Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA positions itself to support Hillary Clinton

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

Priorities USA Action, the pro-Obama super PAC that led attacks against Republican Mitt Romney, is quietly positioning itself to become the main independent group funding a media campaign for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, according to Democrats familiar with the plans.

Strategists and donors to Priorities are in discussions about how best to help Clinton should she decide to run again for president, three Democrats familiar with the talks said.

The emergence of Priorities as a pro-Clinton ally would introduce a heavyweight player into the rapidly intensifying effort by super PACs to shape the 2016 landscape.

The people familiar with the plans said Priorities is developing a different mission than Ready for Hillary, a group started this year by ardent Clinton supporters and now backed by longtime Clinton associates. While Ready for Hillary is focused on grass-roots organizing, Priorities is planning to become what one of the Democrats called “the big money vehicle” that would produce and air expensive television advertisements.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pro-obama-super-pac-priorities-usa-positions-itself-to-get-behind-hillary-clinton/2013/08/29/16cc98c6-1019-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

---

As much as some people want to believe otherwise, the 2016 election is underway...on both sides.

[DJ13]

1. The elites are placing their bets

Who should the people bet on?

[Scuba]

8. I know, I know ...

[DJ13]

33. +1

My choice as well.

[Left Coast2020]

44. I second that motion.

[Jackpine Radical]

38. Who, Scuba? Who?

[Scuba]

42. Think about it you burned out old hippie!!

[Jackpine Radical]

43. I'm gonna alert on you.

You called me old.

[Nihil]

24. It doesn't matter.

> Who should the people bet on?

They don't get to choose.

[SunSeeker]

2. Until campaigns are publicly funded, constant campaign mode is reality. nt

[MH1]

51. yes, and also until campaigns are publicly funded and candidate info is accessible, $$$$$$$$$ rule.

That is the sad reality.

Of course, recognizing that reality, as individuals we have the choice to make the best of it (or "least worst" if you prefer), or curl up in the corner bawling our eyes out that life is so unfair.

[JDPriestly]

3. Whether she can be elected depends on how unpleasant the Republican candidate is.

If the Republican is really disgusting, she has a chance.

If the Republican is at all acceptable, Hillary Clinton will have a problem.

The establishment in the Democratic Party loves her.

Based on that alone, she should have been the nominee in 2008.

So why wasn't she? Because aspects of her personality cause her problems in relating to ordinary people. She is not an Eleanor Roosevelt. She is not a Bill Clinton.

The 2008 primary proved that she is not a Barack Obama.

We need to think outside the box. My choice is clear.

Elizabeth Warren is fresh. She gained a reputation in 2012 and the years leading to 2012 for being a friend of "the people." She is really likable.

Because of the controversy over her appointment and the excitement about her election and her tough stance on the Wall Street and banking "enemies of the people" (exaggerating but that is how they are perceived by many including many, many people who lost their homes and savings to the trickery of the bankers) have given her quite a bit of name recognition.

I think that among other things, Hillary Clinton is too much same old, same old. Same old ideas. Same old personality.

Hillary is competent which is why the party bigwigs like her. But she just isn't likable. Now I said it. It's sad but true. She is not Eleanor Roosevelt or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. It's just something that is missing in her presentation.

So I don't want to hurt the chances of electing a Democrat by stating explicitly some of the things I am talking about. But if over all these years, she is still unaware of them and has never corrected them, I don't think she can do it now.

I'm for Elizabeth Warren. I think that Elizabeth Warren would really bring a fresh outlook. She is not all that "liberal," but she is not conservative by any means. I think she has the freshness and the personality to win people's hearts. That's what we need.

[groundloop]

4. I like Elizabeth Warren, A LOT.....

But I question whether she's ready yet. I'm not saying she's not, I'm just kinda' on the fence.

In any case, whether the nominee is Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, or some other candidate who hasn't come forward yet, I hope that everyone here will work their asses off for them.

[JDPriestly]

5. Absolutely! But let's get the best candidate we can.

[brooklynite]

10. Elizabeth Warren isn't running...

...I know her finance people (here's a hint: she got a fair amount of her campaign cash from Democratic 1%ers). If she was thinking at all about running, I'd hear about it. And since nobody's going to try to get her to run, the best candidate we can get is going to be from the pool of people who ARE running.

[JDPriestly]

12. I sure hope we get a candidate more electable than Hillary Clinton.

On the personality meter, she does not qualify.

[brooklynite]

14. Who to believe...

Georgia 2016 poll: Hillary Clinton in play - Politico

In Ohio, Hillary Clinton lead shows frustration with GOP - PPP

In Louisiana, Clinton keeps up, governor falls - PPP

Poll: Hillary Clinton Least Wanted 2016 Democratic Nominee - Newsmax

[JDPriestly]

17. As I said in the post that started this conversation, if the Republican candidate is awkward

and unappealing, then Hillary could win.

But if the Republicans get a candidate who has some personal appeal, they could easily win over Hillary Clinton.

Who was a better candidate? Bush or Gore. Gore was far, far more competent, experienced and morally and intellectually acceptable. But Bush had the "Aww, shucks! I'm just one of you" presentation. Hillary Clinton is just not good at making audiences and other people feel good. It's a sad fact. Bill helped her a bit in 2008, but she does not have that kind of personality. And that can be the decisive factor, in fact, I would say that is maybe the decisive factor in getting swing voters who don't stayed informed on the issues to vote for you and to get your own base of voters out to vote for you.

It's all about personality in the end. And Hillary is probably a really likeable person if you know her well, but she doesn't come across as warm and humble when in a less than intimate situation. In addition, she has an enormous amount of history that does not help her at all.

[CANDO]

19. She has time to work on warm and humble.

If her camp or supporters put on the air of inevitability, look out... its not going to turn out well for them. See 2008...

[JDPriestly]

21. She has had a lifetime to work on warm and humble.

She lived in the White House for eight years with warm and humble incarnate. She was born in 1947. That means that she is approximately 66 now and will be maybe 69 in 2016. It's kind of hard to change your basic nature at her age.

She has enjoyed the privileges of her current status too long. She is too far from the rest of us.

Elizabeth Warren is at least as intelligent if not more so than Hillary Clinton, but she is fresh. She does not have a rather jaundiced, know-it-all attitude. Hillary does. I think that Hillary was the little girl in the 6th grade who was ahead of the rest of her class, impatient with the others and maybe tattled a bit too much. She identifies with authority. Right now, one thing is pretty clear: the American people do not identify with authority. Whether they are Tea-Baggers or DUers, a broad majority of Americans are not happy with anyone they identify as associated with authority.

It's just the way things are right now. Americans want change. In fact we voted for change in 2008 and 2012. I don't think that there is any way on earth that Hillary Clinton can sell herself as representing change. She was in the White House during the 8 Clinton years, and in the State Department during the first 4 Obama years. What is more, many of Obama's appointees are carry-overs from the Clinton years -- a fact not missed on many Americans. Unfortunately, they are not the carry-overs from the best of the Clinton crowd. They are Larry Summers, Rubin, Panetta, those associated with the problematic repeal of Glass-Steagall crowd and problematic policy on other issues.

Then there are Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's association with the foreign policy of the first four years of Obama and the problems that will inevitably arise from the decisions made during her governance of foreign policy (as they do after every president's time in office).

We can do better than Hillary Clinton. And we might need to. Besides, Hillary Clinton has done enough. We really need someone who can excite voters. She has been around too long. She just has too much history. Americans like new people, new ideas, new, new, new. That is what excites us. Look at how much attention and excitement a total ditz like Sarah Palin got!

So we need a more interesting, compelling, new and exciting candidate than Hillary Clinton. Supporting Hillary Clinton is like supporting warmed over French Toast. It is not a good idea.

Warren isn't running, but I think she could be persuaded to run if the elite of the Democratic Party got behind her. She needs to be vetted very carefully (as does her husband especially with regard to financial matters), but as a personality, she could do well.

And if Warren does not want to run, there are other strong Democrats who could be excellent candidates. Some of them do not like to raise money. That is Hillary's one strong point as far as I am concerned. She is willing to slap backs and flatter and grin and wink and raise money. But it is precisely that quality that might make her very unelectable. We would be better off with a candidate who has someone close, maybe a spouse, who does a lot of the social aspect of the fund-raising for the candidate.

We still have 2 1/2 years to find someone.

We cannot afford to lose in 2016. The Republican right is just too crazy. They are a bunch of Dr. Strangeloves. In fact they make Dr. Strangelove look pretty normal.

[Sunlei]

30. we better have 2 good people in the primary because republicans will probably do the same thing.....

same thing they did 2 primaries ago. Demonize, attack the hell out of Mrs. Clinton, con some Ds to vote for someone else, Rs vote in the D primary for someone else, and then the second person wins.

Good thing President Obama was and still is so very awesome thanks republicans!

[Beacool]

47. Are you kidding?????

[Jackpine Radical]

39. A whole helluva lot can happen in 3 years.

For example, if the Great Awakening continues at its present pace, the electorate may become sufficiently Koch-proof to be looking for a fresh new candidate who has their interests at heart.

In 2005, how many would have bet on that upstart from Hyde Park?

[bread_and_roses]

46. I would never lift a finger for Cluster Bomb Clinton

A woman - and a mother - who refused to support the Cluster Bomb Ban will never get my vote, much less one minute of volunteer time. Ever. Nor a man, for that matter, but I am a woman and a mother and I feel particular disgust and loathing for one who would take such a stance for political expediency. If that is sexist, so be it.

And thank the goddess I'll be retired by 2016 - since my job sometimes requires non-volunteer work for candidates, including Presidential.

[Scuba]

9. +1,000

[geek tragedy]

34. Can you name one 'acceptable' Republican, let alone one that

could win their primary?

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Christie could be painted as "acceptable."

and if the Corporate State really wants him, I think they can railroad him in right past any Teabaggers. That's how Romney got past the field of untrustworthy screwballs that gave the corporations intestinal cramps. Rove, Rush & the Money Guys can pretty much shape the result as they want it.

[geek tragedy]

41. Romney got past that pitiful field of losers by luck alone.

he was close to being knocked out by both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich at various times.

Remember the Lieberman hug of Bush? That's what Christie will face in a GOP primary.

[Scurrilous]

6. K & R

[blkmusclmachine]

7. HRC, another Third Way/Blue Dog/Centrist/Wanna be, like BHO.

IMO.

[brooklynite]

11. I'll go with Howard Dean's choice...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/howard-dean-on-2016-at-this-point-im-supporting-hillary-clinton/

[MH1]

50. who's your candidate? nt

[Ford_Prefect]

13. Here we go again..."Saint Hillary to the rescue of the lost party".

We have so much more to offer than this. Are we not yet only the party of the center right Uber-rich?

[brooklynite]

15. And your candidate is?

NOT your fantasy "I wish he/she would run" candidate; the candidate you're going to actually work to get into the race and get nominated. The reason this story is here is that some Democrats think Hillary is a good choice and are doing something about it. As for the anti-Hillary contingent.....

[davidpdx]

16. Some of us would like to wait for an actual primary and candidates

not anoint someone 2 1/2 years before an actual election. Who I vote for in the primary depends on who runs and what the candidates stances are. Until I hear that, no one gets my support.

[brooklynite]

22. But that's the point...nobody's being annointed...

...it's just that some people realize that, given the political system we have, which won't be changing anytime soon, running for President takes years of preparation: lining up support, raising money (or at least financial commitments) and organizing a campaign structure. HIllary's doing it; Biden's doing it; the Republican candidates are doing it; the only person who's not is your fantasy candidate.

[davidpdx]

23. The Republicans probably are doing it, that I agree with you on

I haven't seen any solid proof Biden is. I strongly believe he won't run. After being VP for 8 years and a senator for..well a long time, I don't believe he'll do it.

As for my fantasy candidate, there's nothing that says someone couldn't step in and raise money quickly and challenge an anointed front-runner. Lots of people dismissed Obama a year and a half before the election and said there was no way he could be Clinton. Clinton had the organization, the endorsements, and the money at that point. Granted her campaign was run by a bunch of incompetent fools which didn't help. Yes, fundraising is important and so is lining up support, but both can turn quickly. Clinton herself is proof of that.

[brooklynite]

25. "Biden, Hinting at 2016, to Speak at Iowa Event"

DES MOINES — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be the keynote speaker at Senator Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry fund-raiser next month, a signature political event that often showcases as featured speakers those aspiring to be president.

Mr. Biden will speak after Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio, according to a person familiar with the plans. Mr. Biden’s attendance is a sign, Democratic officials here say, that he wants Iowa voters to know he is very much considering another White House bid in 2016. A spokesman for Mr. Biden did not reply to requests for comment.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/biden-hinting-at-2016-to-speak-at-iowa-event/

[davidpdx]

26. A lot of big name politicians attend Harkin's dinner

It's speculation at best. Doesn't mean he'll run. I think he'll hang up his hat (so it speak). I wouldn't be surprised if neither he nor Hillary Clinton run.

[Ford_Prefect]

27. I have watched the "3rd way" crowd ruin the democratic party. Not again, thankyou!

They are the party of disaster politics. Vote for us or it will all fail is their mantra.

They have abandoned progressive ideals and replaced them with Neo-fascism dressed up as moderate capitalism. This is not what we are here for. Bushco-Lite is not the same as genuine inclusive Democracy. Where progressive candidates have run on the issues they have won. Where the 3rd way crowd has run we lost, over and over.

It is the Real Issues that win, not pretending to be just to the left of the Tea Party.

[NorthCarolina]

29. The party will not permit ANY non-third way progressive candidate to run"."

The ridicule and ad hominem attacks on such a candidate would reach a fever pitch in the MSM and on websites such as DU, with a constant barrage of "Unelectable", "Not Serious", "Paul Bot", "Libtard", the media to talking about how this "candidate" should not really even be allowed to debate because he's not a "serious contender", etc.

All they need do is effect enough public doubt to keep campaign donations low, and of course provide no party support, and Voila'....another conservative DLC third-way candidate is pitted against their GOP counterpart. It's a win-win for TPTB.

[davidpdx]

18. I think it is a shame that these people are already deciding the election before candidates

even declare their intentions. So much for choice...

[pangaia]

20. My latest poem..

Hillary Billory dock. Obama's in the pot.
No- Ohillery, Billy Bama
no. not right...
barack O'clinton..oh wait.. Willy Hussein Rodman.
no that's not it either...

Ah ha-- I got one...
Hill and Bill and Obbie went up the mountain--into the air.
and had a meeting there.
we all sat at the bottom
and had a little fair.
Hill and bill and obbie came rolling down the hill.
(laughing)
and told us go screw yourself.
we selected bill, no no...we mean hill

Or something like that.
Ok please don't get pissed..
I get pretty much all my info here at DU and think it's a great place with much smarter, better informed folks than me, which is why I come here..
I just think in one sense we are all being had.

Somebody else has already decided who will run. (In fact this one was decided years ago, I would bet. "OK, barack, you support Hillary next time, and we give you Bill. Deal?" )Do I even have a choice? To tell the truth I don't really know.

I won't give up doing what little I can do, trying to....win? Even with 'the dying of the light.".. Like the Batavia Muckdogs..just about out of the playoffs but they don't quit...

[davidpdx]

28. Here's $20, please stop

While I agree with you, your poem is an abomination.

[pangaia]

31. Ok, Ok..I know I will never be America's poet laureate.

But, you may keep the 20.
I'm a better drummer than a poet.

[Jesus Malverde]

32. Who controls Priorities USA?..nt

[brooklynite]

35. from Wikipedia:

Harold M. Ickes is the president of the group. Its key backers include Paul Begala, Teddy Johnston, Geoff Garin, Ellen Malcolm, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Bill Maher, Mary Beth Cahill, and Irwin M. Jacobs.

[Jesus Malverde]

36. Thank You! ..nt

[blackspade]

37. And already bought and paid for.

So much for an actual primary....

[iandhr]

45. Non coordination

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-17-2012/colbert-super-pac---not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert

[snot]

48. Guess what. Warren may not be running, and she's certainly not backed by 1%'er's, but

she could win.

NONE of us win so long as we let the 1%'er's pre-select our options.

Warren is likable, and her message has consistently been one that even Teapartiers could get behind.

At bottom, most people vote from their pocketbooks, and Warren's one who would defend them from the looters.

This is one of the reasons why the 1%'er's have fought her tooth and nail at every step.

[brooklynite]

49. But, since you won't do anything to get her to run...not much of a point.

FWIW, I suspect that if she did run, her policy positions wouldn't be radically different than Hillary's. I know there's a lot a dreaming about what she would do, but she wouldn't be running a Dennis Kucinich campaign.