Left Wants Challenger For Hillary Clinton

[Purveyor]

Liberal leaders want Hillary Clinton to face a primary challenge in 2016 if she decides to run for president.

The goal of such a challenge wouldn’t necessarily be to defeat Clinton. It would be to prevent her from moving to the middle during the Democratic primary.

“I do think the country would be well served if we had somebody who would force a real debate about the policies of the Democratic Party and force the party to debate positions and avoid a coronation,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, an influential progressive group.

It’s been more than five years since then-Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) stunned Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. At the time, segments of the left lambasted her support of the Iraq war. Now, the wariness is on domestic policies.
Clinton raised concern among the Democratic Party’s populist base when she recently accepted an estimated $400,000 from Goldman Sachs for two speeches.

MORE...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/189919-left-wants-challenger-for-hillary

[riqster]

1. That's how the primary process works.

That's why I backed Kucinich in the 2008 primaries. Good on them.

[elleng]

2. So give the repugs fodder for the General?

There are surely reasons to support a challenger, but not sure this is a useful one.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. I didn't realize that we only have one choice.

There is nothing garunteed that HRC should be the Dem nominee. She will have to earn it like every other candidate.

[elleng]

5. Quite right,

but the point of the OP was, I thought, a challenger FROM THE LEFT, against whom repugs could wail and wail and wail.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. That's not what I took away from

the article. The very damming points that are made, with reference to HRC taking 400K from Goldman Sacks, is that she is in the pocket of the 1%. If true then how can HRC be considered anything less than a centrist 3rd wayer?

I'd be happy to hear her perspective on the above as well as any challenger's questions and statements.

[Fearless]

12. Polling data suggests a vast majority of the public

Agree with core liberal values.

[dchill]

15. That's because core liberal values...

are actually mainstream values, not to mention values that would be held by a REAL Christian nation - if the US actually was one. IMO.

[Fearless]

16. Agreed.

To win we need good PR and turnout. For republicans to win they have to cheat or stifle turnout.

[dchill]

19. Yes. Their approval is so low that next year...

they will have to lie, cheat AND stifle turnout. But they already do that. I guess more states will have to pass bogus voter ID laws.

[elleng]

22. Of course.

[HappyMe]

13. It doesn't say much for HC that

the repugs won't wail and wail and wail against her.

Yes, we NEED a challenger from the Left.

[ogradda]

17. Yeah

What I was thinking.

[roguevalley]

7. anytime people step away from the preprogrammed path set out by vested iinterests

it is a wonderful thing.

[Fearless]

11. To run the best most vetted candidate actually.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. Good. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Having only one choice is.

[DCPSR]

6. Makes little sense

from a logical standpoint. So you put a primary up, she stays more left tilted, but is that the way she would govern? Isn't that really the point.

[frazzled]

8. I'm for Xena, the Warrior Princess

Because she fights for the "greater good."

[Mosaic]

10. No more dynasties

That's reason enough not to choose her. On the other hand we truly need a Progressive mover and shaker. So there are two great reasons not to even think about her.

[DFW]

14. Hell, I'd take $400K from Goldman Sachs, too, as long as....

I was allowed to say anything I wanted to. (They might not like what they got for their money, but hey, you pays yer money and you takes yer chances).

I'm glad the first sentence said what the headline did not: the primary challenge is wished IF she decides to run for president.

IF.

The one possibility the pundits (and, apparently, half the Democrats, too) are ignoring is that she might have no plans to run at all. If this is the case, then the wisest thing the DNC (and Hillary) could to is exactly what they are doing now: let her act as a lightning rod for the whole Republican hate machine (including the Kochs, Adelson, Fox Noise and National Hate Radio). Let them blow $200 million and a lot of their time and energy on dissing a wraith, and then let the younger candidates, from whose ranks our next president will come, sort it out when the primaries begin for real. Hillary is a brilliant stand-up comedienne, for those who don't know, and I'll bet she could give a show at the 2016 convention, summing up all the crap tossed at her by right wingers who assumed she would be the candidate, savagely making fun of all of them. It would be a routine that would be seen live on national television, and then on youtube, getting ten times more views than "Mitt Romney Style." The Republican hate machine would come off looking so badly that they would never recover by the time the election rolled around. That's how I'd play it, anyway.

[davidpdx]

23. Very true

People on here assume she will run. We don't have any proof thus far she is.

I am hoping someone else is going to step up or a draft moment starts.

[Scuba]

18. I disagree that the "goal of such a challenge wouldn’t necessarily be to defeat Clinton."

Yeah, it would.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. +1

Yup. I want someone else!

[davidpdx]

24. Exactly

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. I have an idea

Let's have a primary! Did somebody not think of that already?

BTW who has actually announced so far?