Left wants challenger for Hillary Clinton

[Jesus Malverde]

Liberal leaders want Hillary Clinton to face a primary challenge in 2016 if she decides to run for president.

The goal of such a challenge wouldn’t necessarily be to defeat Clinton. It would be to prevent her from moving to the middle during the Democratic primary.

“I do think the country would be well served if we had somebody who would force a real debate about the policies of the Democratic Party and force the party to debate positions and avoid a coronation,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, an influential progressive group.

It’s been more than five years since then-Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) stunned Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. At the time, segments of the left lambasted her support of the Iraq war. Now, the wariness is on domestic policies.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/189919-left-wants-challenger-for-hillary

“She has some heavy lifting to do to show she’s not in the pocket of banks and a candidate of the 1 percent. That’s a more open question,” he added.

[libdem4life]

1. I like the idea and hope they can find someone credible. Not a Nader/Perot-type. No. No. No.

But I agree she needs to lilt to the Left, but without some nitwit playing spoiler in case the Republicans don't melt down.

I question the early political energy mostly because it can detract from PBOs effectiveness and give the term "lame duck" meaning earlier than ever.

Before long, the entire 2nd term will be synonymous and co-occurring with serious lack of power and the time of developing the war chest for the next election. The Presidency has lost enough power as it is.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. A Primary Challenger is by definition a member of the same Party seeking the same

nomination. Only a Democrat running as a Democratic candidate could be a Primary challenger to Hillary Clinton. Both Nader and Perot were members of other Parties and were not Primary challenges to any Democrat. A Third Party candidate runs in their own Party, and so anyone wanting a challenger to Hillary in our Primary wants another Democrat to consider.
I know it's fun to say 'Nader' but a basic understanding of the system is also enjoyable once you get the hang of it.

[libdem4life]

21. I'll help you get the "hang" of the post...no Independent, Green, or anti-Hillary

malcontent, (of the extreme left) of whom we have many on this board, can vote against her in any way in a Primary but being a Democrat. NoNoNoNo doesn't count. Staying home doesn't count.

A Nader-left-type candidate, must be a Democrat and work within the Party framework to challenge the Primary. Or, they are left with a challenge at a national level as a 3rd party.

So for those who cringe at the thought of Hillary, many of those described above, need to do exactly the opposite than ignore 2016 even if it's hard to do both...which I do not understand...and hit the ground now to find a viable primary candidate. I take it, one who refuses corporate donations, which has been pretty futile.

But, hey, thanks for the opportunity to make it more clear and for your concern and hope that I indeed have a basic understanding, given my enjoyable 50 years in politics.

(It was a late and "it was a dark and stormy night"...really)

[Oilwellian]

22. ROFL

I question the early political energy mostly because it can detract from PBOs effectiveness

Whatever happened to multitasking?

[libdem4life]

25. Does not relate. Early internal political energy.We can handle supporting two candidates and monitor

more than one election and still stay informed, discuss, participate online, debate, etc. Maybe even fit in a local special election.

[jeff47]

2. Then the Left needs to work for a large win in 2014.

A big win in 2014 would do far more to take the "DLC" crap out of the party than picking a 2016 candidate now.

[TheKentuckian]

4. False: See 2006 and 2008.

Why? Because the Turd Way has a long game agenda that they are just as zealous about as any ideologues and that game is about corporate dollars and influence.

When we win, we have to move right to supposedly garner more independents and if we lose then we have to move right to win independents or so the story goes despite no apparent gains from such moves.

Winning elections is just the beginning, what is done with power is the real test but leadership and many among the rank and file only are focused on winning the next tilt and matters grow worse while corporate influence grows.

[jeff47]

7. Candidate Obama was far to the left of President Obama.

Because the Turd Way has a long game agenda that they are just as zealous about as any ideologues and that game is about corporate dollars and influence.

And part of that game is a Republican win in 2014. Then when liberals complain about 2016 candidates, they can point to 2014 as proof liberals can't win.

Winning elections is just the beginning, what is done with power is the real test

Then you know the subject of your post is wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

8. No, my subject supports my assesment as does your first statement

winning is just as much of an excuse for moving right as losing. Obama did exactly as I stated, as you said.

[jeff47]

19. No, I'm saying candidate Obama was campaigning

Which was not a perfect reflection of how he would govern. Partially because he was trying to win, and partially because people attached all their political hopes to the man.

For example, a ton of people on DU complained that Obama didn't immediately pull out of Afghanistan upon taking office. But Obama promised during his campaign to stay in Afghanistan - those posters attached their wishes to the man, ignoring what he actually said in favor of what they wanted him to do.

There was not a "move to the right". It was the same guy he was in the IL state government and Congress. The fact that we wished for someone better did not mean we got someone better.

[blue14u]

5. Your post is what my

dreams are made of. 2014 will be the end of this RW BS we are seeing, and our POTUS

can then show us what he will really do for the people. Not the RW, across the isle

Tear beggar troll, BS anymore! STAND UP!!!! RUN TO THE POLLS AND VOTE IN 2014!!!!

WE MUST FOCUS ON 2014 IF WE PLAN TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

AT ALL FOR THE FUTURE!!! WE MUST GET OUT AND VOTE IN 2014, FIRST AND

FOREMOST!!!! NO EXCUSES, PUT NOTES AROUND YOUR HOME EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK, IN YOUR CAR, AT WORK.... FIRST 2014 then 2016.. Tell you family and friends to pay attention to 2014!!!!

ps I'm not yelling, just have an abundance of energy about this... 2014 is the election of ALL TIME!!!!. Be there, VOTE, and we will see change to the left!!!! HLC needs to move quite a bit to the left for me to be happy VOTING for her. Maybe I will have a choice I like better than HLC.. hopefully way better.... Hope so..

I wish whoever is promoting her already as the only candidate, and the only way to win would STOP!!! I want a choice this time. NO MORE CENTRIST, THIRD WAY for me PLEASE!!!!

[rhett o rick]

3. I think the left has an up hill battle. Big corp money isnt going to help a progressive. nm

[NCTraveler]

11. I think big corp money will get behind a winner.

Can a progressive win is the question. I think a progressive can definitely win. Obama held many progressive positions when he was first campaigning for President. Well before the election Obama was pulling in just as much, if not more, corporate dollars than McCain. They knew Obama was going to win. We need a progressive who can put together a team and campaign in a similar manner to Obama. Obama showed that corporate dollars follow winners, not Republicans.

[rhett o rick]

18. With respect I think you have it backwards. Corporate dollars make winners.

Obama's corporate backing was either because they knew he wasnt progressive or they thought they could buy his allegiance. After 8 years of disaster, the Powers To Be knew the nation wanted change.

In 2016 it's my opinion that the Powers To Be and their obscene wealth will back Gov Christie and Ms. Clinton. I believe they prefer Christie but would settle for Ms. Clinton. They will stop at nothing that money can buy, possibly even the vote counting, to prevent a progressive from winning.

To some Pres Obama is progressive. I agree that he is more progressive than Rmoney but compared to Sen Warren, he is not progressive. At least in human rights and economics.

[NCTraveler]

20. Not saying that I think your thought process is flawed....

but I do stand firm in my belief that corp money will simply back a winner. Their hope is to gain favor. After Obamas speech in Iowa, corp money began to fill his coffers. I do not think, at that point in time, that corp money didn't want him elected him in any way. At that time, they felt he was a true progressive. Yet they went for him over McCain. They did so because they felt he was going to win and they wanted to gain as much favor as possible. The game is filthy. You know that as I have read many of your posts.

I do think your thoughts are valid. I do think they were doing whatever possible to buy his allegiance. I also think it worked out well for them. I think Obama is and was a progressive. I think that the money he received turned him completely away from progressive economic policies during his time as potus.

[libdem4life]

34. Why should they, really, every other post here is a "Corporate money is vile" post. Who wants

to donate money, sizeable amounts of money, to a segment of the party that chants mantras about money with a corporate account is filthy lucre, or the sort?

Truly, I think it's mostly the anti-Hillary group, but when asked if not "her", then who are just frustrated? Just more denouncing of the money she can raise, $200,000 a speech you go girl, that's she's in bed with them, ad nauseum. Hell, even our own...Alan Grayson got some negative vibes...ugh.

No comment to the fact that there is not one D Senator on the Progressive Caucus list, as opposed to several R Senators aggressively working for one of many incarnations of the "Hell, No Caucus". That list needs a few Senators with a D after their name We can still really, really manage to work locally, for 2014, but anyone who thinks we can just pick it up then for 2016 either isn't watching the Republicans or thinking with their no-no-no-no brain. Alan Grayson is a member. Thank you, Congressman.

Republicans have no problem asking for money, waving their dog whistles ... a black man's photo, an uppity white woman's photo. They are already out of the gate...cheering while we do our best to bench our first string player with the Red Letter H...the only one who can beat any of them, at present, have no sub or anyone much in training. What a political donation...in the wrong direction.

I'm not the biggest Hillary fan, but I am a fan of a D winning. And people seem to forget here, some of us remember the first health plan that was put forth was Hillarycare. Just Say No does not elect a President.

You can't have it both ways...either send the candidates back to Chicken Supper Pot Lucks, After-Church Meets, Little League games, passing the hat around, Senior Citizen's homes, maybe send them a $10 check and wish them well. Or we can make burgers out of the no-corporate-money sacred cows and get on with the program. Even then we might not win, but it would make us "players" instead of "No-no-noers".

Or, just stay home and pout until the Magical Thinking gets old.

[rhett o rick]

38. I hear what you are saying but I just have a hard time with the bad cop / worse cop choices we

get. "You must vote to prove you are free. And who wants "worse cop" to win."

[libdem4life]

39. I get it. But how else do you do a Two-Party System? We don't have a Parliament. Somehow, someway

every 4 years upwards of 120 million people, based on 2012 totals, will actually pull a lever or check one of two boxes for the leader of the free world....warts and all.

I think that's why we will always end up with Center Right or Center Left at the end of the day. It's the proverbial grading curve. Everybody can't get an A and somebody has to get an F...theoretically. And that 60% in between the 20% Dependable Right and 20% Dependable Left somehow has to determine a Middle/or Center roughly leaning of 30% each...with a few Independents really calling the shots.

The system needs Populists to generate energy, new ideas, passion, disgust and set outer limits of political behavior, via impeachment or recall, but (and I'm going to catch it for this, likely) they typically serve to sway the curve. Again, like in school, maybe a couple of extra smart kids enroll mid-year...the curve changes.
.
In the VA AG race...a near statistical impossibility. You don't get closer than that.

An aside: Great speech by Elizabeth Warren...shattering another glass ceiling !!

[MattBaggins]

6. I am one of those

I will most likely support her if she runs, but fuck the backroom deals and being told who my candidate will be.

I want another 2008 with lots of debate and every state getting a say.

[LWolf]

9. Actually,

the goal of THIS member of the left WOULD be to defeat Clinton.

[Chan790]

15. Mine too.

It's my highest electoral priority, ahead of any other race between now and the Democratic National Convention in 2016.

[LuvNewcastle]

23. Hell Yeah!

I don't want to move her to the left, I want to beat her. We need a truth-teller, someone who will tell the truth about the Clinton's just as easily as they will tell the truth about Republicans, because they're all on the same fucking side.

We need someone who isn't afraid of them and doesn't respect them. She is unacceptable to me. The Clinton's had their time and look what they did with it. Look what they did to us. And they've spent the last decade or so getting filthy stinking rich. She needs to retire and play grandma and roll around in her money. Anybody who wants to see the Clinton's back in power after what they did needs to have their head examined.

[NCTraveler]

12. If Hillary runs or not is yet to be seen.

If she is inevitable or not is yet to be seen. I would love it if a progressive with charisma, intelligence, and staying power were to get into the mix come campaign season. Hillary and the rest of the more centrist democrats need to be brought further to the left during the primary. It will also benefit all of us to have a true debate about progressive principals. The more those principals are debated in public, the more the voters will understand how much sense progressive positions make over the repubs.

[Laelth]

14. What do you make of the fact that Chelsea said her mom needs rest.

Until I saw that Chelsea was worried about her mother's fatigue, it never occurred to me that Hillary might not run. Do you have any insight on that?



-Laelth

[NCTraveler]

16. No insight on that.

I will say I am not sure how she would not need rest. Many politicians do not get full credit for the amount of work they put in. If I were her I would retire. I think she should retire. While I love Hillary, I don't think she will be some great savior. I do think she serves a great purpose in the party and elevates the brand.

My dream: Hillary, in the next couple of months, sets a date with press and others as if she is going to announce. When it comes, she takes to the mic and announces who she will be backing for President. She then passes the mic to that person. It wouldn't matter if that person had name recognition or not. By the next day that persons name would be know all over the country. That person would be a progressive. Hillary and Bill work their asses off until election day and then ride into the sunset. With what they bank they will live extremely comfortably.

Not a direct answer to your question, but I would like to see Hillary rest/retire. I have never been under the impression that she is definitely running. I truly do think she will find her way to the short list for the SC one day. Not that she would ever get the nod.

[Laelth]

17. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Hillary has worked very hard for a long time and has served her country well. I don't think she's "too old" to be President, but I did think it quite odd that her daughter would publicly discuss her needing some rest.

btw, I think Hillary would be an excellent SCOTUS appointment. I also think she would sail through the process.



-Laelth

[Laelth]

13. Spot on. Indeed we do.

More here.



-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. It would pretty hard to find anyone to the right of Hillary to challenge her.

Of course, there's always the chance of Joe Lieberman coming back and running as a Democrat. That would, at least, provide a toss up in the "not as bad" wing.

[HijackedLabel]

26. Good.

After Bill's foot-in-mouth disorder made national news, I'm jumping off the Clinton bandwagon.

They need to work hard to regain my support in the primaries.

[Whisp]

36. Hillary's husband, Zell Biller will not be a positive for her.

but an albatross.

I'm changing my bet again to No Run for Hillary. There is something (always is) working in the background that is disagreeable to Zell Biller and he is not pleased, he is in another one of his tantrums. Something that will hamper Hillary's walk into the WH where he can take over another 2 terms as Pres and let Hillary languish in the background. He would do that, the sot.

Lots of possibilities of why No Run for Hillary because the Clintons always seem to be in some kind of trouble, mostly by their own making.

People don't read much newspaper clippings any more. The Google will find all sorts of unsavouries about the Clintons, and I don't even mean the crazy RW ones but the legit ones.

They have more baggage than LAX (thanks to a DUer who said this the other day, sorry can't remember who).

[bigwillq]

27. Yes, I do!

Not sure who I want yet, but I don't want Hillary.

[cantbeserious]

28. Warren For President 2016

eom

[Laelth]

29. Hear, hear!

fyi, you can pick up a Warren 2016 banner for your sig. line, if you're interested, here.



-Laelth

[BelgianMadCow]

35. Thanks for the tip

I can't vote but Hillary inevitability makes me ill, so there goes my first sig line...

[Laelth]

37. Sweet!

Looks good.



-Laelth

[Laelth]

30. This says it all.

Clinton raised concern among the Democratic Party’s populist base when she recently accepted an estimated $400,000 from Goldman Sachs for two speeches.

Influential progressives wonder whether someone who accepted such a large sum from one of Wall Street’s biggest investment firms could be expected to hold corporate executives accountable if elected president.

They also wonder how aggressively she’d call for addressing income inequality, which many see as one of the biggest economic problems facing the nation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/189919-left-wants-challenger-for-hillary

Um ... yup!

-Laelth

[karadax]

31. Hillary's "inevitability" will stick this time.

The article sounded defeatist to me. Like they want to feed somebody to her because they themselves believe the hype. I hope Warren stays out of it. The Clinton Machine is a potent one.

Save Warren for 2020.

[daggahead]

32. Please ...

No more corporate Democrats.

We need a real progressive Democrat to run. The GOP candidate is likely to only appeal to certain slice of the Republican party.

Elizabeth Warren would be good, but we need her as Senate Majority Leader in 2016. I'm thinking we recruit Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold, or perhaps Howard Dean. Dean, however, may have had enough.

[Vashta Nerada]

33. Some of us on the left wants to wait until after 2014 to worry about Pres. candidates.

[BelgianMadCow]

42. Then some of you can wait

easy, no?

[libdem4life]

40. Before we anoint Warren the Progressive President, perhaps we could ask her to put her name on the

Progressive Caucus along with Bernie Sanders-I...the only Senator. That wouldn't cost a dime, could be done in a Massachusetts minute and actually make a public statement.

[Beausoir]

41. Here's an idea out of left field...how about

Elizabeth Warren?