Do you like America 2015? Then you'll *love* Hillary 2016.

[MannyGoldstein]

However you feel about Hillary Clinton, perhaps only a handful of people have been as responsible for America's trajectory over the past 20+ years.

Want more of the same? That's what she's selling, no matter the messaging around it.

[hrmjustin]

1. I will take Hillary as president anyday of the week Manny.

And the people of our party seem to agree.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. So you must like how things have gone the past 20 years.

Certainly, that's your right.

[hrmjustin]

4. You should never presume to know my opinion sir.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I can't think of any other scenario that makes sense?

So while I don't know...

[vlyons]

76. Then you can't think

[madokie]

82. The problem Manny is

you are a shit stirrer. I've yet to read a post of yours where you want to discuss something rationally. IMHO
To each his own but when you're called out on some of the shit you stir you get nasty real quick like
Have a good day sir, I plan too

ETA: how is it that Hillary is the reason for the season as you imply? Talk to me man, I want to read where it is that this kind of what sometimes seems to be drunk ass talk on your part is coming from.

[kelliekat44]

165. Compared to what? What it might have been under complete GOP rule? nt

[sabrina 1]

8. I don't agree, I am 'of our party' and I am waiting for a more progressive candidate to announce.

[hrmjustin]

9. The polls say that she is ahead.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Behind several Republicans in some battleground states

Already!

[hrmjustin]

13. And next week she will be back ahead after the announcement.

Hillary could might not win the d primary but her detractors have to do more than post Ops about how bad she is and put up somebody against her that can win.

If you don't then all you have is a bunch of ops.

[zeemike]

34. And what if she is not?

What if she continues to fall or be a close call?...will the dems still go with her and hope for the best or will the consider someone else?...my guess is no, and she will lose to Jeb because people are glad the GOP did not pick a nut case like Cruz and if you are going to have a dynasty why not go big.

Jeb is new despite his name, but Hillary has been in Washington for a long time...so it will be between something old and something new...and people want change.

[hrmjustin]

37. Then the opposition to Hillary in our party needs to stop complaining and put up someone.

[zeemike]

50. I expect they will.

They cannot have a one person show...I think O'Malley may be what progressives are offered to keep them satisfied that the debate is had on progressive issues, but he will lose to her and we all know it...because money talks and she has a billion.

The only one that could beat her is Warren, because she could energize the base like Obama did...and an energized base will defeat the GOP like it did in 08...bring out the young vote again.

[hrmjustin]

53. Warren could beat her but she will not run.

O'Malleyy needs to get his act together.

[zeemike]

54. Not if he is a stalking horse.

If he is he is doing just fine.

[hrmjustin]

56. We disagree on that.

I don't think he can beat her.

[zeemike]

58. That is not what a stalking horse does.

The whole point of one is to not beat her.

[hrmjustin]

64. i am sorry, your right. I think Sanders will run and be her strongest challenger but won't win.

[Smithryee]

79. That's where you are wrong.

Hillary vs Bernie results will show that Bernie stomped Hillary in every issue.

What are her stances in TPP?
What are her stances in CU?
What are her stances on helping the 99%'ers
What are her stances on Wall Street?
What are her stances on corporatism?

[hrmjustin]

101. I doubt it. She will answer your questions when she is a candidate.

[merrily]

78. and/or aiming to be V.P. until it's "his turn."

[zeemike]

96. Yep that too.

[DonCoquixote]

74. as the person wanting the job, it is her job to offer more then ops

For example, she will need to say how she feels about the TPP, or whether we should go into Syria. She cannot avoid those questions forever.

[merrily]

80. She will answer per the consensus of over 200 campaign advisors and

strategists. Or TPP will be a done deal soon and the answer will be built around that.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. lol, Hillary is the world's expert at not answering tough questions.

[hrmjustin]

100. No she can't. Once she is a candidate she has to answer.

But the opposition needs to do more than complain and get its act together.

[DonCoquixote]

103. we must be doing somethign right

consider wall street already threatned to yank it's checkbook unless Warren stops.

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/03/wall-street-mob-threatens-elizabeth-warren-with-dem-money-freeze/
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/wall_streets_political_shakedown_well_stop_funding_dems_if_elizabeth_warren_wont_sit_down_and_shut_up/

but then again, it;s just coincidence right? Let's see how things are by this time next week, where Hillary can have plenty of time to finally answer questions. I bet she trots out Bill, aka "minister of splaining stuff" by Friday.

[hrmjustin]

106. Are you saying she needs her husband to explain things? she can't do it herself?

[DonCoquixote]

108. well, she can prove me wrong

by offering some explanations that many of us are waiting for.

[hrmjustin]

110. That is a dodge. You made a comment that she will need her husband toexplain things for her.

Are you saying she can't do this by herself and needs her husband.

[DonCoquixote]

118. well, how is that not true?

Bill certaintly has been a major part of every election she was ever tried to win. Do you think he will stay home this time?

[hrmjustin]

121. So are you saying she can't do this by herself?

[DonCoquixote]

168. I am saying I have not seen her do it

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE a campaign where she actually was willing to NOT have Bill trot out. I fully belive Bill running his mouth cost her not just the 2008 campaign, but it was also stated that Obama wanted her as Veep, but then BIll kept talking and made it clear he intended to be third wheel.

Hillary could be the best person to repeal some of the mistakes Bill made, admittedly, ones he made before Citizens United made it clear that the Billionaires intended to bulldoze anything and everything, the country be damned.

But, hear her talking about Glass-Steagall? She talked a little about "revisting" Nafta, but has been silent on the TPP,

I believe she, if she wanted to, could not only run a Bill free cmapaign, but could gain points by giving Bill the pillar to post beating he has deserved for years, and that even Bill knows he deserves. He could have been hung out to dry, but she stuck by him.

and sadly, she will not oppose his mistakes.

to answer your question, she could, but she won;t, and while some here drool at the idea of the Big Dawg being back in, many others will shiver at that thought, to her detriment.

[hrmjustin]

169. For your information Hillary is a highly intelligent woman and got to her position

through her hard work.

And she didn't want the vp spot. Sorry but that seems like revisionist history on your part.

[DonCoquixote]

170. first off

read one thign where I said she was NOT intelligent, read the part where I said that not only could be run a bill free campaign, but that she would be better off for it. Contrary to what many think, Bill is not her wings, but the albatross round her neck.

as far as the veep, she wanted it in 2008, although not in 2012 when Obama was considerign ditching joe

http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/135326-Hillary-Now-Scheming-for-Vice-Presidential-Spot-on-Obama-s-Ticket

revis ehisotry as you will, I get the fact you want HIllary, and that, even though I will mostly be voting against Scott Walker, we will be comrades in November, but please please do not try to sell those of us who know Hillary and Bill that they are anything but the Machiavellian masterminds who will try to exterminate the left 5 minutes after we vote them into office. And stop brandioshing the "sexist" baton whenever someone dares think Hillary needs criticism, especially when the 2008 campianged showed what happened when to many "yes men" told her what she wanted to hear! She needs our feedback every bit as much as your support.

[hrmjustin]

171. I doubt we will be comrades.

Good bye!

[DonCoquixote]

172. you do not think

That you will need us inn the general? Sorry to burst bubbles, but it will take everyone to win. I will have to holdmynose for Hillary, and you will have to hold your nose to deal with us. Granted, we both know that come January, Hillary will be forcing the TPP and KXL down our throats, and that your side will cheer it, but the sad events of W.s reign prove we needed to beat the GOP before we can get back to work defining what the Democratic party is.

[hrmjustin]

173. I wasn't talking about everyone else who does not support her. i was talking about you.

[DonCoquixote]

174. fair enough

And you will still need us if you want to win, just as we need you to make the GOP lose.

[hrmjustin]

175. That is fine but after your comments I doubt we will be comrades.

Take care of yourself.

[sabrina 1]

14. What other Dems have announced they are running, or indicated they are running. And will she refuse

Corporate funding so that other Progressive Dems are on a level playing field with her? Some Dems, I am happy to see, are now realizing what poison that money is and are refusing to accept it.

[sabrina 1]

16. Asking you what other Dems are running is talking down to you? You said 'she is ahead in the polls'

I asked what other Dems are running. You're not 'ahead' unless you are ahead of someone else. So, I asked, who else is running on our side?

[hrmjustin]

18. i read it wrong. i will self delete and answer your question. my apologies.

[hrmjustin]

19. You can't beat Hillary with ops. If you don't want her then get a candidate to run.

[sabrina 1]

20. Do you know where we might find a billion dollars for another candidate? Would Wall St fund eg,

Elizabeth Warren? Or Bernie Sanders?

[hrmjustin]

21. Excuses! If they were the nominee they would have to take money from Wall Street to win.

Sorry but you can't expect her not to take money to win. That would be foolish and ridiculous.

[joshcryer]

31. Even Obama took money from JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.

And yes, that was in his 2008 Presidential campaign.

In a world with Citizens United and Oligarchy United unfortunately we can't win without spending as much or more than the Republicans. It's an unfortunate commentary on the state of our Democracy, but it's the cold hard truth.

[hrmjustin]

33. Agreed! I love how it is Hillary's fault that she can raise a lot of money.

[sabrina 1]

59. Why do you think Wall St loves her so much? Do you think Wall St would give Warren so much money?

[cascadiance]

142. And I "love it" that those who support her seem to LOVE a system that has money determine who runs..

... for office and is made far more important as a measure of whether they can be a viable candidate than what they really stand for and how they want to work for those who might elect them to office.

If you don't love money determining who gets nominated, then you should join us in rejecting that system and wanting to elect someone who would try to shut this system of corruption and legalized bribery shut down.

[hrmjustin]

143. You should not presume to know my opinion.

[cascadiance]

145. Well Hillary seems to thrive in this system and doesn't want to take it down at all...

... and you seem to want to support her positions here if you are a strong supporter of hers.

If you disagree with her on this, then explain why you do, and what makes up for that in ways that you would rather support her than another Democrat.

[hrmjustin]

148. Realistically to change the system you will need a constitutional amendment.

I love Hillary and I am going to support her. No I don't like the system but it is what it is.

And I am not switching candidates.

[merrily]

81. "Even Obama" LOL!

[mylye2222]

86. Obama got far more from millions of small contributors

than from big ones.

[merrily]

87. I don't think that is accurate, especially if you think about "soft money," where the biggest

donations go.

But, my amusement was not so much about the substance of what josh posted as it was about posting style.

[joshcryer]

94. LOL!

There it is!

[cascadiance]

147. And THAT is why they are owned in such a way that promotes voter apathy and disaffection!

People hate corruption and they feel its being forced on them, and you've just confirmed that it is forced upon us!

[hrmjustin]

149. The system is what it is.

[cascadiance]

153. Thanks to Republicans and corporate Democrats that have corrupted it!

The system isn't *inherently* what "it is", only if you WANT it to be that way!

And many of us want it changed, and that is why we need someone who will change it!

[hrmjustin]

154. Well i wish you well with your candidate.

[rury]

39. At this point in 2007 the polls said she was ahead for 2008

at this point in 1991 the polls said George H.W Bush was ahead for 1992
The point is, polls this early about a contest that will be waged a year from now don't mean a thing because a lot can change in a year.
"I'm Not Ready for Hillary."

[hrmjustin]

42. At this point in 2007 it was clear she had strong opposition.

That 7s not clear this time. Anything is possible but you actually have to put up someone strong enough to beat her if you don't want her.

[davidpdx]

60. I disagree

She had many opponents, yes. But at this time in 2007 support was still split among those that didn't favor Hillary Clinton. Obama didn't declare until Feb 2007, so he would only be about 2 months into his campaign. I can't remember the dates the rest of the candidates announced offhand.

The other difference is a candidate wasn't able to sit back and fund-raise for a long period of time before announcing. The rumor is that she'll have at least $700 million raised already (I was personally predicting $1 billion) by the time she announces. No, that isn't her fault, but she sure does benefit from it.

[hrmjustin]

63. Obama caught fire by the summer and announced before hillary.

Now anything is possible this year but clearly the opposition is not as strong as last time,

[Major Hogwash]

70. No.

Obama struggled clear in to the month of February in 2008.
He didn't catch "fire" until April, when several caucuses and primaries were held after Super Tuesday.

[hrmjustin]

71. I meant the summer of 2007. His numbers got better after the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa.

[davidpdx]

161. His chances improved, but he was still a long shot going into the fall which is where it started to

turn. I distinctly remember attending a rally in September 2007 when I was in Portland Oregon. I then came back to Korea in early October.

[hrmjustin]

162. The JJD was the start of his rise in the Iowa polls.

[rury]

127. No it was not CLEAR at this point in 2007 that she had strong oppostion.

She still looked "inevitable" this time eight years ago. Sen. Barack Obama was waaay behind Hillary in the polls in 2007. Most polls had him trailing her by about 30 points. He didn't even begin to catch up until very late in '07. So it is possible that someone who has not declared yet can still catch and pass her just like Obama did.'
And I don't have 'to put up someone strong enough to beat her if (I) don't want her."
I have no control over who does or does not enter the race. I can simply write an individual's name in on my primary ballot.
During the general election I can either hold my nose and vote for her, leave the top of the ticket blank, write somebody in on the Democratic ballot in or vote third party.

[hrmjustin]

128. It was clear by the summer of 2007.

[cascadiance]

131. Uh... NO, it wasn't. Not until this time a year later in that election...

[hrmjustin]

132. You are looking at national polls.

I am talking IOWA. He gave a great speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner and he gained support because of it.

[davidpdx]

163. Yes he did, but Iowa is one state

He didn't have a lock on it. It wasn't until much later in the fall that his numbers came close to Clinton's.

[hrmjustin]

164. Iowa is the state that starts people off. it was a big moment.

[davidpdx]

166. Yeah it was, I remember it

But again back to my point. He was still an underdog until the fall. The field was pretty evenly split among those who did not support Clinton.

The rules have changed though with campaign finance. Essentially a candidate can run up the score before the game starts. That DOES limit who will get in the race. I strongly believe we have more than one viable and qualified candidate in the Democratic Party then the one that will get rammed down our throats.

[hrmjustin]

167. I am all for campaign finance reform.

[rury]

176. No it was not clear by the summer of 2007

Sen. Obama was still trailing Clinton by as much as 30 points in candidate preference polls at that point. She still had her air of "inevitability" at that point and she LOST.
It is still possible for a dark horse candidate to overtake her.

[hrmjustin]

178. In Iowa he started making headway in the summer.

[cascadiance]

129. Then why isn't she president now?

They said the same thing before 2008!

[hrmjustin]

130. Be ause a strong candidate was also in the race and won.

Good luck finding one this time.

[cascadiance]

133. Translated... "A candidate promising hope and change" won...

Even if it was a nebulous message that didn't provide enough details, it was a message that people who wanted a CHANGE (and they still do when they haven't got it from Obama over his presidency) voted for.

When those wanting change left Edward's campaign who were also looking for change that he espoused when he pulled out all moved to support Obama if you look at the above poll results.

A well articulated and crafted campaign that highlights changes from our corrupt system to one that works for our people this time will be able to win handily both the primary and the general election. The problem is that behind the scenes it would appear that strings are being pulled to keep such candidates out to help satisfy the "money people".

I for one, will not support those that the "money people" support if we want some real change. It ain't going to happen if we allow money to buy the politician we elect then.

It really depends on how you define "strong". If you mean that this is the candidate that the 1% likes and wants to pave the way to win as being "strong", then you would be accurate in calling Hillary "strong". If you mean "strong" being someone that a vast majority of people can support and feel honestly is working for them, then I don't think so, and that strength in a candidate remains to be seen just yet.

Warren could be that person. I think it still remains to be seen what ultimately happens there, but perhaps others could still step up as well.

[hrmjustin]

134. Warren is not running.

[cascadiance]

135. *Now*.... Just like Obama was many times "not running" THEN!

[hrmjustin]

136. Warren is not running.

[cascadiance]

138. If it won't happen why do you all continue to note this?

Hmm... Are you afraid that this will at some point not be the case, which is why you feel like you need to continue to remind us of what is happening now? Seems like many of you are worried by continuing to post this message which defies the notion you and others continue to remind us of that her running is "impossible" in an effort to get us to stop thinking about it.

[hrmjustin]

139. I note this because Warren has pointed this out countless times.

I take her at her word.

Warren is not running.

[cascadiance]

140. And the press keeps hounding her for an answer...

If she has come to a conclusion that entering the race to early before a movement and a party organization can be set up (IF she wants to run) would doom her since the corporate media and other corporate forces probably have her at the top of their list of candidates to "shut down", then I can say YES, she will continue to deny this and may sound frustrated doing so. It is what I would expect an intelligent politician to do.

Now, can I say I know she is running and that she's not telling us yet authoritatively yet, because of my theory here? NO! But I don't think I have reasons to give up hope that she might choose to enter the race later either. The constant effort from Hillary supporters to continue to hound us with this message tells me that they are more worried that it might happen, or I would think they'd feel better just to ignore us instead.

And in fact I've talked personally last year to a certain person that has worked with her on capitol hill, who said she wouldn't run, but his eyes lit up a bit when asked about that possibility if Hillary didn't or couldn't run for some reason. That tells me that there are circumstances that she might enter the race and she isn't necessarily staying out of the race because "she doesn't want to run, period". The question is what they might be, and when it might happen?

Now what happens if this email scandal builds up to a point that makes Hillary too risky a candidate that might lose, etc.? That could be the circumstances that might have someone like her enter the race, I would think.

Still think it's a slam dunk situation?

[hrmjustin]

141. Warren is still not running. if she did run it would be competitive race but...

...Warren is not running.

[cascadiance]

144. And you continue to remind us of this, even if you think it's not worth worrying about...

[hrmjustin]

146. Oh I would worry if she did run but...

...Warren is not running.

[MissDeeds]

107. +1000000 n/t

[marym625]

119. many of us don't

Thankfully, it looks like we'll at least have a primary race. Didn't look that way for a while

[hrmjustin]

122. Many more do and I agree there will be a primary.

[marym625]

124. I guess we'll see

There's a still a while to go.

[840high]

158. I don't agree.

[hrmjustin]

159. ok.

[sabrina 1]

3. Manny, you're a Putin Lover! Lol!

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Boot licker.

Much more evocative and low-rent, I think.

[sabrina 1]

10. Boot licker, well at least that isn't one of the old right wing 'insults' against Dems that have now

made their way over here to DU.

[Purveyor]

38. I never 'got' the bootlicking thing. Dirty socks and sucking on toes, perhaps but licking boots

never worked for me...

Just saying.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. n/t

[joshcryer]

12. Somewhat accurate characterization.

If you take out the Bush years which set us back a decade.

It would be a continuation of the 16 years between Bill and Obama. Mistakes were made under Bill and were rectified under Obama. Compromises were made under Obama and will be rectified under Hillary.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. During most of the Bush years, she was a Senator from NY

Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

It can certainly be said that the Dems allowed Bush to take our country down that path, including the ruinous war Clinton not only voted for, she took a leadership position in urging her fellow Democrats to vote for it.

[sabrina 1]

22. And during her time as a Senator from NY, my state, she continued to support the funding of Bush's

war. The few Dems who refused to do so, were attacked by their own party, Kucinich eg.

[JI7]

23. most people blame Bush for the war which is why Hillary has so much support now

[joshcryer]

35. Yes, Bush was invading anyway.

Bush is 100% at fault for the Iraq War, deflecting to anyone but Bush (and Cheney) is 100% wrong.

[malokvale77]

25. "she took a leadership position in urging her fellow Democrats to vote for it."

That what was the thing that turned me against her.

She has done more since to seal my dislike for her.

In all good conscience, I do not think I can vote for her.

[joshcryer]

26. Well, she had a liberal voting record.

If you look at her voting record, without your eyes glazing over because of preconceived notions about her, you'll see she votes liberal 90% of the time. The other 10% is free trade crap which she's going to have to explain and Bernie or someone else can get her to explain why she supports it. She has to be completely honest about it and not give a canned response. "Americans like cheap goods so we do trade deals to benefit our consumer society. We need to raise the minimum wage to close the income gap and to bring innovation back home." (Raising the minimum wage is a plank of the Democratic Party and actually under Clinton Kennedy and Wyden tried to make a permanent raise to the minimum wage; the minimum wage would be like $20 now if that passed; and to say that the Democrats don't have good ideas go watch Clinton: American Experience.)

I think the SCOTUS stole a huge opportunity from the American people to reverse Regan-era policies and I don't blame any Democrats for that one. Bush had the majority in Congress for 6 years out of 8 and then he lost the Senate by a small amount and since the House is where spending bills is drafted, he had control the entire time. The entire time. Obama only had a majority for a couple of weeks spread over his entire time in the Presidency.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. No.

She votes on the Left side of any given bill 90% of the time. Except for the 10% that really count.

Clever!

[joshcryer]

29. I would not say that free trade counts more than LGBT rights.

To some, it might, but not to me. I implore you to go over her voting record.

[hrmjustin]

30. I love how 90 percent doesn't count.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Would you agree that votes to start the Iraq War, or to @#$%

bankrupt 99%ers, should count differently than some others?

[MannyGoldstein]

32. What stance did she take on LGBT issues

before the majority of Americans had taken that stance first?

(BTW, since you seem to have changed the topic, I'll assume you've ceded the point to me.)

[joshcryer]

41. What stance did she take after the majority of Americans?

Name one vote where she was lagging behind. Marriage equality didn't even become a majority issue until 2012 (when Obama endorsed it he was literally following the polls).

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements. (Jan 2008)

It seems you changed the topic initially, over what "really counts." I'm simply saying I don't put things like LGBT, choice, Social Security, the environment, over "free trade." In fact I'd give free trade a lower priority, because it's happening anyway (we have almost no tariffs, the stuff is going to flow).

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Marriage equality. nt

[joshcryer]

51. Your post #27 was about votes, Manny.

I guess we're done having a conversation if you're going to play word games.

[hrmjustin]

57. She is just fine on LGBT issues. you're reaching here and it shows.

[sheshe2]

69. Secretary Clinton's Historic Speech on LGBT Human Rights - "Gay rights are human rights"

5 Reasons Why LGBT People Should Vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016

She Has Evolved


5 Reasons Why LGBT People Should Vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016
John Paul Brammer | 9 hours ago | Hillary, LGBT

Hillary Clinton finally plans to formally announce that she will be running for president this Sunday, meaning we can all take a brief pause in making fun of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to pay attention to a politician who actually has a shot at becoming president.

There is, of course, a plethora of reasons as to why LGBT people should vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, not the least of which is to protect themselves from what a conservative would do to us if they took the White House.

But here are five.
She Has Evolved

Hillary Clinton

Like so many of our family, friends, and acquaintances, Hillary Clinton has grown into her current positive position on LGBT rights. Many conservatives have called Clinton out for previously holding a view contrary to same-sex marriage. While that’s certainly worth bringing up, you know what? I’d take an “I evolved” position over “I don’t think you deserve rights.”


She Empowers Women

It has long been my belief that homophobia is rooted in misogyny. Femininity is stigmatized as weakness, and when gay men are feminized, they become targets for harassment and mistreatment. What I love about Hillary Clinton is she empowers women everywhere, and her presidency would break an important barrier.

She Believes Gay Rights are Human Rights





http://bluenationreview.com/5-reasons-lgbt-people-vote-hillary-clinton-2016/

[joshcryer]

73. Doesn't "really count" sheshe2.

[Doctor_J]

126. "She has evolved" = the wind became so strong she could no longer fight/ignore it

alot like the "liberal" who lives in the WH. Liberal TV show "The Good Wife" bashed the opportunist Dems on last week's show. I was happy to see someone call out their hypocrisy.

[msanthrope]

55. In the 90s....she refused to fire her openly gay COS, even after Republican

opposition and demands she do so. Her personal courage in that action won her the support of LGBT groups, everywhere.

You should ask David Brock about that.

[Cheese Sandwich]

24. Hillary is inevitable. It's time to get on board and stop tearing down the nominee.

Just kidding!

But she is certainly the front runner according to this DU poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6485223

On the other hand it is just an internet poll.

[leveymg]

28. The Hillary years will be more war war and less jaw jaw

Assuming she's elected.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Why do people attribute godlike powers to her? Senator and SOS does NOT equal god.

It equals bit player in the Washington scene. Unless you want to attribute Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 to Clinton, you will have a very hard time making this point.

Bill Clinton is much more influential--but then, he is an ex-president.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. OK. So what are a few specific things Hillary's accomplished

That show us she's uniquely qualified to be President?

In your opinion.

[Major Hogwash]

72. You have got to be kidding??

Either you are actually totally ignorant of Hillary's accomplishments or you are just being obtuse.

[99Forever]

92. Well sir,

If Manny has "got to be kidding" then you should have no problem compiling that list.

No?

Step right up.

[L0oniX]

151. She voted for funding Ming's war on the universe?

[zentrum]

45. Right on. n/t

[sheshe2]

46. actually I am loving 2015!

From flamingdem~



Another one for the history books, Obama and Raul shake hands in Panama
and prepare to continue improving US Cuban relations in spite of Republican resistance.

This is great! Go here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026488327'
'
This President ROCKS!!!! And you don't have a clue.

MORE#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026488327

Actually 2015 is becoming a banner year for Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!***************

I want more of the same!!!!! I do I do I do! Iran!~ No boots on the ground. Talking1!!!!

[Dpm12]

52. AGREED!

I have been disappointed with him for six years, but the man's been impressing me lately.

[sheshe2]

62. Dpm!

Well, he has always impressed me, LGBT Rights , Healthcare, Women's rights, Syria, Iran, best foreign relations ever.....so much more.

Glad he is impressing you now, cause this lame duck is going to rock!n

[hrmjustin]

65. Well played!

[sheshe2]

66. Lol~ Thanks.

[Stellar]

83. Good or Bad, I wondered about 2015...

and what part Hillary played in it. And, good or bad, President Obama had a lot to do with the way 2015 has turned out so far. Hell 2015 is nothing like it was in 2008, the mess Bush left to him. Thanks for sharing!

[treestar]

112. Plus going to Jamaica and the Bob Marley Museum

and putting a rainbow out of his hand!

[zappaman]

115. +1000!

I know there are some who would rather McCain had won, but I think our president has done a great job.
I know it's gutsy for me to say that on a Democratic website,but I'll take the heat!

[stonecutter357]

47. pretending to be morally pure.

[Dpm12]

48. I hope Al Gore or Jerry Brown run

If not, I can do with Hillary.

[akbacchus_BC]

49. Frankly, she should not run. She should just go away!

I would love if Howard Dean ran or someone younger. What is she trying to prove? She is not electable, most likely the effing republicans will run a mouse and win.

After all the shit Hilary said about President Obama during the primaries prior to him get elected, she should just go away. Who would believe her after all those lies?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Why did he make her Secretary Of State then?

And Ms.Clinton will beat her Republican challenger worse than Ali beat Liston:

[ucrdem]

61. Beats the heck out of America 2001-2008, and that's the alternative.

In which case I'll take 2015 and make the best of it.

[randome]

67. What the hell is your 'deal', Manny?

You can't stop going negative, can you? Why not spend time talking up an alternative candidate? Are you really afraid of Hillary's announcement tomorrow and you want to get in all your digs while you can on DU?

Geeze, even I'm not shy about saying I don't like her but I won't spend time trying to tear someone down. Posts like this contribute nothing positive to DU.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

88. Negative works better. That's why almost every politician out there goes negative too.

Don't remember the 2008 primary campaigns? Both Obama and Hillary went negative on each other.

Are you holding Manny to a higher standard than you hold the candidate you want to see in the WH for 4-8 years?

[randome]

89. No, to a 'public forum' standard since his 'campaign' is solely to express his personal distaste.

'Works better'? Toward what goal? To disillusion members of DU? Because that's the only end-game I see playing out with posts like this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bobbie Jo]

99. Well...

some folks only have one gear.

[emulatorloo]

109. And only one agenda

Pot-stirring

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

125. The 'end game' I see is that Manny wants a different Dem nominee than Hillary.

As do many of us.

[treestar]

113. trouble is there aren't two or more sides in this primary yet

So going negative on the only non candidate that might be one is a bit much.

It is a bad human trait that we do this and thus Manny gets much bigger thread responses than anyone who would post a positive OP might.

[Andy823]

102. Exactly.

The constant negativity is getting really old. So many here want to go at Hillary day after day, bashing and trashing, yet most of those same posters can't seem to do as you stated, talk up an alternative candidate, one they think would be better.

Like you I won't vote for her in the primary, but if she wins the nomination, I sure as hell will. There is no way in hall we can afford a republican in the WH come 2016. There will be others who announce, and when they do then we all will have a chance to pick which one we want to support in the primary, but all the shit stirring around here is not helping matters. Some need to face the facts that Warren is NOT going to run and find another candidate to back instead of bashing Clinton day in and day out.

[certainot]

68. and i'll bet you don't include limbaugh in that handful

the left dosnt deserve warren or sanders or wellstone, if you have been oblivious as 400 think tank scripted jerks took free potshots at them the last decade.

how can you judge hillary? the left bent over for 400 jerks with megaphones and were beaten by them in every state, as the planet warmed.

so a bunch of ignorant think tank-scripted liars and their teabag constituency get to define hillary?

until that 's gone that's the way it is. stop complaining.

[DCBob]

75. The main problem with America 2015 is..

the RW media, Republican obstruction, big business influence in politics and left wing bashing of our President and other good Democrats.

[B Calm]

77. Sounds 100% better than us having another republican recession! Go Hillary!

[tularetom]

84. I think you're giving her waaaaay too much credit

I'm having a problem seeing this huge effect she's had on America's trajectory.

I don't want to see her in a position where she has any responsibility for it. But I am looking forward to a campaign full of platitudes and devoid of policy. Especially if Jeb Bush is her opponent. She can't say anything bad about her brother in law, can she.

[SidDithers]

85. Better believe it!...nt

Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Gotta love our Ivy League friend.

DSB

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. I would appreciate more building up of a viable alternative to Hillary and...

...less tearing down of a woman who may end up being the only person standing between us and total Republican control of the U.S. Government come 2017.

[Autumn]

91. I like Hillary. Problem is we can't afford more of the same.

I think her time has come and gone.

[fadedrose]

93. She cannot unite the party

anymore than Obama could when he won. Her supporters did not feel he deserved the presidency any more than the Romney supporters did.

The split is big and deep. There isn't much trust. Women's rights are a big issue, but not the only issue. So many wars starting up everywhere call for diplomacy, not endless war, and wealth inequality calls for a person who recognizes the sins of the 1% and wants to change things.

I like Warren or Sanders, and am hoping to see more candidates announce.

One curious thing, in changing channels, I bumped into people on Fox discussing Mrs. Clinton, vs Elizabeth Warren, and the group preferred HC to Warren because Warren was taking the party too far to the left...if you can't trust Fox, who can you trust?

Other than on TV, I don't know of a live person that is for HC.

[L0oniX]

152. It's going to be a campaign ...for who gets the most campaign money.

I'm sure my vote will make a difference against $millions in free speech.

[99Forever]

95. Personally...

... I'm ready to move on to an America that values We the People MORE than We the Corporations and has a proven history of working hard towards that goal. I will vote accordingly.

[workinclasszero]

104. Yeah a president cruz and VP walker who be so much better eh?

I'd take Hillary any damn day over what ever nazi theocratic wanna be pope-of-america the republican party is going to run thats for sure OP!

So are you saying..there is no difference between Hillary and fucking Cruz or Herr Walker??

[SidDithers]

105. It's better than 2008...

And I can understand why that bothers you, given your opinion that you'd rather have had McCain win the 2008 election, and your assertion that there wouldn't have been many differences between McCain's and Obama's policies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022109321#post46

So, yeah.

Sid

[treestar]

111. Yet another thread on it?

right now most people are fine with the same as in a good economy.

[JoePhilly]

114. The number of "Hillary Bad" OPs is about to go up significantly.

And in most, like this one, no alternative candidate will be brought forward.

[brooklynite]

116. Ah.. the year the Supreme Court is going to validate marriage equality?

[brooklynite]

117. Don't give up the ship, Manny! Until the Electoral College votes...

...there's always a chance Warren will change her mind...

[marym625]

120. K&R

[Rex]

137. I cannot find an equivalent candidate that could beat her.

I'm trying to think of one...who can beat her...no fair if you say Obama.

[sheshe2]

155. ...

[L0oniX]

150. I can't wait for all her implied campaign promises to ...ooops sorry ...can't do ...war time.

[BlueStater]

156. How ironic that Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign slogan was "Building a bridge to the 21st century".

Him and his wife have been largely responsible for keeping the party stuck in the 1990s with all of their bullshit.

[840high]

160. +1

[Depaysement]

157. is there anyone selling anything else?

I am all ears but I'm not hearing the music.

If not Hillary, then who?

[PBass]

177. This is one of your dumber threads.

However, I'm no longer surprised by the depths to which you'll stoop... you're here mainly to rile people.