Is there any potential Democratic Candidate who will pass muster?

[MineralMan]

I'm beginning to wonder. O'Malley, apparently, has his warts, according to a post today on DU. Even Elizabeth Warren will have to explain being a Republican for so long, right through Reagan's incompetent and disastrous presidency. Hillary Clinton is obviously the wrong choice for so many, many reasons. Biden's too old and his ties to Obama are too close. Dean? Well, he already failed to get the nomination. Even Dennis Kucinich has traded in his congressional coat for a Fox News blazer, aside from losing every primary he has entered in the past.

Bernie Sanders might pass the test, but he's not actually a Democrat yet, and has advanced age in his disfavor. He's a nice man, though, but is relatively unknown to the mass of Democratic voters, most of whom are DINOs anyhow, according to what I've read.

I'm beginning to despair. Can nobody meet the stringent requirements? Will we simply fail to field a candidate at all and leave things to the Republicans? Is all lost? I'm worried.

[BP2]

1. There's no such thing as the perfect candidate. But "it's Hillary's turn" doesn't pass muster! n/t

[hifiguy]

24. + a googolplex. nt

[libdem4life]

27. This is getting old...has she ever said that about herself, or are you (and many others) trying to

tar her with memes...really old memes...that put her down? I'm a declared neutral, but I wish we could just get rid of this claptrap "it's her turn" and all the others. It does not become the Party. She's over 50% in the polls. That ain't chickenfeed. She hasn't tied up any intended competitors and locked them away lately.

[HappyMe]

29. Neutral?!

That's funny.

[libdem4life]

34. Oh Puhleeez....yes N.E.U.T.R.A.L. It is a difficult concept, I'll agree. What it means is ....

I'm not invested in loving or hating any candidate. I am a Left Liberal...note my tag line and handle or whatever you call it. But being a true Liberal, I remain open to all sides and will keep or shift my positions, at will, based on those interactions.

Anyone can knee jerk and ROTFLMAO...I taught elementary school.

[HappyMe]

35. lol!

You are all over the place talking about how awesome Hillary is and the billion dollars. How it's just TOOOO MUCH for some candidates to run, oh, but not Hillary!

[libdem4life]

36. You bet I am. And I consistently add that should anyone else show up who can, that's a good thing.

About that billion dollars...any ideas or just caps and smilies? Actually, you have precisely stated the logical position of most at this point in time. It does, indeed, take a "financial village". Get it?

[HappyMe]

37. Yeah, no money from this villager.

But then again, she won't need it.

I just think that that is obscene amount of money to piss away on something like a campaign. If I had my way, elections would be publicly funded only. That money could be put to better use. Get it?

[libdem4life]

38. In total agreement...it's obscene. Blame CU...saw a graph the other day. Just obscene.

[HappyMe]

39. I think it would be a cool thing

for candidates to turn down bank and investment firms and other corporate big bucks themselves. It would go pretty far with voters if they did an anti-CU thing.

[libdem4life]

41. I would be cool, but then no one would even know about it. It's like going against

capitalism. I mean, exactly where do you start?

[HappyMe]

42. Well, if I did that as a candidate

I sure as hell would make a statement to that effect.

Start by turning down big money. It's pretty damn easy. If you don't take their money, you don't owe them a damn thing. Campaign finance reform has to start somewhere.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. McCain wanted to use federal financing, Obama refused the federal funding and the limits imposed

and thus 2008 was a money fest.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. We will have candidats galore.

I have no idea whether they will meet your requirements or the requirements of any particular interest groups.

But there will be candidates and one of them will win the primary.

[peacebird]

3. I posted the question earlier today - here's a list of folks mentioned

Sheldon Whitehouse
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Joe Biden
Martin O'Malley
Hillary Clinton
Jim Webb
Russ Feingold
Al Franken
Alan Grayson
Mark Udall
Jon Stewart
Joaquin Castro
Barbara Lee

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. I'd vote for 10/14 of those folks. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

51. Joe Biden will be my choice should he decide to run for president.

I had wanted to vote for him in the primaries in 2007, but he wasn't getting much traction. I hope this time around, IF he runs, he'll have much more.

Why my decision to vote for VP Biden should he run?

This:

(snip)...Biden offered a kernel of advice for any Democratic candidates running in the next election, saying they should run on the accomplishments of President Obama’s administration.

"Run, yes, run — on what we have done," Biden said at an event at Drake University. "Only what we have done. Stand for what we have done. Acknowledge what we have done. And be judged on what we have done, if we have any chance for resurgence — continued resurgence — in 2016."

He added: "Some say that would amount to a third term of the president. I call it sticking with what works."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-reveals-timeframe-2016-presidential-decision/story?id=28931878

No rational person can deny that President Obama policies work, so I would welcome a Biden Administration that would continue and expand on President Obama has been able to accomplish thus far.

[Hekate]

78. Good list. I am looking forward to a robust primary season. It will be good for all concerned.

[peacebird]

81. Agree!

[Johonny]

4. Obviously with some people, most people, no

I think most adults can like a candidate and disagree with them on some issues, like most of us do with Obama. Republicans and a minority of Democratic voters are big on purity tests. The democratic primary has never shown much interest in such things. We all heard how the "real" liberals weren't going to back Obama in 2012 and we all know how that worked out. Is Hillary a shoe in? I don't know yet. No one does because no one really knows who is running. People panic about these things so far in advance these days that it is beyond annoying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. If someone wants a candidate that agrees with him on everything he should write in himself./NT

[B2G]

6. Jay Inslee

Decades of experience, not even a whiff of scandal, very strong on gay rights and the environment.

I don't know why no one is talking about him.

[MineralMan]

15. Because nobody has heard of him.

That disqualifies him, I'm afraid. Truly.

[B2G]

17. Not if the party would get behind him and get his name out there

We always say we want fresh blood. Well that entails some voter education and work.

His voting record:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jay_Inslee_MyO.htm

[MineralMan]

20. Not going to happen.

Who said they want fresh blood? The nominee will be someone who is already a household word, almost certainly. Does Jay Inslee want to run? People mention Al Franken, too, but he has zero interest in running for President. He likes his current job. Any candidate who is even halfway considering running is already out there getting attention, one way or another.

If you'd like Inslee to run, you should get on the phone with him and let him know. Truly.

[libdem4life]

40. "He likes his current job" that about sums it up. So do most of the others.

[MineralMan]

43. I think so.

Running for President must be the hardest work there is. It's not something everyone wants. Someone wise said that nobody who seeks high office should be allowed to run for that office. I tend to agree.

Being President is no walk in the park, either.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. At this point in 07, Obama's recognition was at 25%. 75% had no idea who he was.

nt

[MineralMan]

52. Well, I knew who he was then. I wonder what Bernie Sander's

name recognition is right now. I have no idea, really. Obviously, DUers recognize his name, but I'm not so sure about nationally.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter also had low recognition. When there is a strong potential candidate, though, name recognition becomes ever more important for other contenders. I believe that's the situation that is in play now.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. I don't know who will pass your muster.

Several of the folks you named will pass mine.

[MineralMan]

13. I do. It will be the one who emerges from the Democratic Convention with

the nomination of the party. That person will get my vote and my support, regardless of name. I have a strong inkling of who it will be, but anything can happen. I will support and vote for the nominee, and will expect other Democrats to do the same, since the alternative is unthinkable.

[elleng]

8. Which post are you referring to, re: O'Malley?

[MineralMan]

14. This one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026322576

[elleng]

16. Thanks

[uponit7771]

10. NO!!! NOT AT ALL!! Using the litmus FUD is allowed to use if the dem Candidate doesn't tar & feather

... the Bush admin from day one, put all Oil Execs WORLD WIDE in Gitmo, Overrun Switzerland.. take rich folks money out of the bank and institute single payer world wide with it

then


they're a sellout...

Jus sayin, doesn't matter who is in office they're going to fail ... Obama completed 85% of his agenda and they hate him to a T

[PassingFair]

11. I would LOVE to see Feingold take the wheel.

And I'd volunteer to work, too.

[yallerdawg]

12. We need to get this started!

Primaries are less than a year away. Now is the time for vetting and background. Clarifying positions and honing messages.

Look how Hillary is floundering without an organization. And she has been vetted for decades!

This isn't like a wet-track horse race. We don't want a mudder winning, when someone else could have been great!

[FLPanhandle]

18. Not possible

There are hundreds of issues, thousands of different solutions, and even more ways to prioritize them.

Unless they delegate their thinking to someone else, then I doubt any two people here could agree on a common list.

Therefore, no candidate will match anyones expectations completely.

[MineralMan]

21. Well, if that's true, we're bound to lose, I guess.

I'm being facetious, you know...

[jwirr]

19. This is what I am worried about also. No one seems to want to run. The ones you mentioned are

at least known but I do not know much about Webb or O'Malley. I think this is the first time I have seen the Democratic Party without a lot of obvious leaders. If Hillary is forced out by this latest mess the Rs have created and Bernie cannot run because he is not a Democrat and Elizabeth isn't running - who?

Who exactly are we going to have to vote for? This is not a case of the lessor of two evils - it is a case of the election where no one is running.

[MineralMan]

22. Clinton can handle this email nonsense.

She broke no laws or rules. It's too early for a fake scandal to have any effect in 2016. There just isn't any news, so anything is news.

[libdem4life]

30. Who can blame them...I agree. Someone called it the "agony of a national election". Families get

dragged in and sometimes humiliated, what with the witch hunts of the press and the shrill Republicans. If one loses, they have a lot to lose, not the least of which is their current job. Then there's the billion dollars.

[Rex]

23. So we are back to DU having an impact on society? My my my...

Nothing like being flexible with those goal posts eh?

[MineralMan]

25. You're missing a bit of nuance, I think.

I've never said that DU has any influence on society. It doesn't. It's a small discussion forum about politics. Nothing more. It gives us a place to grouse about things, that's all.

[HappyMe]

26. I would vote for O'Malley, Sanders, Feingold, Franken,

or Warren.

[Rex]

28. No no no...this is ALL about HRC! Even if it is a poor attempt at hiding that.

Someone is not good at hiding their intentions very well when they start threads!

[HappyMe]

31. Yeah. More rah-rah silliness.

Shall we join in?

We would be lost, LOST I tell ya without the wonderful Hillary!!1
Even Tea Partiers and Republicans will vote for her!!11
There are NO other candidates that should even be talked up!!1
Don't like Hillary - GET OUT!!1

...and my favorite - A billion dollars!!1

[Rex]

32. Yep, you hit all the bullet points.

Just throw in some mention of the 'Turd Way' being friends with baby Jesus and fighting commies and you have the complete set!

Well played HappyMe!

[MineralMan]

45. So would I, if any of them were the nominee.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee. My focus is on congressional and state legislative races. The presidential election is not something I can influence. In November, 2016, I will vote for the Democrat, as I have done since 1968.

[think]

33. Bernie's solid on the issues

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

[MineralMan]

44. No question. I'd vote for him in a second.

I doubt he'll be on the general election ballot, though. More's the pity.

[KoKo]

46. We are a Tough Crowd...We here on the True Left for "CHANGE"......

we don't trust much, anymore... I'm good with Bernie...and I understand how hard it will be for him to be accepted. And, I love Elizabeth who talks "down to earth truth" to an American Left who yearns for Plain Speak with Integrity shining from her

But..........it will be awhile.

[MineralMan]

47. And in the meantime?

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

People have real pressing problems. Some of those problems are life and death ones. Will a Republican help them in the meantime?

That's always my question. Not everyone has time.

[F4lconF16]

48. And that, I think, is why I cannot vote for HRC if she wins the nomination.

I will vote straight dem otherwise, but I cannot, and will not support a candidate who will simply perpetuate, if not worsen, the system we have now. Too many are suffering already; too many need help now. I can't support that system, and it pains me to say it, because this was to be the first presidential election I could vote in.

I sincerely hope we can get someone else to run. I would vote for most of the names you listed, as well as a few suggested further downthread. I just can't vote for someone who stands so contrary to my most deeply held values.

I realize this wasn't the point of your OP, but thank you for making that remark here, because it helped me to finally make up my mind.

[JoePhilly]

53. There are a few here on DU who would be happy to tell you you CAN'T vote for.

But not much past that.

[MineralMan]

54. I CAN'T vote for Republicans.

In presidential elections, there are only three choices: Vote for the Democrat, vote for the Republican, or don't vote. Only one of those choices is one I can take. I remember Nixon. I remember Reagan. I remember both Bushes. So, I vote for the Democrat, and have since the 1968 election, which was the first presidential election I could vote in. I cannot withhold my vote, because it is the same as a vote for the Republican.

My own electoral activism is focused on state, congressional district and local races. As I've said many time, I have zero influence on presidential nominations, so I work on a more local level. I do what I can, and don't deal with presidential politics at all. There will be a Democratic candidate, and that candidate will get my vote. Then, I'll vote for Democrats right down the ballot. I'll have had something to do with some of those candidates being on that ballot, but not the presidential candidate.

Presidential elections are binary. The candidate with the most votes generally wins. I cannot withhold my vote in that race, because there is a distinct and important difference between the two parties in their effect on the next few years. I vote for the Democrat at the top of the ballot in presidential elections. Every last freaking time.

[JoePhilly]

55. Agree completely.

I think most of the screaming that goes on here is simply playing into the GOP's hands.

The GOP works to break the government, to create a government that the people will hate. If they can do that, people will stay home.

And the shrinking GOP base, filled with crazies who are easy to manipulate, grows in relative size within the voter ranks.

Just based on simple demographics, we should crush them. But if the GOP can discourage people from voting, the impact works disproportionately against our side.

We shouldn't help them at any level.

[MineralMan]

56. Exactly.

[Historic NY]

57. Problem with your question is a good majority of folks here aren't Democrats...

they're not even a cross section of the party. Some want to roll us back to 50 yrs....for a do over. That may appeal to some but it isn't going to work in todays society. The DU purity test won't work. Right now the party is at a cross roads. The former majority party is now the minority party, in Congress. While some seem to think their choice is inspiring, while others seek to find reality. In 611 days voters are going to the polls. Democrats will pick the best candidate that will win. I think most are done with the sacrificial lambs of the past. Unfortunately today the best candidate is going to need at least a billion to win, thanks to Citizens United.

[Mnpaul]

58. No one will pass your standards if you keep lying

Warren was a Republican for four years. Before that she was an Indy. I guess that is all the Clinton supporters have, made up BS. They can't respond to legitimate criticism so they have run around the board making up stuff, playing the victim and promoting the false meme that no one will pass the purity test.

It's pretty damn pathetic if you ask me. Crap like this is what drives voters to third parties.

[OilemFirchen]

62. That's very interesting.

I've not read that about Warren. Would you be so kind as to provide the board with a cite?

[Mnpaul]

65. This Week

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final question, it might surprise a lot of your supporters to know that you were a registered Republican as recently as 1996.

WARREN: I was -- no, I think you're...

STEPHANOPOULOS: 1991 to 1996...

(CROSSTALK)

WARREN: I think it's four.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... in Pennsylvania, but that's what I read at least.

WARREN: OK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And I was just wondering, what drew you to the GOP and why did you leave?

WARREN: I was originally an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets.

And I feel like the GOP party just left that. That they moved to a party that said, no, it's not about a level playing field, it's now about a field that has gotten tilted. And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-sec-jeh-johnson-sen-elizabeth-warren/story?id=23471456&singlePage=true

[OilemFirchen]

68. Thank you.

Any info as to her political leanings when she was an "Independent"?

[Rex]

63. There is only one who will pass mustard!

"Who is Colonel Mustard on the balcony with a candelabra."

[LWolf]

64. Sure.

The question is...will they run?

Most are what I consider "compromise" candidates. None of them are perfect, of course, and they don't nail every issue. But they get some of the most important correct.

I'd vote for several Democrats from my state: Merkley from the Senate and DeFazio from the House, for example, in a heartbeat. I think Russ Feingold is interesting. There are more.

[MineralMan]

66. I doubt that any of those three is even thinking about a run.

I like Feingold very much, but I don't think he'd be a viable candidate in the general election. I think that the other two names you mentioned have much the same problem. Running for President is a very unique enterprise. A very difficult one, too.

Feingold also voted to confirm SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts, which is something that would be a talking point to consider during the primaries.

You're right. The question is whether people will run or not. Most will not. It's really an all or nothing decision, so most people who might be qualified will choose not to, because of the difficulty of a successful candidacy and the consequences of losing for anyone whose life is tied up with being elected to office. Such people are very capable of assessing their chances, I think.

[bluedigger]

67. Somebody better show up.

If HRC gets the nomination and loses the general election it will be vital that someone else builds some name recognition for a viable run in 2020. That's why we need a primary field, preferably with some not so long in the tooth candidates. Bernie, Joe, and Elizabeth are all decent enough choices for now, but in another four years against an incumbent...?

[MineralMan]

69. There will be primary candidates.

I don't have any doubt of that. Some will be running to get themselves noticed. Some will be running in hopes of a Vice-Presidential nod. Some may be in the race to shift the debate to the left. Who they'll be remains to be seen. I assume that Hillary Clinton will be one of them, based on her current activities. I don't think Elizabeth Warren will be on that list, since she has repeatedly said that she's not planning on it. Joe Biden will probably run, but not with any real expectation of winning the nomination. Bernie's a question mark, and may not be that important in the race if he does run.

So far, I haven't seen any names mentioned who might overcome Clinton's sizable momentum. DU doesn't reflect the Democratic electorate that votes in primaries very closely.

I'm always interested in presidential elections, but don't really focus on them much. I don't have any influence at all at that level, so I leave that to those who do. I'm working at the local level, primarily the congressional and state legislative level. That's where I can make a difference. A small difference, but a difference.

I'll be following the presidential primaries closely, though, as I always do.

[bluedigger]

71. For sure someone else will run.

I expect HRC to win the primary as well. I'm just saying that we need some quality candidates to establish themselves as nationally viable. Guys like O'Malley might be good, but outside of political junkies he has little name recognition at the national level. It's important to prepare for the future as well as cope with the present. Which makes me wonder, who will HRC select as a running mate? Because whoever it is will have instant credibility as a national candidate in 2020-24.

[MineralMan]

74. I expect that the VP candidate, whoever the nominee is, will be

a younger person, probably a current Governor or Senator. It could even be Elizabeth Warren. It also could be one of the primary candidates from 2016. But, I expect a younger face in the VP's office, for two reasons. First, because a young VP candidate will help with getting younger voters to the polls, and second, because the next class of Presidents is going to be in the generation after the Clintons and the rest of her generation.

There are a number of possibilities, including some whose names we haven't seen bandied about for the 2016 race. I'm in the same generation as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and this will be the last presidency from that generation. So, positioning someone will be an important choice in 2016, and everyone knows that.

It's all going to be very interesting, of course. I'm not sure that it's all that important to me, in terms of electing a President. For me, Congress is far more important, and I hope we can reverse the Congressional trend. That, alone, is reason for a huge turnout by Democrats. We ALL need to be voters in November, and we ALL need to be as active as possible in GOTV efforts. The down-ticket races are crucial in 2016. The race for President will take care of itself, as far as I'm concerned.

[KingCharlemagne]

75. Another great post. I think half of the appeal of Sanders for me is that, as an

insurgent candidate, he might actually care about my views and beliefs and they might actually have a slight chance of registering with him, whereas I have no hopes whatsoever that HRC or Biden will bother with my views. (Sort of a Howard Dean 2004 v 2.0, if you will.) That seems a bit 'rose-colored glasses' to me even as I write it, which is simply more evidence of the wisdom of your post.

I reside in Maxine Waters' deeply blue CD, so don't have much impetus to do much at that level. Same goes for my state Assembly (Sebastian Ridley-Thomas) and State Senate (Holly Mitchell) reps. CA may get a bit interesting in 2016 with Boxer's Senate seat opening up. I'm keeping my ear to the ground on that race and I currently favor our incumbent Attorney General, Kamala Harris, with my second choice being Gavin Newsom.

Speaking of Dean, he said something really wise a few years back that has stuck with me ever since, to the effect that people shouldn't sacrifice the good in order to chase the perfect because they will always wind up disappointed. I wish Dean played a more prominent role in the Dem Party today, as his voice always struck me as eminently sane and measured (the 'scream' notwithstanding). Dean backs HRC right now, as I understand it. If HRC is good enough for Dean, she's good enough for me.

[McCamy Taylor]

70. The GOP plans to select our nominee for us---and it ain't gonna be Clinton and anyone who can win.

[TheKentuckian]

73. Outside of Clinton then who would be the five candidates in your opinion that

the TeaPubliKlans would least like to face.

[99Forever]

72. Bernie Sanders.

I'm about principles and issues, as is Senator Sanders. That's what is actually important, FAR more important than what color jersey is worn.

[MineralMan]

76. I think Bernie Sanders would be a great President.

I also think he has no chance whatsoever to be the nominee. I have to deal with realities, I'm afraid. I'll have to make the best choice between the two major party candidates. That choice will be the Democrat. Whoever the nominees are for the two parties, the Democrat will be the better choice. It's a binary thing. You can either vote for the Democrat or not vote for the Democrat. I can tell you how I'm going to vote, but I can't tell you how to vote. That's your decision.

You can count on hearing from me regularly until the election is over. And I'll be saying the same thing, always recommending voting for the Democrat as the only choice that makes any sense at all. You're not bound to follow my suggestion, of course, but I'll keep making it, I promise.

[99Forever]

79. I expect no less from you MM...

... and respect that you stand up for what you believe. I just see it differently.

[fadedrose]

77. We need somebody who loves to take polls to step up..

There are guys who, when they appear on TV, I always say to myself, "I like him." They are likable. Rep. Chris Van Hollen may not be a senator or governor, but he's been around the block a few times. I like Dick Durban too.

What's wrong with them?

I used to like Jerry Brown, what's wrong with him? Has he gotten too old?
I used to like the one who retired when the Health Bill was written but can't think of his name - one of the Dakotas, somewhere up there, I think. Something he didn't like about the drug part of the bill as I dimly recall. It may have had something to do with Canada.

There ought to be a poll listing all Dem Senators & Sanders and asking for votes for that Senator.

And a poll with all Dem. Governors (or former) and pick which one of them you like. And the Gov. of Kentucky - he accepted AHA in spite of the majority leader being from there...

And a poll with famous people -movie stars - news anchors - whatever. Pick who you like best...

A poll for military men (Clark) others of his stature.

Forgive if I don't make sense. Seldom do, but my cold and the nations' cold is getting me down...but we have a lot of very likable people who are Democrats.

[MineralMan]

80. I suspect that the people who would be best as President

have no desire at all to run for that office. I've always thought that. It's a unique office, and one that is far from desirable, generally. Getting elected is an enormous task and once you're elected, you have so much to carry on your shoulders. As President, you will displease at least half of the population and only partially please the other half.

Who would want that job? It's a horrible job. Probably the living person who has had it that I respect the most is Jimmy Carter. He seems to have gotten through it and retained his humility and reason. President Obama may well do the same. I hope so.

So, yes, there are many who could be a good President, but few want to be President. More's the pity.

[fadedrose]

82. That's why we need polls

I like Dick Durban, who is never named. I loved Jimmy Carter and still do, and he's one of the reasons that I could not totally accept Senator Teddy Kennedy, who did not go out of his way to help Carter. I've heard George Clooney suggested . . .

We need polls from every sector of life that do NOT list Hillary Clinton. Reason for OMITTING her name is that she is the frontrunner. We need names of people who could win in case Hillary's baggage becomes too heavy to carry. Contributions will fall off if there are too many more mistakes made in her campaign.

It's good to be prepared. There's time....

[MineralMan]

83. I found myself on an airliner Jimmy Carter was on.

He was boarded separately and was in First Class. About halfway through the flight, I looked up and he was coming down the aisle, stopping at every row and shaking hands with the other passengers. He shook every hand on that plane. I understand that he does that whenever he flies on commercial flights. He just was here in Minneapolis, and he did that on the plane that brought him here, too.

A good, strong man. A humble man, too.

[daredtowork]

84. I feel the same

to me this underscores a screaming failure to cultivate a younger generation of Democratic leaders. Also it seems like the Clinton machine was gobbling up almost all the big donor money.

[Jesus Malverde]

85. bump...nt