HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hillary Clinton To Decide...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:58 AM

Hillary Clinton To Decide On 2016 Run 'Sometime Next Year'

Source: Huffington Post

The nation may not have to wait much longer to learn the future plans of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state who's considered the leading Democrat for the 2016 presidential race.

In a Wednesday interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, who named the former first lady the "Most Fascinating Person of 2013," Clinton said she hadn't yet made up her mind on a presidential run. She assured Walters her announcement would come soon.

"Obviously, I will look carefully at what I think I can do and make that decision sometime next year," Clinton said.

Pundits have discussed a Clinton run since she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008. Pollsters have weighed her chances of winning the 2016 nomination and dedicated supporters have laid the foundation for her campaign in a quickly growing super PAC called "Ready for Hillary." But Clinton told Walters an official announcement was premature.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/hillary-clinton-2016-decision_n_4470539.html



Several more paragraphs at the link. Note to mods: While a DU search reveals several threads with this exact title, or nearly so, this is in fact a different story. (At least to the extent that this was newly published just a few hours ago. It may very well be identical, or nearly so in content, as other stories, but that's just an effect of the Clinton machine in action, I suppose).

As a comment, I have said before i will support the eventual nominee, but Hillary is not on my short list. I am more progressive than she/they.

68 replies, 3697 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton To Decide On 2016 Run 'Sometime Next Year' (Original post)
silvershadow Dec 2013 OP
painesghost Dec 2013 #1
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #2
TBF Dec 2013 #7
silvershadow Dec 2013 #9
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #36
Beacool Dec 2013 #14
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #37
Beacool Dec 2013 #39
SpectorGrowl Dec 2013 #68
bitchkitty Dec 2013 #42
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #45
Laelth Dec 2013 #56
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #60
Ken Burch Dec 2013 #53
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #61
joshcryer Dec 2013 #3
karynnj Dec 2013 #16
joshcryer Dec 2013 #18
karynnj Dec 2013 #47
Beacool Dec 2013 #25
painesghost Dec 2013 #31
dflprincess Dec 2013 #51
billhicks76 Dec 2013 #38
bitchkitty Dec 2013 #43
Enthusiast Dec 2013 #4
MrMickeysMom Dec 2013 #5
Le Taz Hot Dec 2013 #6
Wilms Dec 2013 #13
nevergiveup Dec 2013 #8
7962 Dec 2013 #11
karynnj Dec 2013 #17
7962 Dec 2013 #32
dflprincess Dec 2013 #52
Phlem Dec 2013 #58
7962 Dec 2013 #10
groundloop Dec 2013 #12
7962 Dec 2013 #33
Beacool Dec 2013 #15
TheKentuckian Dec 2013 #24
warrant46 Dec 2013 #26
Beacool Dec 2013 #27
HappyMe Dec 2013 #35
brooklynite Dec 2013 #67
Nye Bevan Dec 2013 #40
L0oniX Dec 2013 #19
frylock Dec 2013 #20
paulkienitz Dec 2013 #21
raindaddy Dec 2013 #22
Phlem Dec 2013 #29
Dopers_Greed Dec 2013 #23
Phlem Dec 2013 #28
silvershadow Dec 2013 #30
HappyMe Dec 2013 #34
JackRiddler Dec 2013 #41
YOHABLO Dec 2013 #44
Titonwan Dec 2013 #46
Beacool Dec 2013 #49
Titonwan Dec 2013 #54
Beacool Dec 2013 #62
Titonwan Dec 2013 #65
yurbud Dec 2013 #48
silvershadow Dec 2013 #50
hrmjustin Dec 2013 #55
silvershadow Dec 2013 #57
Beacool Dec 2013 #63
silvershadow Dec 2013 #64
hopemountain Dec 2013 #59
Jester Messiah Dec 2013 #66

Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 06:45 AM

1. I'm in the same boat.

As a comment, I have said before i will support the eventual nominee, but Hillary is not on my short list. I am more progressive than she/they.


I'll support whoever wins the nomination because I'm sure they will be better than whoever the Republicans select, but I'm not looking forward to Hillary becoming the standard bearer of the Democratic Party. Dean and Warren are much more inclined to my line of thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to painesghost (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 06:47 AM

2. Please No Hillary

She would lose. She's a divisive figure who we as true Democrats are not excited about given her support of the wars, bankers and totalitarian surveillance complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:38 AM

7. lol

"we as true democrats"

Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:11 AM

9. How funny. I logged back in to find a couple of critters came out of the woodwork. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 05:15 PM

36. Seriously

I do not view Hillary as a real Democrat...if there is such a thing. She was a Republican in the 60s and I believe she behaves like one now. The bar isn't how crazy many republicans have been encouraged to be in order toove the center and legitimize the conservatives who aren't totally crazy tea party types. Russ Feingold, Udall, Wdyen, Warren, Grayson...these are actual democrats...not corporate sell outs masquerading as liberals for there own ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:25 AM

14. Whatever, dude.........

Outside of the rarefied LW sites and punditry, Hillary has the vast support of voting Democrats.

And what do you mean by "we Democrats"? Speak for yourself and a small fraction of the Democratic Party. The majority of "we Democrats" would support Hillary, if she were to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 05:23 PM

37. Sorry but I disagree

You don't want me to speak for you but then you try to say what most democrats would do. I believe you're living in the past. People want change and they know Hillary can't possibly give it to us. She's antiquated and the only way democrats will support her is if they are forced to. The lesser of two evils game...again. She lost to Obama for a reason. People were tired of her and wanted new blood and they also caught her making things up which never goes over well. Her husband is idolized by Bush Sr and those two families are way to close. You have to look at things fluidly and not a snapshot in time. I believe by 2016 Hillary will be old news. Things are still in flux and we need better. And by the way it's the pundits and false power centers that parrot the Hillary support. The grass roots of which the majority resides want someone like Elizabeth Warren and I 100% agree. Hopefully we see some positive movement and don't get so disgusted as to give up on politics when we see so much fraud and doublespeak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:15 PM

39. I repeat, whatever.

Keep believing that and we'll see how it goes in the next three years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 05:55 PM

68. "Whatever."

 

Your apathy encapsulates perfectly the liberal cause's lack of vigor, fire, and determination to win, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Even if the majority of the D's will line right up and lick the boots of HRC, your argument for her electability is nothing more than argumentum ad populum. You postulate an outcome predicated on your opinion that that belief is widely held, but opinion itself does not determine truth. The fact that there are several dissenting views within this discussion is proof that your so-called "truth" is subject to probability, not certainty. Even if there is a high probability that Hillary would win, your statement cannot, logically, be sound; not only because the answer can't be known prior to the end of the election, but because you can't claim consensus in a universe where countervailing perspectives also have a chance at being correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:32 PM

42. The lesser of two evils game...

I used to be very hopeful and idealistic, but I've been voting for the lesser of two evils for a long time now.

I've learned that there will never be a President who is as left as I am. There will never be one who exactly mirrors my ideals.

I've learned to suck it up. The alternative is to disengage, and I'm not there yet.

Fucking depressing, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:23 AM

45. Yes it is but...

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2013, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I think a major part of the game is making us think we don't have the power to change things. They know fully well no matter how hard they try they aren't guaranteed total control and given the right moment things can change in an instant. They are in the minority and have to manipulate others to fight for them and as these proxies get moved around like pawns on a board there are still way more of us than them. As fearful as we are they are probably more fearful that when they lose their grip all hell may break loose. And although some may fall due to hubris most of them still fear the masses. They are called the .01% for a reason. But back to the point of faith...I believe part of the assault on our minds was letting a guy promise hope and change at a moment everyone craved it and then crushing and pulverizing it to keep people from ever again thinking they can demand it. If this guy lets us down then they all will. The fact is change happens from the bottom up, not the top down and Obama was a distraction...a neutering of the people's energy towards change. I believe anything can happen. Things already have that the naysayers couldnt envision. Republicans are done. Only gerrymandering is saving them and that won't last. They actually also still cling to power by persuading us to elect conservative, so-called centrist democrats when we really don't need to. This isn't McGovern vs Nixon anymore. Any democrat would've won in 2008 and 2012. It was actually harder for Obama given the racists out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 03:25 PM

56. +1. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 01:41 AM

60. I Believe in Warren

They(NSA) probably doesn't have enough dirt on her yet which means she could win on her convictions but at the same time the dark forces will fight tooth and nail to terminate her campaign. Don't believe the Hillary hype...look how disappointed we were with Obama. I know, I know...he has done some good things and Eric Holder has said some good things but they are too wrapped up in the system to challenge it...they don't fight...they ask nicely and promptly go away when told no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 01:58 AM

53. HRC could make this a lot easier on herself.

She has nothing to lose by de-hawking her foreign policy. There's really no reason to keep following the Scoop Jackson line. The country is nowhere near as far to the right on defense issues as it was in the Nineties. As a start, she could pledge that she WON'T launch a missile strike against Iran or support Israel in launching one(since we already know that no possible good can ever come from such a strike and that U.S. military intervention can never again be good for women in any country)

She could also seriously engage the issues of class and inequality...perhaps apologize for sitting on the WalMart board(since WalMart's values are the complete antithesis of everything most Democrats-including you-support).

And she could admit, publicly, that activists, labor, and the poor should be at least as important to the party(and to the political life of the country)as big donors.

HRC would lose nothing by doing any of the above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 01:45 AM

61. If she does this it will be all talk...

...just to get elected. Then comes the betrayal. Then the let down and feelings of hopelessness...we need a new model to aspire to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:12 AM

3. She's already running.

It's a stealth run. They already got Obama to agree to back her. She's been making the rounds giving Gore-esque speeches (Al Gore was probably going to run again in 2004 but decided against it).

I wouldn't support her in the nomination and I am repulsed by McCaskill's idea that she be nominated by consensus and we just avoid primaries altogether. If that happens it will be very hard to support Hillary because the core of Democratic values is being able to choose our candidates democratically.

Though, I do agree with Bill Clinton that caucuses are undemocratic, as I argued that many years ago, but they would be more democratic than not having a primary at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:53 AM

16. I disagree that caucuses are undemocratic

In feel, they might actually reach back to things like town meetings. There is something rather impressive in people coming out and talking to their neighbors, trying to move them to their candidate of choice.

In 2004, I noticed that CSPAN was covering two locations through the night of the Iowa primary. Out of curiosity, I watched - thinking I would be bored within 10 minutes and turn to something else. I watched the entire thing. It was fascinating. One of the places they monitored was a location in a large, graceful, home -- where groups moved to different rooms. The other was in a public school.

It struck me that these people were neighbors. They knew each others families. The discussions maybe because of that were polite and based on what they at least thought were facts. The other thing that struck me was how many people reference conversations they had with one or more of the candidates. This - more than whether it was a primary or caucus - is important. It is what allows someone - with less party and media support - to appeal directly to the electorate and sometimes pull off a surprise win.

Now, there ARE things that would make caucuses more democratic. One might be to allow proxies for the first vote for people with real reasons they can not appear in person. (Work schedule, illness, etc).

In 2008, the problem Hillary had was not that they were "undemocratic", but that her campaign team blew off organizing most of them - and she lost. This was a flaw in her campaign - not the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 10:11 AM

18. Don't get me wrong I love caucuses and caucased for Edwards.

I may have been mistaken for caucusing for Edwards but I couldn't swallow the Obama / Hillary pill so at the time in Colorado Edwards was the last viable candidate (OK in theory it would've been impossible to turn his candidacy around so it was a simple point of contention for me).

But caucuses are at a certain time, people can't go to them throughout the day. If and I mean if there was a national voting holiday for both primaries and the general election, this argument wouldn't stand, but those who could afford to go to a caucus were more affluent. I saw it with my own eyes. You seem to agree with allowing for proxy votes at caucuses for people who couldn't attend at a certain time.

Obviously though Hillary's campaign fell apart before that part. She didn't have the superdelegates she expected and thought she'd shore it up before caucuses became relevant. After that point the caucuses weren't well led by her team.

Caucuses have within them a sort of peer pressure type of dynamic, if you are seeing that the other side is winning you want to be on the winning side, so you might go in there supporting one person, but by the end you support someone else. It is in effect the same as having campaign paraphernalia at the polling booths, a biasing effect (which is why such things are banned at the polls). If I go into a room and am on the losing side am I going to voice my opinion? Maybe if it's close but if it's overwhelming I am not, I will just keep my mouth shut. With regards to Edwards I kept my mouth shut and only said that I supported his anti-poverty message since basically all the candidates seemed to agree on all the issues other than that. I wasn't very convincing to a huge number of Obama supporters and our caucus went for him 3 to 1 with Hillary being second. I don't recall how Edwards went. There were many fewer women present and it was composed of mostly young people (note: of course I was young at the time too but I found it striking how disproportionate we were).

In theory the democratic process should be anonymous without any pressure from any side at the moment the vote is cast. You go to the vote before hand, with your mind made up, and nothing pressures you to go a given way. Caucasus are cool in that you can talk out how it is, but they should be before the vote is cast, maybe a day or two so you can do the relevant research. Not at the very moment you're voting.

Now Bill might accuse caucuses of screwing Hillary over and I may have expressed discontent in how they worked in Obama's favor in the 2008 elections but truth be told I don't think that's the reason she lost then. It was just a better ground game for Obama and the caucuses were a small part of that, she should've shored it up long before they mattered. It didn't help that she failed to express a consistent personality or image throughout the campaign and that she got caught on several occasions exaggerating about one thing or another.

It remains a fact that Hillary got a standing ovation at CAP and has been pushing progressive rhetoric for the past few months. She's running. And, to clarify again, Bill is wrong about the caucuses being an issue. They are far far better than not having primaries at all which McCaskill supports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 11:47 AM

47. Thanks for your incredibly thoughtful response

I do agree with you about the fact that some people CAN"T make the caucuses. I agree that a national holiday could make it easier for many, but there will still be some who can't make it - some obvious examples are medical personnel and people in service industries like hotels and restaurants. But, my thoughts were along the same lines when I suggested proxies for those with valid reasons - at least for the first ballot. They will miss the later dynamics, but I would think it would be far too complicated to include directives for all possibilities. (I really would not want power of attorney like delegations for those later actions because the potential abuse would be there. )

As to Edwards, I don't think anyone who supported him because of his positions and what they thought he was has anything to be ashamed of. In fact, we all really only have a very two dimensional view of who a candidate is. In most cases, image is very tightly controlled. In the case of both Edwards and Obama, there was no a huge amount of history that you could look at to verify that he was who he said he was. Here, there is the odd thing that having little history means there are fewer of the real conflicts between the ideals and the political needs that someone with a longer history always has.

In addition, I suspect that anyone who is capable of the oratory that is needed to move people - one of the most valuable traits in a politician also has the ability to use words to paint a picture you can believe in. It has to be tempting for anyone with that gift to use it to avoid taking responsibility for mistakes and to improve their own position. When it is honest, it is both powerful and inspiring. The question for me is always are they real. I faced this in 2004 - when I was far more swept away by John Kerry than any politician since Kennedy (and I was 10 then!). Yes, I know that I was one of the few. In his case, his long history was there and it showed - for those who sought it out ( and that wasn't easy), that he was the real deal. However, even given that history, the truth is that I did not really know him as a person.

After 2004, as a member of the DU JK group, I met people who worked in important enough roles in 2004 to have met the ticket. I was impressed with their loyalty and fierce protectiveness of Kerry. When the stories that ended Edwards public life started to circulate, many of them - all of whom disliked Edwards from 2004 - said the one thing they believed to be good about him was he was extremely close on every level with Elizabeth and these rumors were unlike;ly to be true.

As to being impressed with his 2008 positions, I think back to Prosense's excellent well backed up posts showing he was running on what was a slightly tuned up version of Kerry's platform in 2004 -- which was more progressive than his 2004 platform -- which was more progressive than his votes in the Senate. That every Kerry strategist and bundler with Kerry when he opted not to run went to (mostly) Obama and some to Hillary - and NONE to Edwards was one reason that I never considered him. The other was the opinion that he was mediocre at best in the 2004 general election and that I had not liked him in the 2004 primaries.

Note that NONE of my reasons related to the platform he ran on in 2008 or his moral character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:23 PM

25. I agree that caucuses are undemocratic.

Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I have thought for years that caucuses should be eliminated. This is not rural America of the past century, where people lived close together. Who the heck has the time to caucus? Caucuses only favor the candidate with the most fervent activists. In the 21st century both parties should only have primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:05 PM

31. I agree caucuses are an anachronism.

And your right the extremists on both sides have an easier time capturing a. caucus and subverting the democratic process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 11:19 PM

51. Primaries are little better than a beauty contest

and the candidate with the most money and slickest ads wins. Wellstone woud never have come out of a primary system.

Caucuses do require that a candidate run more of a grass roots campaign and acutally get people out to the meetings. Caucuses are also a great place to get issues discussed.

Asking people to spend a two or three hours every couple years to participate in democracy is not asking too much of anyone.

As a rule, it's the Third Way/DLC/"New Democrats" (whatever they're calling themselves these days) who fear the caucuses and participation by people who are actually paying attention to more than a 30 second commercial.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 05:29 PM

38. JFK Jr

JFK Jr indicated he was going to run weeks before his plane went down. I can only imaging the world being a better place with no Iraq war or probably 911 which he wouldnt have ignored warnings...given that he would have surely won. That would've meant no Patriot Act, NSA overreach, expanded drug war etc too. We can only imagine. An interesting note...do people know that on 1964 presidential hopeful, Ted Kennedy, had his plane crash killing everyone but himself although severely injured. What are the chances? Any statisticians out there? Peace to all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:34 PM

43. Agreed. She's running. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:15 AM

4. I don't want to continue along the path the nation is on.

So no Third Way Hillary. No way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:16 AM

5. The era of robber barons is over...

Take your war mongering elsewhere. Maybe you can be a spokesperson for the new Hedge Funder, Hill…

You had your chance, and frankly we've been starved long enough for a true progressive… who is out there somewhere… bye!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:36 AM

6. Yeah, that'll be a nail-biter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:23 AM

13. Hillar-ious!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:05 AM

8. If she runs, I believe she would easily win

the nomination and also the general. There was a time when I thought Christie would give her a run for her money in the general but I believe he is presently self-imploding. For some reason I don't think Hillary is going to run and if she doesn't it is going to be a wild. Warren is awesome but she is not of the personality to dive into the rigors of a presidential campaign. My favorite is Sherrod Brown but I don't know if he has the ambition. If Hillary would run and get the nomination I would obviously hit the pavement for her as the alternative will be frightening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nevergiveup (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:43 AM

11. Even if Christie does nothing wrong from here forward, the TP folks wont vote for him, she wins

I posted an opinion on that some time back; if the GOP nominates a "true conservative", he wont get the independent vote. If they nominate someone more "moderate", the TP and the other righties wont vote for THAT guy. Either way, Hillary wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:59 AM

17. I disagree - as in 2008 and 2012 - the RW (tea party) has nowhere to go

This would be like someone on a mirror image RW board saying that Hillary would lose because if she gets the nomination, she will lose the left (aka most of DU). In fact, nearly all of us will vote for her - maybe unhappily, but we will vote. Even now - when we are still years from the primary, I see many add the qualification that "if" she gets the nomination, we will vote for her.

In 2008 and 2012, the Republicans lost the swingable votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:34 PM

32. Ah, but thats the thing! We may bicker during the primaries, but will gather behind the winner,

while the GOP is splintered. Look at how many of their own they're trying to primary. I've read so many comments from people who say they didnt vote for Romney because he was Democrat lite, or even because he was a Morman. And I read the same about someone like Christie. I hope they DO nominate some far-right guy. Then when they get the worst defeat in history, who or what will be to blame? All we hear is that they lose because they never nominate someone "conservative" enough. There's even FB pages devoted to NOT voting for another "moderate".
They're too stupid to get out of their own way!! IMO, of course, we'll see in a couple years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nevergiveup (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 11:26 PM

52. I think people are tired of Clintons and Bushes

you want Christie or someone other Republican to be president (with the exception of Jebbie), nomintate Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nevergiveup (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 09:28 PM

58. Yep

" If she runs, I believe she would easily win" with the Third Way's winds beneath her wings.

So now we vote for either Republican Light or Republican.



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:40 AM

10. So is anyone going to dare call her a liar? Like Nick Saban?

From a Wolf Blitzer interview...
>>>Mrs. Clinton, who has been connected with public service for most of her adulthood, said she wants to return to private life, possibly as an advocate for women and children. If she is asked, she said she would not accept another cabinet position or the vice presidency. And she said she would not run for president in 2016. "I have no intention or any idea even of running again," Clinton said.<<<
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/17/hillary-clinton-popular-with-public-but-finished-with-government/

Politics as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:09 AM

12. I don't hold that against her one bit.... she was probably burned out and fed up at the time


That quote was from over 2 1/2 years ago. Hell, I've threatened to quit my job more than once in that time span.

And while Hillary might not be my first choice, I'll sure the hell support her the best that I can if she wins the nomination. To do otherwise will be inviting another right wing takeover, and I have no doubt that would be far far worse than a Hillary presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:38 PM

33. I guess I just wish for once someone would say "I dont know, maybe".

Or SOMETHING along those lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:33 AM

15. People on this site, and others like it, have no clue what's going on behind the scenes.

Let's just say that the party is exerting a substantial amount of indirect pressure on Hillary to run. They see her as the most viable candidate, a global brand, a historical candidate who could break the glass ceiling, and most importantly, as a way to keep the WH in 2016. They are respectful, but the message is clear: we need you to run in 2016.

Hillary will probably tune them all out and decide for herself. She's a pragmatist and will assess how she feels about another run, how would it impact her family (particularly Chelsea) and what is the state of the country after next years' midterms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:15 PM

24. Possibly not but if they did, I don't think they would care. I don't.

In fact, it just makes the whole idea even less appealing. The big wigs need to sit in a corner with a dunce cap on and the money people need a steaming cup of shut the fuck up even more so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:23 PM

26. the party is exerting a substantial amount of indirect pressure

And WHO might the party be ?

The money interests ? The Corporate leaders ? Wall Street ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:25 PM

27. The party leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 04:13 PM

35. The Party will decide what's best for us!

Fall in line!!1

We will be spoon fed the inevitable articles like the one in the OP as The Party decides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 04:15 PM

67. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble...

...but I know folks in the Party (including DNC members) and there's no Party effort to push the nominaiton her way. However, many influential INDIVIDUALS who work with the Party are expressing their personal support for a Clinton campaign and are providing financial support for groups like Ready for Hillary. If that doiesn't work for you, I suggest you start organizing your own effort for a candidate you find more acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:49 PM

40. Yes, because personally I have never changed my mind about anything, ever.

Because if I did, that would make me a damned liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:09 AM

19. I can't wait for her to stop the 1%, banksters, MIC ...and get us some single payer health care....

but I know I would be waiting until hell freezes over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:13 PM

20. *yawn*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:50 PM

21. Sure she will. I think she made her decision re 2016 on June 4, 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:04 PM

22. The Democratc party needs to get back to representing the poor and the middle class.

We've tried the third way and the middle class, our civil liberties, and the environment have suffered the consequences. I won't be fooled by another populist campaign that turns into a Democratic President with moderate Republican ideals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raindaddy (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:50 PM

29. perfect

It's sad some are willing to be fooled again.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:12 PM

23. Let's hope not

Lest I start to question the prospect of even voting at all next time around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:49 PM

28. So we have to choose from one of these three groups.

Democrat, Third way, or Republican.


Which ONE of these groups is not like the other?



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:59 PM

30. The establishment will try their darndest to get a third-wayer as the nominee. I sure hope

Bernie Sanders jumps in the race, or else Elizabeth Warren. Our party needs to smother that part with a pillow (or an anvil).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:49 PM

34. I thought she already was running.

I've been told many times about how 'inevitable' and 'fall in line' yadda yadda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:10 PM

41. Please, let's have a story a day about it until then!

We are all waiting to exhale!

This will be the most exciting thing of all time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:42 PM

44. As Dem candidate she will run as a progressive .. if elected, well you know the story.

The Military, the CIA, and Wall Street run the country. Make no mistake about that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:51 AM

46. $hillary

$he i$ the rea$on democrat$ (in leader$hit$) are $uch whore$ now.
Can we please have someone that wasn't a Goldwater Girl? Is that too much to fuckin' ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Titonwan (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:43 PM

49. Really?

That first sentence is utter nonsense. As for being a "Goldwater girl". She was 17 years old and was raised in a Republican household. Do you hold it against Warren that she was a Republican until her mid 40s?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 10:34 AM

54. I'm sure you defend

Slick Willie, also- what with his banker crony appointments (Ruben/Summers), 'welfare reform' and the killing of the Glass-Steagall Act (which is the root of all this WallSt/Bank corruption).
No, I'm not voting for a corporatist. The last two 'democrat' presidents have been nothing more than republican lite. We can do better than this. I'm going to.
Anyone except $hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Titonwan (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 10:51 AM

62. Slick Willie?

Nice RW talking point, dude........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 03:08 PM

65. If I would agree with that

would you see the irony? Bill was, is and always will be a corporatist sell out. Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:18 PM

48. the suspense is killing me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:17 PM

50. lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 01:52 PM

55. I hope she runs and wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 04:26 PM

57. If Elizabeth Warren really is out, and Bernie Sanders doesn't run, I am okay with that.

If Bernie runs, I am with him. If he doesn't run as a Democrat, perhaps not- I haven't thought it through that far yet, but on the surface he would seem to be a spoiler in that scenario. Hillary Clinton is a third-way Democrat/Moderate, which is really a Republican of yesteryear in a lot of ways, but if that's the choice I will make it. I don't dislike her at all, and there's a whole lot I like about her. She would be a fine President. But she would never be anything close to Warren or Sanders. jmho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 10:53 AM

63. As if Bernie had a snowball chance in hell to win the nomination,

let alone the WH. Aside from the fact that he's an Independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 02:47 PM

64. Yep. If Bernie runs he would probably be the Nader, I suppose. I understand he would have to

switch his registration or whatever, but why do you say he couldn't win? When has he ever been wrong on a single issue? Serious question. I love him! We need more Democrats like him. He hasn't really said anything that wouldn't be standard Democratic platform that I grew up with- pre-Reaganism era, aside from socialized healthcare. Everything else seems like Democratic platform to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 11:50 PM

59. the interview convinced me to

not vote hillary unless, as you indicate, silvershadow, she is the nominee.
it was her statement about the president of brazil - whom hillary "admires". the president of brazil supports the genocide of the indigenous people of brazil - and favors, instead, the exploitation of brazil's resources by outside corporations.
hillary supported nafta. i'm not sure how she stand on the tpp - for certain - but i suspect she also supports this abominable corporatist demonic plan, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 03:43 PM

66. I hope she bows out.

She's way too buddy-buddy with big business. I think she'd sell us out to the robber barons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread