for how exceptional we are, instead of how behind the times we are, once again.

[kentuck]

88. I'm talking of my dislike of Hillary as a candidate...

Not Hillary as a person. Do not confuse the two.

[Demit]

89. You're not even sure what your point is. "Woman candidates", "firsts," now just plain

"Hillary as a candidate." You keep changing your point. If you had just posted that you wouldn't like her as president and why, you wouldn't have created such thread-wide confusion as to what your point actually was.

[Initech]

30. Don't get me wrong I am all for having a woman president.

I just don't want Hillary Clinton president. If we elect her we elect the same people who screwed us over in the first place. I'd much rather have someone who's not afraid to stand up to the ultra corrupt rich like Elizabeth Warren has shown recently. That's all.

[kentuck]

33. I agree.

[Little Star]

54. That's what you should have said to begin with because that's obviously what you were getting at....

No Hillary for you. And there's nothing wrong with you feeling that way, I just happen to want & admire Hillary.

Different strokes, etc.

[kentuck]

59. Just for clarification, what does " I am hesitant to vote for Hillary" mean to you?

Does it mean that under no circumstances would you ever vote for her?? Just so we understand the English language.

[Little Star]

84. Well.....

Initech said in post #30: "I just don't want Hillary Clinton president. If we elect her we elect the same people who screwed us over in the first place. I'd much rather have someone who's not afraid to stand up to the ultra corrupt rich like Elizabeth Warren has shown recently."

You agreed with post #30. So therefore, I see a big difference with your statement about being hesitant when you agreed with actually not wanting Hillary Clinton as president.

I had a strong feeling right from the get go that your OP was trying to say just that (post #30) without actually saying it out loud in the OP.

I also thought that your "my point is my opinion" wasn't ever actually the same thing at all. I didn't believe that the opinion in your OP was really your point.

It's usually much easier to say in the OP what you really feel & mean (& hesitant wasn't it) instead of agreeing with something different down thread. jmho.

No big deal. You are certainly able to hold your own opinion. It's just nice when the opinion matches up with the point you are trying to make.

peace, LS

[CTyankee]

34. Any other woman on your list for president?

[Initech]

98. Good question, I may have to do some research.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. She's just another 3rd Way, DLC, New Democrat, Centrist politician.

With nothing to offer other than preserving Politics as Usual and the establishment.

[forestpath]

96. +1000

[broiles]

27. She's a hawk.

[MrMickeysMom]

124. Yes, she is...

And, we can do a lot better than that.

Were she to have stepped away from that boys club in her Senate days pre-BushCo, I would have stuck with her in the last primary, but no... And thus, I voted for Obama.

Too late now. You know, the punch line is they both stuck it up our ass.

[Just Saying]

28. I barely knew who Barack Obama was before 2008.

A lot can happen before we need to stress too much about it.

That being said, I like Hillary and actually think she's smarter than Bill. She is a moderate Democrat however and I'd like to see someone further left nominated although I don't know how far left we can be and still win a national election. (I believe the right is having this problem big time!)

[DJ13]

36. Considering the usual DLC people she hired to run her 08 campaign

I cant see her filing her cabinet with people who arent that kind of thinker.

Thats a big red flag when I consider voting for her.

[JTFrog]

37. /facepalm

(edited by reason of persuasion of other DU'ers)

No HC fan here, but what a disgusting post. Someone had to actually tell you you were being offensive by saying "or any woman" before you edited that? JFC. Yea, I know, I shouldn't be surprised to read this kind of crap here anymore, but WHAT THE FUCK?

[kentuck]

44. I figured it would be misintepreted...

with people with their hands over their faces...

[Atman]

38. I think she'd be worse than Obama.

HOLD ON! DON'T FREAK OUT YET!

Given the assumption that the GOP will hold on to The House via gerrymandering, does anyone seriously think they'll listen to a woman named Clinton more than a black man named Obama?! Get serious. Unless its a pure white guy (that maybe has a Hispanic-sounding name but still looks pretty white), they wont care. Period.

[CTyankee]

48. So what? Our candidate will never get the support of the GOP folks anyway.

Forget them. As presently configured they can't win in a presidential campaign. That is truly a huge straw man argument.

So unless the GOP changes some of their thinking and ways -- and it doesn't appear to be going in that direction -- we'll have a Dem White House and should put lots of effort in turning some red congressional districts blue and work to get back the House while preserving the Senate.

[Atman]

74. I don't agree.

At least if the President was a white male, those racist assholes will talk to him. But they envision themselves privileged and superior to all. Unless its a wealthy white male, they just aren't playing. Don't believe anything otherwise. It's the rich white men's club.

[CTyankee]

76. Oh, please, white RW men won't vote for a woman? Boo hoo. They're not going to vote for a Dem

anyway.

Also, I don't see Obama making any strides in the GOP House. Does this mean we can't, simply can't (oh dear, oh dear, wring our hands) vote for another black person for President? Geez...

Ridiculous.

[Atman]

82. It's not ridiculous at all.

And you seem to have missed the point.

The Boehners and Cantors of the world don't care in the slightest. Of course they won't vote for Ms. Clinton. But nor will they afford her any more respect than they've shown Obam if she were to be elected president. She's not only not part of "the club," she's a Clinton, too.

[CTyankee]

92. So what? Are you going to throw up your hands and give up?

Hillary sure isn't. And neither do we, here at DU. I don't know about you, but I'm going to fight like hell to get Hillary a win for the White House if she is our candidate. I won't sit on my butt and suck my thumb and whine and cry that I didn't get what I wanted. I'm ready for a fight. And a fight it will be, no doubt.

Geez, why give up before we have even started?

[Atman]

94. And STILL miss the point!

How's that black guy workin' out for us? Boehner, McConnell, Cantnor have put the brakes on EVERYTHING. The rich white guys control EVERYTHING. If you think it will be different with a woman named "Clinton" in the White House, you're on crack.

[CTyankee]

97. My goodness, calm down! Please.

We've got a problem,yes. But ya know what, we work on them! So why don't you work on your candidates in the primaries come 2016 and we will work for ours. We'll do what we need to do to effect some change.

What are our alternatives?

[DrewFlorida]

39. I never liked Hillary prior to Obama's Presidency.

However I feel she has rounded out her experience and buffered her tact, and I would now fully support her in a run for President. I think she is now ready to be a strong leader and tactful enough to get things done, we will never have to worry about Hillary not having enough backbone to fight against the haters on the right.

Go Hillary 2016!

[Little Star]

145. .

[lamp_shade]

41. Beats me, but it sounds like you've mostly decided not to.

[FSogol]

42. Unicorn 2016!

I like your bike!

[AndyA]

47. My big concern with Hillary is the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton link

Going back to 1980, we've either had a Bush, Clinton, or Obama in the top jobs in this country. That's a long, long time for the power of the Executive Branch to be so condensed. If Hillary wins, she could be in office for eight years. Too long for such a concentration spread over just four families.

We need publicly funded elections, so the best people for the job will run for office and actually stand a chance of winning because they won't be drowned in secret money that makes them complicit from day one.

If Hillary's the Dem candidate, I will vote for her, but I keep thinking, "Why isn't there anyone better?"

[CTyankee]

55. Did you say that in 2008 about Barack Obama?

[AndyA]

56. No, Barack Obama was new and is the only thing breaking the Bush-Clinton link. n/t

[CTyankee]

58. what exacxtly WAS the Bush/Clinton link? I never heard of it...

[AndyA]

65. Perhaps chain would have been a better word

George H. W. Bush - VP/Pres. 1980-1992 (12 yrs.)

Bill Clinton - Pres. 1993-2001 (8 yrs.)

George W. Bush - Resident 2001-2009 (8 yrs.)

Barack Obama - Pres. 2009-2017 (8 yrs.)

Hillary Clinton - Pres. 2017-? (4-8 yrs.)

That's a lot of years with a Bush or Clinton in one of the top two jobs in the country. It forms an almost unbroken chain or links (Obama broke it for eight years) from 1980-2025 during which just two families if you count Bush as one or three families if you count the Bushes separately ran the country. Kind of sounds like a monopoly to me.

[CTyankee]

69. Then I guess it's up to Hillary to break the chain in a BIG way: she'll be the first WOMAN!

It is not okay to simply think of her as a clone of Bill Clinton. That is wrong.

[AndyA]

72. Still same family, and she did play a role in Bill's years in the White House

Is there really that much difference in Bill and Hillary's political views? Neither are hardly what you'd call progressive. We need REAL CHANGE, not more of the same.

And wasn't Nancy Reagan really the first woman President? I just posted in another thread, that Ronnie was getting pretty out of it his last few years...

[CTyankee]

73. Forget Nancy Reagan. She wasn't President, simple as that.

What gives you the idea that Hillary will perform just as Bill would have if she gets to be President? What is your proof?

[AndyA]

77. Did you notice the winking smilie?

That was a joke, not meant to be taken seriously.

What gives you the idea that Hillary won't perform just as Bill did if she gets to be President? What is your proof?

[CTyankee]

78. I'm willing to give her that chance...she earned her chance as SoS and U.S. Senator.

That's my answer...

[cascadiance]

75. A BIGGER way would be to have Warren as president... the first WOMAN who's not a corporatist too!!

I want someone who's wanting to go after the banksters, rather than propping up corporate America's wishes to expand more indentured servant programs like H-1B that Hillary has adamantly campaigned for and shows no signs of backing off from. A lot of other examples there too where she's toed the line for the DLC that has a history of corporatism as the Koch brothers had funded it to be in earlier times before it got rebranded as "Third Way"...

Of course, given the choice of Hillary and a Republican, you know I'd vote for Hillary, but as many have said here, if we really want to change our path in the face of so many tough challenges our country faces, I think we'll be better off with a bigger change with someone like Elizabeth Warren!

[CTyankee]

79. OK, if Warren is the candidate I'll work my heart out for her. I love that woman...

[cascadiance]

83. Some think she might be too "liberal" to attract voters outside the party. I think she'd surprise..

... here. I think the kind of issues she works hard on are the issues that corporate America try to keep from being talked about in the public space, as there is potentially REAL bipartisan support for them from independents and even some Republicans when they see the value of working for the many against the power mongering of the 1% few. She's shown that she is all about defying the campaign funding industry by going after the banks, etc. and I think if her campaign is run well, has the potential to get MANY Americans on all sides behind her, if she doesn't dwell too much on the divisive issues that corporate America tries to get us to focus on to divide (and conquer) us...

Such a campaign, followed by her potential leadership to help direct us to some major infrastructure fixes in reversing Citizen's United and putting in place public campaign financing, instant runoff voting, going back to paper ballots, and perhaps updating the 4th amendment to work in the 21st century would lead our country out of the messes it is in. Those are fundamental issues that need to be dealt with that those beholden to corporate money (bribes) won't touch.

[CTyankee]

91. Yes. I think you are right!

[Little Star]

86. I love Warren also, she's my senator and I am proud of her...

But I'm ready for Hillary in 2016. They are both great but Hill's my gal this time around! I also really like Joe Biden.

[hrmjustin]

51. I am going to support her and hope that she wins the nomination.

[CTyankee]

60. I already voted for her for President! In 2008 I voted for her in our Primary, along with my husband

who is a HUGE Hillary fan!

[hrmjustin]

66. Glad to hear it. I voted for her in the senate twice.

[CTyankee]

70. good for you! I'd do the same if I were in NY, not CT...but we've got Blumenthal and

Murphy, who are superb Liberal Dems...

[hrmjustin]

71. Yes two great men.

[madinmaryland]

62. Hillary 45 will win in 2016 and 2020. Michelle Obama will be elected in 2024 and 2028...

and then Chelsea Clinton in 2032 and 2036!!

G4A!!



Now pardon me, while I determine the status of the beer and travel money that I am owed!!

[DainBramaged]

64. Nicely done

[madinmaryland]

68. You know, as annoying as those two could be..

they did provide a bit of levity and comic relief in the angst ridden world of DU's GD!!!

[FSogol]

100. +1. and many experiences....

[RudynJack]

85. Honestly...

We need another thread about why someone will or will not vote for Hillary?

It doesn't friggin' matter. You won't vote for her, millions of other will. Or she may not run. Who knows? I don't understand the impulse to post about it. If she runs, she'll be the next President. If she doesn't, somebody else will.

[KoKo]

87. I understand where you're going..that you feel it's "too early"...BUT...

Those of us involved in our local Dem Party are focused now on how we Move Forward for 2014 and After. We need to know "on the ground" where we are coming from (now that PBO) is not a candidate.

We Dems in many states have been devastated in these past years by ALEC and Koch Brothers Influence ramming through RW Repug Legislation. Some states have had their own Democratic failings from their elected officials...and that didn't help us.

That we are being pushed by Media to decide whether Hillary is a Shoe in...way before we should even be thinking about this before the Mid-Terms is a warning call. If it's all going to be about Presidential...we will not be able to get organized to focus on our Local State Elections to try to get push back against the Repug infiltration into our Dem Operations...nor to be able to prepare to overturn the incredible Babaric Legislation put in since the 2010 Mid-Terms and 2012 Election.

To focus on ANY DEM CANDIDATE at this time is not a good thing for the Dem Party in the minds of some Democratic Activists trying to work on the Ground for 2014.

So...I think Kentuck's Post makes a good point.

[RudynJack]

102. The Hillary-phobia here is amazing.

Nobody's pushing her. She's being discussed because she's the most popular politician in the country, and is likely to win if she runs. Stop watching cable news - that's the solution. I can't believe how people get so exercised over anything Chris Matthews says. Out in the real world, nobody's talking about 2016.

[KoKo]

106. Hey...Sorry...I don't watch Cable News...I watch International News...

I think perhaps it's YOU who watches the Pundits and Media Spinners who are so ready to Jump on the Bandwagon ...because ...WHY?

So...gottcha on that one.

[RudynJack]

114. You got me on what?

Don't be daft.

I'm saying stop worrying today about 2016. What will happen will happen.

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. I want to vote for a woman for President so much, but there's just flat-out no way

I'll vote for this one, period.

[gulliver]

95. She'll win, and she'll take us closer.

As with Obama, the rate of progress is not defined by the Presidency alone. Hillary (and Obama for that matter) would no doubt like to see more liberal policies, more stimulus, more health care, more education, more clean energy. It just isn't possible. Most of the more direct approaches the anger-oriented folks advocate would actually slow things down or even reverse progress.

Remember that story of the sun and the wind trying to get the jacket off that guy?

[liberal N proud]

103. Because you are entitled to you own opinion

As much as I am entitled to support Hillary Clinton.

She won my support many years ago the way she stood up to right wing bullshit.

I respect you difference of opinion, I only request the same in return without attacks.

[kentuck]

104. I did not try to make my post an attack on Hillary...

I was only stating my position in the most honest way I could without being attack as a sexist, misogynistic, woman hater.

[liberal N proud]

112. I didn't see it as one either.

[Beacool]

105. The 2016 election is more than 3 years away.

How many of these posts do we have to be subjected to? Yeah, we all get the picture. The Left hates the Clintons and would rather have a Bagger than vote for Hillary. She's too much of a centrist for their delicate sensibilities to permit them to cast their vote for her.

There is no ideal candidate. That's the reality and Warren is not going to run for president. She barely won her senate seat in a blue state. She had never ran for elective office before 2012. Love her in the Senate and I hope that she has a long career there.

What is it with some here who think that near zero experience is a great thing in a candidate? Some are even talking about Booker. Can those who support him wait at least until the guy is elected to the Senate or should he skip the Senate altogether and run his campaign from Newark? What's next, a city councilman running for president? How about a town administrator? Yeah, let's give the hardest political job in the West to anyone out there as long as they are a Washington outsider.

[kentuck]

108. My guess would be that there are as many posts praising Hillary as there are against her?

Perhaps more?

Someone has delicate sensibilities but I'm not sure who?

[Beacool]

109. Here???????????

You must be kidding.

[KoKo]

110. Nah...we all love the Clintons...but nothing in a Democracy should be

a "DONE DEAL" ...given the times we live in. Do we want a "Celebrity Monarchy...Like Great Britain...or do we stand for Why We Broke Away from Monarchy?

If we Want Monarchy...Then we Go with Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Take your Pick!

We are so Shadowed Government Controlled by our Military Empire that....we only CHOOSE the Monarchy/Empire.

It suits us FINE for the 1% that we all think we belong to ...or aspire to. And, that is our downfall going forward.

DIRE PREDICTION from...well...But, you all know...what your REAL EYES are SEEING.

[mick063]

111. Liz Warren is my first choice.

No to Hillary.

[BootinUp]

116. 1) She is more liberal on economic policy than Bill. 2)

She is like Bill and Barack in that she can actually win a Presidential Election.

3) that is all.

[Amonester]

117. Every candidate for President will need tons of cash (sadly).

And there's no true Public Campaign Funding Reform Act in sight.

Hillary or not, the chosen one will need tons of cash.

And from where do you think these tons of cash will come from?

Face_Reality?

[MjolnirTime]

126. because you don't really like Democrats.

You don't like the President.

You don't like our Leaders in Congress.

You are allied with some imaginary abstraction. It's nice that we have a space in this Country where you can have your fun.

But that leaves the rest of us to deal in the real.

We and Hillary will do the legwork so that you can spend your time daydreaming.

[kentuck]

129. I've fallen and I can't get up...

[MjolnirTime]

147. you have relegated your vote to the dustbin of history.

[peacebird]

127. I am a woman, I agree with you

[customerserviceguy]

130. There are only two effective choices right now

Hillary, if she wants to run, or some Republicon gets to ruin the country for four years while we get our act together. I don't see any other possibilities for 2016. If Warren or O'Malley want to have a serious shot at it, then they had better start making weekly appearances on the talking heads shows, all I see there is stories about Rand Paul and Chris Christie. And Hillary.

[Coyotl]

136. Grammar police. OP is NOT a question.

I never take political advice from those without proper grammar

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

138. It's about time we heard from a voice of reason! (nt)

[Marrah_G]

143. I am a woman and I agree with you

I was also called every name in the book on DU for supporting her in the primaries in 2008 over Obama. Sadly I don't think she would be doing that many things differently then is doing.

No more centrists. I want to vote for a real progressive candidate and that is who I will support and volunteer for.

[Safetykitten]

148. She will be Obama II

[AnotherMcIntosh]

151. Some will recognize this woman as being the first woman President (or functional President).

"President Wilson suffered a severe stroke in October 1919. Edith Wilson began to screen all matters of state and decided which were important enough to bring to the bedridden president. In doing so, she functionally ran the government for the remainder of the president's second term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Bolling_Galt_Wilson