If not Hillary, then who?

[OmahaBlueDog]

Inspired by Kentuck's post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3452144

Personally, I'm supporting Hillary - as I did in 2008. However, in 2008, I ended up becoming an Obama supporter.

Usually I make questions like this polls. I'm leaving this open ended.

I always see Elizabeth Warren's name out there; I doubt she'd run, but I'm willing to hear arguments for why she would. Same with Al Franken.

I also see Martin O'Malley's name out there a lot. I don't think he's ready for the national stage, I'm willing to hear arguments.

Joe Biden?

Some of our fate rests with our opponents. If they go Tea-Party stupid, and nominate Ted Cruz, most Dems with a pulse would win. OTOH, Chris Christie increasingly is perceived as someone who just wants to solve problems and is not troubled by working across party lines. He'll be a formidable opponent, but only if the GOP can get out of its own way.

Of the potential candidates out there, if I could pick two that have impressed me not named Hillary Clinton, they would be Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy. OTOH, if I were trying to draft someone I thought could win based on appeal to the vast American middle, it'd be Jay Nixon of Missouri -- Dem, Eagle Scout, former AG, and able to get re-elected in a state that's a kind of red shade of purple on the political map.

So if not Hillary, then who?

[JaneyVee]

1. If we want to win the WH we would choose Hillary, if we want to stand up for our

Principles and lose pick someone else. Hillary is the only candidate I can see who will get a nation of social media addicts off their asses and to the voting booth.

[sabrina 1]

20. Same old argument we always get, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fell for it for way

too long, I will not be falling for it again and will only support a Democrat who does not have a history of voting for Bush Wars. I have never supported anyone who voted for that war and never will. I keep seeing the dead bodies of all the innocent people, including our own troops, dead because politicians didn't have the guts to stand up to one of the worst 'presidents' ever in this country.

To fail on one of the most important tests of the past decade, which will go down in history as such, and then later, to see the failure, the tragedies, the millions of people still suffering as a result of that fatal decision, this kind of failure in judgement does not qualify someone for a position as responsible as POTUS.

I will be focusing on getting a strong, Progressive Democratic Congress. Hopefully there will be some good Progressive candidates for the WH, but my energies now are going to be focused where the people's Reps are supposed to be. We have been distracted from that by these billion dollar presidential races, but not anymore.

[OmahaBlueDog]

23. So if I understand correctly...

You will work to get progressives elected in the House and Senate; while you might vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee, you're not going to phone bank, raise money, etc. Is that a fair interpretation of what you've written?

[sabrina 1]

52. Yes, is it against some law or something? You sound like you're questioning a suspect in a crime.

I will raise and donate money for and to ONLY Progressive Democratic Candidates. I phone bank for Progressive Democrats and try to convince everyone I know to vote for them also.

I will not do a single thing for any Third Way infiltrator to MY party. We've been there and done that and I'm not in the habit of repeating the same thing over and over again, (well, maybe twice or so) expecting to get a different result.

I will NOT support anyone who exercised such bad judgement on one of the most important decisions they had the opportunity to make and who still has not acknowledged it. The deadly results of that decision will be with us for decades. Today, many US Veterans committed suicide, unable to live with the horrors they saw on a mission they were sent on that had zero to do with what they thought they were there for.

I despise liars and especially when those lies get human beings kille.

I hope that answers your question and I hope it is not against the law to oppose war crimes and to refuse to vote for someone I do not believe would be a good choice for the office of president?? But who knows in the American we live in today ... certainly the tone of your question could be interpreted as 'suspiciously questioning a citizen on their political views and choices'. I hope that was not your intention, it sure won't help your candidate.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

95. Wow!

[OmahaBlueDog]

105. It does answer my question.

Really, honestly, and truly...I just wanted to make sure I understood your position correctly. No laws were broken.

This is not an insult, simply an observation: What you suggest, by analogy, is not unlike what the Tea Party movement embraced on the other side. They rallied to move their party away from the political center and to threaten or eliminate centrist Congresspersons and Senators in the primaries. They were largely indifferent to Mitt Romney, whom they perceived as a compromiser.

[sabrina 1]

127. Wait, continuing in the vein of your 'questions'. Let me ask you this question, because I too want

to be clear:

This is not an insult: What you suggest, by analogy, is not unlike what the Tea Party movement embraced ....

This is very interesting! That you view the Tea Party positively? Can you explain why?

[maui902]

131. I didn't read OmahaBlueDog's post as something positive about the Tea Party.

Instead, what I interpreted from the post was that to the extent a party ignores the middle (as the Tea Party has done by embracing only very conservative candidates on the far right), they run the risk that their party's candidate will lose the Presidency (case in point, Romney). As OmahaBlueDog has argued in this thread, choosing not to support the Democratic candidate for President, even if she or he is not your preferred choice, risks a worse outcome. Of course, each of us is free to vote our conscience and to make that choice purely on principle, but it's also fair to point out that if a sizeable number of progressives feel that way and don't vote for a more moderate candidate, like Hillary Clinton should she become the nominee, we may lose the Presidency to the Republicans in 2016, an election year that could result in the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.

[sabrina 1]

133. I will support a Progressive Democrat for any and all elected offices. I think my position is clear.

I will not support a Third Way (actually a third party that has attached itself to the Dem Party) 'candidate' ever. I don't support war mongers, people who have displayed very bad judgement while in office, Wall St puppets, Bush policies etc etc. Same as always. And, I'm not alone. So all the leadership of the Party has to do is to give us a Democrat and we will work hard to get him/her elected.

'Middle', what exactly does that mean to you?? To the Third Way it means privatizing SS, engaging in PNAC wars, just for starters. I don't care what adjective you apply to those policies, I do not, never have, and never will support them.

[maui902]

136. You are arguing against a point I am not making

I am not arguing that you should support someone who is in the "middle" (by which I mean someone who would appeal not only to some on the far left of the political spectrum but also to many of those who are lean left-if you want to characterize those voters as Third Way Democrats, so be it). I also respect your right to support or vote for, or not to support or vote for, anyone, regardless of the consequences to the Democratic Party in general and to the rest of the nation. But, and here's the point, if you withhold your vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate because she or he is not sufficiently progressive, you increase the odds that the Republican candidate will win, which would be do far greater damage to the country than a less than sufficiently progressive Democratic President. To be clear, if the Democratic Party selects someone who is too progressive for my views, I will guarantee I will back that candidate and vote for her or him in the general election. If you feel otherwise, that is your right and it should be respected. But I think it's fair to point out the possible negative consequences of that position on all progressives.

[OmahaBlueDog]

139. It's hard to find a perfect candidate.

People on this board used to roast Ben Nelson. They called him a DINO and pondered why Nebraska wouldn't elect a true progressive. The reality is that Nebraska is, outside of Omaha and Lincoln, a state of farmers and ranchers who overwhelmingly support the NRA. Ben was probably as liberal as you can get in this state. Joe Manchin was in enough trouble as the Democratic Senator from a coal mining state -- then he supported the post-Newtown gun initiatives.

People knock the Blue Dogs; call them third-wayers and worse. Here's the thing -- that's what we can elect in many states. If one would rather run "true progressives" that's fine, but you'll find yourself in a minority party with Mitch McConnell (or worse) as Majority Leader.

[sabrina 1]

146. The middle is not what it used to be. The middle is now the neocon, Wall St Third Way.

What you are suggesting is to keep doing what we've been doing, allowing the middle to slide more and more, AND more quickly to the Right. I will not facilitate any more swinging to the Right. Did that, we have deregulation of the media, of the Wall St, multiple wars going on, defunding of Education, cuts already to SS, sneaky little cuts and now they are getting more bold.

I don't like Republican ideas so no, I will no longer be persuaded to 'just do it until we ... whatever'.

And this habit of signalling the Leadership that we will keep on supporting the Third Way with a 'D', they will keep on giving us what we are willing to take.

So now, it's time for us to change OUR tactics. It was one thing when we believed the rhetoric that this was what we had to do, now we understand what was really on, and knowing that it is, imo, unconscienable to keep feeding this machine.

No more following, the people need to lead rather than continue, like sheep, to repeat the same old habits that have gotten nowhere except for a few crumbs here and there.

WE JUST GOT CLAPPER to set up an 'outside' review committee. Do they they think we are stupid? Yes, they do, because we have excused every step towards the right for decades now.

[maui902]

147. I will respond one more time

I am not making the argument that you should support a less progressive candidate because he or she is more likely to win; that's an argument that has been made, and it's worth discussing, but I an NOT making that argument. The argument I'm making is that those who insist on ideological purity for their own party's candidate, and won't vote for that person no matter who the other party selects as their candidate, increases the risk that the other party's candidate will win. If a truly progressive candidate whom you can support happens to win the Democratic primary, then the choice you face is easy. But if the person who wins the Democratic primary is not a truly progressive person (the kind you say you can't support and won't vote for), and you choose to sit out that election and just not vote for anyone, you increase the odds that the Republican candidate will win. It's your right to choose this path, and I understand your reasons for doing so, which you've made clear. But I and many others will regret the day that too many progressives stayed on the sidelines and let someone like John McCain or Mitt Romney or George Bush reoccupy the White House. You may be dissatisified with President Obama's performance in office, but I can assure it's much better with him in the Oval Office than it would have been with McCain or Romney.

[OmahaBlueDog]

134. I am a political scientist by training (not by profession)

I can look at the actions of a political movement (even one I disagree with) and objectively judge that their tactics and strategies are effective. One cannot deny, no matter how much one dislikes the Tea Party, that they were very effective in 2010. Somewhat less so in 2012. They were effective in attracting people who were disenchanted with what they perceived as political compromise, and they sought to move their party away from the political center and toward the far right. One thing they were not shy about was primarying candidates they perceived as weak on their agenda. It frequently backfired to the extent that there is not a Senator Joe Miller, a Senator Sharon Angle, or a Senator Christine O'Donnell. It succeeded to the extent that won the House, some key governorships, and they put the fear of losing seats into most remaining Republican incumbents, and had, until recently, moved GOP rhetoric continually toward the right.

You stated:

I will not do a single thing for any Third Way infiltrator to MY party. We've been there and done that and I'm not in the habit of repeating the same thing over and over again, (well, maybe twice or so) expecting to get a different result.

...and also stated

I will be focusing on getting a strong, Progressive Democratic Congress. Hopefully there will be some good Progressive candidates for the WH, but my energies now are going to be focused where the people's Reps are supposed to be. We have been distracted from that by these billion dollar presidential races, but not anymore.

All I'm saying is that this is not dissimilar to the strategy that the GOP used very effectively in 2010 and before that in 1992. I'm talking about the effectiveness of their tactics; not their ideology.

[JaneyVee]

24. I keep envisioning the bodies of American families killed by President Rand Paul.

[liberal_at_heart]

30. I keep envisioning children suffering due to a defunded education system and parents

staying up late at night with worry because of their poverty wages. That's what we have now and what we would continue to have under Hillary. I will not support any more democrats that cater to the rich.

[JaneyVee]

34. Hillary caters to the rich? Her voting record seems to say otherwise

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300022

[Phlem]

38. Totally agree.

-p

[Phlem]

45. as we've witnessed

PBO is a completely different person than BO the senator.

Hillary, *cough* more of the same.

The presidency is bought and paid for else a little JFK action.

The guy who turns this country around will be committing suicide.

That's what we have.

-p

[sabrina 1]

41. You're free to entertain yourself with macabre fantasies. I was speaking of a real tragedy which has

actually happened, to real human beings. Making jokes about the victims of one of the most massive crimes of the decade is not a winning campaign strategy.

Hillary lost me that night. I have a conscience and will never support anyone who supported that horrific war. It was bad judgement, to put it mildly, then proven to be so when the lies were exposed. Has Hillary ever apologized for that vote btw? Some who were misled, or who did it for political reasons, have at least apologized.

[Phlem]

49. +1

same here yo.

May be as with you, when the defining moment came, as an american citizen, I voted no.

No Fucking War!

Seems everything's been downhill since.

-p

[JaneyVee]

53. Look, she's def not my number one choice, but if she's the nominee I will vote

For her because Republicans are far worse. The longer we shut them out of gaining power the better off we'll be.

[Scootaloo]

79. You mean like all the ones killed by President McCain?

We've played this game before, back in 2008. Maybe you forgot?

[Egalitarian Thug]

99. But unable to envision the bodies of those killed by this President...

I get it now; your imagination, fired by fear of what never happened, has shut down the part of your brain that allows you to see what actually is.

Fortunately, we have these devices commonly know as cameras, maybe somebody will point you to some of the images of the real bodies of real dead people killed on the real President's orders and through the real neglect of the real parasites that really run the real country.

As for that imaginary horror show going on in your brain, I'd talk to somebody about that, if I were you.

[liberal_at_heart]

138. +1.

[Beacool]

155. Let me put it this way, Obama wasn't in the Senate for the IWR vote.

He did give a speech against it in Chicago.

How many people have been killed since 2008 by our drones? The NSA spying issue that has angered so many progressives, under whose presidency is it taking place?

So, not voting for the IWR means squat when a person becomes president.

As for your comment about laughing at those killed. I'm sure that you meant Qaddafi. Hillary was being sarcastic in response to the CBS interviewer asking her if her presence in Libya three days prior to his capture and death was more than a coincidence. It was a silly question and she responded in kind.

[Scuba]

108. Hillary can't win, but our side can win with this woman running on this message ...

[Beacool]

151. Hillary can't win, but Warren can?

More like wishful thinking on your part.

[Scuba]

153. Hillary can't attract anyone from the 40% of potential voters who typically stay home.

If Democrats want to win in 2014, they should advocate for ...

... Living Wage

... Medicare for All

... Strengthen, expand Social Security

... Legalize weed

and

... Cut defense to pay for it all


Supporting such positions, Dems could gain tens of millions of votes from the 40% of the electorate who currently stay home because neither Party offers them squat.

Failure to adopt such stances just makes Democrats look like Repubican-lite, demotivates the base, does nothing to attract the currently disaffected and cedes the issues to the other side.

[Beacool]

156. I don't know where you get that figure.

As of right now (although 3 years is a lifetime in politics), Hillary wins against any candidate of either party.

[Scuba]

158. What figure? The 40% who don't vote?

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says

Posted: 11/08/2012

By: CNN Wire
A report estimating the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Tuesday's election shows the rate was lower than in the past two presidential contests, though it surpassed the rate from 2000.

Thursday's report, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004. In 2000, the turnout rate was 54.2%.

[Beacool]

160. I misunderstood.

I thought that you were saying that 40% wouldn't vote for her. You meant 40% don't vote period.

[Scuba]

162. Right! And that's where the available votes are!

[Capt. Obvious]

118. The time-stamp on your post says November 2007

How'd you do that?

[Pab Sungenis]

128. Yes, but there's another problem.

The GOP OpRes team and smearmasters have been planning a run against Hillary for at least 13 years, if not longer.

The biggest reason McCain's campaign was so ham-handed in 2008 is that they prepared for a campaign against Hillary and when Obama secured the nomination at practically the last minute they had to scramble.

If Hillary had been the nominee then McCain could have gone ahead with his original choice of Lieberman for VP, could have fallen back on stump speeches written months before, and would have maintained the momentum coming out of his coronation at the RNC.

Not saying he would have won, but it would have been a much harder-fought and less gaffe-prone campaign that could have turned out differently.

Right now the GOP is becoming divided over principles. We will never have a better chance to wrest our party back from the Third Way bunch than 2016.

[MjolnirTime]

2. It's Hillary. She will serve 8 years.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. she just might, but she will have to do it without my vote.

[MjolnirTime]

6. I'm sure she'll miss it. But the trashcan won't.

[Agschmid]

12. .

[JaneyVee]

16. Even if she's the nominee???

[mick063]

29. Same here.

Couldn't live with myself. Voting for something I despise. That being plutocracy.

That would include Republicans of course.

I guess I would sit it out if it came down to Hillary verse GOP.

I shall wait and see what Iowa and New Hampshire delivers.

[OmahaBlueDog]

25. OK, but suppose it's not.

Suppose she chooses not to run - it could happen.

Suppose she gets nominated to the SCOTUS -- it could happen.

Who would your backup plan be?

[MjolnirTime]

55. I know she's running. I know she will win. Why pretend this isn't so?

[OmahaBlueDog]

66. Two reasons

1) The time between 2013 and 2016 is an eternity in politics. A lot can happen. It never hurts to have a backup plan.

2) I'm a Hillary supporter, but I'm willing to hear the counter arguments. Right now, I think there is no candidate who has her qualifications.

[Little Star]

117. .

[Capt. Obvious]

119. 80-20

[Agschmid]

3. It's a good question.

I'd like to think we have time to decide and see what naturally occurs.

That being said O'Malley is a great pick IMO.

[kentuck]

5. I think that will be sorted out in the next primary election.

I am thinking most Democrats will be looking for a new direction?

[MjolnirTime]

7. Think again.

[kentuck]

10. I thought again.

Sorry.

It was the same.

[MjolnirTime]

13. The definition of insanity.

Rabid repetition combined with the delusion of representing millions.

[cali]

104. lol you should know. your posts are a vivid illustration of that.

[MjolnirTime]

126. too bad you can't snuff them all with alerts, eh? That is your MO.

But it's not working anymore, is it?

People around here are tired of all the old tricks.

[OmahaBlueDog]

26. I think most progressives want a different direction.

I'm not sure most Democrats do.

[Phlem]

54. True Dat!

The Democratic party has definitely changed. I've switched to Independent and have a whole new bag of hate mail to wade thorough.

This is not the "school house rocks" batch of Democrats that used to fill the party.



-p

[madinmaryland]

8. Martin O'Malley. Please review his record. He has been a strong supporter of

many progressive policies. He has also been a bulldog speaking about Christie's far right record.

[Agschmid]

9. Yup.

[Xyzse]

15. Being from MD as well...

Yeah, I have him well ahead of Hillary in my book.

[liberal_at_heart]

17. I love his record on education.

[JaneyVee]

18. And there you have it: Clinton/O'Malley

[liberal_at_heart]

21. no. I will not vote for Hillary for President.

[JaneyVee]

27. You're staying home on Election Day?

[quinnox]

28. just FYI, you do not have to tell anyone who you will vote for

Personally, I dislike it when people give others the third degree over this. It really is none of their business who someone may or may not vote for, IMHO.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. I really don't care if they give me the third degree or not. They cannot force to me to vote for

someone I don't want to vote for.

[quinnox]

37. True, and they can ask about who you might vote for, but no one has to answer

Personally, I would reply - "And this is any of your business because...." But that is me.

[JaneyVee]

42. Uh, I'm just asking a follow up question.

[quinnox]

56. It's not just you

It is just a pet peeve of mine, many duers seem to probe and prod about this topic, asking for all manner of details, and I guess as more of a private person it just bothers me when I see it.

[Chan790]

149. I'd lose a lot of respect for Marty having known him for nearly 15 years...

if he ever hitched his career to Sec. Clinton.

No Hillary ever.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. He is a great organizer and has pushed through many good issues in MD

He is stable, a good negotiater and a hard worker.

[loyalsister]

102. I'm warming up to O'Malley

I was underwhelmed by his speech at the DNC. But he has a solid record and is a good age for taking on an 8 yr national commitment.

[HappyMe]

122. Yup. I really like this guy.

I think he would be a far better president than Clinton. We need some fresh ideas in the WH.

[quinnox]

11. just a weeeeee bit early

We don't even know Hillary will be in the mix.

[JaneyVee]

19. Hillary is running and Huma Abedin is on her campaign.

[quinnox]

22. I'll believe it when she formally announces

which still won't be for a couple years yet. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to know who will be running in 2016 anyway.

[OmahaBlueDog]

142. Which is a problem due to her Anthony Weiner baggage

..and the fact that he can't seem to shut up when someone sticks a mike in front of him. This was actually a topic on GMA this morning.

[joshcryer]

43. BS, we need to start looking NOW for a challenger.

This is not too early. You think she's waffling about running? Because she's not!

Only thing getting in her way would be her health.

[quinnox]

47. Have you seen her lately?

She does not look so good. She has put on weight I think. If she was so serious, she would be keeping in top shape. She seemed to be letting herself go a bit.

[joshcryer]

58. Looks fine in the election reform speech.

Looks like she even tried some botox (nothing overboard but definitely in the cheeks and forehead).

[quinnox]

62. Ok, well I saw a Barbara Walters interview with her and she looked bad, like in her face she had

gained weight it seemed, and that usually means they have gained weight. Maybe she has worked it off since then, I guess that interview was months ago.

[winter is coming]

68. Could have been a bad case of jet lag. Dog knows she's traveled enough. n/t

[quinnox]

72. huh, good point

I guess it could have been something else then. Anyway, we will see. I think she is getting older now, and I hate to say it, but looks matter. Especially for a woman. She needs to be in top shape, and look as good as possible if she is serious. Maybe even get plastic surgery if there is something not looking good because of the aging process.

[liberal_at_heart]

76. She is getting older and some women get saggy skin under their chin. I really don't care what

she looks like. I will not vote for her, but I don't think she should have to get plastic surgery just to run for President.

[quinnox]

88. I understand that. But think about this, as the president you are going to be photographed 24/7, and

on camera constantly. Think about millions upon millions, hell billions, looking at close-ups of your face everyday in pictures and on the tv. It does matter how you look in this modern age, where everyone is looking at your face all the time, and you want to try and look as good as possible if running for such a high profile position.

It is no accident that Barack Obama is extremely photogenic and handsome. It served him well.

[lumpy]

96. Oh for Christs sake !

I suppose that Abe Lincoln would have a helluva bad time winning these days if he didn't have plastic surgery. Intelligent people don't vote for good looks.

[joshcryer]

71. I actually just spent some time going over pics (pics inside).

Which is why it took a minute to respond. She definitely looked bad in the Walters interview and I think in the Benghazi hearing she looked terrible. But at least as early as June she seems to be trying something new. Just look at her at the CFDA Fashion Awards.



Compare to Benghazi:



Of course, as a woman, image is going to be extremely important to a campaign if she runs. It's going to make Al Gore's clothing choices look like nothing (I know the Daily Howler had a piece on how the media repeatedly called out Al Gore's clothing choices but I can't find it).

I even had to put "pics inside" because I just know someone is going to respond horrified that a 65 year old woman looks her age...

[quinnox]

74. Yea, she does look better there, especially in the top pic

That looks more like the Hillary I recognize.

The bottom pic may just be an unflattering angle, so I can excuse that.

[joshcryer]

78. Skip to about 1:14 on this video:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=9204055

She definitely looks a lot better than before.

And no the Benghazi pics are really bad, that was the best one I could find, because she was basically talking / showing a very stern face in the rest. It's the best angle, in fact.

[quinnox]

81. Ok, yea, she does look better there

I'm just worried a bit, because the 2016 election is three years away. Hopefully, she will still look good then, if she is running for president.

[Little Star]

123. She is looking pretty good here....

stylebistro.com
8/13 2013
Looking plenty good enough to be in style Bistro.

And besides:
Hillary Clinton Meets With Diet Guru As 2016 Speculation Ramps Up
August 7, 2013

The former secretary of state who left the Obama administration to recharge her batteries after traveling the world for four years has been spotted with diet guru Dr. Mark Hyman, who helped former President Bill Clinton lose weight on a vegan diet.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2013/08/07/hillary-clinton-meets-with-diet-guru-as-2016-speculation-ramps-up/

How about giving a little credit where credit is due? She is a very hard worker and being a senator, then running a campaign and topping that off with the physically demanding job as SoS did take a toll on her. But she is not letting herself go. She is working to be in top shape.

Your comment was ill informed.

Edit to add: Lets not forget the nasty fall she took at home that caused a blood clot on her brain. She's over come a lot physically and is bouncing back just fine. Seems she has some pretty fine DNA going on.

[hfojvt]

63. I always try to

expect the worst.

So I am afraid she will be, and it will take a miracle to keep her from getting the nomination.

[Egalitarian Thug]

100. Is this all some kind of grand theater to distract from the next actual election?

Aside from some retaliatory snark directed at the most annoying of the usual suspects, I just avoid this topic.

As you say, 2016 is way off and 2014 could well make it irrelevant. Hell, she'll be 70 by the next Presidential, she might decide that she wants to enjoy what life she's got left by then. For that matter, she might be dead by then.

[Xyzse]

14. I still think this is too early, but... Is it odd that I like Biden?

I know he is gaffe prone to some, but... I like the guy.

[Marie Marie]

35. I could see Biden as our next President.

He's not perfect but then who is. He is a fighter (remember the debates?) and I would easily pick him over Hillary.

[lumpy]

97. Yes, but he is getting old and needs to get some botox. At least that is what I heard if anyone

wants to run for Prez.

[mick063]

39. I like Biden as well. A lot in fact.

How much influence has Obama had on him though?

If Joe could convince me that he wouldn't rub shoulders with financial moguls, I would love to support him.

The next candidate must come clean early on social security, surveillance, fresh ideas on dealing with terrorism that don't include creating huge, expensive, private contractor dependent Departments, equitable taxation, ideas to stop offshore cash hoarding, setting government standards with respect to organized labor, cripes....the list is endless.

[Historic NY]

31. Message here is liberals will stay home and hold their breath..next..

Do we really need to hear this BULLSHIT?? Do we? Perhaps Free Republic falls more in with your thinking.

[Chan790]

150. based on the numbers saying it...

perhaps you might heed it.

[sad-cafe]

32. do any of you think Gore might give it another whirl?

just had a fleeting thought about it

[Samantha]

93. I think he should and I think he could definitely win

A few things: his longstanding position on climate change; his willingness to step out and speak against the war in Iraq before Bush* launched it; and here is that word again -- "lockbox."

He is more of a liberal than Hillary and less of a corporatist. It has to be a heavy-weight whoever the Dems run, and he is definitely that. Unfortunately, I have heard no noises that he is thinking about running, but who knows, he was going to sit out the race in 1992 until Bill called, and he did contemplate running in 2004 but changed his mind. So one never knows. And since he would need to balance his ticket with someone from the North, perhaps he could find a female Senator from Massachusetts to run with him.

Sam

[Art_from_Ark]

103. I'd vote for Al Gore in a heartbeat

He should have the chance to run again for the office he was cheated out of.

[lumpy]

98. Too old. Needs botox.

n

[Skittles]

36. certainly someone who did not support those insane wars

[joshcryer]

40. Posted a similar thread, mostly waffling, no real answers.

You can see my thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251317676

Unsurprisingly, your thread appears to be following the same route.

[mick063]

46. Remember the "anyone but Mitt" calls by many Republicans?

Different folks led the polls at different times. Newt. Cain.

Santorum gave him a run in a couple of state where he was outspent 200-1.

In the end, Mitt got the nomination and he lost.

[joshcryer]

50. I definitely remember and hell I even fell for it at times.

I thought Romney was a goner. Just look at the primaries:



It was insane.

[liberal_at_heart]

57. why must we be herded into picking one person especially right now?

The media tells us who we should vote for, the political party leaders tell us who we should vote for, people on message boards tell us who we should vote for. How about if we act like individuals and wait to see who actually runs, research their voting records, make up or own minds and then vote for who we think best represents our values. I don't take kindly to anybody telling me how to think or who to vote for. I will vote for whomever I feel will best fight the rich and best represent the 99%. If you want to vote for Hillary, then vote for Hillary, but stay out of my voting booth.

[joshcryer]

60. We need to find a challenger!

God. What the fuck. Don't look for someone to challenge the most likely candidate we don't like? Is that what you're telling me?

Do you want to vote for Hillary or not?

I damn sure as hell don't.

So it's necessary to begin this process now. Even if she doesn't run we need to find a good candidate we actually want to back.

And not a faux-populist like Obama.

[liberal_at_heart]

64. I agree we need to find a challenger but it's okay if it doesn't happen today or tomorrow.

We don't have to narrow the field down to one right this freakin minute. We don't even know who is running yet.

[joshcryer]

75. This isn't about knowing who is running.

It's about knowing who is able to challenge a potential Clinton run!

And backing that person.

And persuading them to run.

And showing them we'll work for them, canvas for them, fight for them.

Similar as to how the Draft Gore movement was, but something tangible.

[liberal_at_heart]

80. I'm sorry I don't play the persuade game. I don't believe in trying to browbeat people into

doing what you want them to do. People not only think they can persuade politicians to run they think they can persuade people who to vote for. No body persuades me who to vote for. And I don't go around persuading people who they should vote for. To me, it's kind of like evangelical Christians going around trying to convert people. Not only is it annoying, but it really doesn't work as well as you think it does. When a liberal puts their hat in the ring, I will put in my time and money to help get out the vote, but I won't be working to try and persuade anybody.

[joshcryer]

83. What do you think campaigning is?

It's persuading constituents to vote for you!

I'm not asking you to do shit, I'm asking your opinion on who is a good candidate, so I can back them if I believe they are viable as opposed to doing nothing. As it stands now I'll happily wait for the nomination process to go through without lifting a finger.

[liberal_at_heart]

85. I don't care if you lift a finger or not. Geez why is it everybody on this board thinks they get to

tell people what to do? Getting out the vote is important especially now that voting rights are being turned back and it now takes more to vote than before. I will be glad to help with that. I am even happy to help inform people of their choices in case they don't have enough information. I will gladly gather with those who support the same candadite I do to show my support. But I will not try and convert people. That just isn't what I do. That isn't the kind of person I am. If you don't like that, too bad.

[joshcryer]

89. Who is telling anyone what to do?

You don't have to express an opinion on a possible Hillary challenger.

I frankly am unconvinced anyone knows who could challenge a Hillary candidacy.

Which is why everyone is waffling and just waiting to see what happens.

The damn writing is on the wall. Hillary is going to run barring health issues.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. Elijah Cummings

He is an excellent Congressman.

[theHandpuppet]

113. I just googled his record on the issues

I was very impressed.

[LostOne4Ever]

51. Russ Feingold (nt)

[brooklynite]

59. I'd have a lot more respect for the "I won't vote for Hillary" crowd...

...if I thought for a moment they were going to actively engage in the hard work of convincing an acceptable candidate to run, raising the tens of millions of dollars that the political system we currently have requires to be viable, and were engaged in the challenge of convincing the electorate that the candidate they like is an acceptable choice for the middle of the road voters. So far, all I see is grousing and fantasizing from within the secure cocoon of a keyboard.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. I don't really care if you have respect for me or not.

[brooklynite]

67. Thanks very much for your response...

...because I AM working to encourage the candidates I like to run (I had a private meeting with one at the Convention); raising and contributing money and working to get them elected. And when you sit at home complaining, it makes my job easier.

[mick063]

84. So who is it?

It would go a long way toward what I think of your hard work.

Everyone sits at home but you? No one works harder than you?

Is this your message?

Regardless, I don't pull the lever for "third way" and I will do my best to convince others likewise.

I must admit that I have not raised millions like you have. I have raised a few hundred though.

After thinking it through, I thought I should be more accurate and change the thousand to hundred. Convincing others to donate doesn't count....right?

[brooklynite]

132. Not saying I'm the only person politically engaged...

I'm saying I see no sign that the people grumbling here are. I've seen posts in the past urging financial support for an existing Democratic candidate, or petitioning for policy changes, but I've seen nothing organizing a "Draft Warren/Grayson/Brown/etc." movement, just complaining that the pro-Hillary people ARE getting organized (revelation - I've been approached by the "Ready for Hillary" people to support their efforts). Maybe Elizabeth Warren WOULD be a good candidate and maybe I would support her (I suspect that if she ran, it wouldn't be as a radical leftist who disagreed with Clinton on every policy you can think of -- much to the disappointment of some people) if she showed me that she could be competitive with independent moderate voters in the swing states. But since my information tells me she's not running (I know one of her fundraisers -- would it surprise you to know she got a lot of money from Wall Street?), I'm focusing on the people who may be. If Hillary runs, I'll support her; if she doesn't, I've reached out to Brian Schweitzer to encourage him to run. I've told him what I think his strengths are and what issue he may face. And I've told him that I'd try to rustle up support (financial and otherwise) from my friends and political acquaintances. It's an approach I'd recommend to others.

[Demo_Chris]

65. Can't do all that alone. All I have is my one vote. Hillary will not get it. nt

[brooklynite]

121. Sad...if only there was a way for you to communicate with other people...

...maybe a way to form discussion groups where like-minded could share their thoughts and ideas about how to promote the candidate of their choice...

...maybe even organize meetings to work together in person...

...and to research names and addresses of prospective candidate to contact them and encourage them to run...

...and to send mail to newspapers promoting your candidate and his/her policies...

...and maybe it could all be part of an electronic communicaitons network...

A pipe dream, I'm sure.

[OmahaBlueDog]

70. Keeping in mind that I supported Hillary in '08, and will most likely do so in '16

...supporters of an Illinois Senator named Barack Obama did indeed actively engage in the hard work of convincing an acceptable candidate to run, raised the tens of millions of dollars that the political system we currently have requires to be viable, and were engaged in the challenge of convincing the electorate that the candidate they liked was an acceptable choice for the middle of the road voters. At the outset, I didn't think he had a hope in Hell of being nominated, much less elected. I was proven very wrong.

..so it can be done.

[Capt. Obvious]

120. This post

will keep them awake at nights.

[tularetom]

69. Anybody, I don't care who

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - isn't that the definition of insanity?

By the time Bill Clinton left office I was happy to see him go. The good things he did were outweighed by the pro business, pro war attitudes that characterized most of the policies he championed.

Somehow, I thought things would be different with Obama. Then I thought they would be different when he was freed from having to run for re-election. I'm not yet to the point of saying I'll be happy to see him leave office but I sure am disappointed.

At this point I have finally realized the insanity of voting for corporate Democrats and expecting them to act like real Democrats. So why should I vote for another corporate Democrat.

You know, there's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

[OmahaBlueDog]

73. OK..you don't care who.

Wish granted - the nominee is Joe Manchin.

[tularetom]

116. Well, he is on the NRA's shit list for proposing to tighten background check rules

[ZombieHorde]

77. I would have a hard time voting for someone who voted for the Iraq war,

but I know that vote will be somewhat easier when I see the Republican pick.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Hopefully, a progressive or, at least, a liberal for a change.

I'd like to have a Democrat I can vote for in '16.

[limpyhobbler]

86. +1

[Rowdyboy]

87. We have a very limited bench other than Secretary Clinton. Biden is IMHO too old...

Senator Warren has exhibited absolutely no interest in running and, considering the recent history of nominees from Massachusetts, that's probably for the best. Ditto for Patrick Deval. O'Malley is a good guy but would be very hard pressed to find enough money to fight back against the Republican juggernaut. Cuomo, meh possible but its hard to accept some of his positions. Gillibrand, Malloy, Whitehouse don't have the name recognition nor do Udall or Merkeley. Warner, Bayh and Nixon are too conservative for most Democratic primary voters, Jerry Brown will be 78 on election day 2016 and Pat Leahy 76-both pushing it very hard.

I simply don't see much to work with other than Secretary Clinton. She's eminently qualified, mature but not geriatric, can raise whatever is needed and can bring several southern states to play beyond the Obama playbook. Should she choose to run, she'll probably run the table and DU will be a MUCH quieter place.

FWIW, I very much hope she does so perhaps my judgment is clouded.

[Little Star]

124. +1 I very much hope she does also!

[OmahaBlueDog]

137. I generally agree, although you left out Al Gore

Gore could take one more shot, and he could find money. He may not have invented the internet, but there are some tech companies that would love to see him in the WH.

[Rowdyboy]

148. It wasn't deliberate-he's just kept such a low profile I forgot about the possibility...

I've really admired the man for decades but in all honesty he was not a great candidate. And the Lieberman pick was a disaster.

Also forgot about Brian Schweitzer who should run but probably won't. I don't blame him for his lack of interest in serving in DC. What a shithole these days.

[Politicalboi]

90. Clinton/Weiner

I would vote for her if I have too. But I prefer some other female candidate. Warren would be best, IMO, but we'll see. Clinton has a lot of experience, but a lot of baggage to go with it. And that "Sniper Fire" BS just pissed me off. No need to lie about stupid stuff that can be shown to be a lie. I tend to see those people as pathological liars.

[SwampG8r]

111. weiner/holder

just for the bumperstickers

[winter is coming]

129. DUzy!

[MannyGoldstein]

91. Elizabeth Warren

Smart, savvy, decent, and doesn't salivate over the 99% as a morsal to hand to Wall Street.

How we could even consider a prevaricating Third-Way warmonger like Clinton is beyond me. 20+ years of Third Way rapaciousness, and where are we? In an awful, awful place, I'd say. Time for some sort of real Democrat in the White House.

As a Bay Stater, I knew that Dukakis and Kerry would be toast when they ran. But Warren is made of different stuff. She will politely but firmly eviscerate any Republican.

[bravenak]

92. Idk.

I'm voting for Hillary.

[putitinD]

94. JOE BIDEN

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Liz Warren. Al Franken. Martin O'Malley. Anyone seen Brian Schweitzer lately? Gavin Newsom. Al Gore.

That's right, Al Gore.

He's younger than Biden. Why not? Unlike Biden, and Hillary, he doesn't have an IWR vote to account for.

And unlike Biden, he of the RAVE act, he's not an long-time drug war enabler.

[OmahaBlueDog]

106. He certainly has the money to run

He has no record since 2000, other than "An Inconvenient Truth." And the climate deniers will vote against him anyway.

[Nay]

115. I'd like to see Gore and/or Dean run. I could easily vote for either of those. I don't think

Warren is ready, but I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, too.

[KharmaTrain]

107. Hillary's Game...

...Freeze 'em. She won't announce her candidacy for quite some time as by doing this she makes it difficult for any challenger to raise cash from the "usual" donors who either are already committed to a Hillary run or don't want to be on the outside should she win the nomination.

I don't think Hillary's nomination is inevitable or do I want it to be. I welcome as many challengers into the primary pool as possible. It serves the party well as it always expands the debate and draws in more people into the process. However anyone whose serious at a run in 2016 needs to start lining their ducks up right now. This isn't just money but organization...developing the ground game that is needed to do well in Iowa, New Hampshire and the other early primary/caucus states.

One wildcard very much in play is 2014...Democrats really need to focus on the state and local races as that's where the greatest damage to our liberties is happening. With rushpublicans controlling legislatures in over half the states means more attempts to suppress the vote and change the electoral dynamics in 2016...

[1-Old-Man]

109. There are almost 1,100 days left until the election, this discussion can wait a year or so.

I believe the correct number is 1,088 or thereabouts. We really don't have to decide today. This discussion is along the lines of Christmas sales starting on the 4th of July.

[OmahaBlueDog]

135. GMA was discussing whether Hillary is running this morning.

I realize that we are not even 7 months into Barack Obama's second term, but there it is.

[brooklynite]

152. You're welcome to wait...the candidatess won't be

[99Forever]

110. No Turd Way candidates for me.

Clinton or any other. I will not support or vote for ANY of them ever again. Never.

Earn my support and vote, I don't owe it to any political party or person.

I have principles and integrity, I expect my elected officials to have them also.

[Life Long Dem]

112. Who?

I guess we need to wait past 2014 to find out.

[LWolf]

114. I see this question all the time.

My answer is always the same.

ANY non-neoliberal Democrat will do.

[wtmusic]

125. Howard Dean screams for me. nt

[Amimnoch]

130. I'd love to see maggie Hassan make a run for it myself.

Experienced legislator and executive.

Rabidly pro-choice.
Pro marriage equality.
Pro-education.
She's pro-green, and supported the regional greenhouse gas reduction unitive.
She's pro public health-care, and insurance reform.
Pro-Union.

The right will probably attack her lack of experience in international affairs, but after running Palin in 2008 just a heartbeat away from the Presidency, they don't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

[Orsino]

140. Someone who really wants the job, with a progressive platform?

I haven't seen Clinton even begin running yet.

I despise dynasties, but am willing to be persuaded. Can't we do better than another half-hearted liberal?

[Spirochete]

141. Errrr....

Somebody else?

[OmahaBlueDog]

143. I don't think we can nominate "Somebody Else"

Even though I think "Somebody Else" would be a popular choice in virtually any election. "Somebody Else" has vast, bi-partisan appeal.

[Spirochete]

145. I know. i don't really have my list

of "Somebody Else" candidates made yet, but there will be no Hillary/Schumer/Max Baucus/Feinstein/Obama types on it. More like Franken/Boxer/Warren/O'Malley/ types.

[opiate69]

144. Not that she's ever even remotely shown interest but, I could see voting for Patty Murray...

[nebenaube]

154. Elizabeth Warren n/t

[Beacool]

157. This place reminds me a lot of Free Republic, lots of angst over their "moderate" candidates.

Over there, it's "anyone but Christie". Who they think has a chance at the WH? Palin, Cruz, Paul, Ryan and some other extreme RW kooks. The list would have included Rubio, but they are angry at him over the proposed immigration bill.

Over here, it's "anyone but Hillary". Who is in the dream list of progressives? Warren, Dean, O'Malley, Franken and even Biden, who is already 70 years old.

Are we going to have three years of hand wringing and vows not to vote for Hillary even if she's the nominee?

It's going to be a looooong three years.

[liberal_at_heart]

159. there are just as many Hillary supporters starting threads about her running. They are just

chomping at the bit. They just can't wait.

[Beacool]

161. I'm hoping that she runs, but I have no clue whether she will or not.

Although I don't blame others who are chomping at the bit. I guess we who support her have been chomping at the bit since 2008. Still, I see a lot more posts crapping on Hillary than supporting her. Not that it surprises me since this site was clearly more pro Obama in 2008 than pro Hillary.

I just wish everybody kept their powder dry, otherwise it's going to be a contentious time around here.