Wanna make Rush Limbaugh crazier than he already is?

[Playinghardball]

Clinton-Warren 2016
or
Clinton-Michelle Obama 2016!!

[madokie]

1. Clinton/Warren in '16

They'll become so unhinged that anyone with half a brain cell will be able to see what assholes, who only care about themselves, they are.
The future as it stands today does not bode well for the repuklicons in the near future.

[HopeHoops]

4. Nah. Warren has much more work to do in her new position before she runs on the WH ticket.

[krawhitham]

82. It is 2016 or never for Warren, she would be 71 in 2020

[HopeHoops]

85. She doesn't look NEARLY old enough for that!

[Diclotican]

34. madokie

madokie

At the age of 69/70 I believe Clinton need rest, not the fight of being the US president - sure she would have been a great US president - but I suspect the toll of the woman could be more than she can handle.. After all, at age 70, you tend to want to rest your body and calm down, maybe play little with the grand children and so one, not try to steer a Government... Even kings and queens who is grown up in that world, tend to calm down a little, and let the crown princes and princesses take some of the duty from them..

But Warren on the other hand, would be a force to reckon with if she ever decide to try to get elected as the next US president.. After all she IS a politician who I think would make for a great President.. And after all - US need progressive presidents for a long time if they would have any hope on fix the problems the last couple of republican presidents made possible.. And the natural next step after Obama would be a woman in the White House (as president of course).. That would REALLY get the republicans nuts..

In 2007/08, my first pick would have been Clinton - not Obama, as I believed it would had been nice to have woman in the white house - but as is was, I think Obama was a great pick for the presidency in 2008, and still are a great pick.. I have grown to admire the man in his ways of acting.. He is an impressive man to say at least - And also HUMAN in a way I doubt any other from the other side would be able to even mimic if they tried...

But, that is just my oponion on it..

Diclotican

[freshwest]

47. Diclotican, Warren will be 67 in 2016. So might be the same situation. I'm hoping that

Warren will stay as many years as possible to steer the Senate in the best manner as it needs votes to turn around so many wrong decisions made since the 1990s. She's a lovely lady, no doubt of that:



Reagan took office in his early 70's. But I also note your compassion due to the phases of a person's life and interest. I agree, Hillary may not have any interest in being POTUS then.

We'll see who is likely to emerge after the 2014 elections, which will partly determine how much successful Obama's agenda will be in his last two years in office.

[Diclotican]

58. freshwest

freshwest

That is true - when most people goes on the late 60s, they tend to want to level out - and to calm down a little.. We have just to hope that people like Warren and Hillary can be as great as they can be - as long as they want, or have the health to serve their country in a way they think is right...

Reagan was a old man when he got elected - and he was as other have explained better, maybe not the best president - at least not in his first term.. In his last term he at least encountered a counterpart more human than before - and the cold war ended in a way no one imagined when Reagan got into office in 1981..

I think the democratic party have many great figures who will emerge from the shadows as the Obama administration is starting to get things going - specially if the 2014 election goes as we can always hope for... I just hope, that the democratic party doesn't flunk it this time around - and work on the progress they made in this election to build a base that can survive both the 2014, and 2016 election..

Diclotican

[madokie]

61. My bad

I don't see either of these wonderful women as being old
My being 64 yo probably has something to do with that

All I know is I want a woman as my next President. A Democratic woman that is.
One thing about it is the Democratic Party has a big field of good people to pick from where as the republiCON party doesn't.

Jennifer Granholm and Tammy Duckworth maybe

[Diclotican]

63. madokie

madokie

It could .. But then again, at age 69, you tend ot want to just settle down a little I guess, being a great grandmother and so one..

But I do know, the democratic party have a lot of decent womans, who would be great president, outside of Hillary Clinton.. They might not be that known as many others - but they are still there, and I hope the democratic party take its time, now to make possible for them to be known on a larger scale than before... It is maybe time to let a woman into the White house too - as they made it possible for a black man to get into the white house - something that I would way surprised my a little in 2008.. Even though I do hoped a democrat could win - and he did

The Republican Party I think will disintegrate into a civil war, and not able to muster any candidate's for a long time... At least not until 2016... The next 4 years would be bloody and hard for the republicans - they have to find out who is to blame for the miserable election - and it is just starting now... Just wait, the next couple of weeks and mounts will be hard for the republicans, and the in fight between the different fractions would be interesting to look at - even if we just is looking at the upper levels of it all..

Diclotican

[madokie]

65. If the republiCONs don't get into a war amongst themselves

their shared hatred for our President will be the reason for that. Before Obama I really thought that we as a nation had turned the corner on race relations but no way do I think that now. From what I see it is mostly people in my age group that are the worst offenders too. Its really sad

[Diclotican]

67. madokie

madokie

The hate they have for your president is harsh - and indeed something I hope the government indeed take a care for it, all up to the president, so the danger for him, his family, and for the public at large is not in danger..

I also believed that USA had, for some reason managed to turn the corner when it come to race and relations for it - but as you put it - I also don't think it.. Even with all the progress the world have made, to make it more acceptable for everyone to seek a position for them selfs - that be as a janitor - or as Obama managed to do it - as the United States President. I have to admit, I never believed that to happened, even in this age - but I was wrong - and I think it was great that US managed to elect a black man as their president..

But it is a anger now, because he got elected that I have never seen before, they really hate the President.. Not just a dislike for him, but a real, anger that I fear could be something more than just some words on a message board..

I don't believe most old people is "evil", but they are kind of set in their views, and it is difficult for many, to change their views after grown up in a world where the office of the presidency was always a white man. Old habits die hard - and I suspect older people tend to have more difficult to turn to other ways... Not that younger people is any better - as many who have grown up in environment where they aren't allowed to think for them self tend to get out in the world, having the same "values" as their parents - even though the world outside is very different from what they have learned home...

United States have a lot of challenges on their hand the next 4 years.. One of them being many who is angry, hatefully and arrogant about the world - and also really pissed off by the fact that the US president is a black man. That hate is also something many is using to want to break up the US all toghter - to make sure that a black man newer Will be elected to rule the white man again.. They have been rather vocal after Obama got elected - and their hatred is pure poison to the ones who might think it is "something" into it..

Diclotican

[Walk away]

2. I would love to see Hillary run with a great young VP candidate....

win, and groom he or she to take over in 4 years. Then she could do great things for the world, set us up for eight more years of a Democratic presidency and she could retire before she is seventy. That's the way I would play it if it was a perfect world!

[kestrel91316]

9. Check your math. Hilary is currently 66. She will be 70 in 2016.

Only other president we elected that old was Raygun, and he had Alzheimer's most of his tenure.

I like Hilary, but i won't vote for her in a primary at this point.

[Bigmack]

14. Life expectancy of white American women with college degrees is 83.9 years.....

Give Hilary a chance to rest, get her a personal trainer and dietician (That diplomatic life is guaranteed to screw your health.), and she'll be a tiger in 2016.

Hilary at half speed is twice what the Repubs could field then.

And she's got one helluvan advisor right in-house.

[SheilaT]

21. Life expectency is not the same as being

able to handle a job as demanding as President of the United States in one's 70's.

Reagan not only had Alzheimer's, but he was famous for his short workday and his penchant for taking naps.

[Honeycombe8]

53. This is true. Life Expectancy isn't the issue. nt

[deurbano]

57. Biden is 69.

A heartbeat away from the presidency... and it doesn't appear his age had been an impediment in that role. Also... HRC's mother lived to be 92. (Not sure Clinton wants the job, just that age wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility.)

[Bigmack]

64. Easy answer... Hilary ain't Raygun! He was a taco short of a combination plate on his best day! nt

[ProudProgressiveNow]

46. +1 nt

[louis c]

27. Actually, she'll be just turning 69 during the 2016 election

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Born October 26, 1947, Chicago Illinois

Link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+born&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[Ter]

72. 8 years of Obama, 8 years of Hillary, and 8 years of her VP after that?

I'm sorry, but you have to be realistic, 24 years of one party rule is pure fantasy.

[kooljerk666]

3. Sorry, I have no desire to see any Clintons in the WH........

Bill helped the dems more as a campaign aid than he did as Prez.

NAFTA, Glass-Steagal & welfare reform are enuff reasons for me to write off the whole family for ever.

Hillary has done a great job as Sec of State, but the 3 reasons above & alliance with DNC/New Dems is enough for me to write them & their ilk off.

I would love to see Elizabeth Warren win in 2016. I would really love Jenifer Granholm but she was born in Canada of Canadian Parents so that is a no go.

I would love to have women running the country, look at the job they are doing in Iceland.

They arrested the criminal banker men, told IMF to suck it & their economy is growing at 8% best in the WORLD!!!

Hopefully we see a "Democratic Socialist Womens Party" develop. Men can help but shut up when they are told to.

BTW i am a white, 51 yo man.

[TlalocW]

8. How about Chelsea?

She'll be eligible in 2016.

TlalocW

[kooljerk666]

24. Chelsea, ehh don't know her or anything about her........

I love this woman, Marianne Williamson!! she was on The War Room w/ Jennifer Granholm thursday night.
http://archive.org/details/CURRENT_20121109_050000_The_War_Room_With_Jennifer_Granholm#start/2310/end/2340

goto 38 minutes in for the interview, I was crying pretty hard by the end, I loved both of these women.

http://sistergiant.com/sistergiant/on-spirituality-and-politics/

And Chelsea, I know nothing about her & have nothing good or bad to say but her parents were too involved with the DLC & all other things for the rich bastards.

[truebluegreen]

42. No dynasties! Not Hillary, not Chelsea

Now Warren / Grayson 2016? That I could get behind!

[TlalocW]

60. How 'bout one of the Bush Twins if they were a democrat

They'll be 35 in 2016 as well.



TlalocW

[truebluegreen]

66. No.

Besides, I wouldn't believe it.

[Whisp]

5. time for new blood, the bush and clinton dynasty days are over.

new blood, new technology for campaigning and getting out the vote.

it's a different era now.

[SeattleVet]

6. Limbaugh?

Is he still around? I thought he was going to go to Costa Rica.

[JanT]

7. clinton-michelle obama would certainly be an interesting combination

i would look at that and consider it if i felt it would be right for the country. but not sure michelle would want to stay in politics after the long trek that she has taken. she is 1st a mother and not sure she would give up that job. but interesting discussion point.

[progressoid]

10. Yeah, but I doubt she'll run.

[jimlup]

11. How about Warren-Castro

Let's put a Hispanic Texan on the ticket and for the blueness of TX in 2016!

[Aldo Leopold]

12. Love the sentiment, but

right now I just wanna savor the next four years.

[Lionessa]

13. Sorry, but the dynastic aspect of another Clinton in office just stops me

from ever voting for another Clinton or another Bush. Just won't do it.

Elizabeth Warren, totally go for that, and virtually any other Dem female, just not a Clinton.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. If she would run she would win...nt

[Fuddnik]

17. Just like in 2008.

[and-justice-for-all]

74. Circumstances are different now...

I do not for see anyone else that is viable for 2016. And I was actually torn between Clinton and Obama in 2008, I am sure a lot of people felt the same way I did.

Your sarcasm is noted, but it lacks potency.

[SheilaT]

76. How long is it between now and 2016?

How much can happen in that time?

As long as I've been on DU I keep on getting crazy when 20 minutes after all the polls close in one election, people here are predicting who will be the next nominee four years down the road.

If you have the stamina, go look at what everyone was predicting in 2001. And in November of 2004, and in November of 2008.

Look back at even earlier elections. I like to point out that in 1991, after the first Gulf War, all the major Democrats decided it wasn't worth running for President, that it was not remotely possible that a Dem could win in '92. Remind me about the second George HW Bush term.

Please save all of your energy that you are currently expending on hyperventilating about 2016, and work on the problems we have in front of us right now.

[Turborama]

80. You made a very good point

Shame it was spoilt at the end with the 'hyperventilating' snark, though.

[SheilaT]

83. I have been on DU since 2002, and I have watched this idiocy

for a decade now. The incessant OH MY GOD WHO IS GOING TO RUN FOUR YEARS FROM NOW hysteria after each election.

It's not snark. It's weariness at the ignorance contained in this crap.

Let's consolidate our gains from this election before we hyperventilate -- and I'm choosing that word deliberately -- over the next election.

Really.

[and-justice-for-all]

87. Thinks SheliaT for your snark on the matter

Its not hysteria, it is nothing more than questioning the possibility and I do not find that to be 'ignorant' much like your attempt at a condescending statement.

[SheilaT]

88. The way people here are always speculating

about who will be the nominee four or more years down the road never comes across as merely questioning the possibility. It invariably comes across as if that's much more important than working on the problems and issues that face us right now.

And as I keep on pointing out, our best guesses are never correct.

Hillary was a shoo-in in 2008.

Who even dreamed that Elizabeth Warren would run for the Senate?

The speculations are treated with a seriousness they don't deserve. That's not snark. That's reality.

[krawhitham]

84. Yeah she got beat by an unknown in 2008

Joe will run and get it, he has paid his dues. When was the last time a VP of 8 years did not win their party's nomination?

If the next 4 years go good he will win the general too, but to get the young to vote you will need a younger candidate. Joe can get the white vote more than Obama did if the country recovers in these 4 years and that will offset the lower turnout by the young voters.

It will be hard to get the union vote behind Clinton because of her time at Walmart, I'll vote for her if I have too but I will vote for someone else in the primary.

Cuomo will also make a run in 2016 if for some reason Joe does not run, but Joe has all but said he will run, he stated this would not be the last time he voted for himself

[Kyad06]

16. Cuomo/Kane

Two tough Dems

[Kyad06]

19. Cuomo vs Christie would be very interesting

Since they know each other well and both are intelligent human beings even if I disagree with Christie 90% of the time

[Honeycombe8]

55. Christie will not be the Repub nominee. nt

[n2doc]

25. Anti Union Cuomo -no thanks n/t

[Liberal In Red State]

18. Consider my Vote already cast for 2016 and beyond!!!

[TroubleMan]

20. Sure, Elizabeth Warren

Please not Hillary - far too conservative.

[ancianita]

22. Clinton/Castro 2016

[libdem4life]

33. You beat me on this one ... Julian is a perfect VP choice.

Blue Texas coming soon.

[ET Awful]

23. Nah, put her on the Supreme Court . . . that'll really get his knickers in a twist. :) n/t

[ancianita]

35. She's too old, now, many say. She'd be better in a position to nominate a Scalia replacement.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

36. Let's not put anyone much over 50 on the Supremes.

[SheilaT]

77. Actually, since Supreme Court Justices are elected for life,

we're much better off putting old folks on the Court. One huge problem with Justice Clarence Thomas is that he will wind up being on the court for at least 40 years.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

86. I do think we're better off if _Repubs_ put old folks on the court but our guys should stay awhile.

Unless we change the rules for appointment we need to take as full advantage of them as the other side does.

[craigmatic]

26. You can't put two first ladies on a ticket. how about a Latino?

[ancianita]

37. Why not? It's not as if there won't be two qualified ladies available. Is this some rule?

[craigmatic]

41. No it's not a rule but it seems like political overreach to me. I like them both but it might seem

like Barack and Bill are trying to retain power through their wives to the average voter. Hillary I think has earned it through her service but Michelle hasn't ever been elected to anything plus her kids are still young.

[SheilaT]

68. Why not?

We always have two men on the ticket and people don't see anything wrong with it.

I'm considering beginning a campaign to have men do without the vote for as long as we women did without it. 1788-1920, let's see, that's 132 years. Just imagine 132 years of only women office holders.

[craigmatic]

69. It's not a matter of gender it's a matter of giving some new people a chance.

And for the record I'd vote for Hillary and hope she runs in 2016.

[SheilaT]

71. My point is that no one thinks there's anything wrong

with having two men on the ticket all but two times in our history. Two women would be a nice change. And no one should say it can't or shouldn't be done.

[craigmatic]

75. I meant 2 first ladies. I don't care if 2 women democrats were the ticket next time. It'd probably

be a plus.

[SheilaT]

78. I think we cross posted.

I agree that 2 former first ladies is not a very good idea.

There's a lack of critical thinking on the part of those who go, "Oh! Wouldn't it be nice if Michele Obama runs for President? How about Chelsea Clinton? Caroline Kennedy?"

I have two names to suggest: Lurleen Wallace and Evita Peron. For those of you who don't immediately recognize those names, I'll pause while you Google them.
.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

Okay, have you looked them up? Now do you understand why it's a lot better that people who are already involved in electoral politics run for office, rather than the wives or daughters of those people?

This is connected to why so-called business leaders, like Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Linda McMahon, Herman Cain, Ross Perot, and probably several others I cannot name right now, why those people make terrible candidates, and in the rare circumstances when they win an election they make terrible politicians. The only example I can actually think of who won an election is Mitt Romney, who was an awful Governor of Massachusetts. In his case, because he never actually ran a business, he had no understanding whatsoever for the need to provide infrastructure. He also thought that running and winning were sufficient, and didn't seem to understand what was actually involved in governing a state.

The business world is utterly different from the public political sphere. In recent years it has become fashionable to pretend they are interchangeable. I think that's a result of the business school model. In business school you're taught that if you can run one business you can run any other. It's my experience, as a low level employee, that it's simply not true. Each business is different, perhaps unique. Some skill sets are transferable, but not all. You would not hire an electrician to work on your plumbing. But it's considered perfectly fine that a person who ran an airline could now run an automobile manufacturing company. No wonder so many companies are is such dire straits.

To get back to the original point of this post. Just because a person has been in close proximity to a job, does not mean that person can do it. I was married for 25 years to a computer programmer. I could not program anything to save my life. Being married to a President, being the daughter or son-in-law of one, does NOT make one capable of being President.

I will say, that in Hillary Clinton's defense, she did run for office on her own, and from what I can tell, was a pretty decent Senator.

But, she is seriously too old for 2016, has said she has no interest in running again, and it's time for new blood.

[Ter]

73. Yeah, but when a first time comes (woman nominee), you can't do it twice

Just like if Obama had picked a black VP in 2008, he would have lost. And when (if?) we ever have an openly gay presidential nominee, he/she can't pick a gay VP.

[SheilaT]

28. The one thing I can almost guarantee

is that whoever is the nominee in 2016 it will be someone we are not even aware of right now. Which is the way it almost always works for Democrats.

In 1988 practically no one outside on Arkansas had even heard of Bill Clinton. In 1991, after the first Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush was seen as so strong that all of the best Democrats quietly pulled out of considering running.

In 2004 Barack Obama was mostly a blip on the radar screen, and the common wisdom was that he needed more time in national office. At the beginning of 2008 the conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton was of course going to be the nominee.

One of the many strengths of the Democratic Party has been its willingness to accept new blood, to embrace change. As good as Hillary Clinton has been as Secretary of State, it's time for her to move on.

And suggesting that Michele Obama or Chelsea Clinton would run is beyond silly. What has either woman shown to indicate they'd be interested? Remember a few years ago when Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg announced she wanted the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton? What a disaster that was. All kinds of people here gushed over the possibility until it became glaringly evident that she was totally, completely, thoroughly unqualified.

If we collectively think that electing a woman president four years from now is a good idea (I agree here) then there are a bunch of other Democratic women who have possibilities. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas, currently Secretary of Health and Human Service. Now that she's been in Obama's cabinet for four years she has a much lower national profile than before. And she's now 64, so I would also consider her too old in 2016.

My prediction, such as it is, is that there is someone out there we've barely heard of at this point, who will be our nominee in 2016.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

48. +1 nt

[Island Blue]

29. A woman, yes.

A Clinton, no.

[Heather MC]

30. Clinton-Devaul Patrick!!! 2016

[Drew Richards]

31. You want a serious ticket for 2016? how about

Although I did not like Bill Clinton in the white house because he was a middle way weassly wheeler dealer, nafta, deregulation, ect...
Hillary might not be too bad except she is getting older and the ties to the "old" way of doing things with Bill are there.

I would still support a

Clinton/Dean ticket

Or my favorite

Dean/Warren

You should take a look at Howard Dean he has been a constant in his philosophy and beliefs and doesnt flip flop or mince words...

Although his exuberance did get used against him and the media swift boated him with his YEEHAW.

He would make a great president I think, and with Warren as vp we would see some serious shit change in this country for the better.

Just my two cents.

[ancianita]

39. Dean has withdrawn from national politics, doesn't want the job.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

40. I love Dean but he'd be 68 before he was sworn in.

[Jackilope]

32. Elizabeth Warren 2016

Not sure who for VP ... but Warren is my first pick.

[Rex]

38. He would jump around his studio flinging shit at the rafters

they would have to get him down off the ceiling fan with a broom! I SAY WE DO IT!

[LongTomH]

43. Hilarious! I remember Rushbo's obsession with Hillary in the 90s.

Some people suggested that Rush had a crush on Hillary.

As for who to support for 2016, I agree with the 'wait and see' crowd! This is the era of breaking precedents, so Hillary is possible; although, I don't think she's a shoo-in.

Wait and see!

Wait and see!

[ProudProgressiveNow]

44. K&R nt

[zentrum]

45. No. Warren in 2016 because....

...she's more progressive by a long shot, is just as smart, has no baggage, is fresh and new but famous, and is a fighter who will take it to them.

Two women on the ticket would be a mistake--the country just isn't ready. Sad but true.

[judesedit]

52. I don't know about that.It's the stuff they're made of..and I don't mean skin & genitalia.They r tuf

and can get the job done. Yet, are empathetic enough to see the plight of the less fortunate. I am there if they are.

[judesedit]

49. I would love to see either scenario. They would be great for this country's future.

[Anthony McCarthy]

50. Two words

MAXINE WATERS

As long as we're dreaming of how to drive Limbaugh nuts.

HEY, WE'VE GOT TO GET THROUGH 2014 BEFORE WE GET TO 2016.

[Honeycombe8]

51. Works for me! nt

[PoliticAverse]

54. Why should Democrats choose a Presidential candidate based in any way on what Rush Limbaugh thinks?

[Turborama]

81. I was thinking the same thing. Loved reply #38, though

Just for shits 'n giggles isn't a good enough reason, though.

[Wounded Bear]

56. I'm not sure Hillary is the right choice....

but I could get behind a quality female candidate.

There are several obvious ones out there including Hillary, and I'm sure many more we haven't seen yet.

[Arugula Latte]

59. Yes to Warren, but no to Hillary.

[michigandem58]

62. My gut says she won't run

I'd support her, of course. Michelle Obama is an intriguing possibility.

[yellowcanine]

70. IF Rush survives 4 more years.....

That much bitterness on top of the drugs and sex gluttony toll on his body might just finish him off in a few years.

[NYC Liberal]

79. I am all for Hillary and will support her 100%! I voted for her in 2008 so I am hoping

she will run.

[NuttyFluffers]

89. think bigger! Angela Davis, Christiane Amanpour 2016!

with Maya Angelou as supreme court justice!