All other concerns aside, would you prefer Sanders or Clinton?

[ClarkJonathanKent]

Taking all other concerns off the table (popularity with the masses, gender appeal, political allies) and only considering the actions / stances of the candidates....would you prefer Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton to be the nominee in 2016?

[MohRokTah]

1. Clinton. eom

[PowerToThePeople]

2. Sanders

Welcome to DU, 4 years late. What brings you out of solitude?

[earthside]

3. Sanders.

I don't listen to Thom Hartmann very often, but I did last Friday.

For the life of me I don't understand the line of reasoning that Bernie Sanders is unelectable.

A populist, progressive campaign run from beginning to end would, in my judgement, be victorious and a watershed political event for the United States.

On the other hand, a center-right, establishment, third way Clinton candidacy could very well mean a Rand Paul Repuglican could get elected.

[woo me with science]

13. It's not reasoning. It's corporate propaganda.

[antigop]

46. being pushed by Third Way sycophants who benefit from the status quo. nt

[djean111]

4. Sanders.

[onecaliberal]

8. Sanders

I'm sick of electing corporate candidates and then hearing everyone complain about it. Here we have someone who is really for the people!

[name not needed]

5. Clinton.

[el_bryanto]

6. Sanders

But I can see the argument that Clinton while having more modest goals might be better at getting them done. But Sanders is a better candidate.

Bryant

[ClarkJonathanKent]

7. Thanks for the comments so far.

If time permits, please give a few reasons for your answers. Sorry I didn't mention that in OP. I will answer any questions directed at me in a little bit when I get back from errands with fiance.

[Little Star]

9. Hillary.

[Stallion]

12. Clinton

nm

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. Sanders, he is a progressive and he is not a foreign policy neocon - even a slightly mild version

[WinkyDink]

11. Somehow I can't separate "a possibility of winning" from your choices. Therefore: HRC.

[JDPriestly]

19. Do you like Clinton's statements about supporting the rebels in Syria?

[Little Star]

21. In hindsight, yes.

[JDPriestly]

30. Had we done that, the arms we gave our friendly rebels would most likely be in the hands

of ISIS.

The strategy now being followed is far superior. Get ISIS to over-reach. Get Maliki out. And then go in with air power and drones. ISIS has very little defense against air power and drones. They can be cut off from supply routes and will eventually be weakened and then have to deal with religiously opposed, hostile groups on the ground.

Obama and his military advisers are so much smarter about strategy than is Hillary that it isn't even funny.

ISIS is spreading itself too thin. If the Islamic world was all one religion, if there weren't many different factions in it, both religious and political, ISIS might have a chance. But the reality is quite different.

ISIS was not able to unseat Assad. They don't have the appeal that some previous imperialist Islamists have had -- like Nasser. I think Hillary is quite wrong on Syria.

[JDPriestly]

116. Except that, because he is very patient, Obama can wait until hindsight givew him the

advantage. Hillary reacts too quickly and has too much of an urge to prove she can be tough. Not necessary. Not good. Patience wins out. And that is why Obama unexpectedly won over Hillary in 2008. For Hillary, it always about Hillary, about proving how smart she is, how tough she is, how much better she is than others. And that attitude does not work well.

[Little Star]

141. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got it. You hate Hillary.

[JDPriestly]

173. No. I don't hate her. I just don't want her to be president.

She is a good person and strong on issues concerning women (I am a woman so that matters to me), but I do not think she would make either a good candidate for president or a good president. We can do a lot better. She is just sort of the past revisited. Not good enough for America at this time.

[WinkyDink]

183. What I LIKE is so far unelectable, it ain't funny. Like Fred Harris unelectable.

[Chan790]

60. Pretty much, 2016 is a cakewalk coronation much the way 2012 was.

There's really no path to victory left to the GOP.

Go online to any electoral map application. Start from the Obama 2012 map. Remove the three battleground states since the 2000 election (VA, OH, FL), flipping them to the GOP. What do you see? Yup, the Democrats still win; to win the election in 2016, the GOP must now flip one probably out-of-reach state from the Democratic column to the GOP in addition to sweeping the battlegrounds. The most likely are NV, IA, NH or PA. Of those, PA presents the best shot.

Today, starting from the 2012 map, it's mathematically more likely the Cubs win the 2016 WS than the GOP wins the WH. Too many things have to go their way.

There's no path for the GOP to sweep the battlegrounds, in all likelihood VA is as out-of-reach as PA is. We can nominate just about anybody and win the election in 2016. That alone is for me the best reason to flush Hillary...we can and should go big left, electability is a non-factor.

The only GOP candidate that had any chance of being moderate enough to take toss-up states from the Democrats if we went too far liberal was Chris Christie and his political career is over. Rand Paul would be the next most likely but getting there would require him to do the impossible...boost his support with the core GOP while repudiating their platform.

To borrow two New England truisms: "You can't get there from here." and "There's no there, there."

[Populist_Prole]

14. Bernie Sanders

[AtomicKitten]

15. Sanders.

[JDPriestly]

16. Sanders. Thanks for asking.

Everyone assumes that Hillary is more electable. I don't. I think she is politically tone-deaf. She says what she thinks people want to hear and not what comes from her heart. People catch that with her because a part of her knows she doesn't deep down agree with what she is saying so in order to sound credible she turns off her emotion. As a result, her voice goes flat. Her feeling is not present when she talks about certain things. Rather, she sounds a little automatically and flat. She would make a great Secretary of the Interior maybe, but she comes across as cold and dictatorial when she speaks and gestures.

Some people answer that criticism with the idea that voters don't notice or care. But what do they think the Republicans hire Frank Luntz for. He is there to think up euphemisms for draconian programs so that when politicians talk about them, the politicians can sound warm and at peace with themselves and so that voters will heard "comfort" words. Hillary does not deliver comfort words well.

In addition, the question should be reworded to ask how do you like the welfare reform, the Telecommunications Act, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and a number of other laws that Bill Clinton signed.

In addition, we should be asked whether we would like to be at full-fledged war in Syria and Ukraine right now and whether we would want a president who mistakenly thinks that Edward Snowden could get a fair trial and present his evidence in his defense if he returned to the US.

Lots of reasons to prefer Sanders. He is humble. Hillary is not.

[juajen]

44. They'll stomp all over him. Jimmy Carter was humble.

I like him very much, but thousands of people look on humble as weakness.

Stop trying to find a new quarterback. It's too late in the game and he's a she!

[JDPriestly]

110. Hillary Clinton will result in a Republican victory unless the Republicans nominate someone

really awful.

[karynnj]

127. Having seen Bernie at town halls, I seriously doubt that anyone will "stomp all over him"

In fact, while I think Clinton is better positioned with party and media support, if this were JUST on ability to fight back - in debates - the experience Bernie has coming from a state where politics is personal and people want and get answers from everyone would give him an edge.

Hillary needs some of that "humility" -- at least so she will answer questions of media and people with respect and without visible anger. (Most of the time she is ok, but there have been enough instances even this year to suggest she could be better here.) Yes, I have seen the polling, but the fact is parts of the media have pushed her since 1992.

[peacebird]

17. Sanders

[on point]

18. Sanders hands down

[CaliforniaPeggy]

20. Sanders, without hesitation.

He is a true Progressive. He walks the walk and talks the talk.

I really wish we could have him be our candidate.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Sanders. nt

[DFW]

23. Clinters

I want Bernie's politics with Hillary's machine.

Ideally, neither or the above. Howard Dean told me in early 2009 that he was already too old to be looking to do "this job," and he was not even 61 yet. He says younger blood is needed, and I think he's right.

While everyone seems to be focused on Hillary, Bernie or Elizabeth Warren, I think there is still time for a younger, dynamic, credible Democratic candidate for the Oval Office to emerge. This goes for the Republicans as well, of course, but I think the likelihood of them bothering to find a sane, independent thinker is about as strong as the prospect of Sarah Palin getting offered an honorary PhD from Oxford.

[amandabeech]

25. I've been searching for a new FDR for about 25 years.

The problems at home and abroad are more serious than they were then, but there's no Dem savior in sight.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. Bernie would be the only guy our Forefathers and FDR would Vote for .

[amandabeech]

32. I don't know about our forefathers. Some of them were conservative.

FDR would like Bernie, though.

[orpupilofnature57]

65. Ya your right , Alexander would have hated him .

[DFW]

57. There's no savior of ANY party in sight

If it's any consolation, I don't think too many people saw FDR as a savior during his lifetime. 20-20 hindsight and all that. Plus he had over 3 terms in office and a high gear wartime economy to ratchet up with (virtually) uncontested government spending.

We must resign ourselves to the fact that we never will see another FDR (or even RFK), and will always have a crippled president in office, even if he is a staunch Democrat. Until dirty money is excluded from our election campaign process, we will never have elections whose results truly reflect what the electorate sees as its best interests.

[amandabeech]

64. You're right about the money problem.

Our politics can't be fixed without fixing that, and fixing it means a change in the Supreme Court or a Constitutional Amendment. I'd say that the Supreme Court fix is much, much, much more likely.

[DFW]

68. True enough

The Scalia Five is their finger in the dike preventing a flood of election reform legislation.

[amandabeech]

71. Which is why I will hold my nose and pull the D lever in 2016

even if the Dems run satan himself.

[DFW]

194. That's the difference, though

We don't run a "Satan," because we have to present a case to our voters. Democratic voters question, and they care. The Republicans CAN run Satan, and have Snidely Whiplash as his running mate, and they are STILL guaranteed 40% of the vote.

[amandabeech]

195. Touche'!

A ticket of Ted Cruz and Rep. Steve Knight could be Satan and his Spawn.

Our two candidates may not be saints, but they will on a far higher moral plain than those two, and their Supreme Court and lower federal court picks will be much, much better. I still may or may not hold my nose, however.

[juajen]

45. Perhaps we could hear that from Dr. Dean. She's tough enough!

[DFW]

53. I DID hear that from Howard

He's been a personal friend for years:
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

If you don't believe it, I can't help you, but the next time you speak with him, ask him who the best 12 string guitar player he knows is, and what country in Europe he hangs out in (I'm in Germany), and what well-known journalist he introduced him to in 2010 at the Capitol Grille in Washington (see the photo), and how long he has known me. He'll also be glad to repeat his stance on the age of the president. He said that he'd not run in 2016, no way, no how, except in the case of extreme emergency--i.e. ALL other viable candidates bowing out for whatever reason. He also said he can't possibly imagine such a scenario, plus Judy would go ballistic if he ran.

I think Hillary would very much like to be president. I do NOT think she would like to be a candidate for president again. Toughness has nothing to do with it. Even tough people have been known to say, "I just do not need this shit."

[amandabeech]

69. If Bill weren't there backing her up, I wonder if she would be thinking,

"I just do not need this shit."

"This shit" seems to energize Bill; he externalizes it. Hillary seems like someone who can't help but internalize some of it.

Bill's health isn't good, and if he should take a turn for the worse, or, heaven forbid, move on to his reward, I'm wondering if Hillary would withdraw from the campaign.

[DFW]

77. Bill is 68

He will be 70 by the time the 2016 campaign is in full swing. I haven't hung out with him in 6 years, so I can't say what he looks like up close these days. But I think Hillary knows that if he can, he'll do everything he can to get her elected if she runs, even if it kills him. Strangely, I don't think she'd withdraw from the campaign--IF she starts a campaign. That, to my way of thinking, is the bigger "IF."

[amandabeech]

82. Yeah, I'm not sure if she will start, either.

Bill had quadruple bypass surgery. He nearly died. Just like my Dad. Back when my Dad had his surgery, in 1980, the life expectancy for bypass recipients was 7 years provided that they stayed on the diet. My Dad didn't pay attention to the diet, but lived another 12, but those last 5 years were hell for him.

Bill became a vegan around 2010. That suggests to me that his arteries were clogging back up. I didn't see it as a good sign. He lost 30 lbs. If he makes it for another 5 years, good for him, but I'm not expecting miracles.

[Divernan]

126. You'd think she'd treasure the last few years with him.

That would be the case if they had a marriage based on love and mutual respect.

[amandabeech]

129. Somehow, I think that Bill wants to go down with his boots on,

so to speak.

I don't pretend to know what goes on in their marriage. Maybe they don't even know.

[Divernan]

132. Quite possible.

He's not one to think ahead re dealing with consequences for actions.

[DFW]

175. No, he was careful with his diet before he became vegan

I talked with him about that in 2005, a year after my own near-miss (no bypass, but needed 2 stents). By then, he was already off red meat and butter, etc. Not vegan (nor am I), but looking very trim, not at all the chubby guy he used to be while in office.

His bypass had already put the fear of mortality in him big time, and even before he went totally vegan, he offended some place in London that had invited him to dinner, but wouldn't eat their food because they only offered red meat.

[Divernan]

80. What the Clintons want is to hang with the One Percenters

And I agree with Dr. Dean - regarding age and the office of the presidency. This drawn out game HRC is coyly playing re not formally declaring candidacy for President is perfectly designed to add millions to the starving Clintons' nest egg. Between the obscene amounts she collects for her speeches, to the millions donated by Big Money interests to the Clinton Family Foundation -- all with the self-interest of getting quid pro quos down the road when she's in the Oval Office. Once she stops running, whether officially or unofficially, what happens to her war chest/accumulated campaign donations and PAC funds? That's the beauty of it - she keeps that $$$. There are some limitations on what it can be spent on, but the Clintons are way clever enough to get around those. Here's another post on that topic which I'd saved to my journal:

I increasingly think she will not run, but is simply milking corporate expectations of quid pro quos from her in the Oval Office, to get every penny she can during this "waiting-to-declare" game she plays. From her physical appearance, i.e., weight gain - she lacks either the physical ability or good sense to spend some of her millions on hiring a personal trainer and dietician to "get back in shape" (which she announced she planned to do after retiring as Secretary of State). Her husband's health is even more precarious. She is well aware of the 24/7 stress and pressure of holding the office of President, or First Spouse.

Then consider how important increasing their personal wealth and hanging around with powerful members of the One Percent has been to both Clintons since Bill left office. They are quite aware that One Percenters look down on politicians as people whose services you buy - basically well-dressed servants. One percenters well understand that if they want to control policies and influence world affairs, they do it with their checkbooks. Why would either Clinton want to spend their 70's in the White House, with all the public scrutiny entailed, when they could be living the high life with those the Clintons most admire?

On the other hand, as long as HRC delays officially becoming a candidate, the Clintons' tax returns remain secret; the salaries and five star perks they award themselves and their daughter from the "non-profit" Clinton Foundation remain secret, and Big Money keeps paying her outrageous speaking fees. And although she claims some of her speaking fees are turned over to the Clinton Foundation, no proof of that has been provided to organizations monitoring charitable organizations. The day she states she will not run, those speaking fees will drop like a stone, as will fat contributions to the Clinton Foundation from parties interested in quid pro quos if HRC became president.

And her latest, preposterous excuse for not declaring? "I want to try on being a grandmother first." Way to set the women's movement back about a century, Hillary! This from a woman who ridiculed staying home to bake cookies! I'm hoping my fellow Dems will nominate the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Maryland governor Martin O'Malley.

[DFW]

179. That's only looking at things from one single angle, though.

I can't speak about Hillary, I don't really know her well. But Bill really does get off on helping third world people, and not just Haiti. He once got into a suggestion from an optometrist to collect discarded eyeglasses and distribute them in the Indian countryside for free. They wouldn't be exactly prescription, but they would be close enough to help functionally blind people see clearly enough to have a chance to learn to read or drive. They distributed 800,000 pair of glasses. He also learned to operate a charitable operation more efficiently. He said his CGI was able to operate using only 4% for expenses as opposed to 25% going for expenses when the government was running the charity. When asked why he didn't figure this out while he was in office, he answered without hesitation, "because we were stupid, that's why!"

I realize hating the Clintons is a popular thing to do these days, but I'm not into it. They don't need to hang with the 1% any more than they want to. After all, now they ARE part of the 1%. But so is Bobby Kennedy, Jr. You can't say he isn't on our side.

As for Hillary's ambitions, I have no idea, but she's doing exactly what makes sense even if she isn't running. If she's NOT running, she's drawing fire from the Republican hate machine, allowing someone like Martin O'Malley to quietly organize an effective campaign under the radar of Fox and National Hate Radio while they're all obsessed with Hillary. Martin who? That's exactly what we want until 2016.

[Divernan]

188. Bill never learned to operate a charity efficiently-witness $multimillion defecits for multiple yrs.

Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail.
I grant that there is a lot of criticism of HRC on DU - so many actions of hers offend progressive dems - and there are so many reasons (repeatedly documented) to oppose her candidacy, let alone election, to the presidency. But don't kid yourself that this is about "hating" HRC. There is quite a difference between strongly opposing a politician and their policies, and hating them. Detailed and documented criticism does not equal hatred. Responding to your comments, ad seriatum:
First - your statement that Bill learned to operate a charitable operation more efficiently. The New York Times expose puts the lie to that statement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?hp&_r=1&

Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions. (Multimedia Graphic-The Overlapping Clinton World)

The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100231113/the-new-york-times-takes-down-the-clinton-foundation-this-could-be-devastating-for-bill-and-hillary/
(This article from the Telegraph refers to the Clinton Foundation as "that vast vanity project".)

The NYT runs the scoop in its usual balanced, inoffensive way – but the problem jumps right off the page. The Clintons have never been able to separate the impulses to help others and to help themselves, turning noble philanthropic ventures into glitzy, costly promos for some future campaign (can you remember a time in human history when a Clinton wasn't running for office?). And their "Ain't I Great?!" ethos attracts the rich and powerful with such naked abandon that it ends up compromising whatever moral crusade they happen to have endorsed that month. That the Clinton Global Initiative is alleged to have bought Natalie Portman a first-class ticket for her and her dog to attend an event in 2009 is the tip of the iceberg. More troubling is that businessmen have been able to expand the profile of their companies by working generously alongside the Clinton Foundation. From the NYT:

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

This, from 2011:
Just this month, bedding manufacturer Serta announced that it will be sponsoring Bill Clinton’s keynote address to an industry conference in August. "To us,"’ said the head of the company, "Clinton represents leadership. This appearance shows Serta is a leader and is taking a leadership position. This singles us out." Some might say that it is beneath a former president to basically endorse Serta’s new "Perfect Sleeper" line, even with its "revolutionary gel foam mattress".

Next, turning to your comments on Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and your flat statement, "you can't say he's not on our side." RFK, Jr. is a very complex person, including in his political positions - many traditional Dem. values, but also pro-life, anti-vaccine and anti-windfarm when it's in his backyard (Nantucket Sound/NIMBY). And although he's considered running for office, he never chose to actually do so, and recently stated: This, from 2008: "Kennedy announced on December 2, 2008 that he did not want to be appointed to the U.S. Senate, feeling it would take too much time away from his family." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy,_Jr.

I see no grounds to compare him to either Clinton. RFK, Jr. was born into great wealth and has never had to cleverly grasp and charm to become a multi-millionaire. He had a (I think) wonderful father as a role model, and a family tradition of public service - which was never tied into hustling to increase one's personal wealth (HRC-Whitewater?). He is a good example of using personal wealth to do good without holding public office. (And I wish him well on his very recent marriage.)

Finally, your comment on HRC - that she may be acting to "draw fire from the Republican hate machine"?!? That's the longest stretch I've ever read on DU. What hate machine would that be, when it comes down to the real players in the GOP? The Koch Brothers, Wall Street, Goldman-Sachs? They adore her, as well they should, corporatist that she is. No way is she leading the life she's led since she's left the State Department, in order to "take one for the team". In the grand and entitled tradition of the Clinton Foundation, she goes first class, top drawer, 5 star luxury all the way. Isn't it clever how she can get substantial deductions on her personal tax return for turning over fees to the Clinton Foundation, which can then turn around and pay her salary & benefits. (As far as I can find, there's no public record of what the Clinton Foundation pays any of the Clintons, salary wise.) Furthermore, as detailed in an article in the journal NPQ (Non Profit Quarterly), the Clinton Foundation has failed to provide documentation of fees allegedly turned over.

ABC reports, however, that it has been unable to get Hillary Clinton to provide documentation attesting to the donation of her speaking fees to the foundation. A review of the Clinton Foundation’s Form 990s for several of the past years reveals no disclosure of the names of major donors and therefore no information as to whether Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton, for that matter) has been donating speaking fees to their philanthropy. However, Hillary Clinton’s commitment to donate the speaking fees may be a decision of somewhat recent vintage, to be revealed in future 990s. (The most recent Clinton Foundation 990 available to the public on GuideStar or the Foundation Center’s online directory is from tax year 2012.)

Because the foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity, however, it is not required to reveal the names of its donors and the amount they are giving the Clinton Foundation. For Hillary Clinton to fulfill her pledge of transparency, the foundation would have to take a step that it is typically not required to do. In light of the political backdrop of the Clinton Foundation, this additional voluntary transparency is very important. Disclosure of donations to charities and foundations controlled by powerful political figures should be done as a matter of course, whether they are the Clintons’ speaking fees or the six- and seven-figure contributions of corporate and other donors who might have expectations of something in the future.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/24491-the-philanthropic-problem-with-hillary-clinton-s-huge-speaking-fees.html

The Las Vegas Review-Journal obtained Clinton's standard contract and related documents related to a scheduled October 13 speech at a University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Foundation fundraiser. The documents show that Clinton received $225,000 to speak at the fundraiser, a discount from her initial $300,000 asking price. But the fee was only the first of Clinton's many stipulations.

The former Secretary of State insists on staying in the ‘presidential suite’ of a luxury hotel of her staff's choice, with up to five other rooms reserved for her travel aides and advance staff. Clinton also reportedly required that the University's Foundation (or some other private donor) provide a private plane. However, the jet can not be any private plane; only a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 "or larger" will do the job.

“It is agreed that Speaker will be the only person on the stage during her remarks,” reads the contract for the event, which also requires that Clinton have final approval of all moderators or introducers.

Also, according to her standard speaking contract, Clinton has to stay at the event no longer than 90 minutes and will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people. There is no press coverage of video or audio taping of her speech allowed, with the only record allowed being made by a stenographer whose transcript is given to Clinton. The paper reports, however, that the stenographer's $1,250 bill will be paid by the UNLV Foundation.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/high-fashion-expense-hillary-travel

[amandabeech]

24. Sanders.

[orpupilofnature57]

26. Let me think about it for a se,,,, Bernie !!!!!

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry it took so long , not even a sec,,, .

[salib]

27. Sanders

However, we hate to lose him here in Vermont.

[ballyhoo]

28. Sanders

[PADemD]

31. Sanders

[jwirr]

33. Sanders.

[craigmatic]

34. There needs to be a third option. Sanders is probably too lib and Clinton is too guarded.

I like sanders and think he's right on nearly all the issues which means he's too liberal and can't win. Clinton is so rehearsed and has been in the game for so long that prolonged exposure to her makes people not trust or like her. I think Joe or O'Malley would be good nominees.

[orpupilofnature57]

81. He's an ' Enemy of the People ' in the Henrik Ibsen sense of the word .

[juajen]

35. Clinton

[fredamae]

36. Sanders-He Talks

with "us" and he listens...then based upon feedback from his constituents-takes appropriate actions 99.99999% of the time.
It's almost as if he Believes this is "The Peoples Government" or something
I honestly do Not remember when "we" have been seriously listened to on any issue.
As one example: Look at the overwhelming Support for gun Control...we are ignored.
I doubt any of the other potential candidates (from either side) know we exist-we're just numbers/statistics relative to voting for them, imo.

[LittleBlue]

37. Sanders, no question.

[Chan790]

38. Sanders, easily.

If I had my druthers Clinton and all of her supporters would just fall in line for Democratic ideals.

[99Forever]

39. Senator Sanders.

Clinton is a nonstarter.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. Clinton....Sanders is not a Democrat.

[Thinkingabout]

42. Agree, don't think Sanders has a chance in the DNC since he is an Independent, maybe

some do not know he isn't Democrat.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Clinton, easlly, hands down.

[demmiblue]

43. Sanders

[Laelth]

47. Bernie Sanders.

That said, I am curious to know where you are going with this question.

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

48. My preference is the Dem who seems most likely to win the general.

And at this point that seems to be HRC -- but elections are fluid.

[BlueStater]

49. Neither.

Both of them are ancient. Can't we find someone at least a little younger?

[Stellar]

50. Bernie Sanders...

But, still waiting to see which one will speak-up to the Ferguson issue.

[hrmjustin]

51. Clinton. n/t.

[tridim]

52. Neither of them are running for President in 2014. So neither.

Focus. Please.

[Cha]

177. :)

Focusing on 2014 would be nice.. especially after Labor Day! GOTV 2014

[regnaD kciN]

54. a) Sanders b) anyone but HRC

[hifiguy]

55. Sanders, and it isn't close.

He is a democratic socialist and so am I.

[sadoldgirl]

56. Sanders!!!

He is authentic and he cares about the people. He has a gift as well to give clear and easily understood answers. Imo, he is much much more of a democrat than HRC.

[bigwillq]

58. Sanders (nt)

[PDJane]

59. Sanders, thank you.

I really don't want Hillary. She's part of the machine. She will give the corporations power, and that's not what's needed.

[Phlem]

61. Sanders

[TheKentuckian]

62. Sanders and it isn't close. I'd only vote Clinton in a primary to steer the party

in some disgusting situation where it was between her and Cuomo or Rahm or similar.

Though if it is down to such crosses, then the odds are that the party is over and last one out can hit the lights, that is the stuff of unrecoverable death spiral there.

[BeyondGeography]

63. Since Sanders would obviously go down in flames

Clinton.

[BillZBubb]

66. Just on the issues Sanders by a wide margin.

But he has NO chance to win the general election.

[Vinca]

67. Sanders.

But I doubt he could win and I wouldn't want to see a Naderesque installation of Rand Paul in the White House. I think Hillary can win and she is definitely better than any Republican.

[840high]

70. sanders

[TheNutcracker]

72. Sanders...hands down

[ThePhilosopher04]

73. Sanders. nm

nm

[Iron Man]

74. Sanders.

By far.

[agbdf]

75. HRC as I am a Democrat and not a Socialist

I am from NYC and volunteered on Hillary's first Senate campaign. I am a proud liberal. That, however, does not make me part of the radical leftist fringe who too often hang their hats in the Democratic Party because their own parties, which usually have names that spell out their unpopular ideology, are not well received in our society.

If you choose to be a socialist or communist that is your choice. However, show some integrity and stick with your own kind. If you want to see a President Cruz or Paul, just nominate Sanders.

[PowerToThePeople]

79. By the looks of this thread

If all the "dirty socialists" left, DU would be down to a membership level you could count with your fingers.

[agbdf]

83. I couldn't disagree more.

I have many responsible friends whom, I have worked with in Democratic circles over the years, who are also members of DU. They are not socialist and the Democratic Party, as a President Obama, has said, is not Socialist. I have worked on and supported many Democratic campaigns over the past 30 years. None of those candidates were socialists. This site is the Democratic Underground and not the Socialist Underground.

I find it interesting that you use the word "dirty" to describe your peculiar ideology. A Freudian slip? News Flash: The Democratic Party supports responsible Capitalism.

[Divernan]

85. "Socialists" is 3rd wayers' dismissive code word for progressive Democrats

News flash: supporting Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs and the Koch Bothers is NOT responsible capitalism.

[agbdf]

89. HRC is a progressive Democrat. So am I.

[woo me with science]

118. BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Okay, now I understand...

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Torturers are Patriots.
and Hillary Clinton is a progressive Democrat.

Carry on.

[Divernan]

128. The other hysterical spin is that HRC is a "populist leaning liberal"

Really made me laugh out loud and in disbelief - label was from another of her die hard true believers.

[woo me with science]

133. Bwah. I think some are desperately trying to use Orwell as a manual,

but are incredibly frustrated that "2+2=5" doesn't actually work.

[winter is coming]

90. Which "socialist" position do you believe Sanders holds that is contrary to Democratic policy? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. It's not Capitalist Underground either. Nor is it , Catholic, Vegan, or Feminist Underground.

I'll take a Socialist over a 3rd Way, Hawk like Hillary any day.

[agbdf]

95. Just like you undoubtedly took Nader over Gore?

It's radicals like you who gave us W.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. Gore gave us Bush.

He failed to win enough votes which is the job of a politician if he/she wants to be elected. If he wanted the votes of the Left he should have given them reason to for him. He didn't.

[woo me with science]

103. This country is turning fascist under corporate Democrats and Republicans.

The United States of America is now a surveillance state, engaging (in cooperation with Wall Street) in corporate espionage and suppression of dissent.

We have a secret government with secret laws and secret courts, indefinite detention, and even "Kill Lists." And all it takes to fall under that government is "suspicion of terrorism," the definition of which has grown ludicrously wide.

Corporations run our elections, and the people have virtually no influence on policy anymore.

Policies and trade agreements are in the works to give corporations even more power to override democratic protections.

Our Constitution is being dismantled. The right to protest, the right to remain silent, the right to free association, the right to a free press...all in tatters. Journalists are being intimidated. Whistleblowers are being persecuted. Peaceful protesters are bloodied in the streets by militarized police.

Your attempt to make "socialism" the scary boogeyman here is beyond pathetic.

[agbdf]

107. President Obama disavows socialism; is he too a corporate Democrat?

[woo me with science]

113. Of course he's a corporate Democrat.

Meanwhile, the only self-described "socialist" even remotely close to any power in our government these days actually espouses an agenda that would have described any mainstream Democrat forty years ago.

Why are you ignoring the substance of my post?

[agbdf]

120. You think LBJ, Kennedy and Carter were socialists.

LBJ hated socialists and called the the Washington Post "The Daily Worker."

Kennedy cut the high marginal tax rates and had a strong relationship with American Business.

Carter was not even considered a liberal and drew primary challenges from the left from Jerry Brown and Ted Kennedy.

What the hell are you talking about forty years ago? The party is far more liberal today.

[agbdf]

114. Here's what my President says about socialism...

President Obama made the the quote below to US News and World Report. He has made many other similar statements.

President Obama:

"People call me a socialist sometimes, but you've got to meet real socialists, you'll have a real sense of what a socialist is," he said. "I'm talking about lowering the corporate tax rate, my health care reform is based on the private marketplace, the stock market is doing pretty good the last time I checked and it is true that I am concerned about growing inequality in the system, but nobody questions the efficacy of a market economy in terms of producing wealth and innovation and keeping us competitive."

Well put as always.

[malokvale77]

171. I don't think many here are buying...

what you're selling. From your other posts on DU, you don't come across as a democrat. You seem to be very authoritarian leaning. More of a conservative mindset.

I am judging by "your" posts.

[Divernan]

84. First choice: Sanders; 2nd choice: Anybody but Hillary.

[sadoldgirl]

87. In case you had not heard

Bernie Sanders is an INDEPENDENT.

[Arugula Latte]

151. "Radical leftist fringe"

If believing that corporations should not be the ones making every fucking decision in this country makes me part of the radical leftist fringe, so be it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. Let's see...a Socialist vs a 3rd Way/DLC/New Democrat/NeoLib who backed Bush's wars....

Golly, I think I'll spare my nose and vote for the Socialist.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[cantbeserious]

78. Sanders - Without Reservation

eom

[winter is coming]

86. Sanders. n/t

[rock]

88. Clinton

I hear lots of folks on DU say, "She's really right!" And I say, "I know, why aren't you for her?"

[a la izquierda]

92. Sanders, Warren, or Grayson.

HRC isn't even onmy radar.

[toby jo]

93. Sanders.

He's an original.

Would like to see someone younger, though, and we've got em.

[rudolph the red]

94. Sanders

I trust Hillary about as far as I can throw her.

[Divernan]

123. And that distance is getting shorter by the month!

[rudolph the red]

125. Indeed

[LWolf]

96. Sanders.

Without a nanoseconds hesitation between the two.

[woo me with science]

97. Sanders.

I am strongly opposed to creeping fascism in America.

[NYC_SKP]

98. Sanders. nt

[Louisiana1976]

99. Sanders

[Lee-Lee]

100. Sanders hands down

[CK_John]

102. How could the man without a party win anything?

[Iggo]

104. Sanders ain't a Dem and Clinton ain't running.

Those concerns aside, too?

[LibDemAlways]

105. Sanders. He's much more

consistently on the side of the little guy.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

106. Sanders...

...and I don't care what anyone thinks about it.

[Throd]

108. Clinton

[highmindedhavi]

109. The one who...

...will not take money from Banks/Wall Street.

[cornball 24]

111. BERNIE! BERNIE!

[Liberal_from_va34]

112. Sanders all the way.

Hilary Clinton is simply too hawkish for my tastes, and the way she's pandered to the GOP recently doesn't do her any favors. Sadly, it's just a pipe dream that Sanders will ever be elected to a higher office. The powers that be in this country will never allow it.

[elleng]

115. Sanders

'All other concerns off the table' includes likelihood of winning, as I thinks it unlikely an avowed 'socialist' could win the general election.

[Liberalynn]

117. Sanders

But only because Warren isn't a choice in this post.

[Yo_Mama]

119. Sanders. n/t

[immoderate]

121. Not Hillary. We need a president who is not a Reaganite.

All presidents since, and even Carter a bit, have been "supply siders" of some sort. Bernie is great, if a bit old, as is Hillary. He would have to fight the socialist label, which will be a difficulty.

I'd like to see Elizabeth step up, or maybe Sherrod Brown, or Sheldon Whitehouse, maybe even Alan Grayson.

I see Hillary as an empty (pants)suit. Bill is an operator. Life in the balance, y'all.

--imm

[Thirties Child]

122. Sanders

I've never trusted Hillary.

[stevenleser]

124. Political consideration concerns aside, who would I want for a political leader?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to show you the problems with the question you pose.

I think Hillary would be a better President. I dont think Bernie would get much of anything through congress. I think Hillary would get more through than he would/could.

I think Bernie's entire Presidency would be marginalized inside of 60 days.

I think some on DU have this mistaken idea that being President is about having the most perfect policy positions. If that was all there was to it, many DUers would make great Presidents.

Being President is as much about assembling a governing coalition in the people and in congress to move your agenda forward as it is having the right policy positions. That is actually true of mayors and governors as well. If folks are not lining up already behind someone thinking of running for President in the things they are doing and have been doing, that's a bad sign. Kucinich got very little passed in congress. That was a bad sign. Does Bernie seem to have a ton of people lining up behind him in the senate?

It doesnt seem so. Again, that is a very bad sign in terms of someone's abilities to assemble and maintain a governing coalition.

[Divernan]

130. Political considerations cannot be put aside - they determine the agenda.

And by political considerations, I mean the policy positions for which HRC is receiving millions in support, whether for her speeches or as donations to her "non-profit" Clinton Family Fund from Wall Street, Koch Brothers, Goldman-Sachs, and other big money interests. Of course, as long as she delays officially becoming a candidate, she can keep those donors and amounts secret.

I don't think she'll run. She's milking getting every possible million before bowing out. She's obviously in increasingly poor physical condition and lacks the ability or discipline to deal with that. Bill with a quadruple by-pass? Think his cardiologist advised him, "Make sure your wife runs for the most stressful job in the world and you get out there and campaign for her, and then put yourself through 4 years of 24/7 public observation and criticism of your every move." They're just building up as many millions in their nest egg as possible - I think of it as their fundraising last hurrah so they can hang with the One Percent.

[malokvale77]

145. The ability to pass "bad" policy is not a good thing.

I prefer the willingness to veto bad policy.

It's not about the most perfect policy. It's about outright damaging policy.

[stevenleser]

165. Of course. And? nt

[malokvale77]

172. Obvious is obvious

The Iraq war vote is the most obvious comparison between the two.

The financial industry, workers rights, free trade, etc. Bernie beats her hands down on all the issues that matter to every day people.

[Boreal]

184. Lynn Forester Rothschild

Supported HRC in the '08 primary. What does that tell you? When HRC didn't win, Rothschild easily switched her support to McCain.

Forester Rothschild and her bankster husband also honeymooned in the Clinton White House.

LFR said Hillary would be good for capitalism and when LFR talks about capitalism she means international corporations running the planet.

Hillary wants to be a Rothschild, as in live like one and wield that kind of power, have that kind of money and, I think, she is willing to do ANYTHING to get it.

So, in answer to the original question, Sanders!

[Divernan]

198. That's why, in the long run, I don't think HRC will run.

Both Clintons' primary motivation is personal wealth, allowing them to hang with the rich and famous. We know because of Bill's heart surgery that his health is quite frail. HRC has kept her medical records secret - I for one would like to know what caused the fall (stoke? loss of consciousness? as opposed to "fainting&quot which resulted in her hospitalization. She has continued to gain weight, despite saying she planned to get in shape after resigning from Secretary of State. I am not dissing her for being what is clinically labeled morbidly obese - simply recognizing that as a fact, along with all the serious health issues accompanying being that heavy in one's late 60's. Bill recognized it - that's what motivated him to serious life style changes and losing major weight.

The only reason the two of them can manage their jet-setting life style is that they travel the world in total, pampered luxury - private jets, at least 5 personal assistants, staying in presidential suites, etc. You know she can afford to have both a personal trainer and dietician - so why isn't she getting "back in shape"? One of my close family members has chronic health problems requiring major medications, and despite the most rigorous dieting, cannot lose weight. Again, where are HRC'shealth records? What medications does she take?

People at the level of the Rothschilds/One Percenters would not lower themselves to be elected "public servants". They know they can buy whatever political influence serves their purposes - elected officials are well dressed servants to the One Percenters. Why would the Clintons want to spend the decade of their seventies in the public fishbowl of the White House, with all the 24/7 stress involved? They already know exactly what that's like. Nope. She'll back out from her faux, undeclared race as soon as she's milked every possible million from the special interests hoping for future political favors resulting from paying her outrageous speaking fees and making contributions to the glitzy family non-profit.

[malokvale77]

199. Bingo

I don't believe she will sacrifice herself to the grinder. She will however, milk it for all it's worth.

I'll admit if I'm wrong, but I will never vote for her.

[TeeYiYi]

131. I would choose Clinton...

...if it weren't for her disturbing war hawk, mic, creepy zionist aipac stance of late.

I don't know much about Bernie Sanders...

I will vote straight 'D' in the general election. My vote will be for the democrat most likely to win, regardless of ideologies, against the republicans in 2016.

TYY

[SamKnause]

134. Bernie Sanders

[onyourleft]

135. Sanders. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

136. You can't make that decision free of "all other concerns"

But as it stands, Sanders would have to run for the (D) nomination to make it even a question.

As it is, were he to do that, i think he would add an important voice to the dialogue and bring up some very valuable points.

i will wait until the primaries actually start before endorsing candidates.

[stevenleser]

139. I know, this question reads like, well, if I could skate as well as an NHL star, and could handle

the puck just as well, shouldn't I be in the NHL?

Well, yeah, but what good does that question serve?

[Warren DeMontague]

149. ...an excellent point.

Seems to me a better question for right now is, what issues would we like to see our potential primary candidates address, and how?

I do think we'd all benefit from a vigorous primary process - and one with substantive debate.

[underthematrix]

137. sanders but my FIRST CHOICE is BIDEN

[Vincardog]

138. Sanders all day

[OilemFirchen]

140. Sanders!

If only for the sheer joy of witnessing emoprogs tear him apart beginning Inauguration Day.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

142. Sanders.

Cause I want a real socialist president.

[malokvale77]

143. Sanders

To the point of a write in. HRC is for too much I'm against.

Sanders embodies what Democrats used to profess. Hillary is all about Hillary.

I voted for her in the primaries, but I have since learned too much to ever cast a vote for her again.

[kath]

144. Sanders. Will NOT vote for Clinton

Would leave it blank, like I did last time,
Live in the reddest of red states, so my vote doesn't count anyway.

[LiberalElite]

146. Sanders n/t

[MissDeeds]

147. Bernie Sanders

I don't care if he calls himself an Independent, the man is more Democrat than most of the "Dems" we have representing us in DC, and sure as hell more of a Democrat than HRC. Bernie has my complete support. Hillary does not.

[Pastiche423]

148. Sanders

[Arugula Latte]

150. Sanders, of course

[Jackpine Radical]

152. Sanders

[MADem]

153. I'd say welcome to DU, but I see you've been here for four years now.

What a contentious "early" post this is!

I'll support the nominee, whosoever he or she is. I will vote for Clinton in the primary, assuming she runs.

[Shivering Jemmy]

154. Clinton

[Takket]

155. Sanders.

[get the red out]

156. Clinton

because I believe she can win. Philosophically I prefer Sanders.

I don't live in a state whose vote will mean anything in the primaries, they will have been decided long before then.

[wildbilln864]

157. sanders!

this should be a poll.

[rainy]

158. Saunders without a doubt!

[ms liberty]

159. Sanders. n/t

[PoutrageFatigue]

160. Sanders.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

161. Thanks for all the responses.

And thanks for all the "welcomes." As some of you pointed out, I have been here 4 years. In truth, I have been reading DU for a lot longer. It is one of the few sites that I check multiple times, every day. I don't post much because I take it too seriously, and most people just get snarky or dishonest when a debate starts. Or, people will read way too far into stuff, and take it to a completely unintended place. So, I am mostly content just to read and learn what I can. I try to learn from here because I am interested in a alternative to the 2 party system, and I think the best option will come from real progressives. I hope that makes sense.

[Sienna86]

162. Sanders

He has a better feel for what the middle class goes through.

[Grey]

163. Sanders. Hands Down.

[pacalo]

164. Sanders.

[magical thyme]

166. Sanders. I will not vote for Clinton. nt

[JEB]

167. Sander by a wiiiiiiiiide margin.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

168. Souldn't you have a poll in your header?

[90-percent]

169. Sanders

Hillary is too goldman sachs, hawkish and got the iwr vote wrong. utter disqualifies her in my book.

war is hell, not a mere tool in international relations

-90% jimmy

[loyalsister]

170. Neither

There's no way Sanders could be Sanders as a president. He would have opposition to deal with among republicans AND I think there would be more Democratic deserters. I don't think he could show the kind of leadership he does now.

I'm not liking that Hillary Clinton seems clueless and way too hawkish.

[philly_bob]

174. Sanders

[PFunk]

176. Sanders

[Cha]

178. 3 or 4 months ago it would have been Hillary.. Now..

Hillary Senator Sanders

thanks for your OP, CJK

[Metric System]

180. Clinton, becase I'd like to see another Democrat in the White House.

[nsd]

181. Clinton.

Taking other concerns ("popularity with the masses" -- what the hell does that mean?) off the table does not make sense. The whole point is getting a candidate who can win a general election. In my estimation, that's Clinton. Six years ago I was an Obama guy, but today I'm all for Clinton. She's the most liberal Democrat who can win. I realize that's not a particularly inspiring mantra, but it is what itis.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

182. Sanders hands down*

* from a Canadian who cannot vote in American elections.

I'd rather we have to deal with a democratic socialist and environmentalist than a continuation of the last 20 years of austere, economic rape and pillage. Canada is tethered to the US, and our conservative government will most likely be booted in one year. Its time for structural change.

[area51]

185. Sanders.

Who needs a republican like Clinton?

[betterdemsonly]

186. I prefer Sanders

He is not ideal on foreign policy either, but he is somewhat of an improvement, in that I think he would seriously pursue two states in Israel and he is a big improvement on economic policy for sure. The electability issue is just liberal self sabotage.

[jambo101]

187. Either one would be preferable to a Republican candidate

I'd choose Bernie as his proposed actions sound more beneficial for the Middle class.

[ladjf]

189. Sanders. nt

[City Lights]

190. Sanders. nt

[pampango]

191. All other concerns aside, I prefer beer but I'll drink wine and enjoy that too.

[Orsino]

192. Sanders. But "all other things being equal" is a pipe dream.

Electability and money are huge issue that tend to tip things the other way.

[NCTraveler]

193. All other concerns aside....Sanders. nt.

[KamaAina]

196. Bernie

by a mile.

[ancianita]

197. Sanders. Clinton can be VP and return to sitting in the Senate.