How will Hillary pre-emptively defend herself against a challenge from the left of the party?

[Nye Bevan]

Obviously Hillary has the moderate centrist primary vote locked up; just look at any poll. The only thing probably keeping her awake at night is the fact that the primary voters are generally to the left of the voters in the general election, so she will want to be very careful about protecting herself against a challenge from the left.

Some possible strategies would be:

- continue to cozy up to the deBlasios at every opportunity. The election of deBlasio as NYC mayor was an absolute godsend to Hillary, given his friendship with the Clintons and his populist image;

- a very early endorsement from Elizabeth Warren, who is viewed as one of the biggest darlings of the left (not sure what Hillary would promise her in exchange for such an early endorsement- possibly a promise to support Warren if she ever decides to run for higher office);

- similarly, an endorsement from someone like Bernie Sanders (perhaps based upon a promise of a job in her administration?);

- coming out very strongly in favor of something popular on the left (union card check? big minimum wage hike?)

- a headline-grabbing speech bemoaning the lack of bankster prosecutions (this would be a very tricky one, however, as she wouldn't want to stop Wall Street money coming into her campaign, or offend President Obama or his Justice Department too much).

- big barnstorming speech on the environment? A strong suggestion that she will be more pro-active on things like climate change than President Obama has been?

- a VERY high-profile public fight with one of the Tea Party crazies over women's rights. Absolutely relentless attacks on the abortion restrictions that the Republican states are introducing.

Basically the idea is to enhance her image with the left-of-center primary voters without jeopardizing any of her core policies such as the continuation of free trade and sensible medium-to-long-term deficit reduction.

Any other ideas?

[Scuba]

1. By claiming she had been abducted and a double posed as her in this debate ....

[Whisp]

8. yep, got to listen carefully what she says...

as in that vid, she is lying her ass off and expecting the stupid to continue being so - Bill taught her well with that.

[Scuba]

11. I really liked that black guy who was debating her. Whatever happened to him?

[Whisp]

14. He's still around

but the teabaggery faction and the permanently dissatisfied are using their fog machines overtime hours.

[FSogol]

57. +1 n/t

[Segami]

126. LOL!

...She came back claiming to really be Bill...

[NoOneMan]

2. "Any other ideas?"

She's loaded. She doesn't need your ideas. She can and probably already has bought her own.


My grand idea to avoid a challenge from the left is to simply not run. Though, its in the interest of the party to have a representative and challenging primary

[Chan790]

3. As a staunch leftist...

the list of things sufficient (to me at-least) is a fairly-short list of demands that requires "real blood on the floor" from Clinton's traditional-base of DLC/Third-Way Democrats. It's things that are going to cost her the RW of the Democratic Party.

* Promises of Wall Street/Financial crime prosecution and investigations.
* A hard shift away from and criticism of the DLC.
* No new tax-breaks
* Anti-austerity policies
* Above all, she has to pledge No Keystone XL, No TPP, No TPIP, no more FTAs. More than that, she needs to follow though.

In a sense, she'd have to slit the throat of the base that pushed her first run and elected her to the Senate in NY. Our opposition to her isn't about her personally (She's a very kind and generous woman...but so was Maggie Thatcher to her friends.)...it's about killing that wing of the party forever. She can't do it because she's one of them. She's not merely their candidate, she's very much their paragon and possibly their leader.

Small promises of small things like a minimum-wage hike or pushing unionism aren't getting us over...unless she proposes to go big for unionism by aiming to kill Taft-Hartley or something of that level. She could propose to restore and strengthen Glass-Steagal-type protections. She needs to turn her shoulder on the supporters she already has. She's promised them too much already to ever win us.

It's not platitudes from who Clinton is as a candidate that is going to do it...it's heart-meat. It's a repudiation of who she has been politically for 30 years.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. By proclaiming that she is the real "Not as Bad" candidate saving us from the Repubs.

Get's the suckers every time.

[Nay]

26. Agreed. The Pub candidate will either be a Jeb Bush/Christie type (he's the SMART

one!!1!) or a complete moron like Ted Cruz. In either case, she can claim that she's the not-as-bad candidate. But will that be enough? The fact that she's a woman is a big plus for the history lovers. The fact that she has always acted like a 3rd way dem is detrimental, but frankly, I don't think anyone will pay much attention to that. I think the Third Way will love to have her as president, just as they have loved Obama. Neither of these people have meddled or will meddle with the ongoing looting of the country, and we'll get lots of nice speeches and photo ops.

What I wonder is: when 2016 arrives and the two candidates are a Clinton and a Bush, will anyone say to themselves, "Gee, do we really need dynasties in politics? Why not just have kings and queens succeeding each other and be done with it?" or "Out of 300 million people, are these two really the best we can do, or is this a rigged game?"

It's a rigged game.

[L0oniX]

58. Bumper sticker: "We Suck Less"

[former9thward]

5. If she can suck up the money funders there will be no Left challenge.

The Clintons are great at fund raising. If she can get most if not all of the big money funders behind her then she has got it.

[FSogol]

10. That didn't work in 2008. Couldn't it fail again? n/t

[former9thward]

12. The first AA contender took all of the air out of the room.

Yes, I know Jesse Jackson had run in 84 and 88 but no one really thought he could win the nomination. Plus JJ had never been elected to anything. That particular 'first' can't be repeated by anyone. If Clinton gets beat it will have to be someone with money. I don't see that person.

[Whisp]

17. he took the air out because he was by far the better candidate.

any reference that he won because he is black is stupid.

[Nay]

34. Well, you have to admit that gobs of formerly uninterested black people

registered to vote and came out specifically to participate in the historical election of the first black person to the Presidency. In my neighborhood, I stood in line for an hour with black neighbors whom I have never seen vote before. The line was out the door and down the block, with half of us being black. I have not seen that before or since. So, yeah, I think there was a great turnout because Obama got them out. That's not bad, but it is a fact.

I don't think the same dynamic will apply to electing the first female President, though. First, women are not as solid a bloc as AAs tend to be. Both AA women and men came out for Obama. Men aren't going to jump out of the woodwork to sign up to vote for Clinton because she's a woman. There are still plenty of men who think women should butt out, and they don't give a damn about the historical significance of the first female President. And, remember, there are tons of Republican women out there who, after the demonization of Hillary in the RW press, wouldn't vote for her if you paid them a thousand dollars. So, she will only be able to gain 'historic' votes by getting out the vote among females who are not regular voters. But that's a much smaller pot than the pot that Obama drew from.

[Whisp]

40. I still believe he won because he was the best candidate - by far wide miles...

Him being black and being a poor candidate would not have got him that support. I hope you see what I mean.

It's about his character more than anything - the other stuff (whether its gender, race, etc.,) is secondary.

That is why I would Never support Hillary just because she is a woman - but if she happened to have the goods and came out an exemplary candidate that truly represents the average us, I would jump up and down and dance naked in the street in celebration for a first woman president.

[Beacool]

70. Please who are you trying to fool?

You despise Hillary. You wouldn't vote for her even if she cured all cancers.

[Whisp]

78. I despise what she stands for just like You despise what Obama stands for

right?

[Beacool]

80. I will always think that she should have been president first and then Obama.

The same as with any job, I think that experience does matter in life.

[Whisp]

84. I think character matters more than time experience.

It sure isn't like Obama was a noob in politics so I don't know why this exp. thing keeps coming up.

He has proven himself many times over to be more than qualified for the position he is in and has been put in by previous presidents with their fuck ups that had to be dealt with.

Lots more to go tho, never time for rest.

[Beacool]

89. We are talking about 2008, not about the subsequent years.

[Whisp]

95. oh, we are?

He obviously had enough 'experience' in 2008, didn't he.

[Beacool]

113. No, he didn't.

[BobUp]

122. I agree with you,

if people with an open mind really looked at the alternatives-other candidates, scary, very scary.

I do hope the GOP continues to vet Neaderthals though, Democrats will look much much better than what they'll have to offer.

If a woman wins the next presidential election, let us know where you live so we can come and see you dance naked.

[Whisp]

125. On the national level, Democrats typically get around 90 percent of the black vote

even when a black man isn't running for President.

Haven't we gone through this how many times here?

[Nay]

129. Of course 90% of AAs vote for the Democrats. My point was that many first-time,

or young, or formerly unregistered/uninterested AAs came out to vote for Obama and added to the sheer numbers of voters voting. And that's a good thing.

[Whisp]

131. yes, a very excellent thing.

can't disagree with that.

[former9thward]

36. Any reference that he was the first AA candidate...

and that didn't get him a bunch of support, especially among youth, is stupid. Clinton had a far superior resume and Obama had been in the Senate for a couple years after being a back bencher in the IL legislature with nothing to his credit.

[Whisp]

42. You are forgetting that Obama is a much better almost anything than Clinton.

and I am thrilled the people recognized that.

[JustAnotherGen]

47. I agree

Very quietly - I agree. And a much better character and sense of duty as a man. Such a stand up person and quality soul.

[Beacool]

71. I beg to differ a lot on this issue.

He was the "new kid in town" with an interesting personal history and the capacity to give a good speech.

People voted almost evenly for both of them. The super delegate count and a small pledged delegate advantage (gained thanks to his caucus wins) pushed him over the finish line.

Don't act like Hillary was rejected by the Democratic party; more registered Democrats voted for her than voted for Obama in the primaries.

[Whisp]

75. I know you do and we probably always will differ on this.

I just see the two people as very, very different at the core of their beings. If the Clintons want to do well for themselves, that's great. But doing well for themselves under the guise of 'service to the people' in the high offices they held is quite nauseating to hear sometime.

Hillary and Bill are for making money for themselves and their friends (even to the extent of continuing the Reagan central america coup series with what Hillary and Lanny Davis did to the Honduras) and the President wants to move us into a better and more equal, less harmful society. When I see comparisons of the two as being near the same, my laugh metre busts and springs and things go flying everywhere.

[Beacool]

79. See, that's why we will never agree.

You see them as self serving bastards. That's why you will never give them credit for anything. The Clintons are mostly good people who have spent most of their adult lives serving, both in office and out of office.

One note on Honduras, Hillary was SOS and not president. Anything done by the US in Honduras was at the behest of the president.

[Whisp]

85. no it wasn't: re your Honduras answer.

read about it and see.

and here you go again about how Hillary isn't responsible for anything she ever does that could go wrong - just blame it on Obama and his massive 'behest'. Wow, I'd sure love having her working for Me as she is so responsible and trustworthy.

lol. I don't think you are helping Hillary with what you said there.

[Beacool]

91. You make no sense.

SOS serve the president. The president sets policy. No one is blaming Obama, but don't blame Hillary either for policy positions that need presidential approval.

[Whisp]

96. It is not in Hillary's favour to blame someone else for her errors or misjudgements, etc.

Whether or not you intended it that way (hahha of course you did) it seems wrong to do that and yet want to (possibly) be President?

Whose she going to shift the blame to if she is President as she is so terrified or narcisstic of taking clear responsibility for her actions. Will it be alright to blame someone else Then, if she is in charge? I'm betting it would be - there will be excuses and differences and wot wots all over to change that rule.

That is one thing that greatly differs from Obama and Hillary - Obama will bow backwards to take the heat, blame and responsibility for things of his own error or for the many employees the federal goverment has. Some people call this a weakness but I consider it a great strength to be humble and straightforward.

[MADem]

55. He was not "by far the better candidate." There was almost no daylight between them, that's what

made it so difficult.

How many times did he answer in the debates with "Well, I agree with Hillary..."

At one point Hillary noted that she was getting stuck going first way too often--and she was.

As for the "because he is black" stuff, that wasn't it--if I had to guess, he had the edge because the country wasn't ready for a woman president.

They are now. And the POTUS is going to help her get elected, make no mistake.

[Nay]

65. Yes, the fact that he was a man gave him another edge. If you look at the histories

of most workplaces that had 100% males working there, the first step away from that sort of discrimination was the hiring of a black man, not a woman.

[Beacool]

72. I remember that, the media had plenty of tingling legs for Obama (not just Matthews and MSNBC).

Hillary was usually asked the first question, which everyone knows that it's a tougher position for a candidate to be in than being asked second. At one debate (CNN) she had had enough and pointed this out.

Remember the SNL skit on this subject? It was so funny because it was mostly true.

[MADem]

102. That's right---SNL nailed it. nt

[FSogol]

37. I agree with you. I'm wondering if someone like Schweitzer or O'Malley could make a further left

run and gain some populism opposition to the Clintons.

Don't remind me of 84. I was a Hart Delegate.

[Nay]

45. Like you, I think a true populist would run away with the Dem nomination if

he/she could get up just enough money to start a campaign and have enough confidence to make truly populist speeches. People truly are looking for a courageous person to stand up to the big guys.

[FSogol]

50. There is a problem with populists. It is possible to be a populist, give good speeches,

and not have much quality beneath the show (think Texas Gov Perry, Sarah Palin, or Chris Christie).

I like people with good records of passing legislation or running a State who move from pragmatism into populism for the campaign (like Gov Howard Dean). O'Malley or Schweitzer could pull it off. Now the question will be: Will they want to go against the Clinton cash machine or are they content with making noise and settling for a vp consideration with Hillary?

[Nay]

64. True, but I'm thinking of someone like Dean or the late Wellstone.

Not the shallow types. It's disheartening that the Dems have so few people in the pipeline who are like Dean and Wellstone. I think that's part of the reason lots of people who are presently holding their noses while voting are wondering why they bother. If there are no Deans allowed in the pipeline, we will always be voting for the lesser of two evils. That's a recipe for disaster, no matter how you look at it.

[MADem]

68. I think HRC's veep should be hispanic--and from Texas, if possible.

LBJ helped JFK win TX, after all....

[JustAnotherGen]

48. ooh O'Malley is interesting

Me? I'd love to see Sherrod Brown. Don't think he'd ever run though . . .

[PassingFair]

6. She could just NOT RUN.

That would be preferable.

The "left" made their position known in the primaries of 2008.

That we were actually only being offered a "Hobson's Choice"
was known to many, still, the message was clear and should
war hawk Hillary be thrust upon us again, I trust another cloaked
DLC candidate will appear.

I HOPE a REAL progressive will appear.

[zipplewrath]

9. Her weak point again

As far as I can tell, she has the exact same weak point now she had before. Her hawkishness could undo her again with the right primary challenger. The continuing conflict in Afghanistan, the slow roll out of Iraq (where she tried to get them to let us stay), the drone policies, and how she could probably be cornered on the effort to attack Syria could all represent challengers for her from the left. Truth is, pointed questions on Snowden could be hard for her to answer in a primary.

[Whisp]

20. Her weak spots: Her hawkishness and her awkwardness in surprise situations

and surprise questions.

Hillary cannot think on her feet - she is miserable at it. Prepare a speech and she does it quite well, but have her come up with reactions and answers without prompting and practicing and she does not do well at all. She gets defensive and ends up saying really idiotic things all in that stupidity of the 'being tough' school of old white guys.

[Beacool]

74. That's ridiculous.

You have obviously never been around the woman, I have. She can deliver a speech without any notes. She and Bill are policy wonks and do their homework. They can assuredly think on their feet and do so regularly. Your comment is preposterous.

Just because you don't like her, it doesn't mean that you are correct.

[Whisp]

76. Speeches are usually prepared. I said she did pretty well at that.

She does not do well when awkward surprise questions come out of the blue

[Beacool]

81. And I said that I disagreed.

Hillary has been thrown plenty of unscripted questions over the years, some of them extremely intrusive and personal. She knows quite well how to respond.

[Whisp]

86. I could show you a prime example of what I mean

It's a video, during the 08 primaries when she was asked about a conflict of interest in Colombia, in regards to Penn and her husband and their dealings there. A thoroughly legitimate question to ask a politician.

She completely lost it. You know which one I mean - the one you have absolutely no comment on, ever because it is soooooooo bad it even embarasses you after all this time and space in between.

Unprepared. She is unprepared unless she has notice. She should have been prepared for that question - even if was a smoothy lie, she should have been prepared because she knew it could come up like a thief in the dark. Why she didn't I don't know - maybe she trusted that only vetted questions would ever touch her, maybe someone promised her that and she believed them.

[n2doc]

7. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Buy up all the air time, fund massive GOTV efforts, etc., etc.

[SamKnause]

13. Hillary

Nothing she can do, or say will win her my vote.

She is a hypocrite and a warmonger.

She is a darling of the TPP.

She is dishonest.

She is a 1%er of the DC cartel.

[Proud Public Servant]

15. Nearly all non-starters

- DeBlasio friendship: not especially meaningful outside NY.

- Endorsement: Warren would help, but is hard to imagine if Hillary has a populist opponent (e.g., Schweitzer). Hard to see one coming from Sanders, under any circumstances.

- Left-wing initiative: will be seen as pandering if its not something she's previously endorsed; is there something that qualifies?

- Banksters: Hillary's got zero credibility here.

-Environment: See "Banksters."

- Women's rights: This is the one area where Hillary has been an authentic, progressive voice. Unfortunately, economics has overtaken social issues in the current progressive conversation, so putting emphasis here does little to help her credibility.

[Nye Bevan]

24. She has supported card-check in the past.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012303284.html

Revisiting the issue and huffing and puffing about it, possibly helping to pick up a couple of the big union endorsements, would probably be a smart strategy.

[Proud Public Servant]

43. Wasn't sure

where she stood on that. However, with less than 12% of the country unionized, it's hard to know how much that issue helps her -- and how much it hurts her with moderates, who are her real target audience.

[BeyondGeography]

16. I don't think she's losing sleep over the left

Especially since no legitimate challenger looks to be emerging.

Also, Hillary is able to defend herself as more liberal than her most severe detractors acknowledge. Her big problems last time were IWR (no longer a defining issue for many people who used it as a litmus test in 2008) and Obama, who was an off-the-charts extraordinary item politically speaking. The coast is clear. If she's losing sleep it's about all the work/stress involved and does she want to put herself through that at this stage of her life, but I'd be surprised if the answer is no.

[Beacool]

77. I was at a Goodwill store recently.

I was glancing at David Gergen's book that he wrote in 2000. In it he mentioned how Hillary was more to the Left than Bill on various issues. He wasn't exactly saying this was a good thing, since in his opinion, this caused conflict in the WH. She particularly was against NAFTA in the beginning and was quite vocal about it at meetings. It apparently took some convincing to get her to come around. Among non liberals, Hillary has always been seen as being to the Left of Bill.

[stevenleser]

18. By having nearly 70% of the primary vote already locked up according to the polls?

[Nye Bevan]

22. Voters can be very fickle. She was leading Obama 42% to 23% on December 31, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

She is a highly professional politician who will attempt to consider every possible scenario, and I would be amazed if pretty much her biggest concern right now is not covering her left flank against the Warren fans and those who see her as a corporatist, Wall Street loving warmongerer.

[stevenleser]

27. Imagine if there had been no Obama in 2007-2008, like there is none now.

It would have been over before it began, just like it is now.

[JoePhilly]

51. Hillary is unlikily to be surprised again.

I doubt she'll take anything for granted the 2nd time around.

[Nay]

38. Voters can't be too fickle if there is truly nobody to vote for. I think there

will be a few nominal no-name challengers to Clinton just to make it look like a race, but that's it. I do think her corporate fundraising will give her enormous advantage and that she will win the nomination. I don't like that, but that's how I see it.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. Hopefully not very well. n/t

[brooklynite]

21. Or...maybe she IS a liberal....

...by the standards of actual Democratic voters, as opposed to political bloggers here. If I recall correctly, 17 million Democrats voted for Hillayr in 2008; sounds like a good starting point.

[dembotoz]

23. nah

[cali]

29. liberal or not, she's a corporate stooge of the ugliest kind. sickening.

[Beacool]

82. Hear, hear!!!

She out polls everyone in the party by a country mile and is the favorite across the board with voting Democrats, including liberals.

[L0oniX]

25. Don't worry ...TPTB will take care of it. Just vote (D).

[lostincalifornia]

28. She can't. The only thing she can do, especially if Warren enters the primaries is be very

ambiguous in her answers, but I suspect most will see right through that

However, I do believe 2016 will be the Year of the Women, and the anti-women campaign of the republicans will give Hillary a huge advantage regardless of her moderation

[MADem]

123. Warren has said, two dozen times, she is not running.

She has PLEDGED to serve out her term.

[lostincalifornia]

124. I know, but people do change their minds

[MineralMan]

30. You're assuming here that there will be a viable challenge from the Left

of the party. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. So far, I've seen nobody declaring their candidacy for 2016. And, I don't expect to see anyone do so until after the 2014 mid-term elections, which are far more important right now than speculating on an election that's three years off.

Even after November, 2014, who will be the challengers from the left? Warren seems to be pretty clear about not running. Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, and wouldn't stand a chance of getting a nomination. Who else? Those are the two who have been mentioned the most often. One says she's not running and the other can't run as a Democrat without changing his party affiliation, which is something I doubt Bernie Sanders will ever do.

Bottom line is that we have a crucial mid-term election coming up, and it will be here sooner than we think. Candidates are already declaring for the House and Senate and state legislative candidates are beginning to emerge, as well. I don't believe that 2014 is the time to be dealing in Presidential politics at all. It's just a distraction from something that is very, very important and actually coming up soon.

Hillary Clinton is not worried about a challenge from the Left. She hasn't declared her candidacy, either, and shouldn't until after the mid-term elections. Here's my advice:

GOTV 2014!

[JoePhilly]

53. Details, details.

[MO_Moderate]

31. I seriously doubt

Mrs. Clinton lays awake at night worrying about the far left vote.

She will run as herself, she will win the nomination and she has a really good chance of becoming President.

[hrmjustin]

32. I wish her the best.

[msongs]

33. run for the republican party nomination? nt

[LanternWaste]

35. I suppose I'll give deeper thought about primary tactics after candidates announce their candidacy.

I suppose I'll give deeper thought about primary tactics after candidates announce their candidacy. Until that point, it all of it seems more like prophecy than strategy.

[Laelth]

39. Step One

Get every woman in Congress who might think about running against her to sign a letter saying they support her candidacy.

-Laelth

[Beacool]

88. That was not her initiative.

Your comment is disingenuous. It was Barbara Boxer and some of the other women Democratic senators who drafted the letter hoping that it would persuade her to throw her hat in the ring. All the women Democratic senators signed it.

It may come as a surprise to some here, but Hillary is well liked among her former colleagues. In real life (not in the cartoonish version presented by the Right AND the Left), Hillary is quite likable. She is thoughtful (remembers everyone's family, birthdays, etc.), she's caring and has a great sense of humor (something that seems to have surprised those who bought the RW meme that she's a cold fish). She also won their respect by being very hardworking. As she once put it: she wanted to be a "work horse", not a "show horse".

[Laelth]

93. I was unaware that Hillary had nothing to do with the letter in question.

I fully assume that she is well-liked by most of her colleagues. Hillary's also very well-connected and will benefit from a powerful financial machine if she runs. There's no reason not to at least appreciate her power, even if one doesn't like some of her policy positions or her friends.

That said, if Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the letter, it still conveniently accomplished the goal described in the OP, regardless of her personal involvement. That's why I mentioned it in this thread.

-Laelth

[Whisp]

97. let's not forget that Lanny Davis who worked for Hillary in 08

had nothing to do with all that tedious Reverend Wright shit...

yeh. that.

[Laelth]

98. Quite. n/t

-Laelth

[winter is coming]

41. Perhaps you should take a closer look at what

"free trade and sensible medium-to-long-term deficit reduction" has done for most Americans and then consider why maintaining that should be a priority. Enhancing Hillary's image with the left is basically a polite way of saying, "Con them into thinking they'll get something." You're basically asking us to develop strategies to hoodwink the part of the Party that wants to help the 99% on behalf of a candidate whose policies will exploit them.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Not so much "asking DU to develop strategies"

as idly speculating as to what Hillary's strategy will be. I'm pretty sure her advisers are not going to acquire their strategies from boards such as DU.

[woo me with science]

46. She will do exactly what Obama did. She will lie

and claim to support all kinds of progressive policies through the campaign. We may even hear talk of marching with unions or reforming health care with a public option or single payer, or reining in the surveillance state, just like we did in 2008.

Third Way corporatists are Madison Avenue hucksters. They will say anything they need to, to sell the product. They will promise a chicken in every pot, but as soon as the election is over, they fast-track a TPP and appoint cat food commissions.

This country is being looted into devastation by colluding Republicans and Third Wayers, and our Constitution is being gutted. We cannot afford another corporatist and warmonger in the White House.

[Whisp]

49. oh please.

Hillary is a proven liar, fabricatin' mis-speaking machine busily stuffing her bank accounts.

There is nothing comparable to Obama in that. Nothing. Obama is no Third Wayer - he's had to battle the mafia Third Way during his entire Presidency along with the crazy baggers and ron paul fuckers.

You need some wooin' with realities.

[Marr]

103. They're the same product.

Same small political faction, same associates, same political agenda... she was in his cabinet, for crying out loud.

[Whisp]

105. perhaps one day we will find out exactly how and why Hillary did get SoS

I can easily believe there was some Clinton horse trading in the deal to set her up so she could gather more money and power for them while posing as SoS. Having said that, I don't believe at all that Obama was included or initially had knowledge of this scam of theirs.

[Marr]

107. That's bizarre.

You've made up a narrative out of whole cloth.

[Whisp]

108. just send me a pattern and I can make whole cloth of almost anything.

no charge, either.

my deep and sincere distrust of the Clintons makes me sew this way.

[Marr]

104. +1, exactly.

Lying seems to work just fine.

[MADem]

52. This one's easy to answer....

To phrase it like we're playing JEOPARDY:

What is the Chair of the Federal Reserve, Alex?

And the answer is:

- a very early endorsement from Elizabeth Warren, who is viewed as one of the biggest darlings of the left (not sure what Hillary would promise her in exchange for such an early endorsement- possibly a promise to support Warren if she ever decides to run for higher office);

[grahamhgreen]

120. Hehe

[NCTraveler]

54. While I haven't done the research...

I highly doubt the primary voters are very left of center. During Obamas first run, they went very strong for Hillary and Obama. Neither being very left. Both being almost identical on ideology. Both clearly centrist.

[Reformed Bully]

56. 2016 Obama - Biden

Michelle & Jill

[L0oniX]

59. TPTB need someone who can pretend to be left.

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. I think she will use very populist language in the run up to and during the primaries

She may even champion some populist positions in a very pubic way

[Nye Bevan]

61. Free Brazilian waxes for all!

Populist AND pubic!

[Whisp]

63. but of course.

and hopefully most of us know better than to fall for it.

[TBF]

62. Maybe Hillary could make Elizabeth Warren the AG -

She was a professor at Harvard Law and I bet she would put a bankster or two in jail

Alternatively, Supreme Court. I'd love to see her on there for 30+ years.

[Skip Intro]

66. Hillary has the nom locked up. In the general,

as usual, she won't be playing to the left, but the center, and the left will vote for her to stop Christie or Paul or whoever the repubs nominate.

Same song and dance for as long as I can remember.

[Nye Bevan]

67. As they say in sports..... "there's a reason they play the games" (nt)

[Beacool]

69. I don't think that most Democratic voters are as preoccupied with this issue

as the posters on LW blogs seem to be.

"There continues to be no challenge to Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. We threw Howard Dean and John Kerry into the equation for the first time this month but Clinton still gets 66% to 10% for Joe Biden, 6% for Elizabeth Warren, 2% each for Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Dean, Kerry, and Martin O'Malley, and 1% for Brian Schweitzer. Clinton is at 58% or more with liberals, moderates, men, women, whites, African Americans, Latinos, seniors, and young voters."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/12/christie-leads-both-democratic-and-gop-fields.html

Of course there'll be a primary and there will be other candidates in the run, but at this point there doesn't seem to be momentum among voting Democrats for a challenger from the Left. Although no one is inevitable, that's a media meme.

[tiredtoo]

73. The candidates always go to the extreme in the primaries

and back to the center? in the election.
Hillary did give a speech to some wall street thugs last week complaining of how we are picking on them. We do not really need another corporatist president.

[polichick]

83. The left won't be fooled next time.

[Lil Missy]

87. I bet she'll do just fine, and without advice from DU.

[Beacool]

92. Thank you.

Somehow she should be worried about people on LW blogs who would never vote for her in the primaries? Furthermore, some of them said that they refuse to vote for her even if she were to win the nomination. Therefore, why should she give a fig about their opinion? In their eyes, she could never be their candidate.

[Lil Missy]

94. Oh, I learned long ago that DU does not represent real life, or

the Democratic Party in general.

[Beacool]

112. You said it............

[solarhydrocan]

90. Hillary: To Iraq "With Conviction"

Hillary on the TPP

What progressive wouldn't want to vote for this?

[Whisp]

99. makes you want to give up if this kind of shit is so easily forgotten and glossed over

NGU

[BobUp]

100. If I were running

a campaign, and depending on who the GOP vets, I would show potential voters the GOP's poster children and find some mud to sling, and fight a dirty campaign, fight fire with fire, because if Hillary is the nominee, you know they're going to throw up that Benghazi shit at her.

Bernie Sanders has a pretty good record for standing up for the working people + poor, there's not much the GOP could throw at him and make stick. Elizabeth Warren has been the GOP's pinata ever since she became a politician, even though they can't make anything stick to her, except that she's a female, and we all know how much the GOP hates minorities and women.

I seem to recall the GOP throwing whitewater mud during Hillary's campaign.

I don't believe it would be wise for a Democrat to try to attack or discredit another Democrat in the 2016 election, like Hillary tried to do with Obama, that accomplished next to nothing, and it made her look sort of bad IMHO.

snippet
The ominous ring ring continues throughout the ad as the announcer tells viewers they live in a “dangerous world.” They’re reminded that their vote determines whether they choose a leader who already has national security experience — or not.

At the end, the narrator repeats the line “It’s 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep,” but this time poses this question: “Who do you want answering the phone?”

snippet-GOP attacks on Warren
Congressional Republicans have frequently attacked Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) she’s setting up, which officially launches on July 21. The House GOP escalated its anti-Warren, anti-CFPB campaign at a hearing of the House Oversight Committee today, chaired by Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC).

McHenry was once known as Tom DeLay’s “attack-dog-in-training,” a title he more than earned today. Before the hearing had even begun, McHenry went on CNBC and brazenly accused Warren of lying to Congress.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/160900/house-gop-escalates-attack-elizabeth-warren-consumer-bureau#

[Marr]

101. I expect she'll do what corporate Democrats always do.

She'll talk like a liberal right through election day, then (if she wins), go out of her way to reassure Wall Street by giving the finger to the left.

If she can keep the "lefty" talk limited to the Third Way's preferred social wedge issues (like abortion/gay rights/etc.), no doubt she will. If she can't, she'll talk as left as she needs to in order to win, and reassure big business that she's really on their side through back channels, fund raisers, and by naming a purely corporate/Wall Street cabinet well before the elections.

[Demo_Chris]

106. My Opinion: she loses to Christie. nt

[stevenleser]

110. Christie is polling 6th in Iowa right now despite some of the biggest name recognition.

He has no chance of winning the Republican nomination. He is out after Iowa or New Hampshire.

[Demo_Chris]

114. IMO, We better hope so. nt

[LAGC]

118. If memory serves, Mittens wasn't polling very well in Iowa either.

But guess how that turned out?

[stevenleser]

121. He lost it to Santorum. A better correlation is Giuliani

Another supposedly popular, high name recognition northeastern Republican who had no chance in the Republican Presidential primary.

The difference is, Christie has done a few things in the last year that have really pissed off the Right wing base of the GOP. He has no chance in Iowa or New Hampshire as a result.

[grahamhgreen]

109. Easy:) Come out in favor of progressive policy positions: Prosecute war crimes & end the wars, Tax

the rich at pre-reagan levels, prosecute banksters, re-instate glass-steagal, repeal financial services modernization act, Break up Walmart, etc., Increase minimum wage to $22, promote medicare for all, cut the military budget and plow it into infrastructure, End the costly trade agreements, blow up the TPP, and tax the rich again

Think she can do that or is she just gonna continue the failed policies we've seen recently?

[Nye Bevan]

111. That would all most certainly completely cover her left flank.

But I have a small suspicion that she might then become very vulnerable to an attack from the center.

[grahamhgreen]

115. She WAS the center last time, and lost to the left:)

[Beacool]

117. And what did the Left get?

A centrist...........

[grahamhgreen]

119. Further to the right than that, lol

[ScreamingMeemie]

116. Goodbye thread. See you after the 2014 elections.

Go Wendy!

[bowens43]

127. By misleading about her record and her intentions, much like Obama did.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. Apologize, endorse Elizabeth Warren,

and spend the rest of her days in humble penitence.

[Gothmog]

130. She could campaign for Wendy Davis in Texas

Hillary Clinton is very popular among female voters in Texas. I have heard that Hillary Clinton has been asked to campaign for Wendy Davis and the Texas Democrats. I hope that these rumors are accurate and that Hillary Clinton does campaign for Wendy Davis. If Texas is competitive in 2014, then Hillary Clinton would have a great chance of winning in 2016 in large part because the GOP would have to devote resources to Texas.