Why It Looks Like Clinton Will Run Again

[DonViejo]

February 12, 2017 By Taegan Goddard

Matt Latimer: “No inside information informs this prediction. No argument is advanced as to whether her run is a good or a bad idea—there are many ways to make a case either way. Instead this is just a statement of simple facts (if facts mean anything anymore, that is). And the facts are clear that the former secretary of state is doing everything she needs to do to run for the White House one more time. If she finds a path to do so, she will take it. And I can prove it.”

“Yes, barring some calamity, Clinton is running. And this brave columnist will go one step further. Not only will Clinton will run again, she has an excellent shot at getting the Democratic Party nomination again. But only if she approaches it quite differently.”

###

https://politicalwire.com/2017/02/12/looks-like-clinton-will-run/

[TrekLuver]

1. As much as I like Hillary I really don't think this is a great idea.

[blm]

57. THIS IS SHIT-STIRRING material to get Dems to attack Clinton. Don't fall for it.

The GOP operatives do this after every election to get Democrats to express despair over their last candidate.

Don, you should delete this thread.

[TrekLuver]

63. Don't worry I won't! I will support whomever the candidate is. Even if they are in the center all

the way to way out left...we are all on the same team. We all must remember that. That is another reason these Republicans are successful. Satan himself was the candidate and looky here they all voted for him. I am really scared of the left dividing because some people are too liberal and others aren't liberal enough.

[Alice11111]

67. Yeah, the Repubs want us to be a house divided. We need to do something about those 3rd party candi

That suck off just enough votes. Also, this bs about the primaries making the Dems stronger is so wrong. Bernie made Hillary a much weaker candidate. I like Bernie. In retrospect, maybe he could have won, but the Repubs would have lied, cheated and probably creamed him too...for thing we never even thought of. Part of it is the nature of the primaries. The Republicans did it with Romney. Orange Blob was so out of left field, and he steamrolled the other candidates before they even knew what happened, so he was unique.

[FreepFryer]

84. +1 (n/t)

[LenaBaby61]

85. THIS IS SHIT-STIRRING material to get Dems to attack Clinton. Don't fall for it.

NOT going to, don't worry.

[brush]

112. Agreed. Not a good idea and I don't think Hillary has any intention of running for a third time

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. No!

Hillary is not the future of our party!

[Blanks]

3. I hope she does...

It's our best chance to beat Pence in 2020. Gore would have won in 2004.

The worst thing we could do is have a bloody primary, regardless of who the candidate is.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

107. ME 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Would rather have someone new.

[Jim Beard]

128. I agree. I love both of them but they will 4 years older and they are at and close to

70 now.

[bravenak]

5. I support her one hundred percent

[SaschaHM]

37. Apparently 74 is now too old... as if the other option in 2016 wasn't 75. nt.

[bravenak]

44. And that also pisses me off.

[SaschaHM]

47. Yeah, I've taken a "No one from 2016 except on O'Malley" stance, just to avoid an excuse for folks..

to try and declare a 79 year old the frontrunner because I don't want to see him return in 2020 more than I want to see her return.


(To Alerters: We're adults here. The Sander's wing doesnt want to see Clinton in 2020. The Clinton Wing doesn't want to see Sanders. Those in between don't want to see either of them.)

[DittoTheCat2]

6. Hillary

If she is out party nominee, I will gladly support her.

[Alice11111]

70. If she is, I'll support her, but SHE SHOULD NOT BE

There are too many visceral Hillary Haters. Most are on the right, many in the Middle, but some are on the left. She is clearly still the most qualified, but with all of the lies and scandals for 30 years, too many people believe she is dishonest. I admire and respect her, and I am so sorry for her that she lost, plus so unfairly, but I think we need someone less damaged, even if it is unfair.

[WinkyDink]

7. Never going to happen. Age 74 is a great change from age 69.

[delisen]

127. Bernie Sanders ran for president at age 74. b. 9/8/1941.

If he had won he would have been 75 at his inauguration. Some of these senators live a log time and seem in good shape. For decades they had really good health insurance.

[WinkyDink]

142. He didn't even get the nomination, did he? Hmmmm. Maybe the voters took his AGE into consideration?

Moreover, Hillary displayed some not-well moments last year.

[delisen]

146. I'm not an ageist. I'd send the old out to battle too. In a president, I look for judgement, skill

Trump is 70? but he never had the characteristics to be a good president.

He could have destroyed the country just as well at age 40 or 50.

As for being sick-few people are never sick. George Walker Bush vomited on the head of Japan, JFK was a physical wreck and stuffed with meds.

Tony Blair was inn great health very fit, but unfortunately lied Britain into war and was otherwise undistinguished. Gave marvelous speeches though.

For skill and wisdom I prefer Merkel.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Please, no.

[BannonsLiver]

9. Nope. Time to turn the page. New blood etc.

[asuhornets]

10. Hillary will not run again...but somebody needs to pay for interfering...n't

[KittyWampus]

11. No, I will do everything possible to prevent this from happening.

[metroins]

39. Why?

We don't know how things will be in 2-3 years.

She could cure cancer, create free energy and create world peace, yet you'd still prevent it?

I think it's a bad idea, but saying you'll do everything to stop this seems pretty extreme.

[nikibatts]

106. How did that stuff work out for you before? She never had a chance because of statements like this.

Most qualified, most popular vote, most lifetime devoted Democrat. Most sullied by false and nasty allegations, battle-tested.

But that's ok. I hope she doesn't run just because i think she has given enough of herself to an ungrateful party and nation. She never has been thanked or publicly appreciated for her lifetime of service and the misery incurred because of it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

108. All true - but bet she has thought long and hard about all of it in her mind

a million times. Her heart is good. And, how the most qualified person ever can not be given another chance says a lot about us if we didn't.

[Occulus]

140. Why? Because in 2-3 years the very very last thing America will need

is a candidate that will widen the divide between Republicans and Democrats, and that is the only thing we can 100% count on like a sunrise if we put forward a candidate as (rightly or wrongly) polarizing as Hillary Clinton.

The OP is shit-stirring, I'll grant that, but it's also a goddamned trap. We will need someone even Republicans can vote for, because whatever President we get in 2020 will require an unquestionable and undeniable mandate of wild public support just to undo the damage Trump is going to cause. We will need every last sane Republican, traditional conservative, libertarian, and undecided voter on top of the Democratic Party voters.

We will need a landslide not seen since 1980. We will need a public, national repudiation. A humiliating political rout of generational proportions.

It would be a huge mistake to nominate a candidate we all know Republicans will turn out to vote against in 2020. As, I should add, her supporters were repeatedly warned before, during, and after the primaries.

Hillary Clinton could win and we would still lose because her win cannot come close to the kind of win we are going to need. We can't even consider her.

[onenote]

12. You can find Matt Lattimer's picture in the dictionary

under "attention whore."

The guy was a speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld and then Bush II. His insights on what Hillary Clinton is thinking are worth less than the toilet paper he uses to wipe his ass.

[FSogol]

46. Exactly, but instead of realizing this, folks would rather re-fight the primaries.

[Lotusflower70]

13. No please no

The party needs to move forward. We have divisions to try to heal and unify. I don't think another run by her would help. She did what she could but the party has to add new faces and ideas.

[beaglelover]

16. Agree completely! She had her shot twice now. It's time for new blood and energy in the

Dem party and we must nominate a younger, more vibrant, person who also has charisma. I'm not sure who that is yet, but they are already on the scene somewhere.

[Lotusflower70]

36. Amen to that

I know he isn't younger but he has more charisma and I might have a bit of bias because he is my Senator but I would love to see Al Franken in the mix. We need forward thinkers, people that will engage. We need to build the grassroots movement. All the momentum from this resistance needs to be channeled into midterms and getting ready for 2020.

[BeyondGeography]

14. The no's are winning this thread

Good.

[Initech]

51. I would far prefer a Warren / Franken or Franken / Warren ticket!

That is exactly what we need to defeat Trump!

[NickB79]

111. +1000. nt

[Lil Missy]

115. Guess what? DU does not have the final say.

[In_The_Wind]

15. I don't believe she will try again.

[MFM008]

17. I personally

Want a younger woman.
Kamala Harris for example.

[Va Lefty]

18. This would not be a good idea

[Agschmid]

19. She absolutely SHOULD NOT.

[NurseJackie]

20. Good! I'd love to see her run again! I belive that she ...

... AND our Democratic party have learned some important lessons and are not likely to repeat the same obvious mistakes again.

[SamKnause]

21. Fuck No !!!

[qanda]

22. Please, God, no!

[bathroommonkey76]

23. The Dems need to find a younger candidate

to groom-- I love the Clintons, but their time has passed.

[Liberal In Texas]

24. I think that ship has sailed.

I really wanted her to win this time but I think it's over and time for someone else.

[VMA131Marine]

25. Whoever runs will likely have a bigger mess to clean up than 2008

I would not be in favour of another HRC candidacy. Yes she was probably sabotaged by Comey in the end, but those issues won't go away in the next four years.

[greytdemocrat]

26. No.

Enjoy the grand kids, go sit on a beach.

[StevieM]

27. I love Hillary but it seems clear that she is retired. And she has earned the right to live close

to her grandchildren and see them regularly. We all owe her a great debt for her service.

Her campaign helped lay the groundwork for future female candidates. In the future, we will be better able to see through the lies that are being told about them, in part because HRC took the McCarthyite beating that she was forced to endure.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Third times the charm?

[demmiblue]

29. No thank you. n/t

[Hortensis]

30. "CGI--most scandal-plagued arm of the Clinton Foundation"?

More of the same old Politico anti-Hill lies from this slimy bastard? What's his purpose? Nostalgia for the good old days when they could all knock out rabble-rousing swiftboating pieces in their sleep? Withdrawal pains? Unrequited malice?

Just warming up the anti-Democrat Politico engine in case she decides to run for state office?

Yes, I would support her for president if she ran again -- IF her opponent wasn't someone I felt I should support instead. I don't vote for people but for what I hope to achieve through them. That said, I'd still love her to win, and it would be a win for all of us.

[SaschaHM]

31. I'd support her, but ....

because I don't want to see Bernie running again (sorry, not sorry), I'd be fine with a "Nobody from 2016 with the exception of O'Malley" silent rule.

[bravenak]

45. Me too

[bunnies]

32. Your link doesn't appear to have the whole article.

Here it is: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/hillary-clinton-is-running-for-president-again-214766

Edit: never mind. I see it now.

[Chasstev365]

33. VERY BAD IDEA!

Hillary is history and no one wants to relive 2016. Elizabeth Warren, Jay Inslee, Al Fraken Yes! Hillary No!

[DonCoquixote]

34. with all the bad blood and baggage

this would be terrible. Add to this that even if she tried a strategy that was different (like keeping Debbie Wasserman Schultz a hundred miles from the wheel of the campaign SHE wrecked twice) few would believe her. Her only hopeof beign swallowed would be A) nominate a strong, truly liberal VP from the get go and b) do very public "i'm sorry" to the Sanders wing, two things that will NOT happen.

[StevieM]

96. HRC is not running again. But she owes no apology to Sanders or his wing of the party.

She ran on a progressive platform, more so than Obama in 2012.

And nobody cheated Bernie in the primaries. He had a fair chance at winning but just couldn't come up with the votes.

[JHan]

35. I would support her regardless but this is meaningless nonsense and speculation for several reasons:

In a recent interview Jennifer Palmieri indicated Hillary was very hesitant to run this time but felt compelled to because she had the strongest chance of winning the democratic base. This says to me that she isn't obsessed with being President, contrary to what her naysayers and haters love to claim.

The writer is as ridiculous as Ed Klein.

[mcar]

38. This is a ridiculous article

By a ridiculous writer.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

40. No Hillary and No Bernie...

Hillary would be a great president and would accomplish a lot but she just won't win. She lacks the most crucial quality as a candidate...being a powerful, charismatic and engaging speaker.

Bernie's positions are too far left and lacks necessary crossover appeal to win with independents.

Whoever is nominated in 2020 needs to be:

1) Young
2) Charismatic/Dynamic/Powerful speaker
3) Focused more on issues that impact EVERYONE...like jobs and income. Don't abandon issues that impact special populations of people but do NOT ignore the things that impact everyone in order to cater to a few.
4) Aggressively complete in EVERY corner of the country...do NOT forfeit one single district anywhere.

Anyone who doesn't meet those requirements need to be kicked to the curb immediately.

[truebluegreen]

52. Th "too far left" part is hilarious

especially if you want to compete in every corner of the country. You do realize that donald effing trump ran to Hillary's left on trade and jobs don't you, and beat her in the rust belt for just that reason?

[Agschmid]

71. He may have run on "more to the left" but he won't govern that way.

Anyone who thought he was, I've got a bridge I would like to sell you.

[truebluegreen]

90. To sell me? I never said or ever would say he would govern that way.

The point is and remains that he ran that way, and broke the blue wall that way. Which signifies to me that the Democratic Party needs to pay a whole lot more attention to economic issues, the blue collar voters and the ever-shrinking middle class if we wish to win in the future.

[Agschmid]

92. So folks were lied to, they bought it.

And it's the democrats fault they fell for the lies?

No.

[truebluegreen]

93. Silly. Of course Donny Boy is a liar.

And yes it is unfortunate--to say the least--that "folks" fell for it, and thought Donny would do what he said he would. But if you want to argue that therefore the Democratic Party has no issues with either its policies or its messaging, then I have a bridge to sell you.

"Donny boy is a bad person" was clearly not a winning message. What is?

imho, if, in the system, you are blaming people with no money and no power, you are doing it wrong.

[Agschmid]

114. When I canvassed "Donny is bad" was not the line I used.

It is too bad that seems to be what a lot of people focused on, but it is an issue.

We had an economic message, nobody cared. We had a healthcare message, nobody cared. We had an education message, nobody cared.

They will care when they get the shaft, and I'm still going to think they are fools for voting for him.

[truebluegreen]

117. Nobody canvassed me so out of curiosity,

what was the message--economic, healthcare, education--that you used? And where was this?

And when you asked yourself why nobody cared--I'm assuming you did that--what reason did you arrive at?

[Agschmid]

121. Economy and Healthcare.

I canvassed in PA, NY, and NH.

[truebluegreen]

122. What was the message?

I assume it was more than, "we want to improve the economy and healthcare."

[Agschmid]

125. It was, much more.

It clearly wasn't enough.

[truebluegreen]

126. Or it simply wasn't believed.

You've heard of the study done at Princeton a few years back that concluded--based on data from 1980 to 2001 iirc--that the US is an oligarchy? That the wishes of the people have a "near zero" effect on policy decisions?

People have heard a lot of promises from a lot of politicians for a lot of years and economically speaking shit just keeps getting worse.

The establishment wasn't believed. Hillary wasn't believed. And so she didn't rack up a 50 point lead and she actually lost in a few places that really mattered.

Seems to me the way to fix this is obvious.

[Agschmid]

138. Please enlighten me.

You seem to have the only solution which makes sense.

[truebluegreen]

145. It's obvious isn't it?

Politicians who don't act like their only constituents who matter are the big donors. Politicians who don't treat their voters--particularly the working class and shrinking middle class--like commodities. Politicians who don't take no for an answer and go quietly. Politicians who actually fight, even if they don't win.

If they want to inspire enough voters to get to the polls to prevent (more) stolen elections, they have to give us something to vote for, and then at least try to deliver, and let the opposition have it when they obstruct. "Welcome their hatred" and forget the bipartisany BS.

Americans are living in fantasy land, I fear. The "greatest democracy in the world" and the "richest country in the world" should not be governed as we have been for decades, leaving the majority! out of the equation.

[StevieM]

98. Incorrect IMO. HRC lost because of the fake email scandal. And the FBI rigging the election

by making her look like she was under criminal investigation. And then doing it again with 11 days to go in the election.

[truebluegreen]

113. She asked the question herself:

Why wasn't she 50 points ahead? The BS from Comey would not have mattered if she had a solid lead, as Obama did, both times, despite all the crap they threw at him. She wasn't popular, which is another way of saying she was a weak candidate and so she was vulnerable. Q.E.D. She lost--where it counted--to Donald F@cking Trump.

[StevieM]

118. Her name was completely poisoned and it wasn't over economic issues.

The fake email scandal was the most successful fake scandal that GOP ever invented. It had no real substance to it so it could be molded into anything in people's minds. Other fake scandals were nowhere near as effective. This was the Republicans' masterpiece.

HRC was extremely popular 4 years ago. She left office with 69 percent job approval and 65 percent favorability. And she had been polling in the 60s for almost 4 years. She was not a hopelessly unpopular candidate. The GOP demonized her brilliantly. They behaved with a lack of ethics that we have never seen before in this country. And this time they had corrupt officials at the FBI and State Department Inspector General's Office working with them.

HRC doesn't owe anybody an apology for running for president. And the voters of the Democratic Party don't owe anybody an apology for choosing to nominate her over her opponents.

[truebluegreen]

119. Apparently she was a hopelessly unpopular candidate.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[StevieM]

120. Only after falling victim to a McCarthyite campaign of lies, sexism and hatred.

If she was hopelessly unpopular than she never would have produced the stunningly high poll numbers that she had for well over four years.

People who produce those kinds of amazing numbers for so long are not "hopeless." Even if they eventually are taken down.

It is not OK to minimize the evil that the GOP engaged in. It makes it easier for them to get away with it again next time. And there WILL BE a next time. There will always be the newest incarnation of the Swift Boat Veterans.

[truebluegreen]

136. She had stunningly high poll numbers when

she wasn't running for anything. Once she did start, they only went down.

Of course GOPers are evil. It's what they do. The trick is having candidates that are popular enough / can connect with the voters to withstand the onslaught. Hillary was not that candidate.

[StevieM]

147. Under different circumstances she could have been IMO. But the fake email scandal was uniquely

devastating. We will never know how devastating their lies about Sanders, O'Malley or Warren would have been.

What we do know is that they would have had a lot thrown at them, possibly including a bogus FBI investigation.

And if HRC's good poll numbers don't count for anything then neither do Bernie's. We don't know how he would have held up in the GE. He could have done even worse--or he could have done better. We will never know.

But nobody is owed an apology by the voters for whom they chose to nominate or not nominate.

[truebluegreen]

156. I disagree.

With or without the bogus email crap I think she was a damaged candidate. Fairly or unfairly she was tied to Bill's policies--which too many have seen blow up in their faces. NAFTA was a bill of goods that did nothing good for the traditional Democratic base and --please note--particularly in the rust belt.

P.s. Who said anything about Bernie?

[StevieM]

158. Fair point, you didn't say anything about Bernie. As for policies, I don't think they were

of paramount importance in this election.

I believe this election was all about the fake email scandal. The American people, in their infinite wisdom, were successfully persuaded that HRC's ownership of a private email server proved that she was a bad human being.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

162. Don't try to school me on Bernie Sanders

I lived in Vermont for many years and I am probably far more familiar with him, his policies, his positions and his warts than most here.

He may not be too far left to most Democrats but he IS for moderates. There are a hell of a lot of Independents and moderates who are not loyal to any party and vote for the most moderate candidate. That's exactly what I do. Bernie is too far left for my tastes. I would not want to vote for him. On top of that, if I'm being honest, I just don't like him anymore.

[truebluegreen]

163. Don't put words in my mouth.

[hrmjustin]

41. She won't and she should not and neither should Bernie.

They both can have influence but their time is done.

[Orsino]

151. If I were only concerned with age, I would certainly agree.

Sanders already seemed low-energy, and how long can Clinton keep her vigor?

[democratisphere]

42. HRC could run again BUT she will need to drastically change her approach and views of Americans.

There is no excuse for the loss to the insane maniac. A lot of HRC's problems were of her own making. If she cleans up her act and sincerely understands where the American people are economically and financially, she can possibly pull off another run for the WH.

[Ligyron]

43. Bad idea

Plus, she'd never last eight years.

We need a whole new crowd, not the one who lost us the last election.

No more third way crap.

Ever.

[roamer65]

48. It's a long way to 2020.

Personally, I don't think she would get the nomination. People will want a very leftist, distinct change in '20.

Someone like Elizabeth Warren.

[LisaL]

49. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

[Initech]

50. Absolutely no!

We can't keep running the same people. We have too much at stake here.

[truebluegreen]

53. No.

[Vinca]

54. No. We need a fresh and exciting face.

[RedWedge]

55. Why anyone is taking this out-loud wishful thinking seriously is beyond me.

HRC owes us NOTHING.

[Peacetrain]

56. No..time for her to be a mentor..to the next set of leaders..

[mvd]

58. While, like Gore, I think she had her Presidency taken away..

it would be better to have a fresh face. Someone more to the left. Boy, she should be President, though. She got almost 3 million more votes!

[blm]

59. DonV you should delete this thread - the article is meant to SHIT-STIR.

It's horses hit from a GOP operative that has no basis in reality.

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. Speculative and extremely premature drivel. I doubt Hillary wants to go through that shit again.

And who could blame her? This author seems to want to start another mudfight.

[sweetapogee]

62. I really

don't have a problem either way. The primary process is what is used to determine the strongest candidate.

[Calculating]

64. NO!

The Dem party thrives on fresh blood candidates. That's why Obama did so well. No more senior citizens running for president would be nice.

[steve2470]

65. I like Secretary Clinton and voted for her, but no....

She's had two shots at the Presidency. It's time for new blood in the Party. Let her enjoy her retirement.

[jalan48]

66. Please. No.

[obamanut2012]

68. So many in this thread taking the bait

Trump wants Dems/liberals to infight and splinter. Congrats on falling for it.

[Agschmid]

72. Except nobody is in disagreement, we all agree she shouldn't run again.

[TrekLuver]

87. +1000

[obamanut2012]

153. Congrats on taking the bait

[blm]

73. It never ceases to amaze me how easily people fall for this utter bullshit from GOP operatives.

Even at DU - where Dems should KNOW BETTER BY NOW.

[TrekLuver]

74. It doesn't look like many people are saying Run Hilly Run! So the chum is still in the water.

[obamanut2012]

154. It gets people to say something negative about Hillary

And try and stop her from being a real part of the resistance.

[Agschmid]

161. I didn't say anything negative about her.

I said she should not run, that's it.

[uponit7771]

95. +1

[BainsBane]

69. She will not

I bet any amount of money on it.

Democrats are very unforgiving of people who lose general elections. It's never happened before, and it won't happen with Clinton.

[ProfessorGAC]

141. What Bane Said!

She's not running again. And, in the modern era, only Nixon lost, ran again, and won and the dirty tricks in 1968 played a big part in preventing him being a two time loser. (Which of course happened later anyway.

[butdiduvote]

75. This article is stupid, but...

...if she ran in the primary, I would vote for her, even if I was the only person left on this site who supported her.


President Hillary is a dream of mine that won't ever go away. I don't just want a female president. I want THAT one.

Yes, I'm aware there is about a 1% chance of that dream ever coming to fruition. Fuck Trump voter idiots.

[leftofcool]

76. No, Hillary should say fuck you to the hall of America

[putitinD]

77. Our party needs new blood.

[Ilsa]

86. I agree. We haven't done enough to cultivate

the next group of leaders. I worry that the first female president will be Jodie Ernst or someone like her.

[HoneyBadger]

78. While I could easily believe that this is happening, where are the facts that the post mentions?

Based on recent history, I would expect to see a lot of fundraising, though perhaps that will be post DNC picking Ellison.

[bluecollar2]

79. please God....no

Hillary running again would be a Republican wet-dream....

[Mike Nelson]

81. This is a dumb...

...story to promote now. The focus should be on the nearer election. Her running will depend on the mood of the Democratic party and public, after suffering under Trump. I hope many consider running - including Hillary - and will support the nominee enthusiastically!

[FreepFryer]

83. +1 (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

82. This is white meat thrown into a feeding frenzy. IGNORING

What effect would such a comment have, at this moment, than to foster division amongst Democrats?

[lindysalsagal]

88. Relly no.

Too old. Too tarnished, regardless of whether or not she deserved it.

[Eyeball_Kid]

89. No. Just No.

I thought HRC should have hung up her spurs after she lost to Obama. I thought that she was getting up there in years back then, and thought that her run for 2016 was going too far. Then Bernie, at 73, jumped in, so all bets were off. Hillary will be in her early 70s by the time that 2020 comes around, and if elected, her first term would end when she's in mid to late 70s. Anyone's cognitive capacity slows down at that age, and HRC will be no different.

Please give it a pass, Hillary. You served your country well. Enjoy retirement.

And allow a younger generation of passionate Democrats to take center stage.

[Generic Other]

91. Not a good idea

Time to move forward. Find fresh faces. New voices.

[liquid diamond]

94. Hillary should be our president. eom

[otohara]

97. Stop - Neera Tanden Already Said

she wouldn't run again and we should believe her...

I hate this term, but this is bullshit #FAKENEWS...punditry.

[sarcasmo]

99. No. Please, No.

[HughBeaumont]

100. I don't mean to be a generation divider, but where is our YOUTH movement?

Because guess what . . . the neanderthal GOP (who seems to have a better grasp at ground game strategy than we do, for some fucked reason) is already grooming two Gen-Xers in Cruz and Rubio. Yes, they're both hyper-right fundies and they suck on pretty much every issue. I mean . . . GOP, DURRRRRRR. But they aren't the usual older white guys they're used to running.

So do they beat us in this aspect too . . . charismatic candidates to appeal to the FUTURE, the ones who are inheriting this earth, this environment, this economy?

Where are OUR Gen-X candidates? Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard are already dividing the centrists and progressives. Beyond those two, who are our familiar names? Are we getting them out there . . . NOW?

Beyond that, what is our unifying message? Does anyone have any idea how to construct an economic message that's not pandering or lying? Does anyone want to talk seriously about Capitalism's glaring distribution problem?

I mean, as far as the Third Way conservatives in our own party are concerned . . . I know you didn't want to stoop to Trump's method of bullshitting your way to victory, but do you people even HAVE an economic message? Y'all don't seem to. You all don't seem to have any solution to income inequality, automation, offshore outsourcing, wage stagnation in the face of necessity inflation, skyrocketing college and health care costs, etc.etc.etc. You just seem to want to go along to get along and think past performance is always a guarantee of future results. Life's getting more expensive and you got NOTHING.

FIGURE SOMETHING OUT QUICKLY or keep losing elections.

[Hoyt]

101. Doubt it will happen. But compared to Trump, she'll look very good to all but ignorant white wingers

[Larkspur]

102. She's as likely to run for Prez again as she is to run in the NY Marathon

Not a chance!

[Chipper Chat]

103. Hillary and Bill should enjoy their remaining years free from GOP harassment

which would double-down if she ran again. I'm looking at Gavin Newsome, the Castros, Al Franken, Cecile Richards, Barbara Lee - maybe even Michelle Obama.

[VOX]

104. If there were an election tomorrow, fine. But I think she's moved on...

That was a horribly brutal campaign, just relentless in the persecution and demonizing of her. She lost to the FBI, Russian hackers and trolls, dis-and-misinformation (the REAL fake news), and assorted KGOP miscreants who spread false information.

If she's sane (as opposed to 45), she should just take it easy and enjoy the rest of her life in peace. She's earned it. She and Al Gore will continue to be the best presidents we almost had, if the game had been played honestly.

[adigal]

105. Oh, dear God. Are we not able to learn??

I said over and over and over that HIllary couldn't win because I know so many people, even moderates, who despise her for no reason except the last 25 years of propaganda. I KNOW that isn't fair to her, but it is what it is. And when I said that here, I got beat up for "concern trolling." If we nominate her again, I will rip every single hair out of my head and move to Canada. You know what Insanity is?? Yes, you do.

I admire the hell out of her, but please...no.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. No. We need new leadership, young leadership, west coast leadership, etc

we are so overdue for broadening our national leadership bench it's scary.

For the record, Bernie shouldn't run again either.

[GeorgeGist]

110. We Boomers have had our chances.

Please no more.

[WinkyDink]

143. As a Boomer (1949), I tend to defend us. But in Presidential politics, I 100% agree with you. From

the TV Generation to the Computer Generation.

[ElementaryPenguin]

116. She'd win AGAIN!!!

She won - the Russians hacked - and without the traitor Comey's interference, she wins by a landslide!!!

It's not as if she's not a viable candidate, for Godsakes - SHE'S the duly elected President!!!

[IamFortunesFool]

123. FUCK NO

[Tatiana]

124. This is $hit stirring by the GOP. Let's not get distracted from our real purpose.

Which is to evict the trash that is currently occupying the White House as well as all the Republican creatures that have supported and enabled them.

Hillary isn't running again.

[delisen]

129. Think big.Before 2020. Trump resigns, Pence selects Clinton VP, Pence resigns

This is the only way 2016 can be reasonably addressed and made right.

Let's get beyond thinking small.

The Republican Party.s Russian connection is a big deal.

Republican leadership knew about the Russian interference and insisted on keeping it from us.

Pence was on the ticket that benefitted from Russian interference.

It is beginning to look like there are actionshave been and are being taken to cover up.

We need to start helping the Republican Party to dismantle itself.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

130. Oh for Christ's sake!

Has the Democratic Party not had anyone new in a position of leadership in the past 25 years? I guess not, especially when I see that Nancy Pelosi is still in power.

But the essential point is that we need new leadership. Not the same old same old.

In early 2001 I noticed here that lots of people were enthusiastic about Gore running again. And in early 2005 lots of people here were enthusiastic about Kerry running again. While DU may not be a valid microcosm of Democratic Party Politics, I suspect it is pretty close. And among the reasons we lost in 2016 was a genuine failure of imagination. Hillary Clinton, that leftover from the 90s somehow gained traction far too early, squeezed out any other viable candidates (and oh, how I wish Elizabeth Warren had been able to run!) and was far too much of same old same old to win the election.

Yes, I understand about the hacking, but the reality is that Hillary Clinton had far too much baggage to hope to win the Presidency. She's entirely too connected to Wall Street, to the failures of Bill Clinton's administration, and to her own dumb mistakes (email server anyone?) to have hoped to win. And Donald Trump was in a scary way the perfect candidate. He was the one that all those disillusioned and disaffected by politics as usual could flock to. And of course they did. It's a bit of a shame that now some of them are experiencing voter's remorse (What?? Take away my health care? Allow corporations to poison the water? Defund Planned Parenthood?) but it's too late. We all get to live with the consequences.

But more to the point, we need a leader in 2020 who is completely apart from the corporatist business as usual Democrat who will cheerfully sell out Social Security and Medicare. We need someone who will truly fight for the 99%. Elizabeth Warren is the first one who comes to mind. Bernie Sanders is the second, but he really will be too old, even though he has vastly more energy than most people half his age.

The party needs to be grooming newcomers, and there is precious little evidence that that is taking place.

Maybe we will be lucky, and in 2018 a strong new generation of young people will get elected to office (I have a niece who is considering running) and who by 2020 will be a very firm backbone of a new and better Democratic Party.

Otherwise, we can all start searching for caves to live in.

[NBachers]

131. I'd love to support Hillary for President in 2020. She'd be president now except for, well, certain

[TheFrenchRazor]

132. i hope she does; i don't care how old she is. with age comes wisdom. nt

[Bucky]

133. I think stories like this get leaked as an attack on Democratic unity

[DFW]

134. Well, if she must, but only on one condition

That she runs for RE-ELECTION.

Otherwise, I'm with Howard Dean: younger blood is needed for this job. He went with Hillary last time because no one dynamic enough in his preferred age group stepped up. I used to think the Castro brothers were too young and experienced to be able to do the job, but if Trump can get into office, then ANYONE can do the job better than he.

Hell, I could do it better. I know people in Washington, I know people abroad. I speak better German than Putin, better Russian than Merkel, better Spanish than Tim Kaine, plus Italian, Swedish, Dutch, French and Catalan to boot. My nephew speaks Arabic and my sister-in-law is from Japan, though none of them (yet) are trying to peddle their own jewelry line. Before Trump, I would have said that's enough to get me elected tour guide. Now, it seems I'm almost overqualified to be president. Scary, don't you think?

Realistically, we have about two years to come up with someone young, dynamic, charismatic, and with a political agenda we can all get behind, if not everything we want. We'll lose some of our ranks (again) because an ideal candidate isn't rigid enough. The right can get away with that. We can't. We'll have to deal with it, or lose. But we have the talent. All we have to do now is convince that talent to submit themselves to the trials and humiliations of a presidential campaign.

[NCTraveler]

135. I would welcome her entrance into the primary with cheers.

She would not be guaranteed my vote.

[AnOldFriend]

137. We Never Learn

That is truly sad.

[AngryAmish]

139. Yes! A thousand yeses!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

144. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is

However, I strongly doubt that Hillary will run again (even though I still think that she was robbed of a victory, just like Gore). It will be interesting to see who is going to be running in 2020.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

148. Let her be. We don't deserve her.

[BainsBane]

149. +1

[Orsino]

150. As much as I respect her, can we please ditch the goddamned dynasties at some point?

If she still wants the nomination, it'll probably be hers along with my vote, but I suspect that the movement that triggered Sanders's run will still be growing in the Trump era. I would prefer someone less Goldman-Sachsy retooled the party.

I would say soneone younger, but Clinton doesn't seem to want for energy.

[dubyadiprecession]

152. She will have a lot of "I told you so's" for those wayward democrats of little faith.

Shame on them for gambling their votes on a man, who is creating chaos in our country and killing our credibility with our allies!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

155. Dear Lord, no.

She had her chance. Twice. Even if she wants to, even if her age is not a consideration, we need someone new. Someone a good twenty years younger. Someone who does not have the enormous amount of baggage she has. Someone who can clearly stand up and fight for the 99%.

If Democrats as a whole fall for this idea that she should run again because *this time* she'd win, there's just no hope. It won't be third time's the charm, and we really don't want to waste the possibility of electing a Democrat to the White House because we need instead to learn "Three strikes and you're out".

It is not very often that a person loses a presidential election and then comes back to win in a later year. In fact, the only example I can think of is Richard Nixon.

And don't forget that most of those who voted for Trump did so because they saw him as someone who would effect a lot of changes, while Clinton was seen as same old same old.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

157. No way in hell

I don't think very many serious contenders are going to yield to it being "her turn" next go around.

[JHan]

159. "No inside information informs this prediction" ....

that is really all we need to know. And yet....

[Still In Wisconsin]

160. No, no, and furthermore HELL no.

Hillary Clinton would have been a good, maybe great President. I like her a lot. She got my vote, my contributions, and my time as a canvasser.

But we tried this in Wisconsin: Tom Barrett, Milwaukee Mayor and a really great guy, was defeated by Scott Walker in 2010. In 2012 we had a recall election and ran... Tom Barrett. Same great guy, same well-articulated, realistic if not totally liberal policy positions, same result.

Hillary and Bernie and Kerry and Gore can all help us defeat Trump... but not by running against him.


Please, just no.