Warren will NOT be a candidate, and Sanders doesn't have a hope in hell.

[RBInMaine]

Both are very good progressives, but, contrary to some who are still deluding themselves, Warren will not be a candidate for President in 2016. She has said so, with her OWN mouth, time and again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is very obviously either deaf or insane, living in some alternate reality much like those right wingers who think dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Pure delusion.

Even if Warren did run, she could not win a national election. She's too far to the left and doesn't have enough national clout. Simple as that.

Sanders by his own mouth is a "socialist." He is therefore DONE before he begins. Done. Nationally, Americans won't allow a "socialist" to be President. End of story on that one.

O'Malley and Webb ARE credible candidates but face a daunting task against Clinton who, again, has much more national clout and will therefore have much more money. But they would be great candidates in a primary.

I want a primary, and a rigorous one too. That is good for the eventual nominee. It seasons him/her for the general election. But right now I don't see anyone beating Clinton.

As to this nonsense about emails and donations to Bill's GLOBAL charity, it's foolishness that most Americans could care less about. Non-stories. People will want a President who is READY for the job. Clinton is TOUGH, EXPERIENCED, and READY. She can beat ANY of the RePUKES like a drum.

[leftofcool]

1. Webb is too much of a Confederate sympathizer, O'Malley maybe

but I don't think he has enough clout either. I would like to see a good primary. But Hillary will clean repuke clock!

[libdem4life]

80. He's emminently without charisma...aka boring to watch.

[FSogol]

95. Completey disagree, he dismantles most GOP Governors in this C-span video

He also allows Repuke VA Governor Bob McDonnell to destroy himself. It is long, but well worth a watch. If you can watch the whole thing, skip forward to 19:30-22:00

http://www.c-span.org/video/?304573-1/economic-issues-states

[libdem4life]

97. I was referring to Webb...I like O'Malley and hope he gets in the race. But I did watch

about half of it and you're right, it is very good. Plan to finish it later.

[marym625]

2. We could still see someone come out of the blue

And rise above the fray. It has happened before.

I agree with what you said as to Warren. I don't know that I agree about Sanders.

When President Obama was constantly being called a socialist or communist, the registration for the socialist party grew more than it had in years. If you remember the feel of the 2008 campaign and election, the far left was exhilarated. The obvious disgust with the spineless Democrats that were in office and/or running became very apparent.

I am not saying that it would happen again, just that it is a possibility.

I hate to say it but I wish Sanders was either taller and/or better looking. It's a terrible fact, but a fact nonetheless.

Good post. Thanks for it

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. That's a new one. ( To me at least.)

>>>I hate to say it but I wish Sanders was either taller and/or better looking. It's a terrible fact, but a fact nonetheless.>>>

He looks great, imo. Not "hot" exactly ( maybe electing him will help us grow out of our "reality show" political culture) but to me he " looks like a "President"... in the sense of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower. (i.e. Before the tv-age aesthetic took over completely.)

And SOUNDS a lot better than any of those three.

[marym625]

20. absolutely

I agree. But, unfortunately, the ageism and lookism (just made up a word ) that has permeated our society is deeo. Very deep. It's disgusting.

Try being a 51 year old woman in this society. Seriously, people look right through you. There's a reason plastic surgery has increased so dramatically. The increase in the number of people around my age that have had some type of cosmetic surgery or procedure after the 2008 crash was due to people trying to get a job. It really sucks.

I agree Sanders sounds wonderful. I love him. I don't have a problem with how he looks either. But I know his chances would dramatically increase if he looked like George Clooney.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. It's true what u say Mary, but let someone here, a guy especially, say that about Hillary and look out...

People here would rip that guy a new one, and rightfully so.

Not fair to judge anyone by their looks or age, no doubt; but there's also something called reality, I understand that.

[marym625]

87. I don't agree with the

"Rightfully so." Not if said in the same context I am saying it. Although, with Hillary, she's younger than Sanders. I think once someone hits 70 the ageism becomes even greater.

It's a comment on our society, not the person. As far back as the Kennedy Nixon debate that was televised, we have known how important looks were to people over policy and intelligence. Obviously, Kennedy was much smarter than Nixon, but the radio results were for Nixon and the televised results were for Kennedy. And that aspect of American society has only gotten worse

It is part of the reason Palin got as far as she did before even the gop said she is a crazy person. She is a good looking woman.

Look at what was said about Joni Ernst. Although there was a ton of talk about what she said, nearly every MSM outlet commented on her looks.

I know you are correct about what a guy here saying anything about Hillary's looks would be met with. I don't agree it would be right. Again, not if said when talking about societies ageism and lookism. (I obviously made that word up but I don't know what the correct word would be.) Look at all the crap she took about her hair style before.

We are a sick society when it comes to this stuff. It's wrong. It's unjustified. It's inexcusable. But it is reality. I don't give a damn what someone looks like. But I am not naive and I want Bernie Sanders to run and win. If dressing him up, so to speak, ensures more people will listen to him, then that is part of what should happen. I would prefer that society change and not the Senator but that won't happen before the election.

I am being chastised. If people want to jump on me for it they're allowed. I am just addressing one of the things I have read and heard, often, as a complaint about him. Not on DU of course.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

96. I heard the same bout Bernie along w/ complaints bout his slouching. I'd take that ina heartbeat ova a crooked Teapublican who stands up straight.

[marym625]

98. As would I

And would anything thinking person.

Isn't it just horrible that how he stands is even being discussed? But walker doesn't even have a college education and he is ahead in the Republican polls.

[Dustlawyer]

67. I agree! Maybe if we back him with all we have in the Primary his message can get out!

His message, while not only right, will be popular with a LOT OF AMERICANS!!! The biggest problem he has is that the networks and even people here want to marginalize him to keep him from being heard!
I'll agree he is a long shot, but mainly due to the reasons I stated above! What we need to understand is that if we always vote for the lesser of two evils to keep the Republican Bogeyman at bay, we will always have a corporate Democrat in power. That is what the Plutocrats are counting on. Bernie wants to eliminate campaign contributions and have Publicly Funded Elections. This attacks the root cause of most of our problems, corruption of our political system which allows the oligarchies in the banking and media to thrive unchecked. Until we take the plunge and throw it all at REAL CHANGE, we will continue the slide in our standard of living and our further degradation of our environment!

[ellennelle]

34. ageism much?

sheez, folks. there are plenty of folks - myself included - who find great comfort in the wizened, grandfatherly carriage of senator sanders.

god knows, he has far more energy and infinitely more gravity than anyone else out there. maybe not more energy than warren, but yeah, more gravity than even she possesses. and she is no slouch there.

[marym625]

39. I am not agreeing with that nonsense.

I am accepting it is yet another horrible reality in our society. I have seen/read many people say that they wouldn't vote for him based on looks and/or age.

I truly wish we weren't a society obsessed with youth and looks. That would be the better wish. But I know it won't change anytime soon. I am being realistic. Sanders will have a better chance if he changes his appearance. Obviously he can't become younger and I am not at all suggesting he has plastic surgery or anything like that.

Admitting a reality in society does not mean I agree with it. And I never implied I did.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. I understood your meaning. And the reality is that optics is a HUGE consideration, especially to the uninformed, superficial voter.

[marym625]

89. Hopefully, only to the uniformed, superficial voter.

[mountain grammy]

45. And younger.. I hate to say that too

but it's a sad fact that most voting Americans won't bother to educate themselves on the realities facing our nation and the world, and are caught up in superficial crap..
Reagan was dumb, but he was an actor and proved, once and for all, Americans are gullible and will fall for anyone who can make them "feel good." Let's all cheer him taking those ugly solar panels off the White House.

Bernie will be 75 by the 2016 election, Reagan was 69 when he took office. Bernie is an outstanding human being who, I believe could lift up all Americans and be a great president, but who will ever know that when the political dirt starts hitting the teevees. He's going to look old and tired in those dark money attack ads.

I don't like that I've become so cynical, but it's all about winning. Losing is not an option. We lost an environmental champion when Mark Udall lost his Senate seat here in CO to a climate change denying teabagger.

It's all about winning and if Hillary can win, I'm all for it. We have to be realistic about climate change and the only hope is to put Democrats in office. I'm sorry, this is no game, this is the future of the planet and no Republican will take on this issue.
For the sake of our grandchildren, Democrats must get behind someone who can win.

[marym625]

56. Thank you for understanding

I would get behind sanders as a candidate with a furor that I wouldn't have fir any other potential candidate we have at the moment. And facing facts means any advantage should be taken.

[brooklynite]

110. No, it hasn't happened before....

...not in the past several decades. In today's political world, if you haven't already started organizing behind the scenes, you won't have the resources (staff, financial reserves, political support) to be competitive.

Barack Obama announced his candidacy 8 years ago, but had been planning for it well into 2006.

[marym625]

124. True

I guess time is just flying by. Doesn't feel like that long ago

[kacekwl]

117. Yea, and I wish I was

George Clooney . Just shows this is a beauty contest instead of beautiful content contest. Shame.

[marym625]

126. wouldn't that be nice

That it was all about content?

[Scuba]

3. So very much wrong in this post. First, Warren is not a "very good progressive." She's ....

... progressive on Wall Street and income equality, but hawkish on Israel and only moderate on social issues.

You're probably correct that Bernie can't win.

Where you're really wrong is thinking that Hillary can be a winner for us. The right will vote against her as a bloc, and she's done nothing but alienate those of us who are left of the "centrist Democrats." Certainly her hawkishness, support for Wall Street and fracking, oil pipelines and H1B Visas will leave many on the left feeling that they have no one to vote for.

If Hillary is our candidate, we are doomed. Even if she should win, we will lose.

[djean111]

4. +1000

[OKNancy]

5. what Obama blue states do you think she wouldn't win?

[Scuba]

6. Well, I'd start with Wisconsin, especially if Walker is the Republican candidate.

She's nowhere near Barack Obama as a speaker or campaigner, and he didn't have the heavy baggage that Hillary carries with her.

[OKNancy]

7. Only 10 electoral votes... She would still win

I don't think she will lose any 2012 states and may pick up some.

[Scuba]

9. Perhaps, but even if she wins, we lose.

[OKNancy]

15. of course that is your opinion, not mine or many other

women, LGBT, minorities and yes the poor and middle class.

[daleanime]

22. Is opinion universal, no.....

is it shared by many, yes.

[Scuba]

23. Yes, Hillary is good on women's and minority issues. She's just OK on LBGT but poor ...

... on economic equality, which hurts women, the poor and the middle class. Worse, she's a hawk which is bad for all Americans.

[OKNancy]

27. really - economic equality? because she spoke to "wall street"?

How about when in the Senate she co-sponsored bills to increase the minimum wage five times and consistently voted to support it.

How about - voted in support of legislation that discouraged outsourcing in the private sector, and she also voted to restrict federal agencies from outsourcing work.

or sick leave
- proposed a $1 billion per year innovation fund to encourage states to develop family leave and paid leave policies and repeatedly cosponsored legislation to provide seven paid sick days a year to American workers.

-cosponsored legislation to expand protections for worker’s pensions and cosponsored bills to protect overtime pay for working Americans.

- Hcosponsored legislation to strengthen safety protections for coal miners and she proposed expanding the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)’s power to penalize companies that violate mine safety laws. Hillary also cosponsored bills to secure health care coverage for laid off and retired steelworkers.

---
there is more, but that is enough for now.

[Scuba]

37. Not because she "spoke to" Wall Street, but because she owes them a quid pro quo for ...

... their generous contributions to her cause. Because she's on record as saying bankers shouldn't be bashed for the looting of our country. For advocating for more H1B Visas which hurts American workers.

Hillary is not a friend of the 99%. To believe otherwise is delusional.

[OKNancy]

47. delusional? well, that ends our conversation

[marym625]

92. Don't forget one of her main advisers is Larry Summers.

[Scuba]

109. All of her advisors should be anethema to Democrats.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order



Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands
In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/peter-peterson-foundation-half-billion-social-security-cuts_n_1517805.html

Peter Peterson Spent Nearly Half A Billion In Washington Targeting Social Security, Medicare



http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2010/01/hillary-clinton-speaks-from-peter-g.html

Hillary Clinton Speaks from Peter G. Peterson Institute on Foreign Aid

[marym625]

123. +1000

Thank you for this

[marym625]

91. I'm a woman,

Part of the LGBT community, and pretty damn close to poor. I agree with Scuba. So do very many of my friends and family.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

42. WE loses even compared to a Repub Senate, House and Bush White house or Ted Cruz or Rubio

Do you really believe that?

How about a WALKER white house and repub senate and house, are you saying

on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND that there is so little difference between that and Hillary that voting for Hillary is a waste or wrong?

Oh wait, now I see below where you said you would hold your nose and vote for her

never mind, this post isnt meant for you

[Scuba]

44. No, but we lose compared to a Sanders or Warren in the White House. We lose at a slower pace ...

... than with a Walker or Bush, but we still lose with Hillary.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

49. I would give anytning for a Sanders WH, i would also give anything to live long enough to watch

TeaParTY drowning from climate change

[mountain grammy]

55. I'm sorry you feel that way too.

I've had plenty of issues with President Obama, but he's not throwing snowballs and declaring climate change a hoax. He's working for an agreement with Iran, our last and best hope in the middle east, and addressing issues of racial and income inequality in America. I have no doubt Hillary will take on these issues as well.

Put a Republican in the White House and we all lose.

I refuse to consider myself a loser if my party wins the White House. Please, let's be realistic about this.

[MADem]

105. If she wins, I win, my family and friends win, women and kids win...so my "we" ain't your "we." nt

[Scuba]

108. So you and your family and friends are ready to fight and finance another war? Another ....

... four years of slapping banks on the wrists for laundering drug money and committing mortgage fraud? Got it.

[MADem]

112. Aren't you the mind reader! With talent like that--since you "know" what HRC is "planning" -- why

don't you cut us all in on the winning Megamillions number?



You "got it" all right...!

[Scuba]

114. I'm just going on her track record.

[MADem]

115. Gee, that saves thinking critically and intellectually, certainly....so glad I am not like you in

that regard.

Otherwise I would not have voted for a senator who was, all the way up to 1996, affiliated with a racist, homophobic, anti-social programs party that derided "Welfare Queens" and thought AIDS was a "lifestyle judgment!"

Yeah--instead, I look at the whole person, their stated goals, their behaviors over an arc of time, and that's how I judge a person's performance.

But thanks for letting me know that you believe in never forgiving people, ever. Even for decisions that they publicly acknowledge that they regret.

I'm sure you'll apply that hardass "unforgiven" view across the range of potential candidates, since anything else would be hypocritical in the EXTREME.....


Or should we cue the "But....but....but....that's DIFFERENT!!!!!" machine?

Sorry, no--it's not. But do spin away, if you'd like.

[Scuba]

118. I can forgive past transgressions, if/when apologies are sincere, but there's much more recent ....

... problems with Hillary's behaviors than just her Iraq War Resolution speech and vote. Just last fall, for example ...


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order

Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands
In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.
Fri Sep. 5, 2014 1:44 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton often plays the hawk card: She voted for the Iraq war, dissed President Barack Obama for not being tough enough on Syria, and compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. This is to be expected from a politician who has angled for a certain title: the first female president of the United States. Whether her muscular views are sincerely held or not, a conventional political calculation would lead her to assume it may be difficult for many voters to elect as commander-in-chief a woman who did not project an aggressive and assertive stance on foreign policy. So her tough talk might be charitably evaluated in such a (somewhat) forgiving context. Yet what remains more puzzling and alarming is the big wet kiss she planted (rhetorically) on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger this week, with a fawning review of his latest book, World Order.

Sure, perhaps there is secretary's privilege—an old boy and girls club, in which the ex-foreign-policy chiefs do not speak ill of each other and try to help out the person presently in the post. Nothing wrong with that. But former-Madam Secretary Clinton had no obligation to praise Kissinger and publicly participate in his decades-long mission to rehabilitate his image. In the review, she calls Kissinger a "friend" and reports, "I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels." She does add that she and Henry "have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past." But here's the kicker: At the end of the review, she notes that Kissinger is "surprisingly idealistic":

Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone.

Such an endorsement of this vile war criminal should be an automatic disqualifier for any Democratic Party candidate.

[MADem]

120. Cue the "BUT BUT BUT" machine!!! You wasted NO time, too!

You take a picture of a Secretary of State with a former Secretary of State, at a public AND meaningless function, where people say nice things about one another (would you prefer she said "I hate you, you miserable fucker?"-- because that's quite the opposite of diplomacy...!!!!) and you want me to suspend logic, judgment and reason and get all Fight Club about that stupid shit?

You really have a terribly basic way of looking at things. That lack of nuance will not serve you well.


Gee, who else can we toss under the bus for appearing at a bullshit, meaningless public event?

Fuck you, Jimmy--you SMILED at that jerk!!!!!





Oh, Betsy, you traitor--you worked on a BILL with this guy!!!!! How dare you stand shoulder-to-shoulder!!!



Al Franken getting chummy with Michelle Bachmann? STONE HIM!!!!!!!!!!




I can tell you this--if this is the way you "decide" for whom to vote, I am going to have to "disqualify" you from any serious discussions with me on political topics. I enjoy time-wasting chats as much as the next person, but that's really a bit OTT.

[Scuba]

121. It's not just the picture, it's the high praise she wrote in her book about the vile war criminal.

Please find me a quote where James Earl Carter heaped high praise on W.

[MADem]

122. That took all of two seconds....what are ya gonna gripe about next?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/25/179013302/at-bush-library-dedication-bipartisan-praise

At Bush Library Dedication, Bipartisan Praise
APRIL 25, 201312:19 PM ET

— Jimmy Carter lauded Bush's "contribution to the most needy people on earth." Bush helped forge a peace treaty in South Sudan, Carter noted, and dramatically increased the funding for AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa.

Just in case you're unclear on the term:

laud
lôd/Submit
verbformal
past tense: lauded; past participle: lauded
praise (a person or their achievements) highly, especially in a public context.
"the obituary lauded him as a great statesman and soldier"
synonyms: praise, extol, hail, applaud, acclaim, commend, sing the praises of, speak highly of, pay tribute to, lionize, eulogize, rhapsodize over/about; More...

Look, you apparently don't "get" how the game is played. You would do well to appreciate this reality, because every politician and statesperson does it--go looking, and you'll find examples. Most public figures understand that one catches more flies with honey; that finding a point of agreement is the avenue towards compromise and moving forward (or simply making a ceremony go smoothly); and being a stubborn asshole who thinks it's somehow "cool" to be calling opponents names gets them nowhere. They also understand that there's no point in beating the shit out of an old man who is out of the game.

This is why Sarah Palin isn't the VP. She leads with shit and snark. And for that reason, all but the rabid assholes find her creepy, scary and unhinged.

People are sometimes stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid, and thus, Biden lives at the Observatory, and not her.

Like I said, that took two seconds. You could have spared yourself some embarrassment. Google is YOUR friend, too.

[Scuba]

125. That's very troubling. I expected Jimmy to hold to a higher standard. I'm saddened, but not ...

... at all inclined to forgive Hillary for her praise of Kissinger, or some of her other horrible transgressions.

Perhaps you have lower standards.

[leftofcool]

14. It is possible that she might pick up Kentucky

Notice I said possible here in this red state that is as red as you get. She has really strong support in Louisville and Lex and some of the surrounding counties but we have so many rural counties that will vote Republican not matter what so it is iffy. But possible. Even the Republican women is our small county really like her.

[blackspade]

43. Not a chance.

Outside of Jefferson, Fayette, and maybe Warren Counties, she has no chance.
She has too much negative baggage among poor, unemployed, Rush listening, white people in this state to even come close.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Yes & if he picks Bush or Rubio for VP, there goes Florida. Warren OTOH could win both those states easily regardless.

[demwing]

86. Any state that Obama won by less that 5% is at risk

that's Colorado (<5%), Ohio (<2%), Virginia (<3%), and Florida (<1%).

that's 70 EV at risk, and if we lose those states we lose the Presidency.

Also, should Walker be the Republican nom, Wisconsin is at risk.

[TNNurse]

16. So are you saying that

Since many of us who are more liberal than "centrist Democrats" are just not going to vote? Or vote for the Republican? That is accusing them of being pretty stupid. Not voting is not an option. EVER.

You would rather the Republican win over Clinton? I am not a Hillary fan, but if she is the candidate, she will get my vote. If you stand on your high horse and refuse to vote for the Democrat you will be helping a Republican get elected.

Have I said it enough ways????

[Scuba]

25. As I've posted before, I would hold my nose real hard and vote for Hillary over any Republican.

Your attempt to paint me as one who would rather see a Republican in office is lame and suggests you lack any valid arguments.

But it's not me you should be worried about. Candidates have to motivate voters to the polls. Certainly Hillary won't motivate many who might vote Democratic if we had a better candidate. She will indeed fail to motivate many who showed up for Obama.

But even if Hillary wins, we lose. More wars, more tax breaks for the wealthy, more H1B Visas, more fracking, more pipelines. This is Hillary's track record. We need better.

[zeemike]

36. The GOP and the left will always vote in a bloc for the party

What makes one party win is the average person who is not partisan like us or them.
And if they perceive a choice between two dynastic party choices that offers them nothing but the same old same old they will just stay home...like they did last time.

Obama proved that offering them hope of change was a winner...so now what do we do?...offer them no hope of change at all, but Hillary who the have already rejected one time.

But it must be Hillary's turn, because it is Jeb's turn to be president.

[trumad]

19. Hillary will slaughter the clown car that will roll her way.

And the right always votes the other way.....er as a block...ya think?

[ellennelle]

40. really?

you think?

walker is already catching up to her in the latest mcclatchy/marist poll.

she has so much history, so much baggage. and they'll throw new crap at her every chance they get. whether what they throw at her is true or not, they have so much old stuff, and they have not only been salivating to launch it all at her, yet again, but they have been honing their ammunition! hence, the email 'scandal'.

the world proved 8 years ago she is NOT inevitable. we MUST keep that in mind, folks.

plus, i don't want to settle for her. i admire a lot of things about her, but i truly believe we can do better.

let's use this primary process wisely to see that we actually DO better.

[trumad]

64. Walker?

You too funny.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

46. Unless millions are prevented from voting, voting rights is what this board should be concerned with

[marym625]

94. Here's an article by Greg Palast,

I posted yesterday, talking about voter suppression. Thousands are already barred from voting in the 2016 election and they've only just begun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026325830

[marym625]

90. +1000

I didn't want to go there, for obvious reasons. Agree with everything you said. And very glad you did go there.

[rhett o rick]

130. The DLC lost in 2000 and if HRC in nominated, they will lose in 2016. nm

[BeyondGeography]

8. Agree on the need for a rigorous primary

Makes the eventual winner stronger and is good for turnout.

[Bugenhagen]

10. The current crop of republicans are degenerate buffoons. Maybe worse than the last crop.

Any intelligent chordate will beat any of the republicans that have shown their faces so far. The last election was a comical farce that only had the semblance of a race because TV networks needed for it to seem close. Remember Herman Cain? Bwahahahaha. Repeat for all other candidates. Mitt was literally their best shot, and he was pathetic. You can't scare me with these republicans.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. So basically, you want a primary debate along the lines of whether we should "annihlate" ...

... Iran or simply "obliterate" it. Whether the "financial community" is being used a "scapegoat" or is simply being unfairly singled for blame for the Great Recession and growing income and wealth inequality.

Well... that's what the OTHER party is for. We're going to do things differently this time around. Sorry 'bout that.

[daleanime]

12. "And you have no future....

so do what your told to."





Not a chance in hell.

[greenman3610]

13. It's all about the Supreme Court people

If you think you can be "pure", and will be happy with the Court that President Walker would appoint, have at it.
But we did that in 2000. You'd think that would be learning enough.

[DinahMoeHum]

29. +1000s

n/t

[ellennelle]

32. ?

really? that is ALL?

what about taking us into war? or giving wall street yet more unfettered powers to screw us all?

look, the supreme court is extremely important, i'll give you that. but fer chrissake, we are a year ahead of the primaries!!! A YEAR!!!

please read my comment below.

but meanwhile, this is so not an either/or question now! we don't have to choose between hillary or walker at this point. this is, after all, the point of a primary!!

take advantage of that process and work the damn principles we believe in to the hilt! if, at the end of a year+ of having to answer to progressive demands, hlllary still wins the nomination, then - AND ONLY THEN - will we have the forced choice you present to us now.

[Corey_Baker08]

38. +1000 The Next President Will Shape The SCOTUS For Years...

Possibly even decades. This could quite possibly be the biggest consequence of whom we elect as the 45th President Of The United States, so regardless of who our nominee is it is in our best interest to elect s President that will nominate Supreme Court Justices that will stand up for what is right, we owe this not only to ourselves but we owe this to our children & grandchildren as well as to future generations of Americans...

It would be incredibly selfish to not support & or not vote for the Nominee of The Democratic Party for President in 2016...

[ellennelle]

54. oh good grief

WE ARE NOT YET AT THE ELECTION, PEOPLE!!!

we are not as yet forced to make the decision between ANYONE - hillary or otherwise - and the GOP.

sure, the supreme court appointments are extremely crucial, but sweet jesus on a cheese cracker, WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF!!!

we have all that time to PRIMARY ahead of us; USE IT, and WISELY!!

the point hillary naysayers like myself are pushing is that WE CAN DO BETTER THAN HILLARY. and we should.

if the primary ends up only improving hillary's position toward a less wall st, less hawkish, less flip and glib and entitled attitude, then we have won something.

i frankly would prefer we find someone better, and SOMEONE BETTER IS OUT THERE; this is what the primary season is for; use it!!

if we go through the primaries and hillary wins, i daresay there is hardly a soul here who would not vote for her over anyone the GOP offers.

i don't think this is the issue here, at all. WE ARE NOT VOTING FOR PRESIDENT NOW!! we are merely vetting our options.

ok, consider this: what would it mean for the entire party to just roll over and give hillary her inevitability now?

think that one through and get back to me. (spoiler alert: it's not pretty.)

[Corey_Baker08]

72. When Did I Say That Hillary Should Be Our Nominee?

First of all don't jump all over me because you for some reason I assume or even support Hillary as our nominee, because quite frankly I will not decide who I support until all have announced...

The point of my post is that regardless of who our Nominee is there are going to be those who didn't support him or her in the primary. There will be hurt feelings, bruised ego's and there will be those who say and have already said if Candidate A is the Nominee I will not vote, my point is that regardless of the Nominee those who are declaring already that they will not vote should be aware of the consequences of some of the major choices the 45th President Of The United States will have to make, case in point who sits on the SCOTUS, which is a hell of a decision so my point is even if you didn't support the nominee in the primary, not voting for whomever the Democratic Candidate may be is selfish.

I am so tired of Democrats bashing Democrats, not only Candidates but Democrats who post here bashing each other, or in your case making assumptions that simply aren't accurate...

I would hope we could at least agree on that sentiment...

[blackspade]

57. And who is that nominee?

No one at this point.

[Corey_Baker08]

73. Precisely, Whomever We Vote To Nominate.

As for me I'm undecided...

[Hawaii Hiker]

60. I agree 100%..President Obama's most lasting legacy is on this link

who is appointed to the courts...NOT just SCOTUS, Circuit Courts are almost as important since most cases never make to the Supreme Court...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

[blackspade]

58. That tired canard?

It's like a broken record these days....

[CentralMass]

17. I am a life long dem but the reality of how dysfunctional our government is and how it

increasingly represents those at the top rather then those at the bottom has left me pretty jaded.
I voted for Hillary in 2008 but right now the only two voices in the party that seem to be representing it are Elizabeth Warren and Independent Bernie Sanders. If either were on the primary ballot, I would vote for them.

The party needs a wake up call. They need to be more than just a marginally better option that plays corporate ass kissing low risk politics. I can state that I will not vote republican. However, while I always vote, I will not necessarily check every box on the ballot. The party takes our vote granted. In the end that is the only leverage that "we" have.

[newfie11]

65. +1

Same here.

[SheilaT]

21. I keep on being amazed that those who airily dismiss

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders haven't a clue that Hillary Clinton has any vulnerabilities at all.

[George II]

41. Not many, if any, "haven't a clue" that Clinton has any vulnerabilities....

...anyone who has watched or reads the news knows that Clinton has vulnerabilities. However, they're dwarfed by the vulnerabilities of both Warren and Sanders.

I'll leave it to you and others to admit to yourselves what those vulnerabilities are, mostly because the few times I've dared mention them I've been called "anti-woman" (even though I support Clinton - go figure!) or anti-Semitic (even though I have a strong Jewish cultural background), etc.

Sadly when one demonstrates a preference toward one candidate around here, those who don't agree immediately personalize it.

[davidpdx]

137. Those who dismiss Warren, Sanders, or anyone else for that matter

can't see past their own blindness. They may TELL you they want a vigorous primary, but their repeated dismissals of pretty much any other candidate says otherwise.

[ProudProg2u]

24. Bring it on ..

Warren 2016... I will not be involved in another phoney election believing I actually have a choice.I may be all the things the people who want to see nothing change say I am but one thing I'm not and that's someone who will continue to believe Americans have an actual choice. And as far as socialists go its just another tactic by the sheeple who are afraid of real change we have had socialist change in dramatic ways in this country before LBJ, Kennedy, even Lincoln so I don't by that argument or any other socialist argument .Remember how crazy the right made Nader look. One of the great men of our time .Im not buying any of this for a second. Not saying She has a chance but that's the exact problem it's baked in the cake and this should never happen. Warren write-in campaign and happy to do so no matter the outcome....!!!

[rgbecker]

26. OK! Then let's talk "Hillary's Vice President."

Please, give me someone I can get excited about. Someone who in 8 years will carry the Whitehouse for the following 8 years.

One of the Castro brothers from Texas?

[ProudProg2u]

30. I can live with that if thats what it takes

Sort-of...,But would not two of the ladies Warren /Hillary be even better 2016..? Would that not just put a hitch in the GOPOS's get along...LOL I would like to think Warrens trip to visit Hillary was just about that sort of idea Hillary/Warren.

[libdem4life]

85. Any Democrat's VP...Julian is the one...he's been promoted to HUD and resides in DC. Great Left

Credentials, and will be ready for next President.

Rubio is not cared for in the Hispanic bloc except by Florida Hispanics. The Southwest and increasingly national Hispanic voters are Democrat, but have not voted well, due to language issues, lack of a candidate who looks a bit like them, etc. A national candidate campaigning in fluent Spanish and English ... he's going to make it some way, some how, regardless.

[ellennelle]

28. back in 07...

...hardly anyone in this country even had a clue who barack obama was. no one at that point "could see anyone beating hillary," then with a long list of quite viable candidates, including joe biden. hillary carried the lead for an entire year, right up into early 08, when the primaries began. she was considered unstoppable then. yet, she was stopped.

folks, it is way too early to make assumptions about her winnability. speculations, tho, are crucial.

on that count, she carries so much baggage, and the GOP slime machine is just dying to trot it all out, whether any of it is true or not, they do not care. even within the party, folks are not eager to revisit the ways in which her hubby sold the dems to the highest bidder, via the DLC. plus, she has been so hawkish and american empire and wall st and all that jazz. it gave me pause 8 years ago, and it gives me even greater pause now, because the ways in which obama has disappointed us - despite all the ways in which he has impressed us - she will put on steroids.

we have GOT to stop making this about winning [an aside: you want to concentrate on winning? go join the GOP, because that is ALL they worry about, so that is ALL they are; read, no principles, not one, nada], and instead concentrate in this phase on principled policies to correct the country's disastrous situation. right now, the only people i see, on either side of the aisle, who are taking that stand are sanders, warren, and o'malley. i listened to a recent speech of o'malley's, and hey howdy, he was surprisingly - and refreshingly - progressive.

imho, right now is when we really need to be pushing those progressive principles really really hard. and relentlessly. i could be wrong, but i sincerely believe that the true progressive populist policies will win more votes nationwide than most folks think; this is why warren is so feared, in the GOP and with the DLC/bluedog dems. in a year, we'll have forced the rhetoric to focus on those key issues enough to then consider winnability. but until then, taking the 'inevitability' position is - to my mind - the ultimate wimpass kiss of death.

DON'T GIVE UP! especially now!!?? good grief, that's like folding before the damn cards are dealt!

[davidpdx]

138. I agree

and most people dismissed Obama when he first started to run for president as not even having a chance.

Hillary Clinton herself in the 2008 election stated that the primary race would be over by Feb 5th. Her supporters are making the same mistake as they did last time. Telling people to roll over and accept her as the inevitable candidate.

[tblue37]

31. Sanders knows this. If he runs, he will be doing so to force the viable candidates

to the left, to address the concerns of what *should* be recognized as the Democratic base. Without a true liberal in the race, they end up kissing corporate tushy in every way and at all times.

[cyberswede]

119. Yep. He will add an important voice to the debate. I hope he runs. nt

[George II]

33. Thanks for being so blunt - although what you say is pretty much known by everyone, it's...

...about time someone put it out there in black and white so maybe people around here will face reality and start working to elect a Democrat, instead of tearing down Democrats.

Thanks again for your reality!

[blackspade]

35. That is, like your opinion, man.

Based on nothing but your supposition about the American people.

[peacebird]

48. She was inevitable before. Just like now. Failed then, will do so again.

If we make HRC our nominee then we will lose because she will not energize the yng voters whomcame out for Obama. The Repubs will come out in force just to vote against her. And many good solid Democrats will not turn out to work the phone banks, stomp the pavement, and get out the vote because of her anti-environmental positions (pro fracking, pro keystone), her corporatist leanings (pro TPP), her love of Wall Street bankers, and her hawkish world view.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

51. If I had a dollar for every time I have seen this meme posted on DU I could buy a new flat screen

[peacebird]

52. Same for the HRC is inevitable, unbeatable and It's Her Turn! memes......

[Cryptoad]

50. Clinton is not and never has been a Progressive

She is now and always has been Moderate Liberal. She needs a Strong Progressive as a running mate.

[gregcrawford]

53. I admire both Warren and Sanders...

... in fact, Bernie is one of my senators, and I've spoken with him and met him, so I KNOW that he's very good at what he does. I'd love to see him as president, but I must sadly agree with you that his chances are somewhere between slim and none, and Slim left town.

What I think Warren and Sanders accomplish is to steer HRC in a more progressive direction by virtue of the considerable support they both have. If Clinton wants that support behind her, she has to moderate her positions on certain issues.

I do not trust her because of her support from Wall Street and for the TPP, but she's still light years better than ANY Republican candidate could ever be, which is a sad commentary on the sorry state of our electoral process, or what's left of it.

The cauldron of discontent has been building pressure for a long time. The gross inequities perpetrated by the corporatist elite cannot and will not be allowed to persist. When the dumbest Teabaggers see the light, however dim it may be, and realize they've been played like a cheap fiddle, their retribution will be swift and severe. I just hope there isn't too much bloodshed.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Precisely why everyone should stop pledging their blind loyalty to Hillary, at least until the primaries are over. Simple common sense.

[4dsc]

59. We are going to draft Warren here in Iowa

that campaign is moving forward to have enough supporters at the first caucus in the nation to make Warren a viable candidate. She will win Iowa and then we will go from there.

[leftofcool]

76. Good luck in the general

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Now that would be awesome! I could get behind that effort - where do I sign up?

[brooklynite]

111. I'm not sure you understand how politics works today...

...can you get enough caucus votes for Warren to be significant? Maybe. But what happens then? If Warren hasn't gotten into the race months before that (I would argue it's probably already too late), she won't be on the ballot in New Hampshire the following week, or in South Carolina the week after that. She also won't have the financial resources to start campaigning on TV (a necessity in almost every State). So, you'll have a political blip that'll almost immediately get wiped out by other victors.

If you're serious about getting Warren in (and I take her at her word that she won't be running), you're going to have to do something now.

[EEO]

61. Screw Clinton.

[Fearless]

62. Umm... No thanks.

[1monster]

63. If Sanders doesn't have a hope in hell, it is only because some people will do whatever it takes

to make sure everybody knows that he "CAN'T" win.

I disagree. He gets my vote, my husband's vote, my son's vote, and any other person I can help persuade to vote for him.

Before Barak Obama became a major contender, everybody "knew" that a black man would never be president.

Bernie is more or a Democrat (both upper case and lower case d) than most of those in the Democratic party these days.

It's time for those of us who can remember some of the Democrats of the glory days (John, Bobbie, Teddy Kennedy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and others) stand up for the values that seem to escape so many of our Democratic leaders of today: Compassion, fairness, justice, a safety net that catches anyone near a fall, etc.



I would love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket.

[Bohemianwriter]

66. The smell of self defeat...

...Reeks...

And you chose the worst of all candidates because you don't have the balls to stand up against a neocon, corporate crony like Hillary...

If that's your fatalistic view on things because you would rather have a blue dog than a proper progressive, then you deserve to lose, or get whatever "middle way" to pander to the loonies on the RW you have served yourselves ever since selling out to the traitor Reagan...

I'm sorry. But as a bystander, I cannot be kind or silent about this. How you sell out your alleged principles because you can't stand the word "socialist" or a getting a viable candidate a little bit to the left of GOP in the 90's....

[Thespian2]

68. Reason to vote for HRC

to keep America going to the corporate GREEDY BASTARDS who own it. Good Luck!

[HoosierCowboy]

69. No one has declared, if Hillary doesn't declare by the end of 2015

It might be a convention toss-up or if it is Hillary, her choice for VP will say a lot.

[Enthusiast]

70. Unrecommended...nt

[Martin Eden]

71. "TOUGH, EXPERIENCED, and READY"

None of which says anything about what kind of policies she will champion or what course she would chart for our country.

And really, WTF does READY mean? I'm ready for breakfast, but that doesn't make me a gourmet or a nutritionist.

We agree on a rigorous primary and that it would be a good thing. But I get the feeling you see that primarily in terms of how it would prepare Hillary Clinton for the general election, on the basis that 20 months before that election she is perceived to have the best chance to win it.

Our democracy is seriously dysfunctional. Rather than a robust debate on ideas, policies, and qualifications, American politics is a contest between controversial celebrities presented to us by a corporate media that thrives on the horse race and scandals real or contrived. We are conditioned to believe that only certain candidates have a chance to win the national election. As a result of this widely held perception, that belief is well-founded.

I can't disagree with your statements that Sanders doesn't have a chance and Hillary will almost certainly be the nominee. The conditioning is too ingrained. Our national political discourse is too dysfunctional and fueled by deep pocket special interests. I don't see how that can be substantially changed in less than 20 months.

But, here's what I do see:
Unless and until we can find a way to change the mindset of the American people in how we engage in our own governance and elect people to represent our interests, a government ostensibly of, by, and for The People will continue to serve the interests of those who use their wealth to manufacture public perception and select candidates who maintain the status quo.

There are no easy answers or solutions, but it is critically important for us to understand the imperative to change the status quo rather than just play along with the dysfunctional game of politics presented to us.

And, in regards to Hillary Clinton, I think she has to a large extent been co-opted by the deep pockets and represents the status quo which continues to concentrate greater wealth & power in fewer hands. I am still reserving judgment to some extent, waiting to see what kind of actual policies she champions in her campaign.

However, she has zero chance of earning my vote in the Democratic primary. Her vote to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq is a deal breaker for me, period. That vote clearly demonstrated one of two things: abysmal judgment in matters of war & peace; or complicity with the neocon agenda.

[Smarmie Doofus]

106. LOL. *She's* "ready" . As is the rest of Clinton Inc.

( i.e. the revolving door people who make up the bulk of her fan-base.)

Unfortunately... nobody else is.

>>>And really, WTF does READY mean? I'm ready for breakfast, but that doesn't make me a gourmet or a nutritionist. >>>>

[Thinkingabout]

74. Actually Warren and Hillary are rated the same on the standings chart.

Having said that having a good primary where DNC candidates have an opportunity to present to America a platform would be great. A good and wise DNC Primary would show candidates with integrity.

[demwing]

75. "Warren...could not win a national election"

"She's too far to the left and doesn't have enough national clout. Simple as that."

Simple as that? Nonsense!

Talk to this guy about unknown candidates with no national clout, and explain to us how simple his defeat was...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Yeah seriously, some people neva learn from history. Perhaps, as the sayin goes, they're destined to repeat it.

[Stainless]

84. You are obviously a Hillary acolyte

You adhere to the principals of defeatism in order to spread negativity about truly progressive Democrats. There is no place for Reagan Democrats in todays Democratic Party. We must rid ourselves of the scourge of neo-liberalism that has plagued our country for the last 40 years.

[Baitball Blogger]

88. You know what makes me sick about all this infighting between Clintonites and progressives who

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)

favor another choice? The Clintonites will court right-wing conservatives more kindly than they treat the members of their own party.

The reality is that the business networks have already crossed party lines and it's just impossible to beat the compelling nature of money.

[davidpdx]

139. Owch, be careful man

The Clintonites will court right-wing conservatives more kindly than they treat the members of their own party.

They'll come after you with the bats for using that term.

[libdem4life]

93. I have an idea. Why don't we discuss who the Republican Party would like as the Democratic

nominee. Not these pitiful "poor us" we're not going to get the perfect candidate and there is nothing we can do about it. Oh woe. We'll just be forced to vote for someone we don't want. Double woe. Or worse, let the Republicans win...that will show our Party leaders we're just not going to take it any longer.

My Republican pick is Scott Walker. Why, because he's going to fold up like a lawn chair in the heat of the national election, among other reasons. I could go on down the list, as many have most eloquently done already. Besides, the Republicans are just less "forthcoming" thus there is no debate/whining/etc about their "inevitable" candidate. You know, the one who asks not to be embarrassed by million dollar campaign donations. (Remember who organized that little coup, aka Citizen's United...for the "surely not only because of SCOTUS?...crowd)

But all Democrats can focus on is Hillary's "pandering" to the ones that are going to foot her billion dollar campaign. Oh noes, she knows people in high and wealthy places and she's going to owe them some favors. Yeah, so what has changed in the last 100 years? Surely not that. Yet we place on her shoulders the responsibility to, in essence tie one hand and foot behind her back and still will us The Prize. Or, we'll get to select a Republican President. Yes, 'tis mathematically true.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Hillary fan, but I am a pragmatist and I will vote for the Democratic Candidate. I never get who I want in my Liberal dreams since JFK, LBJ and McGovern. But I know political cycles take time.

I am, OTOH, a cheering Julian Castro fan. It's going to take time to wrest the party and the voters Left and have a fantastic, charismatic candidate who can do the job. I see very little talk about him. Why is that? If there could be a dark horse, I could only hope, but I think Hillary is smart enough to see that and will pick him. Oh,well.

http://www.biography.com/people/julian-castro-20967527#!

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/From-political-matriarch-the-sons-also-rise-3905913.php

Comments?

[Dems to Win]

99. If it's Sanders vs Clinton in Iowa, Bernie can win

And then he can beat her in New Hampshire, where he's considered a neighbor.

Bernie gets enthusiastic support from young people because he talks about the pressures on them from student loans and low wages. It doesn't matter that he's old enough to be their great grandpa.

If Bernie knocked Hillary off her pedestal, we'd then see the Democratic leadership scramble to find more candidates to put into the primaries. They would get off their unanimous 'It's Hillary's turn' bandwagon. Harry Reid might encourage Liz to run at that point. More candidates would be a very good thing for the Democratic party.

The OP says that Hillary is 'TOUGH, EXPERIENCED, and READY.' Think back to 2008, Obama vs. McCain. Who in that pair was tough, experienced, and ready? Not Obama! But he won the election. People chose the fresh face with new ideas and youthful energy over the very well known, very experienced McCain.

Hillary is not a surefire winner.

Hillary age 67 Walker age 47 Advantage: Walker

Hillary last name 'Clinton' Walker last name 'Walker' Advantage: Walker, he gets the anti-dynasty votes.

Hillary may well be more intelligent and well-informed in debates with Walker. So what? Jan Brewer could barely remember her own name in the debate, and she still won.

I don't hate Hillary, I just don't think she can win the GE. I WANT a Democrat to win in 2016 --on a very personal level, I want to protect my Obamacare policy. The best shot for Democrats to win is a competitive primary with good candidates to select among. That doesn't seem to be what the Dem leadership has in store for us. So, I'm hoping that Bernie Sanders throws the ultimate monkey wrench into the works in Iowa.

[workinclasszero]

100. I agree OP eom

[MADem]

101. But they WILL campaign for the nominee--and that's a good thing.

They will show more party unity than we see here, these days.

The cognitive dissonance will be interesting to observe...

[djean111]

102. You really expected everyone to climb aboard the HRC bandwagon, before the primaries?

That kind of unity?
I don't think there will be cognitive dissonance, hate to disappoint anyone. I figure Sanders and Warren will do their jobs.
Has nothing to do with my vote. The constant attempts to infer that there is enmity amongst the possible candidates, and thus that ubiquitous and overused heads exploding thingy, are kind of strange, to me.

[MADem]

104. Who said anything about "before the primaries?" And who's running at this point in time? Anyone?

Warren signed the Run-Hill-Run letter, and Bernie has accepted campaign donations from HILLPAC. They don't hate Clinton. They have much more in common than people want to acknowledge. If she ends up driving, they'll help gas the car. Make no mistake.

People who really, really, REALLY WANT them to hate each other are gonna be very, very, VERY disappointed. But if you don't think there's a shitload of that going on, you haven't been reading this message board very carefully. There will be exploding heads, taking of balls and going home, pouting, anger, foot stomping and all sorts of dramatic expressions of woe should Clinton be nominated as the Democratic standard bearer.

Realpolitik is something that elected officials understand, and "True Believers" ignore.

[vi5]

103. You're right on both counts.

I'm still not voting for Hillary.

If she's as inevitable as you say and so convincing to so many people then she'll do just fine without my vote and legwork and my money.

I'm not contributing anything to continue this obsession with political dynasties. Not a dime. Not a stuffed envelope. Not a vote.

[John Poet]

107. I think

I think people are getting hungrier and hungrier for a real message, for ANSWERS,
and if there's someone out there who can directly voice their frustrations,
and have some plausible course for changing things--

it may matter less in this cycle, what they look like or how "sexy" they are.


Normally I wouldn't pick Bernie Sanders out of a lineup to be an "attractive candidate" either,
but he's my guy. Nobody else is saying it the way he is... and that includes Elizabeth Warren. I could settle for her but she's not my first choice.

Just my opinion.

And the socialist thing? who gives a sh-t?
According to the GOP we've had a socialist-communist in office since 09,
and their constant labeling of him as such made no difference in 2012, he still won handily.

I don't think people vote "labels" so much anymore, I don't think they matter.
The GOP did us a favor that way, screaming "liberal" "Liberal" "LIBERAL" "socialist" "SOCIALIST" "COMMUNIST" so often that the words lost all effect as political rhetoric.

Bernie calls himself a socialist? I don't give a damn if he calls himself PB&Y,
he's RIGHT on just about EVERYTHING.

[Smarmie Doofus]

113. +1. We're re-defining "socialism" to reflect its actual meaning.

If the DEM ( or GOP) party hacks don't like it... well, that's too bad.

The RW of the DEM party ( e.g.: Clinton, Inc.) is still mired in McCarthy-era mentality and has internalized an anachronistic view of the USA and of the world.

They're hoping it will get them thru 2016.

I'm predicting: it WON'T.

[kacekwl]

116. There comes a time

when change has to happen . I struggle with voting for the same corporate hacks or someone I believe in and hope can make a difference. I will vote for Sanders if he runs and or Warren if she runs. My vote for Clinton is a last resort. By the way I voted for Ross Perrot so theirs that.

[BainsBane]

127. I read that Sanders said he wouldn't be running

because of the huge costs to do so under the current campaign finance system.

We need public financing, not just to give better options for presidential candidates but to get big money out of legislation as well.

[rhett o rick]

129. Did you read that recently? Do you have a link? nm

[BainsBane]

131. Yes, it was recently.

Perhaps a week ago? I believe it was posted on DU. I would have to google it, but you can just as easily do that yourself.

[rhett o rick]

132. I did google it and everything indicates he is considering running. nm

[BainsBane]

133. This is what I saw

He says he thinks the odds are very steep because of the cost of running a campaign under the current system, but you're right he doesn't rule it out. I get the impression that if he does run, it will be to keep important issues under discussion.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/bernie-sanders-the-billionaires-may-just-win/ar-AA9aFjI?ocid=iehp

I've also read that he says he will not be a spoiler and make a third party run.

[blkmusclmachine]

128. Not Ready for Clinton 2016

[John Poet]

134. Bernie hasn't made a decision,

but he was giving billionaires hell in Iowa just a couple days ago:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/great-reads/la-na-c1-bernie-sanders-president-2016-20150306-story.html#page=1

[Splinter Cell]

135. I don't fuckin' care

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton.

The stupid fucking argument of nobody can beat her blah blah blah, is sickening. We heard it all before in 2008. She doesn't deserve the nomination. She doesn't deserve the office. She's a race-baiter, a liar, and NOBODY in the world would unite the GOP more to fight everything for four years. SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET ANYTHING DONE.

If this party can't come up with something better then "well she's better than a republican", then it's over.

[AtomicKitten]

136. Amen.