Why do I feel like Hillary is being forced on me?

[SheilaT]

Why?

Why is she inevitable? Why didn't she win in 2008?

Am I the ONLY person who remembers the PUMAs? Remember them? I'll give a few points to the first person who reminds us what PUMA stood for, and then I'll ask, So what exactly makes Hillary the best candidate? Really?

She was an abject failure in 2008. If the Democratic party is dumb enough to nominate her in 2016 that will almost guarantee we'll have a Republican president elected that year.

For all of you who blithely say, Oh, she's been through all that, she's vetted, the old claims against her won't matter, all you have NO idea how the real world works. Everything that was held against her in 2008 will be held against her, and then some, in 2016.

More to the point, why the fuck is anyone considering someone from the past???? Why aren't we looking to the future? Remember that? The future? The direction in which we should all be looking? Why in the world are you thinking that in eight years there has not been anyone new come into the Democratic Party that we should be considering? Why are you looking at twenty plus years ago to lead us into the middle of the twenty-first century? Really? Tell me again?

Just in case you can't figure it out from this post, I do not support Hillary Clinton. I think that all this idiocy over her is more than a little like the daydreams of Colin Powell as our nominee, or a totally idiotic notion of a "dream ticket" including John McCain, which we got far too much of in 2004.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the future. She is the past. If we want to move into this century and all its challenges, we MUST look forward, not backward.

[NYC_SKP]

1. PUMA: Party Unity My Ass...

I recall a number of nasty sites devoted to her candidacy, I'm glad they are mostly gone.

And I don't look forward to a return to similar primary wars.

She really IS the past.

No more Clintons, no more Bushes, we really need to turn things around, not go backwards.

[SheilaT]

3. I'm rather pleased that I got such a quick response.

And it was the fucking PUMAs that almost derailed Obama. I will never forgive them.

We absolutely need to be looking to the future, not to the past.

[leftynyc]

60. What about those of us

who were strong supporters of Hillary but immediately came on board when she suspended her campaign? I was buying my candidate Obama tshirts, buttons and bumperstickers the very next day. Do we get to support the candidate we felt was better for the country then this time around? Is that okay with you?

[KittyWampus]

110. There was quite a stretch between when it was certain Hillary had zero chance & when she finally

pulled the plug.

And during that stretch, that was when PUMA's were truly seen in all their divisive pettiness. Their willingness to continue flinging crap long after there was any sane reason to is a point against both them AND Hillary. She allowed it to continue. Right up to the Democratic Convention ffs. Remember all the talk about delegates potentially throwing their votes to Hillary?

And while you are to thanked for "coming aboard" after Hillary finally did the right thing… it is fair to ask you why you want a candidate who lost so badly the last time?

Why would you want a candidate who was so willing to use racist verbiage?

A candidate who allowed so much divisive crap at the end when it was totally unnecessary?

A candidate so totally stuck in the past when it comes to campaigning?

I think those are legitimate questions asked in a respectful manner.

[leftynyc]

111. Before I answer your questions

I want to get one point straight. Your position seems to be that Hillary was responsible for the behavior of all her supporters. Does that make Pres Obama responsible for the behavior of all of his?

[KittyWampus]

114. She was responsible for allowing it to continue long after there was any reason for it. Because she

refused to pull the plug on her campaign when there was zero chance of her winning.

Maybe "enable" is a better term for it.

And she also covertly approved the racist crap from Geraldine Ferraro and Bill.

[leftynyc]

119. Well, I think that's bullshit

but you're entitled to your opinion. I'm from the age where I know the perfect candidate doesn't exist. The way our system is set up, you get a choice of two and I ALWAYS vote for the Democrat. If you think it serves you better not to, that is entirely your problem. The vast majority of Hillary voters went to the polls and voted for Sen Obama. Let's see what the Pres Obama supporters do.

[rhett o rick]

148. You said, "Before I answer your question,..." and then you never did. She answered your

question but you wouldn't return the courtesy.

2016 won't be 2008 repeated. In 2008 the Left was excited to support someone to the left of H. Clinton and they will be looking to do that again. But if that candidate can't defeat H. Clinton for the nomination, I think the Left will either go third party or write-in a progressive Democrat. I think the Left is tired of being manipulated with the "this is the only candidate, so you have to support her" bullcrap.

When H. Clinton let down the Party, the Nation, the world and Iraq, when she yielded to George Bush and Dick Cheney she either gave up her integrity or proved she had none. In either case a lot on the Left swore never to support her again. You can use the lesser of evils manipulation only so far.

So remember, I you nominate H. Clinton-Sachs, you better be ok with a GOP winner.

[markpkessinger]

185. Well said! Thank you! n/t

[leftynyc]

200. Well excuse me for having alife

and not jumping through your hoops and answering in what you consider a timely manner. I had every intention of answering all the poster's questions. Once again I have to point out that Sen Obama was NOT to the left of Sen Clinton. It was a bullshit argument and I sincerely can't believe you're trying to claim it true. On the other front - you vote for whoever you want - have your purity party and get more scalia's on the court. I can't nominate a candidate by myself so you threatening me with bolting is a completely empty threat. The Hillary voters put their country before their party. If you don't want to do the same, I can't help you. Once again I have to point out that those here on DU delude themselves into thinking the far left has power it simply does not have. You can put a Democrat in the white house by voting for our nominee or you can put a republican in seeking some nirvana that doesn't exist. It's really that simple.

[elzenmahn]

175. You do realize that you just outlined the ENTIRE problem...

...the very fact that our system is set up to ONLY support TWO viable candidates.

The ONLY reason I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination (no guarantee - it was hers to lose in 2008, and she lost it.) is to keep the Repiglicans out. But in many ways, there is very little difference between her and the Repiglicans, especially in terms of foreign policy and a willingness to play smooch-tush to the bankers.

If we want progressives in the national elections, then we need to start by electing them in the state and local offices - that's where the power base lies.

[leftynyc]

204. I'm all for nominating

the most liberal candidate THAT CAN GET ELECTED. There is simply ZERO evidence a far left liberal has any chance in a national election but that doesn't stop me from living the reality of our election system. It comes down to two candidates. You can think they don't have differences in foreign policy and in many ways you'd be right but there are enormous differences in domestic policy - the things that effect us every single day. One more conservative on the court means SS gets privatized, one more makes medicare a voucher system, one more and the government will get all the power it needs to let the NSA continue to go wild and one more could overturn Roe v Wade. I wont let that happen with my vote.

[elzenmahn]

244. Domestic policy...

...I would agree that there are a few differences. For example - if not for a Dem in the White House or a Dem controlled Senate, we would have the Paul Ryan budget right now (and all the bullshit that entails.) Also, without any Dem control over any part of the government, you can forget Amtrak, most of the national parks, or anything else formerly called "the commons".

But remember: the Dems were the party that brought you Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and other alleged "Democrats" who sold out their party principles for their own gain (to wit - the nice, cushy lobbying job Lincoln now has.) Quite simply - you can't get elected anywhere in the national sphere without KISSING BANKER AND CORPORATE ASS. As I see it - that pretty much excludes any true "liberal" or "progressive".

As I said, I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. But forget any kind of enthusiasm - it will be with a gas mask and oxygen supply.

[leftynyc]

247. There are more than a few

differences when it comes to social issues. I'm glad you'll vote for whoever the nominee is - so will I.

[merrily]

222. And Cuomo's "shuckin' and jivin' comment. And her own comment about her constituency being

hard working white people.

It was a theme throughout the primary campaign, including circulation by her campaign of that photo of a young Obama trying on Kenyan garb. You could see part of the Wright thing as race-related as well. I saw a lot of posts at the time about "black liberation theology." However, I'd give a pass on that as the motive is not as clear.

Some people consider the comments about Obama's early drug use racist, but I did not see them that way. If a President did drugs, you ought to be able to bring that up without being called racist. At least, that is how I see it. However I think there were also other "racially-tinged" comments that I am forgetting.

In 2008, another Obama supporter and I were posting on a board where we were defending him against both Hillary supporters, some of whom went PUMA after the primary, and Republicans. At that time, I was zoned into every in and out, but some are escaping me now.

[leftynyc]

201. For starters

she didn't lose badly. She was advised badly and her people didn't take the time to know what the caucus system was all about. Frankly, I had no idea you could get the most votes in a caucus state and still lose which is what happened with Nevada (my mother, although she voted for Pres Obama, left the Democratic party because of that). I don't know how anyone can look at either Clinton and call them racists but believe what you want. She had no control over the PUMA's (a group that still makes me very angry) and they have as much a right to their purity nonsense as you do. She joined the Obama administration and did good work and completely supported a campaign that called her and her husband racists. That's what a real patriot does. That's what a loyal Democrat does. Your purity party is a fantasy and if you think this country is ready for a far left candidate I'm just going to ahead and think you're too young to remember what happened to McGovern. THAT's what will happen to any Sanders (who I love) or Warren (love her too although she's not nearly as liberal as DU seems to think).

So vote for another Nader or sit home and pout and watch what happens to your rights in a right wing supreme court. Watch SS become privatized and Medicare become a voucher system. It seems it takes a blowout election to teach some people what the real world is all about.

[Dems to Win]

116. Bless you

If Hillary is the candidate after a competitive primary in 2016, I will follow in your footsteps and buy a Hillary Tshirt. We'll need a united team, just like we did in 2008.

[leftynyc]

118. No problem

It seems too many on DU want to have a hissy fit rather than unite. The flame wars from 2008 are still fresh in my brain.

[Thespian2]

182. Never supported her

Never will. If the Dems are so Dim that they nominate her, I will not vote in '16. She is a corporate suck-up, no better than Mittens Romney.

[cui bono]

121. Why do you support her? Why do you think she would make a good president? n/t

[leftynyc]

130. I thought she was a terrific senator

Put her head down and did the hard work. I think she's brilliant and she's liberal without being doctrinaire about it. My biggest issue is the supreme court (nothing else even comes close) and as I'm sure she had input into the judges her husband put on the court, I'm very comfortable with her making that decision. This is what was so frustrating about the 2008 election - there was virtually no difference between her and Sen Obama, we tried to tell you he was no more liberal than she was and got shouted down at every turn. Well, turns out we were right. Firebrand liberals cannot get elected nationwide.

[Jackpine Radical]

150. There is a bit of illogic in what you say.

If people voted for Obama because they thought he was more liberal than Hillary (and I submit that was the case), it stands as evidence that Hillary had positioned herself to Obama's right, at least rhetorically. The fact you were right in your original assessment and that Obama went on to disappoint those who saw him as a liberal doesn't change the fact that we thought we were choosing the more liberal of the 2, and invalidates your assertion that people won't vote for a "firebrand" liberal. We weren't given one to vote for. (I think Edwards had disingenuously repositioned himself on the left, and people knew that about him; even before the later revelations, he sorta radiated slipperiness).

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. it was QUITE the opposite for me...Hillary had a track record of supporting Universal Single Payer

he didn't.....she even put her private life on the line for it....she stuck her neck OUT for that legislation...

[Jackpine Radical]

176. I don't recall her supporting single payer.

Re:the 1993 plan (Wikipedia):

The Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan. It listed minimum coverages and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for each plan. It proposed the establishment of corporate "regional alliances" of health providers to be subject to a fee-for-service schedule.
…
The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.

More recently--

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/hillary_clinton_on_s.php

MRS. CLINTON: You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system. Obviously, I listened to arguments about its advantages and disadvantages, and many people who I have a great deal of respect for certainly think that it is the only way to go. But I said, as you quoted me, that we had to do what would appeal to and actually coincide with what the body politic will and political coalition building was. So I think if you look at most public opinion surveys, even from groups of people who you would think would be pretty positive towards single payer, Americans have a very skeptical attitude. They don’t really know that Medicare is a single payer system. They don’t really think about that. They think about these foreign countries that they hear all these stories about, whether they’re true or not, which they’re often not. And so talking about single payer really is a conversation ender for most Americans, because then they become very nervous about socialized medicine and all the rest of this. So I never really seriously considered it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

177. what do you call...

Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by President Clinton to the U.S. Congress in September 1993. The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.

Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a highly effective television ad, "Harry and Louise", in an effort to rally public support against the plan. Instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, Democrats offered a number of competing plans of their own. Hillary Clinton was drafted by the Clinton Administration to head a new Task Force and sell the plan to the American people, a plan which ultimately backfired amid the barrage of fire from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and considerably diminished her own popularity. By September 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell.

[Jackpine Radical]

179. There is no provision for a single-payer system in this plan.

It id not differ much from what was enacted as the ACA.

[pnwmom]

160. Your "logic" is based on an unproven premise. You have no proof that most people voted for Obama

because they thought he was more liberal. In fact, his actual Senate record was a few points less liberal than hers overall (as scored by Progressive Punch at the time) -- though the difference between them was negligible.

Maybe people voted for him because he seemed more likable. Or maybe they liked them both about the same, and just had to pick one. That's the situation I was in. I don't even remember now which one I voted for because they were so close, in my mind. (And in WA the primaries are just a beauty contest, so they don't even matter.)

[Jackpine Radical]

180. His antiwar stance was certainly more in line with liberal thought than Hill's

very vocal support for the war.

[merrily]

209. According to a brilliant political analyst, Bubba Clinton, Obama's stand the Iraq War vs. Hill's

was pivotal. "I take him at his word." This time. Because I agree with him about that.

Also, Hillary was a founding member of the DLC and Obama never said that he was a New Democrat until after he was in office. I don't think that was a factor for most because, to this day, most voters never heard of the DLC. However, it was a factor for Democrats who knew what was what.

Beyond that, Obama's promise of a strong public option for health care and no individual mandate vs. Hill's/Romney's/ Heritage Foundation's requirement of a private mandate was certainly also perceived as more liberal by Obama.

There were other things as well but the details do not leap to my mind at this moment. However, the Iraq War and the individual mandate were huge for many and perceived by many as more liberal.

For me personally (and for Nancy Peloisi), another was Hillary's comment that she and McCain were ready for that 3 am phone call but Obama was not. That was an invitation to vote Republican if Hillary lost the primary and, whether she won or not, gave McCain ammo.

At no time did Obama imply that a Republican President would be preferable to Hillary. I saw that the same way that I saw the other issues: that Hillary was definitely to Obama's right.

[pnwmom]

213. Hillary was not to Obama's right. Based on their Senate records, they were virtually the same,

with slight differences on particular issues. Progressive Punch rated her as a tad more liberal, but it was really a toss-up, depending on what issues you cared about.

The misperception that Obama was more liberal than Hillary Clinton led to many people's great disappointment when they saw that, as President, he wasn't as liberal as they expected him to be. I wasn't surprised though, because I didn't delude myself before the election. They were very close on everything except Iraq; and he was in a better position than she was because he wasn't in the Senate when that decision had to be made.

Obama's no-mandate plan was worse than Hillary's because it covered many fewer people. He opted to put the emphasis on lowering costs rather than expanding coverage. So there's no basis for saying his plan was more progressive than hers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/how-obama-broke-his-promise-on-individual-mandates/259183/

Two months later he released his plan. There was no individual mandate, as in John Edwards' plan, and Obama focused primarily on price, not coverage. By design, he had not included everyone, as he said in Las Vegas he would. That did not stop him from claiming that he included everyone, but the claim was debunked by Politifact, Factcheck.org, and others, including his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

That September, Hillary Clinton announced a plan that did put "everybody in." As the Associated Press reported in its lede, "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's sweeping health-care proposal, which she plans to unveil today, would require every American to carry health insurance and offer federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage." It was Clinton and Edwards against Obama on the propriety of the state forcing people to buy health insurance.

In the Jan. 21, 2008, presidential primary debate in South Carolina, Edwards criticized Obama's plan for its lack of a mandate. Obama responded, "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance." Instead of going that route, his plan, he said, "emphasizes lowering costs.

[Marr]

215. Not factually, no-- but rhetorically he was.

It's pretty commonly noted that Obama strived to give voters the impression that he was more liberal than he actually is during the election. Health care is a classic one-- where he mocked Clinton's plan while talking up Single Payer, then essentially instituted the Clinton plan himself.

People who (smartly) don't put a lot of weight on campaign rhetoric knew that Obama and Clinton were essentially Coke and Pepsi when it came to policy, but the advertising didn't look that way.

[merrily]

216. As Reply 209 stated, it does not matter. The relevant issue is voter perception, period.

Whether the voter perception reflected reality or whether it was a misperception does not matter.

What Obama did or did not do after he was elected is also irrelevant to the claim that liberals cannot elected

I do think that Obama is actually to the left of Hillary on several issues. For one thing, I don't think Obama would have identified his constituency as either hard working white people or hard working people of color or otherwise used Hillary's race in his campaign.

On an issue or two, Hillary may well be to Obama's left in realtiy. However, that also does not matter to the topic. Since Obama is no longer running against Hillary, I don't think it's important in real life, either.

Point is, Obama was perceived as more liberal than Hillary, esp. on a couple of issues that, in 2008, seemed very important. And that perception helped Obama defeat Hillary in the primary while not costing him the general election.

[pnwmom]

220. But you aren't reflecting voter perception -- you're reflecting DU perception.

The average DUer is quite a bit more progressive than the average Democratic voter. They might have wanted to view Obama as the more progressive, but that doesn't mean most Dem voters did -- or even wanted him to be.

[merrily]

224. No. My Reply 209 is not about me, except where I specified. And, DU

had nothing to do with me during the primary anyway.

As stated in my Reply 29, even as brilliant a political analyst as Bill Clinton said Obama's stand on the Iraq War was pivotal. He did not say it quite so nicely, but he said it. An anti war stand is generally recognized--after Vietnam, anyway, as more liberal than cheerleading for a war.

Besides, no one has ever proven the meme that DU does not reflect Democrats in general. I know a lot of you keep posting that, and you probably believe it, but that does not make it so. However, for purposes of this discussion that failure to prove is also irrelevant. For purposes of this discussion, I will assume, not only that something like that is provable, but also that it has actually been proven. Still doesn't matter because DU had nothing to do with me during the primary or with my post 209.

Again, the point is that voters of all parties perceived Obama to be running to the left of Hillary in 2008 and he won the primary and the general.

[pnwmom]

226. As I said, Obama was much freer to make this statement as an outsider to the Senate.

Hillary was in a much tighter spot, since she knew that that Bush was going to get a blank check Iraq war resolution no matter what, through the incoming Republican Senate. So, before they could give Bush his blank check, she was one of the Senators who approved a different IWR with restrictions that were supposed to prevent Bush from attacking Iraq unless we found WMD.

Any voter who voted for Obama because he was perceived as significantly more liberal than Hillary was mistaken -- and is probably seriously disappointed with him now.

[merrily]

248. Again, only voter perception is relevant.

[leftynyc]

202. There was NOTHING in the 2008

campaign that would have lead people to believe Sen Obama was more liberal than Sen Clinton other than the hopes of the far left that he was. There was simply no evidence for that belief. Can you name even one issue that came up where Sen Obama was to the left of Hillary? I sure can't. You WANTED to think he was more liberal but he never was and there was never any evidence he would be. It looks like people are going to have to learn the McGovern lesson all over again. A real pity when the supreme court is in the balance. If you think you're any different from those who voted for nader to such disastrous results, I think you're fooling yourself.

[Marr]

217. How about health care?

Obama openly mocked Clinton's plan, with that line about solving homelessness by just mandating home ownership. And he'd do that while praising Single Payer. Not outright promising something to Clinton's left there, but certainly suggesting it.

[leftynyc]

219. That really pissed me off

because he knew better (or should have). Hillary had already put her head on the block to try and get a health care package together during her husband's term. Sen Obama had never put his ass on the line on any position.

[rhett o rick]

193. That's a bunch of rhetoric that says that you are tickled to death with the status quo.

H. Clinton-Sachs does not represent the 99%. She is in Goldman-Sachs pocket. And she gave her integrity to George Bush for what? IMO she showed her true colors. She is part of the Aristocracy. Those that support her are like Aristocracy Groupies.

We are deeply into a class war and H. Clinton-Sachs is not on our side.

[leftynyc]

203. Call it rhetoric

or call it realistic (which it happens to be). And I'll thank you and everyone else who wants to shove words in my mouth to just freeking stop it already. I live in the real world where there is a choice between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. I wish the system were different but it isn't. Are you also one of the ones who convinced themselves that Sen Obama was to the right of Sen Clinton? We tried to tell you there was virtually no difference between the two but you knew better. Just like you think you know better now. You don't. A far left candidate that wants to expand entitlements (I hate that world but whatever) will get just enough support to throw the election to the one who will put more scalia's on the court. That is unacceptable to me. I'm old enough to remember what happened to McGovern. The same thing will happen here.

[rhett o rick]

242. I always get a chuckle when people say, "I live in the real world " as if they and

only they know what reality is. You have your own reality. There is no universal reality, at least not one that philosophers have figured out.

Yes I thought Obama was to the left of H. Clinton but that didn't make any difference. Reality is that I can not support H. Clinton for anything. And it's not just because she is openly a tool of Wall Street, but because when we needed her the most, she showed us she had/has no integrity. Maybe you don't care about the damage done by the decision to invade Iraq. Damage that I do not think we can recover from. Maybe you can overlook the blood she has on her hands. Maybe you can rationalize her decision. I can't. And I resent the Powers That Be's attempts to manipulate us into voting for their hand-picked candidate.

[leftynyc]

246. Hey - if you want to pretend

Hillary was the deciding vote on Iraq, knock yourself out. You want to toss the country to the republicans by voting third party, have a ball. Don't expect people to have any sympathy while you bitch about more scalia's on the court.

[Marr]

218. I think you nailed it there.

Aristocracy groupies. Like Brits who giddily follow the royal family. I always wondered how anyone who had to work for a living could feel anything but resentment towards a royal family, personally.

[rhett o rick]

228. I think that Royal Families are swell as long as they don't have any power and

don't get to steal the treasury.

[cui bono]

235. We have no idea if "firebrand liberals" can get elected nationwide.

The Dems are afraid to find out. Let's face it, both parties are beholden to big business, therefore anyone allowed to run for the presidency is most definitely not a liberal. More liberal or less liberal than Obama matters not when both are right of center on too many issues that affect our very livelihood and well being.

As to being able to actually do the job, of course, she is able, but she would never do the job I want her to do. She's big business, she's a hawk and she is untrustworthy in her pursuit for the presidency (3am phone call bs she pulled during the campaigns). I don't agree with her on so many issues, I don't trust her based on how she acts in her own self-interest at the expense of others and I just don't like her.

We don't need Republican lite, we need a populist. And as the OP stated, she seems to being shoved on us by the pundits and followers and I resent it. It's a terrible idea if you want this country to get back in the hands of the people.

[leftynyc]

236. Those of us old enough know

We watched what happened to McGovern. She isn't be shoved anywhere. Poll after poll show her far ahead of any competition (including against republicans) and the media are reporting that. You don't like what the polls are saying? Well, I guess you could go to that unskewed polls dude - he tells people whatever they want.

[cui bono]

237. As if polls at this date mean anything.

Where was Obama on the polls at this point in time for his first term's election?

The only reason she is high in the polls is name recognition. And maybe because people know she will eviscerate the GOP when necessary. I would have liked to see what she would have done if they treated her the way they treated Obama, I'll give her that. Too bad she is on the corporations' side and not ours.

It's way too early to tell who will be or should be the nominee. To cite polls as the reason at this stage is ridiculous and can only be seen as a political ploy.

[leftynyc]

238. I cited polls

to try and explain how she isn't being shoved down anyone's throat. Reporting what polls are saying is reporting what polls are saying - nothing more. There is no nefarious plot afoot.

[cui bono]

240. Yes she is. That's exactly why the meaningless polls are being put out there by the media

and her supporters.

As I said, where was Obama at this time before his first election? It doesn't matter yet, so why is everyone talking about it and saying she is practically inevitable?

You might not sense it since you are a supporter. Those of us that would not be happy with her as the nominee can see it coming a mile away and we don't like it. She will just continue the same corporatist path that this country has been on since Reagan.

[leftynyc]

243. Sigh

The polls aren't being put out by her supporters unless you think all the polling companies (Pew, Gallup, etc) are all in on the plot. They're reporting their findings just like they do every single day on every issue under the sun. Maybe it's just because you don't like her that merely reporting what polls show pisses you off.

[cui bono]

249. double sigh

I guess you haven't really read what I've posted about corporate power and the media and TPTB allowing presidential candidates to be in the running. You seem to have taken it very personally when I've clearly stated so many things that you have chosen to ignore.

[leftynyc]

251. I've read every single word

As far as I can see, Bernie Sanders is testing the waters and Elizabeth Warren has said she doesn't want to run and TPTB haven't tried to stop either one. Have I missed anything? And no worries, I don't take anything anyone here says personally.

[cui bono]

252. You said I was attibuting the polls being out there to Clinton supporters

when I clearly mentioned the media and also how TPTB will only allow certain candidates to be in the running. In this case it's Clinton because she is so corporatist, she's DLC, she's not on the side of the people when it comes to economic policy and war.

I'm done. Have a great day.

[freshwest]

137. Oh, they are still around, bashing Obama daily. No, I won't link them here. They're nauseating.

[paulkienitz]

147. PUMAs = democratic birthers

same rationale: look for any excuse to question Obama's legitimacy as the person who actually won the election -- in that case, the primaries.

[merrily]

208. +1 A lot of racism at those sites.

When I mentioned that on another board run by a Clinton supporter in 2008, I was told that the racism was only from Republicans pretending to be Democratic supporters of Hillary. However, a lot of things emanating from the Clinton campaign itself were "racially tinged," a term I never encountered before that campaign.

And then, there was the startling comment by Hillary herself, flat out identifying her constituency as hard-working white people.

And, here we see Clinton strategist James Carville, the same guy who warned his Republican strategist wife about a possible Kerry recount while she was sitting in Dick Cheney's office, at the 2008 convention about to nominate President Obama, making sure that his PUMA sneakers were noticed by one and all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/08/27/576454/-James-Carville-s-Shoes#

Did not strike me funny in 2008 as I faced McCain Palin.

[OLDMADAM]

254. Love it or leave it, she is our only option.. Unless?

I really, really, hate, hate, hate, this shit.. The only option is another dark horse being hidden in the shadows, absent that, we will be asked to accept the inevitable, or else.. Take it or leave it.. Total BS

I'll vote for the "D", but hate that I wasn't given any other option.. UGH

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. PUMA=party unity my ass.

I do not support her candidacy. Period.

I like the Governor from Maryland, Martin O'Malley, I think his name is...

[SheilaT]

4. Only two minutes behind the first correct answer,

but thank you.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I'm used to coming in second!

[Jackpine Radical]

152. I hope you're not describing your love life.

(I'll go stick my head in a bucket now.)

[gtar100]

6. Agreed - we need to look to the future; a progressive future or we are toast.

30 years of conservatives who give corporations free reign in this country and world wide have led this world to the brink of utter disaster and they show no sign of letting up. Doesn't matter if it's conservative extremists (republicans) or conservative light (blue dog Democrats). It's all a path to self annihilation.

So fucking sick of it.

[Vincardog]

122. Doesn't matter if it's conservative extremists (republicans) or conservative light (blue dog Democra

ts). It's all a path to self annihilation.

[JEB]

188. +1000

If that's the best democrats can come up with, I suppose I hold my nose, but not exactly inspiring support for the party. I'm losing faith.

[moondust]

7. Approved by Wall Street. n/t

[Dustlawyer]

163. Yes, if HRC gets in she will follow Obama's footsteps on the financial front and not beef up the

Regulatory Agencies, no Wall Street or major corporate indictments, military action somewhere to satisfy the MIC, and throw in a few good social bones for the masses. Sorry I am so cynical because I will vote for Hillary if it's her vs. any Republican.

We have got to get rid of campaign contributions!

[Wella]

8. Do you think she should be a contender at all?

I'm no fan of Hillary and the re-emergence of Monica Lewinsky this year certainly gave me pause. But, the woman has more experience than many men who have run for the office, including the current President. Doesn't she have the right to run on her record?

[JDPriestly]

28. Her record is mostly Bill's record and it seemed good at the time, but the afteraste

was bitter. The Telecommunications Act, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, "reform" of welfare (impoverished women working for less than the cost of their kids' day care), NAFTA (and the exportation of our industrial base), the dot-com boom and then the bust, and on and on.

And then there is Hillary's own love of war.

She is great on women and children's issues (if you forget welfare reform and I don't know where she stands on common core and charter schools) but outside of that????

We can do better. No experience is better than bad experience.

[Wella]

33. She was Secretary of State and a Senator

To claim that she is just "Mrs. Bill" is inaccurate at this point. You may not like her performance as Senator or Secretary of State, but you can't deny that she has the experience.

[JDPriestly]

41. Her service as Secretary of State was in my opinion good, but since then she has come across

as an even worse war-mongerer than I thought possible. And she will be blamed for every one of the inevitable and unavoidable international crises that we are going to have to deal with in the next few years.

A person just about has to choose between being secretary of state or being president these days.

May not seem fair to Hillary supporters, but it is the reality.

And that is my big problem with Hillary. I don't think she can win -- not in reality -- unless the Republicans nominate someone who is so bound to lose that it doesn't make much difference who we run. Yet, I think Hillary and her allegiance to her corporate donors could do a lot of damage to ordinary Americans and certainly would not adequately represent them if in the White House again.

[Wella]

42. Now that's legit: you don't like her policies

And that's a very good reason for wanting someone else to run. Who's on your short list, if you had your druthers?

[JDPriestly]

47. I like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders so far.

I think it is time for Americans to hear some truly progressive alternatives.

I think both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders strongly support not just working people, but also small business owners and employees. And they, the owners and employees of small businesses are the voters who have been hit the hardest by our economic recession. They have not recovered yet. Many of them never will. They need to hear what progressive ideas could do to help them.

Small business owners bear an unfair share of the tax burden. They bear an unfair cost of the damage to the environment that big businesses impose on all of us.

I think that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders message of fairness, economic justice, American values like rewarding hard work and not just social and business connections, making wealthy people play fair and pay their taxes, etc. would work better for America and appeal surprisingly well to voters. So i would like to see them run.

There may be other potential candidates that I don't know about, but I think Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders should get our support.

I'm tilted a bit more toward Elizabeth Warren if she decides to run. But Bernie really seems to be thinking about throwing his hat in the ring. Talk about experience and understanding the issues. Bernie cannot be beat. You might listen to him on his weekly appearance on Thom Hartmann's show. It's available on the internet. I listen to it on KPFK.

Accusations that the Hillary critics would support Rand Paul are just silly, just absurd. Would never happen. Paul's economic views are repugnant to the Democrats who do not support Hillary. Rand Paul would not have a chance with us. Nor would any other Republican.

If Hillary is the candidate, I will sit it out. I'm that opposed to her nomination. She made a mess of her campaign (with a lot of help from Bill Clinton) in 2008, and I don't think she could do better today.

It isn't so much that she is rich although she is. It's that she has no idea about how much richer she is than most Americans. She is just so used to the beltway and New York elite that the plight of middle America has escaped her. She cannot relate to it. Her statement to the effect of something about a family income of $200,000 or $150,000 being middle class -- and therefore should not be subject to payroll taxes. That may be accurate in New York City, Northern Virginia or parts of California (but not even in those places) but it is way off the mark for most of the US especially the South.

No. Hillary should not be the candidate. Elizabeth Warren would be excellent. Bernie Sanders would also be great. Depends on who is willing to risk running. Bernie Sanders knows and understands everything about middle America and has far more experience with regard to the issues than any other potential candidate in either party. Elizabeth Warren has warmth, charm and deep understanding of the economic issues that are strangling most American families. But Elizabeth Warren is not making the same moves to run that Hillary and Bernie Sanders are. They are going to Iowa and New Hampshire in the next few weeks.

Sorry. I'm long-winded and I type fast so I submit long posts. If you didn't make it through to the end, that's fine. I probably repeated myself. It is 12:55 a.m. here in L.A. No, I don't drink. I'm just tired.

[Wella]

50. My hope is that people with principles can keep them in Washington

I like Warren as well, but Washington does something to people. It's like the royal court at Versailles inside the Beltway. Creatures of Washington forget that the rest of us are not eating cake; in fact they have no clue what is going on in the average person's life. I imagine it's quite difficult to keep one's head and one's principles in that environment. Bernie Sanders has been consistent in his beliefs, but my fear is that people see him like they used to see Dennis Kucinich, almost as some kind of joke (especially after his UFO revelation.) If Bernie gets more than Kucinich's 5% of the primary vote, I'll actually have some hope for him.

Hillary is most definitely a creature of Washington, however. That is enough to give one pause.

[JDPriestly]

52. Studying the miserable economic situations of people who declare bankruptcy was Elizabeth Warren's

work. She has written books on the struggles of ordinary working Americans. And she is great with numbers. That is why I hope she will run.

She is also an impassioned debater and speaker. She would make a great candidate. She does not have the years of experience in D.C. that Bernie Sanders has, but from what I can tell she also has the passion and integrity and devotion to American values that Bernie Sanders has. They would make a great team, but she is from Massachusetts and he is from Vermont. The geographical concentration of a Warren/Sanders ticket probably would not be viewed well by the politically savvy.

[Wella]

53. Yes, a Warren/Sanders ticket might be seen as a Northeast Liberal ticket.

A shame, really. I remember Warren's speeches on the vanishing wealth of the middle class. As long as she stays true to that, we might have a chance. My guess, though, is that the party wants to appear less activist to the vast middle. Hillary is establishment at the moment, and her being female is old news. I don't know how the party intends to position itself in 2016. And there's also the chance that Biden will run.

[leftynyc]

61. I love both Sanders and Warren

and believe they would lose 40 states.

[Wella]

195. Pity, isn't it.

[A Simple Game]

169. Northeast Liberal ticket? I will take that over a Texas Conservative ticket any day. n/t

[Wella]

194. :Grin: I think the party is worried about the rest of the country

They don't trust those Northeastern elites!

[cui bono]

234. "The party" should just run on what is good policy for "the people".

It's idiotic if they are thinking that way. It's been very clear that a populist movement will get the people out from all over the country. "The party" simply isn't working for the people anymore and until we change our campaign finance structure and our lobbying structure both parties will always be working for TPTB.

[winter is coming]

239. We focus too much on personalities and not enough on policies.

It's true there are poor salesmen, but there's also substandard merchandise. We should focus first on what people want and then choose someone who's good at selling it. X might be the top salesman at the local Chevy dealer, but if I've had a long string of disappointing experiences with GM cars, I might not even set foot on the lot.

[JDPriestly]

256. Bush/Cheney come to mind?

[eridani]

69. Lizzie Warren had the facts

That gave big bankers heart attacks
When they saw what she had done
Everyone said "Run, Liz, run!"

[closeupready]

90. Haha, that's good!

[JDPriestly]

134. Wonderful! May I quote you?

[eridani]

145. Sure! I want to spread the meme n/t

[Enthusiast]

138. Bernie Sanders didn't claim to see a UFO.

And many of us on DU loved Dennis Kucinich.

[Wella]

196. No, Kucinich did. (Weird. punctuation. My bad.)

He never really had a chance.

[Enthusiast]

205. Kucinich never claimed the UFO was piloted by aliens.

He didn't know what it was, hence, unidentified.

Now that we see the results of stealth technology and drone technology, any claim of woo pertaining to past UFO sightings should be completely dismissed.

That's right. Drop the woo shit. Don't make fun of anyone claiming to have seen a UFO in the past. They probably were viewing an experimental drone or weirdly shaped stealth fighter. Their sightings were valid! They weren't crazy!

[Wella]

229. I never he said he made that claim. Please check with what was actually posted

If you want to attack me on something I actually said, fine. But don't attack on something that was never said.

(Note to mariah: is this the kind of thing you alert on? Or do posters solve this kind of thing themselves? I'm not really sure.)

[Enthusiast]

230. Attack?

LOL!

[Wella]

231. Yes. And not based on anything that was posted.

Enthusiast:

"That's right. Drop the woo shit. Don't make fun of anyone claiming to have seen a UFO in the past. They probably were viewing an experimental drone or weirdly shaped stealth fighter. Their sightings were valid! They weren't crazy!"

Wella:

That's an attack, kid. Own it.

(And it was based on nothing that was posted.)

[Enthusiast]

241. I wasn't directing those words at you, specifically.

I meant those words for all the anti-Kucinich assholes® that pop up on DU denigrating him for saying he saw a UFO. Sorry if you took offense. I can see how I didn't make myself clear.

But I still don't think it rose to the level of an "attack".

[Wella]

250. Since the reply was to me, I had no choice but to assume that the remarks in it were addressed to me

I didn't realize you were replying to people not present in the interaction.

[LittleGirl]

151. *stands and applauds*

that was a brilliant post. I agree completely.

[Bohunk68]

210. Thank you, JDP.

You often post pretty much what I think and as a result, I post little. Why post if it has already been said? I admire Bernie a lot and have for many years. He has his shit together. Hillary, well, even though I am a NY resident and she did fairly well as our Senator, I don't care for the catering to the rich and well-connected. Nor do I support constant funding of the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians. Warren is climbing on that band wagon and that is a huge problem to me. I want a genuine left candidate, no more of this Repub-lite shit.

[JDPriestly]

127. It's also instinctive. But the policies are the reason that I dare express my ideas

about her. The policies combined with just a sense of who she would be in the White house. And what Republicans would do with her there. They will play her like a violin. And she will react. I just am very opposed to her nomination. I think she is a good person and could do a lot of wonderful things in the world outside the White House. But she is not right for the job, and her policies are not right for America, not now.

We need new ideas, new approaches not just on issues but to the entire purpose and working of our government.

Republicans have done enormous damage to the idea of self-government, to the idea of working together on issues in which we all have a stake, issues that may ultimately mean life or death for many of us. Like Social Security, Medicare, student loans, healthcare subsidies, healthcare and environmental research, our infrastructure, safe water and air and so many things. I cannot picture Hillary effectively pressuring Republicans to recognize the environmental threat and our need to work together on so many issues. She represents the worst their imaginations can conjure up in so many areas. There is utterly no point in nominating her. She is a red flag to the Republican bullies.

Nominating her would be a very foolish thing to do.

[grahamhgreen]

144. Feingold

[ieoeja]

104. "since then she has come across as an even worse war-mongerer"?

Lest we forget, Obama disavowed himself of his Secretary of State's words on multiple occasions during her tenure at State precisely because of her war-mongering.

In addition to that, the Special Envoy to the Middle East reported directly to the White House while she was Secretary. He was returned to State as soon as Kerry became Secretary. So they pulled her responsibility for the world's hot spot while she was there. Clearly, they did not trust her.

Her primary opponents should be able to make mincemeat of her after her time as Secretary of State.

[JDPriestly]

126. Wow! It' worse than I thought. I'm moving to some extent on my political

instincts. But her record, her demeanor, her words, just not a good choice, not at all. It would not be wise to nominate her. Really not wise.

[Man from Pickens]

103. I am a personal witness to how she got the title of Senator

In New York State, the Democratic primary determines the outcome of the Senate race, even more so because her opponent was the incredibly insignificant Rick Laslo.

The way the NY Democratic Party works, except for this one instance, is on a "next man up" principle - the people who have served in lesser offices, who have spent decades of their lives supporting the party and advancing its goals, those are the people who get the nominations for higher office - as it should be.

Except in this case. Hillary carpetbagged her way into town and outright intimidated the would-be Democratic nominee (Nita Lowey) out of a Senate seat. It was a mafia-style operation.

Lowey would probably still be a Senator today if not for this incident. It sent shockwaves through the party and created a base of Democrats in New York who will not support Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

[newfie11]

58. +++++infinity nt

[Legalequilibrium78]

66. I'll gladly and enthusiastically support and promote

Hillary Clinton's record over any body else on either party. Having no experience is better than having someone with a bad experience? Like wtf is that supposed to mean? Can you cite one historic figure that became the U.S. president? If that is the criteria most people, here based their selection on many aspiring political candidates, I say good luck on that one.

If John Kerry(who also voted for IWR II) who not only managed to get past the supposedly hated IWR resolution but end up winning to become the Democratic party's nominee; then I say Hillary Clinton has more than the best chance of winning the nomination to become the next Democratic party's nominee to the presidency. So for you non-Hillary supporters out there you have your work cut out for you. Get your ground game starting already and make sure your candidate(s) will have a squeeky clean record, foresight, and flawless judgment(none exist). Simply put, the Democratic party will have one of it's best nominee for the presidency in a very long time, in Hillary R. Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

149. H. Clinton has shown that she lacks integrity. Sorry, but that's a deal breaker. nm

[MADem]

225. WHAT?

She was a Senator who was elected TWICE (for longer than Obama was--and that's all he did on the national stage; being a state legislator in a part-time legislature doesn't provide much in the way of national/international work experience), she served on some KEY committees, most importantly the SASC (which was a HUGE 'get' for a junior/female senator, FWIW), to say nothing of Budget, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and a bunch of other sub-committees, and she was the Secretary of State--that is the most SENIOR Cabinet position, BTW -- for the world's leading superpower...and you're saying her record was mostly her husband's?

What in hell does a woman have to do to get any respect around here?

Talk about twice the work to get half the credit!!!!

Her husband took the White House from being a frigging governor, as did GW Bush. No cabinet positions for either one of them....Hands down, she's got a superb portfolio. And that's not even counting her eight years as First Lady/Unpaid Advisor/Observer of How Everything Works from a Catbird Perch. And let's not even go into her work in the House of Representatives during Watergate.

You can like her, or not, but you cannot say she is anything but one of the most QUALIFIED people to potentially run for the Presidency in a very long time.

DAMN. I'm just stunned at that mostly Bill's record crack.

[A Simple Game]

168. She has a right to run, period. Not that I want to see her run, but she has that right.

Over 300 million people in this country and some still want to support a known loser. I certainly hope there is better out there.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Tell me, what are your true feelings toward Big Sister?

You hate her. Good.

Then the time has come for you to take the last step. You must love Big Sister.

It is not good enough to obey her; you must love her.

[Scootaloo]

10. Anyone who proclaims victory over an empty field is a loser

And this is what Clinton and her supporters are doing. "There's no one else running for president in 2014! she's a shoo-in!"

i shopped around a lot in 2007-08. i initially hoped for Kucinich - long shot, but i'm a leftists before anything else and he was hte best shot on that one. Then? I was behind John Edwards.Then Joe Biden. And htne barack obama.

And i remember how I was apparently a woman-hater who only wanted to see a "first black president" according to Clinton's supporters at the time. Barack Obama was unelectable! he's a nobody! he's brown! he's got a funny name! He's not tough on terror! In 2008, the Clinton camp was hard to tell apart from the McCain camp for me. it looked liked old man McLosesPlanes had two dog-whistling republican women as his running mates.

I haven't forgotten the absolute shit treatment I got from these "people' for supporting "THAT ONE!" over the chosen One, the Anointed Heir, because It's Her Turn Dammit!™

and then Obama got the nomination, these PUMA sorts ripped their pointy hoods off and let us all see what they were really about... I don't imagine these people have changed themselves very much in the last six years. And I know Clinton has not made so many noteworthy achievements as to overwhelm and replace that original completely toxic fan base. So pretty much all the people telling us of her inevitability now, are the same ones who crashed and burned in such a loathsome, epic fashion six years ago, and they are pretty much all going to be the same loathsome, toxic people they were back then.

if I wanted a president who rides such a group to the office, I would want president Lieberman. In fact I'm almost certain that this is what I will get if Clinton should win.

[SheilaT]

19. Oh, boy. You are bringing back a lot of bad memories.

I do recall quite clearly the viciousness of some Hillary supporters back then who did not seem to care at all if the Republican -- John McCain that year -- were to be elected, so long as they made their point about the purity of the PUMAs.

I'm guessing that many of them have simply been hibernating in a rather literal way all these years. They haven't a clue that some things out there in the world have changed. All they know is that NOW IS THE TIME FOR HILLARY, and to hell with anything else. The scary thing is that there are enough of them, and they are vocal enough, that they are convincing the low information Democrats that it's all okay, she's the right candidate now.

And as I've mentioned already, what they present as their strongest point, that she's been thoroughly vetted, is in reality the very weakest point of a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy. Every single thing that was ever brought up about her before will not only be brought up again, but will truly stick this time, because repetition will make it true.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. Yes, the PUMA's we're WAYYY over the top. Will never forget the venom they spit and their utter contempt for Obama...it was disgusting.

[LittleGirl]

154. I used to follow a PUMA's writers blog

and after Hillary stepped down, she went for McCain and Palin. I was shocked. Shocked I tell you.
It was the most racist thing I could imagine.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Because she's being forced on us. Everyone else has been pushed aside

by the Democratic party and the media. It's her turn and she will not be denied. Her pathetic sycophants in Congress were already declaring their allegiance to her months ago.

[murielm99]

16. As far as I am concerned,

Obama was forced on us, too.

Are you involved in party politics at all? I remember how all the organizations in Illinois were forced to endorse him, even before the primary. Most organizations have a policy NOT to endorse before the primary. When I helped keep Illinois Democratic Women from endorsing him before the primary (per our bylaws), there were some angry Obama people on my ass. I did not care then, and I don't care now.

Iowa had some people who forced things at the caucuses, too, such as closing doors before everyone was in. My daughter was a caucus leader there.

And there were some people on DU who tried to get Hillary's supporters banned for supporting her. They used mass alerts, for one thing. I had long time members telling me to STFU, in those words, and no one ever called them on it.

I did not join any PUMAs or any other groups after Obama won the nomination. I went out and worked for him.

Gripe all you want. I will support the nominee, as always.

[SheilaT]

21. I used to be more involved in party politics

than I am now. I even ran for office (Kansas State House) in 2008. I lost, and have since moved to another state. I wouldn't ban Hillary supporters, were I dictator of DU, but I sincerely wish they'd pay attention to the real world. Right now it feels as if all the Hillary advocates are telling the rest of us to STFU, because after all, she's inevitable. It's scary. She's not truly inevitable, but if too many people buy into that idea, she will be. And she'll lose. I keep on being reminded of the whole Social Security isn't viable meme. A good forty years ago I had age mates who believed SS would not be around when they retired. Guess what? We're all retired now and SS is still here. As it should be. As it should be forty years from now. But if enough young people are convinced it won't be, then they'll be happy to let it be taken from them.

DO NOT buy into any inevitability scheme. Never.

[JDPriestly]

37. I just cannot support Hillary. I'm in California. As I have said before, if she cannot win here,

she cannot win anywhere. I don't have to vote for her. I don't want to have to share in the responsibility for her presidency because she will not make a good president.

Obama is good-natured and was not associated with the many bills that Bill Clinton signed that have damaged our country. Obama did not vote for the War in Iraq based on lies that, had he known what Hillary Clinton must have known (having just moved out of the White House) should have been obvious. And if they weren't obvious, a little research on Hillary's part should have shown her that the build-up to the Iraq War was a know full of lies.

I just don't think Hillary will make a good president.

[NYC_SKP]

96. Agree on every point. I just can't accept her, I'm too old for any more of this shit.

Obama has been incredibly effective, considering. Can't agree on every action, but I feel that we'd be in terrible shape had she become president.

Bill's tenure was good for the economy, but not in a sustainable way-- it was a bubble.

We need someone far better than Hillary Clinton.

[Zorra]

12. Swear fealty to Hillary now, or you will be

forever known as a troll slave for Paul.

[zappaman]

13. Maybe it's you.

I don't feel that way at all.
No one has declared they are running so how could someone be forced on me?
Not to mention, no candidate can be forced on me if I don't want them to.

And, just to be clear, I am not a fan of HRC and did not vote for her the last time she ran.
However, unlike many on this site, I am not overcome with Hillary hatred.

[Skittles]

17. preemptive outrage

it's getting more and more predictible

[JDPriestly]

39. Both Hillary and Bernie Sanders are making test visits to Iowa and New Hampshire in the coming

week. Hillary v. Bernie -- at least the issues that Americans need to think about will be discussed. I wish Bernie well. I want to see how he does. I hope he will make a lot of friends and become a strong candidate, maybe win.

I don't think people hate Hillary. I for one just don't think she would make a good president. I'm sure she is a nice person. Her stands for women and children are commendable. She just, in my view, would make neither a good candidate nor a good president. I have explained why in great detail so many times and it is so late tonight, that I will pass on writing a long post on my thoughts on this.

But I don't think anyone hates Hillary. Not wanting someone to run does not equal hating that person. Hillary and Bill do a lot of good charitable work. That is great. But Hillary should not try to run again. Her time to run is past. The OP is correct. Her candidacy will just be a review of all the mistakes of the Clintons -- the Clinton administration, etc. Every negative foreign policy development will be blamed on Hillary. It may not be fair, but that is what will happen.

We have some really good potential candidates. Elizabeth Warren comes across to the public very well. She can explain complex issues in terms everyone can understand. (So can Bernie Sanders.) Elizabeth Warren is energetic and not worn out. Both she and Bernie have great empathy and excellent values. Elizabeth Warren has great ideas about our economy. She knows a lot about whey our economy is so bad. Her career was studying bankruptcy law and why people declare bankruptcy. She would be able to respond on economic issues to the entire Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan nonsense. Bernie Sanders has the experience and the broad understanding of the issues to make a great candidate. In fact, Bernie Sanders is probably the candidate with the most valuable mixture of understanding of the issues, compassion for ordinary people, the ability to find solutions for difficult problems,, patience, character, humility and everything we need in a president. He also has a Brooklyn accent -- and is a man. I think a lot of people want a woman as president in 2016. That is one of the reasons the Party big-wigs are pushing Hillary. She is one of them. They know her. She really, really, really wants the honor of the nomination. And so they support her thinking she will raise a lot of money. I have actually heard that from a very, very active Democrats: It has to be Hillary because only she has the money to run.

Nonsense. When only a person with a lot of money raised can run on behalf of one of our two political parties, we no longer have a representative democracy. We have an oligarchy, pure and simple, The ideas and needs of us little people don't count for much at all. Might as well just stay home if a candidate who has integrity and is the best qualified is not supported by the Democratic Party because he or she does not have a treasure chest of corporate money behind him or her.

[obxhead]

14. I regret that I have just one rec to give.

Hillary 2016 is a Republican win regardless of who takes the white house..

[Veilex]

44. Exactly right!

[Cha]

15. I remember it all.. but I don't feel Hillary is being forced on me.. she and her supporters

can say and do what they want but I know how things can change on a freaking dime.. two fun filled years away and I'm only concerned with the 2014 Midterm Elections.. but hoping that this doesn't suck all the air out of what's important in November 2014.

[murielm99]

18. Thank you!

I am out working hard for the midterms. For example, tomorrow night, I will be phone banking to reelect Governor Quinn in Illinois. His opponent, a rich one per center and hedge fund manager, stands a chance of winning. He is throwing all his money at the election. He would be a disaster.

[Cha]

20. Thank you, murielm! Good Luck to Gov Quinn!

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

22. Why do I feel like the endless parade of posts about '16 here

when we're a scant two months away from a crucial midterm are just a curiously self-absorbed exercise of taking soundings in an echo chamber? I don't support her either, at all, but your non-support or mine or anybody else's of this or any other yet-to-declare candidate is pretty much the dictionary definition of "meaningless" at this point in time.

Yeah, I remember the future, thanks. It's on November 4.

[joshcryer]

23. I think people look to Hillary due to nearly 16 years of failed leadership.

And I say this being an Obama supporter and thinking he's had to deal with so much crap and obstruction not just from the right but in his own party and in particular by his own supporters. I think as an academic he doesn't have the leadership experience and I think his bipartisan calm headed nature leads him to listen to the other side and take them at their word.

Clinton is seen as a hawkish, not taking shit from nobody, type of person. Even when she is very cordial, even when she is very quiet, calm mannered, people still view her as that kind of partisan. And that is good for her politically. We see glimpses of that really politically strategic nature in private moments when she "cackles" about a political or strategic win.

So while Clinton is undoubtedly "the past," it's seen as a good thing.

I still think there's a 50/50 chance she doesn't run. But if she does, it's hers to lose.

[No Vested Interest]

24. In 2008 I was involved in another Democratic site

whose name I don't even recall.

However, I do recall great ruckus and bad feelings among the posters regarding and including PUMAs.
At the time I favored Hillary over Barack, but when he won the primaries I made a fairly easy transition to Sen. Obama, but many at that site did not, and the wars went on and on.

I believe all the infighting brought the site down.

Now I believe that Hillary's time has past for the Presidency.
Frankly, she's a little long in the teeth, and don't believe she will excite the younger generations, who are sorely needed, if the Dems are to win the Presidency. I can make that statement re age in good conscience, in that I am older than Hillary and know well that in the 21st century a President in his/her 70's is not what we and the world needs or wants.

I feel the same about Joe Biden, whom I like and admire.

Not sure who's next on the bench - O'Malley?

[blackspade]

25. I'm with you on this.

Hillary is not the candidate for me.
I think she is a step backward politically and socially.

[akbacchus_BC]

26. You do not have to vote for her if you do not want to. I cannot

imagine a country so huge and it is a two-party system! I do not think you have any recourse, either not vote and then the rethugs will get it. That speel is so old but there is no other option!

If I were an American, I could never vote for Hilary! I remember how she attacked President Obama, she lied about Bosnia and she is a corporate person.

Thing is, lesser of two evils and remember the supreme court. Have no idea how much you all under pressure to vote for the inevitable. Hilary should just leave the political scenario and leave someone else more smarter to lead, she is not ready!

Just my humble opinion!

[cantbeserious]

32. Almost All States Support Write In Ballots

eom

[SheilaT]

35. Oh, trust me. I won't vote for her.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. I still say this pick would flip out the Republicans...

[akbacchus_BC]

29. The Republicans hate her, don't you remember, but am glad we get

to see the occasional pic of a great lady, intelligent too. I admire President Obama and his family!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. People forget she also studied law.

[Veilex]

45. Huh... yeah, I'd vote for her over HRC.

[davidpdx]

59. She's too smart to run

She is seeing first hand what it is doing to her husband in terms of the stress. I personally would support her in anything else she did as I think she is a great person.

[JustAnotherGen]

207. Amen

And after the hostility this woman has experienced from some quarters - this country doesn't deserve her.

[Oldenuff]

30. Why do I feel like Hillary is being forced on me?

Probably because she is.

Foisted upon us by a party that is no longer progressive.Instead the Democratic leadership has become GOP Lite...instead of right wing whackos.

She has experience..it's true..but the kind of experience she has,I don't want.

You wait.What we want don't mean squat.She will be foisted upon us,and then we will be called upon to be good little Democrats and support the candidate chosen for us.

Sweet huh?..just like always.Gotta win,and if the candidate is not what the membership wants..oh well,at least you didn't vote Republican.

[akbacchus_BC]

34. The thing is that the Democrats is not for the working class! How can you

vote for a person who does not represent you? All in all, they into corporations that are killing uniions. I could never vote for a candidate who wants to get rid of unions!

[Veilex]

46. I'm quite sure you meant to say "Republicans" instead of "Democrats"

Dems are largely pro Union, and Repubs and largely anti Union.
... or were you referring to HRC?

[jeff47]

86. We dropped the ball.

You wait.What we want don't mean squat.She will be foisted upon us,and then we will be called upon to be good little Democrats and support the candidate chosen for us.

We dropped the ball. We stopped showing up for primaries. We stopped working for local candidates. As a result, we were left with the candidates that the leadership favors.

It's going to take time to fix that. It's also going to take a lot of effort on our part. We need to build a stable of "lower office" liberals, who will then get elected to higher offices. We're not going to be able to jump straight to president. And even if we could, a liberal president with a conservative Congress isn't going to be getting anything liberal done.

Crazy Republicans understand this dynamic, which is why they've managed to drag their party so far to the right. It's time we understood it too.

[cantbeserious]

31. Agreed - We Need To Move Forward

eom

[lexington filly]

38. Disagree Hillary was an "abject failure in 2008.

Long before Pres Obama gave his rock star speech at the Dem Convention, I remarked to my father that a black man would be elected President before this country would ever elect a woman--any woman. That was my take on our culture as a feminist. As it happens, I supported Obama over Hillary but not because I saw so much difference between their policy ideas but because I mistakenly believed the Clintons caused so much divisiveness in our country and Obama truly offered hope our politics, etc. could change. Since he was elected, I've learned it doesn't matter which Democrat is elected, Republicans will bring democracy to a screeching halt and spread hate and disinformation.

While I want to see a woman in the White House, I find it really concerning that this one is backed by the Third Way which I regard as a breed of moderate-ish Republican. Also, think competition from the left is desperately needed. Everybody likes a choice. Human nature. I like and respect Hillary. I'd like to "love" my candidate though, like I did Obama.

[davidpdx]

62. I disagree a bit

I'd rephrase what the OP said and say her campaign was an abstract failure instead of her personally. She certainly had the money and good support behind her to run a good campaign. The people she hired for her campaign was a good deal of the problem as well as their horrid strategy.

I think it had nothing to do directly with a woman getting elected before an AA, but the fact that our party had two competitive candidates who both looking to break a barrier that had not been broken before. Personally I would like to see a woman elected in my life time (it would be nice if it happened in my mom's lifetime and she's in her late 60's).

I hope you'll post more often as it would be good to hear from you.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Ah, Come on. DU come primary time is -always- a Defcon 5 level clusterfuck.

We obviously had a reprieve last time, you know, incumbent POTUS and all.

But 2004? 2008? my advice is to sit back, crack a cold one, enjoy the ride.

I'm going to let the primary process play out. Hell, I may vote for her in the primaries, even- but it won't be because someone told me I have to.

And conversely, I won't not vote for her because someone assured me that as a real whatever, I'm not allowed to.

I don't know who that kind of shit works with, but it's not me.

[cstanleytech]

43. Agreed and besides for all we know she might just decide not to even run so its all premature until

she makes the decision on if she wants to enter the race or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Of course. But if I'm to be totally honest

She's running. I'll eat my hat if she doesn't.

[cstanleytech]

102. I want video of that if it happens

[MFM008]

49. Its simple

vote for the democrat nominee. If they lose you will have fun filled years that will make Bush/Cheney look like a liberal. If you say ----well that IS Hillary, please dont be stupid. Go, throw your vote away and watch the gop ruin/run the world.
It doesnt matter if she was born in 1900, if shes the nominee I will vote for her. You gotta take who is nominated or dont.....go sit and whine in the corner.

[jonjensen]

51. This is why hillary

This is why hillary 2016: Mcgovern 1972 republican landslide Mondale 1984 republican landslide. Warren to smart to listen to syrens. Hillary appeals to hispanics democratic partys future along with other minorities. Every month a 100,000 minority kids turn 18(voting age) It took ross perot to get bubba elected in 1992! Why do you thing the gophers are always trying to prevent minorities from voting and not white liberals?

[merrily]

57. Sounds like pure DLC/Third Way/New Democrat.

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 07:29 AM - Edit history (1)

You don't think choosing Eagleton as VP had a thing to do with McGovern's loss? Or the fact that Nixon had served two terms as VP and one term as President?

Or anything else that happened in the 1960s? Parents of kids--most of whom had lived through World War II, watching their kids burn flags, use drugs, call cops pigs and associating all that with Dems?

Nooooo, the 1972 landslide was simply about McGovern being left of center. Ergo, Dems should go as far right as they possibly can.

Sorry, that tunnel vision view of history in general, politics in general and the 1972 race in particular, just doesn't work.

BTW, Gov. Wallace, a Democrat who thought the Party was too far left for him, also lost in 1972 and by a hell of a lot more votes than did McGovern.

Besides, it is not 1972 anymore. Depending upon your point of view, Gore, a center right guy, lost in 2000 or won only very, very narrowly.Obama ran to Hillary's left in 2008 and also won by a landslide-including the state of Indiana. Until McCain named Palin, Obama was even leading McCain in Alaska.

Funny how the only lessons the right draws from any election is to go further right.

Edit: As to Wallace, I meant his run in 1968.

[jonjensen]

128. What is your excuse for mondale?

Mondale had no such problems going for him and still lost so did dukakis gore. Bush appealed to hispanics in 2004 and got 44% of hispanic vote kerry and unions hesitated lost! I want democrats in white house what do you want?

[merrily]

198. Excuse? I posted a substantive reply, which you ignored. For what do I need an excuse?

Since you chose to go that way, though, what is your excuse for ignoring everything in my post, criticizing me for what I did not address, then bringing up an entirely new point? What about what you never addressed?

I offer you this deal. Support your own claim that McGovern and Mondale lost those elections because they were liberals rather than simply posting a meme and expecting it to go unchallenged. Then rebut my points about why a tunnel vision view of the McGovern run doesn't prove that McGovern lost because he was a liberal. That is only respectful of the effort that I put into my prior post. Then, ask me to discuss the Mondale loss. (The Mondale loss ainst the Gipper, former head of the actors' union, former friendly host of of a respected television show, like GE Theater, that came into America's living rooms every week when there were only 3 networks competing for the attention of all Americans, and former Governor of California, after Americans had to wait on line for gas under a Democratic President, years of the hostage crisis, etc.--I imagine some of those things impacted Mondale's run, as well as Lee Atwater etc.)

I will then be happy to examine more fully whether Mondale ran as a liberal at alll; and, if so, whether Mondale lost to the Gipper because Mondale was a liberal and not for other reasons.

I know the claims about Mondale and McGovern were convenient claims for conservative Democrats to make, especially those who wanted to run for the Presidency from Southern states. However, they do not stand up to analysis, unless you use tunnel vision.

As for When Kerry ran for President, Kerry was then a member of the Senate New Democrat Caucus; i.e., not holding himself out as a liberal at all. And Kerry had the endorsement of the DLC when he ran. The DLC endorsement had originally gone to Lieberman, who had been a founding member of the DLC. However, I see that as a courtesy given Lieberman because it was clear that Lieberman never had a chance at the nom.

When Lieberman dropped out, which was relatively early in the primary, New Democrat Kerry got the DLC endorsement for that primary. So, Kerry never ran for President as a lliberal. Also, Kerry was from the Northeast in general and Massachusetts in particular, a region and a state that many political analysts had considered a dead zone for Presidents after the South went solid red.

Besides, some think that election was also stolen, though in a different state. So, the Kerry run is like the Gore run, not like the McGovern run. IOW, it hurts the meme rather than helping it.

Reagan was the reason that the Democratic Party just had to go right in order to win Presidential elections. Since Reagan though, several New Democrats ran for President as New Democrats. They were Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Of those three, only Clinton won. In 2008, Obama ran to the left of Hillary. (For purposes of this analysis, it does not matter if Obama is in fact to Hillary's left. All that matters is whether voters perceived him as to Hillary's left; and they did.)

Hillary lost the primary in 2008 and Obama won the general.

After he won in 2008, Obama said he, too, was a New Democrat. Then, he won in 2012. However, by then, he was unopposed in the primary and a war time incumbent-and no war time incumbent has ever lost a Presidential election in the US. Besides, there was that handy recording of Romney dissing 47% of Americans, including vets and seniors.

So, since Reagan, New Democrats have not proven their point about needing to go right to win Presidential elections at all. Still, the meme gets repeated as though its truth were self-evident. It isn't. It requires proof, and that is lacking.

[Enthusiast]

143. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

Of course They® want us to move to the right.

[eridani]

71. What might have happend in 1972 had the Democratic leadership not decided to support Nixon?

Mondale is no way in hell progressive. Hillary appealing to minorities when she refuses to say jackshit about Ferguson?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

167. I think you're refering to the Dixiecrat wing of the party

That's my memory of 1972.

[eridani]

197. The entire leadership actively worked against McGovern

Also changed the selection rules to allow for much less popular input into nominations.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

227. Even if what you say is true

(and I was not old enough to vote at the time) given the lopsided result I think Nixon still would have won.

That was the beginning of the Republican southern strategy. Nixon went after those Democrats who voted for George Wallace in 1968.

[eridani]

253. Probably true, but the election would have been much closer n/t

[Sancho]

54. I will vote for the Democratic candidate...

I remember that we could have easily avoided Bush for 8 years. Obama wasn't my first choice and he doesn't always please me, but it's a lot better than having Romney as President.

We don't really know what Hillary would do as President, but if she wins the nomination I'll vote for her.

[Kalidurga]

55. I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I won't vote for her in the primaries.

It's time for someone new. That is all.

[ReRe]

56. Why do you feel like that???

Because that is what is happening right now here on DU. Allot of our stalwart DUers are away on vacation and the "only Hillary will do" crowd are coming out and taking advantage of the situation. I try to stay out of the fray and let them go at it. Anyone or any group that comes out attacking Democrats on DU over this at this point in time (she hasn't even announced yet!) shows that it's dirty power-grab politics. It's like freeperville around here in the last couple days. Shame on them.

Wonder what they think about the despicable cover-up over at the VA. Let's hear them defend that!

[davidpdx]

63. I agree with one slight difference

I think Clinton's campaign was an abject failure, not her personally. She certainly had the money and backing, but hired some people who had no business being on a national campaign. I also didn't support her in 2008 and won't this time.

I do agree that certain individuals are pumping the Hillary Rahrah© (a nickle for everytime that is used) 24/7 which gets annoying. Some are pointing out aggressively that no one else is talking about running. Well newsflash for them, not even Hillary has announced.

Don't forget the "she's the only one that can beat Republicans" (I suppose that's nice if you like Republican talking points)

Then you have the people spouting BS that Obama was forced on them (talk about revisionist history).

Frankly I do know plenty of people (including myself) who want someone other than Clinton as our nominee. I'll carefully look at each person and decide.

In March of 2007 I was looking at both Edwards and Obama. After a few weeks I decided to back Obama and am glad I did.

[sendero]

64. The problem is.

.... the presidency has become like a management job at a company I used to work for.

As a coworker so succinctly put it "anyone qualified to do that job would not want it".

It's not like there is going to be a smorgasbord of quality selections here, it will be slim pickings because it is designed that way.

[merrily]

65. Apparently, we fought a revolution to get away from the monarchy in 1776,

only to consider both the Oval Office (and some of Congress) a family business by 2012.

Why do I feel like Hillary is being forced on me?

Why?

Even before the 2012 election, every "professional" Democrat I heard--even some professional Republicans, were either saying outright that Hillary would be the nominee (or the the elected President) or talking as though that were already a done deal. (By "professional," I mean people who are politicians, who are related to the DNC or RNC or who make a living because of politics, like the people at FOX and MSNBC, pundits, strategists, etc.)

Not only did they act like the nomination was a done deal, they also said it was a done deal that no one would challenge her in a primary: if she chose to run, she'd "clear the field."

Never in my life have I seen or even heard of such talk about any candidate in any party over four years out from a Presidential.

So, if you've been feeling as though Hillary is being forced on you, you may just be right. And you are not alone.

I think the Party may be getting the message that voters want a primary, not a coronation. Whether there will be (a) any primary at all, or (b) a hard fought primary, as in 2008, or (c)a dog and pony show to placate those objecting to a coronation or an anointing remains to be seen.

[MohRokTah]

67. Hilary Clinton lost in 2008 because Barack Obama was capable of raising more money than she.

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Hilary Clinton could lose in 2016 if you can come up with an alternative candidate who is capable of raising $1 billion for the campaign.

Pretty simple.

[merrily]

74. That is not why I chose Obama in the fall of 2007, when she was 30 points ahead and

looked likely to raise more money than Obama. I chose him because I thought he had a better chance of winning the general than she did, given her reputation, her curriculum vitae and the Clinton baggage.

Because of that determination on my part, I began donating to Obama in November 2007 and did not stop until his lead against McCain locked in. As time progressed, the things he said seemed to make him my favorite candidate and little he said or did that I did not like much was enough to change my mind.

I very much doubt that I was the only one who thought that way.


Also, Hillary did fine raising money at home and abroad, until it started to look as though Obama was likely to overtake her and win the primary.

[MohRokTah]

75. Obama laid the ground work for being a fund raising juggernaut in 2006.

He demonstrated to big money donors he could raise the funds necessary by his overwhelming draw for fundraising in various campaigns across the country in 2006.

He hit the ground running in the fund raising department and never looked back. It started in 2007 with Obama behind both Hillary and Edwards, but he quickly surpassed Edwards.

He never really overtook Clinton, but he proved to the money people he could raise the money he needed. In fact, during the second quarter of 2007, he actually raised more money than Clinton, but he never really surpassed her overall fundraising.

He went on to outraise McCain more than 2:1.

[merrily]

76. The Clintons had a fund raising juggernaut already in place before 2006.

Indeed, the Clinton fund raising capability was one of the reasons people thought she would win.

When I said Obama looked likely to overtake Clinton, I meant in votes, not in fundraising. People, especially big donors, like to spread their money around. However, once the odds are on someone to win, they focus on the winner, who is going to be able to do most for them.

[MohRokTah]

79. And they would have never gone with Obama had he not demonstrated he could raise funds.

Look at everybody else in the field in 2008. Not one of them, Edwards included, had the fund raising chops that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had. Edwards flirted with being viable, but only after Iowa. He was done after New Hampshire and his fund raising dropped to almost nothing.

And here we are again.

Want somebody to take out Hillary in the Democratic primary? They'd better already be raising huge amounts of money for Democratic Candidates all over the country. In 2006, that person was Barack Obama.

The only person I see even in the ball game of fund raising capabilities is Warren, and she isn't anywhere near where Obama was at this point. Add to that the fact that she had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the MA Senate race and has said time and again she's not running for president and I really don't see any viable candidate capable of taking on Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Can you name one with the fundraising chops?

[merrily]

81. That is different from saying Obama won the primary because he raised the most money.

Money and votes are interrelated, yes, of course (duh). However, it is not one or the other. Hillary certainly had big fundraising capability before Obama ever ran for the Senate. (You might also consider deeply how someone who had been a relatively Senator from Illiniois before 2004 had so much fundraising capacity by 2006.)

Also, fundraising in a primary is different from fundraising in a general.

My prediction: If Hillary wins the primary, Republicans will win the general. Not that you need my permission, but you do have my full permission to bookmark this thread and mock me to death if I am wrong, because I will be happy to be wrong on this one.

[MohRokTah]

85. You will be mocked when Hillary wins. eom

[merrily]

87. If she is the nominee, I hope she wins the general. So, as I said, I will welcome the mocking.

I also think she will probably be the nominee. Am I happy about that? No.

[KittyWampus]

113. Clinton lost largely because once Obama proved he could win a primary, blacks went with him>

whilst racist crap came out of her campaign.

Remember Geraldine Ferraro and Bill's nasty crap?

She also had fossils working for her campaign who were out of touch with modern communications/networking.

You don't just get more money… you get more money by reaching more people.

[Laelth]

68. I don't blame you for your reservations about HRC.

I have my own reservations about her, but I think you're wrong to think that HRC can not win in 2016. Demographic trends and current polling both say she can beat any Republican opponent.

-Laelth

[wyldwolf]

70. Because more people are buying her records than your favorite teen idol's?

Why is she inevitable? Why didn't she win in 2008?

She's not inevitable. Who said she was? Oh wait, you think news coverage of the early horse race equates to people claiming she's inevitable. Here's my advice - stop reading/listening/viewing it.

Why didn't she win in 2008?

Most political analysts say it was because she didn't campaign in caucus states. Others say Obama had a better money-raising apparatus. But you forget just how close that race was. Or perhaps you never knew or realized it.

Am I the ONLY person who remembers the PUMAs? Remember them? I'll give a few points to the first person who reminds us what PUMA stood for...

What does PUMAs have to do with the here and now? PUMAs were not a Hillary Clinton organization. If we want to apply PUMA mentality to the here and now, it better applies to the 'progressives' who swear daily around the netroots that they'll never vote for Hillary Clinton - in the primaries or the general.

and then I'll ask, So what exactly makes Hillary the best candidate? Really?

That question calls for opinions. It's been asked before. Many times. And answered. Many times. Just because you didn't like the answer or agree with the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Didn't see the answers? The you should use the DU search function. We're under no obligation to continuously answer the same question over and over. Didn't like the answer? Why ask it again? The answer isn't going to change.

She was an abject failure in 2008.

She lost in 2008 in a very close primary race. It that makes her an "abject failure," what does it say about candidates who've run in primaries and lost by bigger margins like Al Gore, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Brown, Ted Kenndedy, etc?

If the Democratic party is dumb enough to nominate her in 2016 that will almost guarantee we'll have a Republican president elected that year.

The overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. From the very latest polling data:

She beats former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 49% to 36%; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 50% to 34%; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 47% to 35%; former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney 50% to 35%; former Arkansas Governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee 49% to 33%; and Florida Senator Marco Rubio 51% to 29%. As we can see, she hovers around the 50% mark against each challenger.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2014/08/22/hillary-wallops-all-republicans-elizabeth-warren-doesnt/

These are the times that separate political realists from Tiger Beat Progressives who are only looking for a deluxe fold out poster of their latest savior to hang on their wall and kiss goodnight each night.

For all of you who blithely say, Oh, she's been through all that, she's vetted, the old claims against her won't matter, all you have NO idea how the real world works. Everything that was held against her in 2008 will be held against her, and then some, in 2016.

OMG! You're so, like, a genius! Just what makes you think any other potential nominee will be shielded from criticism. It would be easy to pain Elizabeth Warren as a socialist. It would be even easier to paint Bernie Sanders as one because he is. Who else? Biden? He has more oppo research to mine than Hillary does. O'Malley? Let's get real, ok?

More to the point, why the fuck is anyone considering someone from the past????

Because many the fuck like her. Are we never to consider anyone from the past? What exactly does that statement even mean?? Al Gore ran for the Dem nomination and lost (and then 'lost' the presidency.) Biden ran for the Dem nomination and lost several times. I could give countless examples.

Why aren't we looking to the future?

Some of us are.

Why in the world are you thinking that in eight years there has not been anyone new come into the Democratic Party that we should be considering?

Don't be silly. Plenty of Dems are considering other people.

Why are you looking at twenty plus years ago to lead us into the middle of the twenty-first century? Really? Tell me again?

because SOME people like Hillary Clinton.





Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. Ummm . . . because she is?

[JoePhilly]

77. Lots of words, yet no alternative recommended.

Might have made sense to start working on alternatives to Hillary a couple years ago, don't ya think?

[JustAnotherGen]

78. Because you post at DU

Where lately - Rand Paul is inevitable.

[rock]

80. Hey, did you notice George W. Bush* being forced on you?

What did you do about it then?

[Tom Ripley]

82. Electoral Kabuki

[brooklynite]

83. I don't know...why do you?

Because the only people harping on "inevitability" are the people who don't want her to win. Unfortunately, since you've chosen to hang out at a political blog, I don't think you can reasonably assume that people who DO support her should be expected to stay silent about her prospects. Instead, maybe you should spend some time talking about your preferred candidate and why he/she is a better choice.

[jeff47]

84. Because their arguments are reasons to vote against others.

Clinton's fans keep providing reasons to vote against someone else. Instead of providing reasons to vote for her.

As a result, it feels like getting pushed to Clinton instead of drawn to Clinton.

[LWolf]

88. Because she is. nt

[Autumn]

89. Because she is. The moneyed interests need to maintain the status quo.

A centrists who favors corporations is just what is needed. More of the same. And I really like Hillary, I think shes an awesome person . It's time for a President who will clean up the mess, not just hide it under the rugs.

[NCTraveler]

91. Simple answers to your first three questions negate the rest of your post.

Why? I really don't know. You would really have to do some self reflection as to why you feel this way. This question is really personal and about you and your thought process. No one else.

Why is she inevitable? She is not.

Why didn't she win in 2008? See the answer to the previous question.

The concern you have over the term PUMA is probably a big part of your answer to question number one. Some of the things you wrote aren't even based in reality. That is also a pretty big issue you will have to conquer when dealing with question number one.

[Proud Public Servant]

92. Who's failing you? Not Hillary.

No HRC supporter here...but if you're going to claim she's being "forced on us," you need to ask "by whom"? And the answer is, at least in part, "those who won't oppose her." I don't know who your preferred candidate is, but I'm pretty sure nobody took mine into a back room and pistol-whipped him until he agreed not to run. To the extent I'm disgruntled, it's not with the Powers That Be or the Clintons themselves so much as it is with the timidity of other Democratic leaders. You know what Woody Allen said: "Eighty percent of success is showing up." Hillary may show up; if no one else does, that's not on her, the Party, or the PTB -- it's on the absentees themselves.

So the real question is: why won't anyone challenge her (if they don't)? I suspect it's some combination of (1) HRC having already sucked up so much money; (2) politicians with a future not wanting to cross the Clintons; and (3) the failure of potential challengers to build up their own constituencies. None of that can be laid on HRC either.

So for me, the "HRC is Inevitable" discourse is dispiriting because of what it says about the Democratic Party: 8 years after the most electrifying election in American history, we seem to be utterly out of ideas and imagination. Note it well: nominating the loser from the last go-'round is a move straight out of the GOP playbook. What that says about us is depressing.

[libodem]

93. I'm glad we are not Republicans

Or it would be said that she is being forced down our throats. Everything is 'crammed down their throats' if it is distasteful to them.

GIrl has the scratch and connections. I don't love it cuz I'm a progressive liberal type. I do think it is inevitable. I'm doing my best to like it rather than lump it.

[SweetieD]

94. Agreed. I will never forget 2008. I will consider any Dem. nominee but her. eom.

nt

[hamsterjill]

95. I don't think she's being forced on anyone.

I think she is a likely candidate, but I think we should all give it a rest until we see how the primaries go. After all, Hillary herself, hasn't even actually announced anything yet.

I do support her, but I think we need to get through the mid terms first. My main priority here in Texas right now is Wendy Davis!

[librechik]

97. Forced? oh my, no!

You have the glorious privilege in our negative democracy

http://catallaxyinstitute.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/democracy-positive-and-negative/

of a valid choice between exactly 2 diverse candidates, both with highly acceptable characteristics. Coke or Pepsi? Paper or Plastic? What's the problem?

They give us what we need and stomp on our desires to be more or different. But these are the only choices we are given.

We should be grateful, the alternative is a revolution against an oppressive police state! Surely we don't want that!

[1monster]

98. My vote goes to Bernie Sanders!!

[LittleBlue]

99. Her Wall Street backers are using the media to make her inevitable

I'll never forget the PUMA vile racism against Obama.

[Nye Bevan]

100. I hate the idea of a candidate being "forced on" people who don't want her.

We really should have some kind of democratic process where members of the party get to somehow vote for the candidate that they want. With such a system nobody would be "forced on" anybody.

[samsingh]

101. i think we need to force ourselves on her accepting the nomination

[sadoldgirl]

105. If it is only money that counts:

Then we will get the

old same old same

Hillary vs Jebbie


Now that will please Wallstreet as well as DC.

[Ino]

106. When she resigned as SoS because of "exhaustion"...

I thought it would be the end of her.

"Is the presidency less exhausting than SoS? Could she make through one term, much less two?"

I could see that point being brought up against her, but have never heard it mentioned.

[pampango]

107. You (and I) don't support her but many other people do. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

108. To be fair, she only barely lost in 2008

Plus she's a woman and the public is now open to having a woman for POTUS and she has the most recognition. Not saying that all that should make her the de facto/default nominee in 2016 but that's just how a lot of people are probably thinking.

[Javaman]

109. Because the DCCC wants everything wraped up tight before the convention.

they don't want any problems.

Hillary is the de facto candidate.

I still prefer Warren.

[brooklynite]

132. Um, DCCC is responsible for electing Congressional candidates.

[Javaman]

211. You're right, my bad, I meant the DNC. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

112. Because she is. EOM

[Dems to Win]

115. I want a nominee other than Clinton, but don't want to fight about it in 2014

We can encourage other candidates to run, but all this arguing about Hillary today seems counter productive.

My hope is that we have a competitive primary in 2016. If Hillary wins the nomination fair and square, I will support her in the general election. If the Clinton machine intimidates all other potential candidates into not running and the Dems have a coronation procedure instead of primaries, I'll have a hard time lining up in support.

I invite you to join me in spreading the word around the InterWebs that Kamala Harris would be a great 2016 candidate.

If we don't like the conventional wisdom, let's make some of our own.

[hifiguy]

117. Because she is.

She has thoroughly burnished her credentials with TPTB, Wall $treet and the MIC. And they have the money. She's not inevitable - at least I hope hot - but she has the great behind-the-scenes forces squarely behind her.

[TheKentuckian]

120. Because she is. I believe carrots and sticks have been used behind the scenes to essentially create

a clear field and probably has enough super delegates in the pocket to win already making a primary a show.

[brooklynite]

131. As with by opinion on religion, I'll avoid "belief" that isn't supported by actual evidence...

...and "we all know" statements don't count.

[TheKentuckian]

255. Who made a we all know statement? Believe or pretend to believe as you will.

[Progressive dog]

123. Only you can answer that question

As far as I am concerned, if my party chooses Hillary, I will enthusiastically support her.

[chrisa]

124. Hilary voted for Iraq knowing it was a lie, and then blamed it on Bush when public opinion turned.

She's the very definition of mediocrity. She's another snake oil saleswoman whose opinions are formed by what will get her the most donations.

[MineralMan]

125. I don't know you, so I have no idea.

Why do you feel like Hillary Clinton is being forced on you? I don't believe she has declared her candidacy so far. I don't believe anyone of any prominence has, so I'm not seeing the forcing, somehow.

Maybe you can explain why you feel that way. Or maybe not. I'm not supporting anyone for 2016, personally. It's too early.

The bottom line is this: If HRC chooses to run, the answer will come from the primary elections, just as it always does. Given the current polling, she's pretty much assured of winning the primary race and of being the candidate, if she decides to run. Nobody else even comes close. So, if that happens, it will be the Democratic voters in the 50 state who "force" her on you. If I'm not mistaken, that's how this process works.

You want an alternative? Better pick one and get started on the campaign. But nobody has announced. Here's my question for you:

What are you doing for the 2014 Congressional elections? What's your plan of action for those elections. They're coming right up, you know. Answer that, and then we can talk about 2016 in mid-November. We'll have a couple of years to talk about it. After November, candidates will begin to declare for the nomination. Then we can talk about presidential candidates for 2016.

Right now, nobody's forcing anyone on you. Nobody's running right now.

GOTV 2014! OK?

[jonjensen]

129. Why hillary wins

60% of white people voted for republicans in 2012. This can only be countered with minority vote not white anti-war liberal vote(I know I am an anti-war white liberal!) Hillary may get more then 30% of white vote as some white democrats wouldn't vote for a black man. Every election cycle 5,000,000 minority kids turn 18 most of them hate republicans as much as I do. That is where the democratic party future is you can ask john kerry about that when bush got 44% of hispanic vote in 2004 and won!

[Damansarajaya]

133. I totally agree. I can think of no one who would galvanize the right

more than Hillary Clinton, and who would be seen with less enthusiasm from the left.

[Maven]

135. Hint: the corporate money candidate will be forced on you, one way or another

Making "anyone but Hillary" your primary battle cry doesn't solve the problem. That's why Obama's ascendancy worked out so nicely for Wall Street: he provided the illusion of an alternative, and all that anger at the status quo was channeled toward "change" which was, in fact, exactly the same in all the ways the 1% really cares about.

So by all means, find an alternative to Hillary. Just don't select someone with more or less the same positions as she has and expect us to take you seriously.

[brooklynite]

139. So Hillary -wasn't- the corporate money candidate in 2008?

This is all so confusing...

[Maven]

140. They were both the corporate money candidates

[brooklynite]

141. Well, THAT's a convenient apologetic...

[Maven]

142. No apologia intended.

Not sure where you're seeing one.

[Marr]

232. Very true. It's no coincidence that Obama's cabinet was full of Third Way Clintonites.

Hillary Clinton herself was part of Obama's cabinet, for crying out loud. I don't see how anyone could deny that Clinton and Obama came from the same, very narrow political faction.

We were given a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

[Maven]

245. Absolutely

"We were given a choice between Coke and Pepsi."

Well put.

[BlueJac]

136. It's the corporate thing to do!

Ick!

[Shankapotomus]

146. What are you talking about?

Hillary is not being forced on you.

[LuvLoogie]

156. Again, again, again!

[Shankapotomus]

161. Let's not get greedy now

I was toying with the OP, not trying make steam come out of their ears.

[dionysus]

153. i agree with most of your post but i wouldn't call her an abject failure... she got a lot of votes.

she sure as hell didn't know when to quit though.

[flying-skeleton]

155. I don't care

After Obama and his failed attempts at trying to cajole the GOP into doing the right thing for the nation approach, all I want is someone that knows how to counter the Republican's "Assholistic" card.

Hillary Clinton has been through their muck and will know how to seal with the GOP shit.

Good Enough for me.

[pnwmom]

158. I don't know. Why do you? She's not even announced she's running yet. n/t

[still_one]

159. Did Hillary announce?

[urbuddha]

162. Bernie Sanders believes in everything I do

Bernie Sanders takes the words right out of my mouth. I love him !
Just wish he was 10 years younger.

[Hippo_Tron]

164. Her poll numbers are absurdly high, much higher than 2008

[winter is coming]

165. There were some long, steep hills in the neighborhood I lived in when I had my first car.

It wasn't a powerful car, so I'd gun the engine at the bottom of the hill just to get enough momentum to reach the top. To me, the steady trickle of articles about Hillary in the news and the cadre of posters who seem to think that Hillary is the only Democrat who could possibly win feels exactly like me flooring the accelerator pedal in my old Chevy. Instead of pushing an underpowered and outdated vehicle with all our might, perhaps it's time to get a different car.

[whereisjustice]

172. lol -had a Jeep like that, about half way up, it would start backfiring...

[winter is coming]

173. LOL, mine never backfired, but I was usually doing about 15 when I crested the hill. n/t

[Marr]

233. +1, lol-- nice metaphor.

[Old and In the Way]

166. I really don't giveba shit.

Get your favorite through the primary process and that is who I willbsupport 100%, Doesn't fucking matter, though. Until we elect a Congress/Senate to thevleft of POTUS, expect to remain disappointed.

[ColesCountyDem]

170. I didn't really oppose Hill 'n Bill, until people started shoving her down my throat.

The more of the 'inevitable' meme I hear, the more likely it becomes that I will support someone else in the primaries.

[840high]

171. HU8GE k/R

[Mnpaul]

174. "we MUST look forward, not backward"

Good one. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Capt. Obvious]

178. Did you know that Harriet Christian died?

I just found out a few days ago that she died last year. I thought about starting a thread but assumed I missed the celebratory thread when she passed.

[SheilaT]

223. I have never heard of Harriet Christian.

Maybe she was mentioned a lot here, but somehow I managed to miss every reference.

[Myrina]

181. K & R

nt

[totodeinhere]

183. I disagree. She absolutely would beat anyone that the Republicans can put up. And I suspect that

it would not be even close. She would win with overwhelming support from women, young people, and people of color.

Feel free to oppose her. She isn't my first choice for the nomination either. But lets be real. The national Republican Party is in a world of hurt and it's hardly viable on the national stage and Clinton would be the heavy favorite if she gets the nomination.

[treestar]

184. She is not

You are free to pick another candidate.

Whoever the majority wants will be "forced" on everyone else, unless you are part of the majority. That's politics.

[INdemo]

186. Elizabeth Warren would make a great President and she would

bring back the liberal voters. Now many of you have argued that if Hillary is nominated on the Democratic ticket many will not vote.Elizabeth Warren is the future of the real Democratic party. Am I the only liberal that see Hillary for what she truly is..a Republican lite.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/31/hillary_clinton_vs_elizabeth_warren_they_have_less_in_common_than_you_think_partner/

[truedelphi]

190. You couldn't possibly be the only person who feels Elizabeth Warren is the

way to go. So many DU'ers have the Warren For 2016 banners as their sig line, and as we approach 2016, I will too.

[blkmusclmachine]

187. +1,000: "Hillary Clinton is NOT the future. She is the past."

[KauaiK]

189. Because she is being forced on Dems by virture of her war chest of money

I'm finding it very hard to support her. I cannot vote GOP nor for a 3rd party candidate. I will never forgive Nader for pulling votes from Gore. Granted the Supreme Court awarded W the Presidency, but the votes that went to Nader would have prevented the challenge at the Supreme Court.

[Utopian Leftist]

191. The Cons are so childish . . .

they actually think that "if we get another Clinton, they get another Bush."

Few really want to give the Obama Administration another term at this point, and Hillary Clinton would be seen as an extension of it, just as would a Biden Administration, bless Joe's heart. If the Democratic Party doesn't find a fresh, truly progressive voice to take us forward, we are going to be obfuscated. We don't need two corporate shill parties! If the Americans want to elect corporate shills, they know that Republicans are the best fucking shillmeisters in existence, okay? Democrats don't even compete! We still have souls . . . .

We need a GREAT President. Like FDR! I am not willing to settle for another "GOOD" President like Clinton. The world doesn't have enough time left to wait for us, should we wade into another catastrophe like electing a merely good President.

[DrewFlorida]

192. Try and focus on the idea of Mitt Romney being forced on you!

[merrily]

206. Been there, done that. Did NOT buy the T shirt.

I survived Romney as Chief Executive Office of Massachusetts, but the state legislature is so heavily Democratic that it can override any gubernatorial veto that it wishes to override.

On the other hand, at this point, the choice is not Hillary or Romney. We need to have a primary.

[LloydS of New London]

212. If she's being forced on us,

then I guess it's "legitimate."

[Marr]

214. It's almost 100% because Wall Street wants her.

That's why the message gets so much media play. It's not the PUMAs. Every national politician has a cadre of loyal fans if they openly consider the White House.

[joeybee12]

221. I wish I could unrec this...

You mat not like her, but calling her a failure is just stupid. Oh, and Obama was the future back then? Look how progressive he turned out to be?