Should Hillary step aside?

[mgcgulfcoast]

To be brutally honest she isnt the most ethical and forthright candidate. We need someone younger and someone that isnt a walkin ethical nightmare.

Cant Elizabeth Warren be persuaded to run?

[babylonsister]

1. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ask your friends, and let us know!

[mgcgulfcoast]

3. they want choices

not a choice forced upon us.

[hrmjustin]

6. No one is forcing anything on you.

[Sheepshank]

44. You do realize HRC doesn't make the decision of who runs in the Primaries?

Your reference that HRC is being forced on you is pretty inane

[arcane1]

2. There is less than two years' difference in their ages. n/t

[mgcgulfcoast]

5. true

but Warren isnt seen as corrupt and she is new as far as politics goes.

[Reter]

34. Only on paper

Warren looks 10 years younger, and is likely in better shape physically.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. "Warren looks 10 years younger, and is likely in better shape physically."

WTF


Is this a beauty pageant?

[NYC_SKP]

63. Compare Rick Perry to John McCain. People would think similarly.

Perry vs McCain:

They'd say, "Look at that old dude, wrinkly and probably not quite right in the head, I can't stand looking at that shit face smile, he's such an old creepy thing."

And about Perry, "He looks like he takes good care of himself, I trust him."

That's just the way people are, DSB.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. If we are going to be shallow might as well nominate her

[NYC_SKP]

65. I love Tulsi Gabbard, she's not weighted down with years of creepy connections and behaviors.

She's probably never:

Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.

But in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton's "brainchild," says "about 10" employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata's 10,000-employee workforce in the United States.

As for the research deal with the state university that Clinton announced, school administrators say that three attempts to win government grants with Tata for health-oriented research were unsuccessful and that no projects are imminent.

The Tata deal underscores Clinton's bind as she attempts to lead a Democratic Party that is turning away from the free-trade policies of her husband's administration in the 1990s and is becoming more skeptical of trade deals and temporary-worker visas.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/30/nation/na-buffalo30

[Reter]

66. Not at all, Hillary is attractive and doesn't look older than her age

Just that Warren looks quite a bit younger. I prefer (key word prefer) a President to be in great shape, since it really takes a toll on your body. Obama is in awesome shape. Bush sucked in nearly every way, except that he kept up his body with regular exercise and was in phenomenal shape for a man his age. Bill Clinton, not so good at all, but he gets a pass because he was in his 40's.

[hrmjustin]

4. You do get that Warren is only two years younger?

[mgcgulfcoast]

7. but far more ethical.

[hrmjustin]

9. So you say.

[Cal33]

36. I agree with Gulfcoast. Just compare Warren's record with that of Clinton

[NYC_SKP]

8. 8. "Hillary and her campaign are a large balloon floating around in search of a pin."

Here are four reasons Warren will run, a total of 20 reasons in the full article:

The Democratic race: Why Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will run in 2016 against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

1. Warren is the only national politician today from either party who conveys a sense of outrage over our current — deteriorating — national situation. Her passion is her signature calling card in a time when all the other candidates for president seem to have passion only for themselves and their candidacies.

2. At a recent 12-person in-depth focus group in Denver conducted by Peter Hart and reported in The Washington Post by Dan Balz, the only national politician who was viewed favorably was Warren — even by some of the Republican voters in the focus group.

3. Why? Because she is the only politician who is even talking about the powerlessness of the average person — and the seemingly too powerful corporate and Wall Street entities.

4. This issue cuts across all political lines. It is the issue that catapulted President Teddy Roosevelt into the political hall of fame. His trust busting led to today's anti-trust regulations and the belief that the federal government's role is to act as a neutral referee to ensure a fair playing field. But no one today believes the feds are neutral — or fair. Instead, big government is seen as corrupt and as "rigged" as big business.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/231599-why-warren-will-run-against-clinton-in-2016

[mgcgulfcoast]

11. totally agree

Lets face it, Hillary is 100% wrapped up in big money and wall street.

[Thinkingabout]

53. Warren wrapped herself with Wall Street money when she ran for the Senate seat.

So let's face the truth on tho talking point.

I do not think Warren wants to handle the problems a president has to work with. Warren is very good in her field of expertise and has indicated she wants to remain in that position. She has stated over and over she is not running. If you listen to all the talking points thrown out about Hillary and if Warren or others ran it would be the same thing.

I would like to see more than three people running in the DNC primary but a lot of hate and falsehoods are delivered about candidates and their families, I think it discourages candidates from running.

[still_one]

13. Really? The article is from 3 months ago, and Senator Warren has repeatedly said she would not run

in 2016.

If it turns out that she does NOT run do you think the Hill will come out and say, hmmm, I guess we got that one wrong, or rather they will kinda brush under the rug like 90% of the blowhard stock analysts on the financial networks do when their predictions are wrong, which they usually are

[Cal33]

37. The author is just one of many expressing his opinion in The Hill. What difference would

it make, whether he publicly apologized for having been wrong, or not? If he should
turn out to be right, it's not likely that he'd be writing another article crowing about
how right his reasoning had turned out to be.

[still_one]

38. My point is a general one. Most of these so-called commentators, insiders, etc. whether it pertains

to politics, stocks, or whatever, spew whatever prognastications out constantly, and are never called to account for their track record.

Not in this case, but those that come to mind are the wonderful folks on fox news, such as hannity, morris, etc. along with those on the financial networks. They speak with such conviction at the time.

That's all I was saying, and you are right, they will only discuss their success, not their failures

[joshcryer]

22. This is hilarious.

There are 9 months between now and the primaries.

[RBInMaine]

24. Warren is NOT running. Please stop this insanity. It is delusional nuttery.

[merrily]

26. Yet, it gets people foaming at the keyboard.

[sabbat hunter]

56. how many times

and how many ways does Warren need to say she is not running for president in 2016 before everyone believes it?

[still_one]

10. What a dumb post. If you are so pumped for Elizabeth Warren then join Move-on.org who

wants to start a draft Warren movement

As for your first point why would any candidate who is polling well step aside. As far as your assumption that she is unethical and not forthright then you obviously have your own bias, and most likely this post is just typical flame bait

[Lil Missy]

12. I'll alert the media n/t

[workinclasszero]

14. Why would the most popular candidate...on either side...by far, step aside?

Fox News Sabotages Its Own Propaganda With Poll Showing Democrats Happy With Hillary Clinton

By: Jason Easley
Thursday, April, 23rd, 2015, 7:07 pm


Fox News has been undone by facts again as a new Fox News poll debunked the network’s myth that Democrats are unhappy with Hillary Clinton.

Fox News broke down the data that destroyed their hopes for Democratic disunity:

In the quest for the Democratic nomination, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton remains on top with 62 percent support among self-identified Democratic primary voters. She’s the only declared candidate on the Democratic side. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (12 percent) and Vice President Joe Biden (9 percent) lag far behind.

Despite far fewer options, Democratic primary voters (71 percent) are a tad bit more likely than their GOP counterparts (67 percent) to say they are satisfied with their 2016 choices.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/23/fox-news-sabotages-propaganda-poll-showing-democrats-happy-hillary-clinton.html

[spin]

17. She may be popular right now but will she be at election time? That might be the most

important question.

It might be an excellent time to start looking for good backup candidates and convincing them to run against Hillary in the primaries. After all Hillary has been way ahead before and flamed out to a basically unknown opponent. At times I think that Hillary is her own worst opponent.

[JoePhilly]

33. A good time to start looking for that backup 2016 candidate would have been ~2011 ...

... when many here on DU were too busy demanding that we have a primary against Obama for the 2012 elections.

That was the time to start building up a set of "acceptably liberal" alternatives.

Now folks seem to expect this magic candidate to materialize out of thin air.

[libdem4life]

48. And Warren is the Mascot. Good publicity for her real passion...kicking the asses of Big Money

And that's going to take focus, determination and Kick-ass-girl power. Hillary's got the Republicans all freaked out...that, to me, is a 2-fer. We can have them both, rather than them battling it out.

[napi21]

54. The head of the Dem election committee said tonight on Rachel's show

that there definitely will be more candidates joining the race and there will be a primary. Please calm down for now. It's April 2015!!!!! The primaries aren't for another 9 months or more! The election isn't for well over a year!

Personally, I wish there were a regulation that forbad any campaigning until January 2016! 3 months or more is enough time for all the candidates to do their campaigning and not get all of us sick from listening to all the crap! Having the General 5-6 months after the primaries is more than enough time.

Don't you remember 2011/2012? Weren't YOU sick of all the damn political ads on your tv and in your mail box? I sure remember. Please lets not force a rush to anyone!

[spin]

59. I definitely do agree with you on placing limits on the length of campaigns. ...

Like you I grow tired of the constant discussion about the upcoming election which is well over a year away. I also feel it adds to the division and hatred between the two parties and consequently to our nation's inability to make progress on many important issues.

I am glad to hear that there will actually be a Democratic primary race. I hope some well qualified candidates will be willing to take on the Clinton machine and all its money. Hillary is not the only good presidential candidate the Democrats can nominate. Not by any means.

[Cosmocat]

73. Because republicans want her to?

[okaawhatever]

15. This smells of push polling. Clinton isn't an ethical nightmare, and I think you know that. Any

viable candidate will be torn apart by the GOP and their media machine. What's funny is that despite all the investigations (for 8 yrs when Bill was President) and every document examined, there wasn't ONE unethical thing they could find that Hillary had done.

If you actually believe the tripe that is coming from the discredited reporter/Koch hack who wrote Clinton Cash you need to ask yourself why.

[Historic NY]

16. Why ,you trolling????

You sure sound like it, especially when Warren said she wasn't running period.

As a matter of fact you are a troll...\\\ Operation Kaos

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251404269


Mods.....

[Sheepshank]

46. Sheesh...it appears I'm not the only one that thinks

There have been 915 posts too many from this poster

[bvf]

18. Who do you consider to be

the most ethical and forthright candidate?

P.S.

Elizabeth Warren isn't running.

[youceyec]

19. Thats a good one.

Maybe you should step aside?

[world wide wally]

20. I think someone is drinking too much Republican Kool Aid

[gwheezie]

21. that's a great idea

Do you think we can get warren to run? Maybe someone can ask her?

[RBInMaine]

23. Warren is NOT running. Enough of this nonsense, please. It's getting OLD.

[merrily]

27. No, but the party should not be so intent on no primary challenges, either.

[RBInMaine]

45. Where do these utter delusions come from? The party wants and expects challengers. And

there WILL be challengers. So please, let the right wingers be the delusional ones.

[merrily]

51. Where do these utter delusions come from indeed.

You seem to think unprovoked insults make your posts seem more intelligent. Let me disabuse you of that.

The opposite is so.

[Sheepshank]

47. The party has said that?

Seems contrary to all other party rhetoric I've been hearing. Challenges and debates are good for opportunities at messenging.

[merrily]

50. If you mean did the DNC issue a formal statement, no,

Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

of course not. I would not expect such a thing. Would you?

However, a number of high ranking Democrats have said publicly that no one should challenge Hillary. They have also said primaries are not a good thing.

Given the potential impact of their statement, am I amazed that they made the statements they did, so, publicly and plainly? Yes.

Did the content of what they said come as surprise to me? No.


What they said is very consistent with things ""rank and file" Democrats they have been complaining of for years. Things like the Lieberman Lamont primary and the Lincoln Halter primary that many Democrats in those states are still upset about. Things like every pundit saying the same thing about Hillary since at least 2012.


Do I think Democrats like Schumer, Brown and Frank have been saying things that in no way represent party policy? Absolutely not.

Have people in much more of a position to know than I am referred to a coronation or anointing of Hillary, and urged the party not to do that, you bet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776064 (links that support my comments in this post to you are within that OP)

Note that Schumer had also made discouraging primaries the official policy of the DSCC in 2005. And, now he's Senate Party leader.

As far as more sources with more info than I publicly calling this Presidential primary an anointing or a coronation and urging more of a battle, Sanders was one of the earliest. (As you know, he caucuses with Democrats, to their delight)

If you need mor,e I invite you to google those words (coronation and anointing), along with other key words.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. Hell to the no!

She's got the Republicans drawers in a twist.

[Jamaal510]

29. It might not

be a bad idea for people to ask other Democrats to jump in instead of constantly pestering one who repeatedly turned it down. There must other perfectly-qualified D's aside from Warren out there who might want to run, but...maybe I'm wrong.
The clock is running out, so whoever else that wants to jump in and challenge HC needs to do it soon instead of waiting.

[Scootaloo]

30. I think you ought to find a new hobby n/t

[left-of-center2012]

31. Cant Elizabeth Warren be persuaded to run?

No. Try Gov O'Malley

[rtracey]

32. Come on

Does anyone ever read, listen, see?.... HOW MANY TIMES DOES SHE NEED TO SAY IT.....Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful lady, true champion for the middle class, but is not going to be president in 2016...not going to run, said it several times...Bill Maher offered her 1 million to run, she said NO....

[geek tragedy]

35. lol

[blkmusclmachine]

39. http://allnewspipeline.com/images/Clinton_Wal-mart.jpg

[blkmusclmachine]

40. http://www.oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/000004/8405_lg.jpeg

[libdem4life]

49. OMG...I was President of the Whittier Young Republicans in the late 60s and cast my first

vote for McGovern. People change...it's good for you.

[JTFrog]

67. All that person posts here is ridiculous

attacks on Democrats with stupid meme pics. I still don't get putting the pic link in the subject line every time. Maybe it's just click bait.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Unlike Elizabeth Warren who was still a registered Republican in 1996. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I.

[Thor_MN]

41. "Cant (sic) Elizabeth Warren be persuaded to run?"

If by "persuaded" you mean "forced", No.

If you mean "coerced", No.

If you mean "talked into", knock yourself out...

Even if Warren were to enter the race, calling for a candidate to "step aside" is a ridiculous notion. Picking the nominee is exactly what the primary is all about.

[quadrature]

42. are all the facts, out in the open?

Uranium
Haiti
(any others)
.................
are the any facts in dispute?

until those questions are settled,
too early to call for HRC
to step aside.

[Aristus]

43. Concern noted...

[bravenak]

52. No.

[BlueStater]

55. I wish she would.

I've had enough Clinton bullshit to last me a thousand lifetimes.

[NYC_SKP]

57. I think she should.

I think it's primarily an exercise in how high she can go, I don't think she's capable of understand the impact her decisions will have, I don't think she can think beyond her own ambition.

It's not nice for me to say that but it's how I feel.

[mgcgulfcoast]

61. i agree

[AtomicKitten]

58. I don't think she'd step aside even if beaten in the primary.

A couple of her more ardent fans here advised that in that scenario she would run as an independent or under the No Labels party. Those folks have subsequently been tombstoned, but have lent further credence to the notion that Hillary belongs to the Clinton Party first and foremost.

[Chan790]

60. As much as I hate her, no.

I think the end of her validity needs to come in a decisive primary defeat. More than that, I think anybody who wants to should run so that their ideas can be heard then rejected or adopted.

[TheKentuckian]

68. No, she needs to be beaten or broken otherwise all that happens is another Turd Wayer is subbed in

and there are plenty more like her and some plausibly worse seeing that some are just as corporate and softer on choice and equality as well, you know they are out there the ones you can find cosponsoring theocracy inspired amendments or ones even tighter with the Republican establishment like Debbie Wasserman - Schultz or Andrew Cuomo.
She is pretty damn deep into the neocon levels though, I'm not sure there has been a Saber rattling opportunity, by very consistent account she and Betrayus were the heart of the hawk wing in the Obama administration. Maybe less war crazy than McShame, maybe.

We have to eradicate or at least render moot the Turd Way this isn't about particular politicians but a broad ideology, a worldview, a consistent policy agenda.

Yeah, I do wish they would just slink off but that isn't how power works. Power has to be taken, it is surrendered extraordinarily rarely and never by those who's lives are dedicated to it's acquisition.

[hijinx87]

69. we need a proper primary with a legit challenger

if she withstands the competition, fine. but we need to fully vet whatever it is the clintons have been doing with their foundation.

the nightmare scenario is that we nominate her, and in october of 2016, the toads at faux news set of some bomb that can't be refuted fully or quickly enough before election day.

[Bill USA]

70. LOL. "she isnt the most ethical and forthright candidate".. uh, can you substantiate that CryptoCon?

you can't.

[Squantoish]

71. Yes

[Beacool]

72. No, to both questions.

[Agschmid]

74. No.

Ageism, and right wing bull. Another great day at freerepublic...

I mean DU.

[Splinter Cell]

75. 100% YES

She won't though. She couldn't possibly bring herself to put the country ahead of her own ambition.

[stone space]

76. Younger? I'm a Bernie supporter.

We need someone younger

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. She should only "step aside" if her numbers begin to suck as much as her possible contenders.