Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 03:47 PM Jul 2013

The Why--Hillary in 2016

The team that she will assemble in 2016 is just about unbeatable. First of all, heading it up is her husband Bill who really showed how likable and powerful he was at the 2012 Democratic Convention. There was no headliner at the Republican convention that came close to him. The Clinton's are seasoned politicians and know exactly how to run a campaign. There was a lot of talk about surrogates in the last election, how each of them hit an integral segment of the voting populace and the assembly for 2016 is awesome. Barack and Michele Obama owe the Clinton's a lot. They, and their entire team, will be on hand to support them. They have made great inroads to the Latino vote and most immigrants, not to mention their GOTV efforts in the black community. They alone are an extremely powerful entity that will be backing the Clinton's.

The women vote coming from the entire country will be overwhelmingly for Hillary. In this election Republican women will vote for Hillary more than they have ever voted for a Democratic candidate. First of all, it is an empowering act to make sure that a woman is finally elected President in this country. Second of all the Republican “war on women” is very real to Republican women and the extreme right scares them. Any reader here knows what I am talking about. And Hillary is white, Republican women found it hard to vote for a black man, but Hillary doesn’t have that in her profile.

Her posture as a world figure trumps all of the other candidates that the Republicans can muster. She has made a lot of friends around the world that are long and strong.

Finally, she is smarter than all of them put together. I am such a supporter of her that I don’t want to talk about her ruthless side----she will win this one!

When we look at the horrible mess and message that is coming from the Republican side we need a landslide vote for her, and Congress. With the current Republican House and filibustering Senate we need to get our country back on a good track.

577 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Why--Hillary in 2016 (Original Post) Always Randy Jul 2013 OP
No. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #1
Absolutely right! CaliforniaPeggy Jul 2013 #4
The 2016 election is happening right now Always Randy Jul 2013 #27
right Always Randy Jun 2016 #577
Elizabeth Warren or maybe Sherrod Brown protect our future Jul 2013 #8
tell me about Sherrod Brown Always Randy Sep 2013 #382
I can tall you something about him... brooklynite Feb 2014 #440
well ok Always Randy Feb 2014 #442
Google is your friend brooklynite Apr 2015 #569
you are right Always Randy Apr 2015 #568
Thank you---I love Elizabeth too Always Randy Jul 2013 #17
Since Warren is *not* an idiot... gcomeau Oct 2013 #427
spot on Always Randy Oct 2013 #429
I love Elizabeth Warren but One of the 99 Jul 2013 #36
ditto illegaloperation Jul 2013 #126
Why not? Wabbajack_ Jul 2013 #160
If you have to ask that question. One of the 99 Jul 2013 #162
Don't patronize me Wabbajack_ Jul 2013 #163
Not trying to patronize you One of the 99 Jul 2013 #164
I don't see what you see, explain it please Wabbajack_ Sep 2013 #197
Wow it took you a whole 2 months to come up with that? One of the 99 Sep 2013 #220
thank you One Always Randy Sep 2013 #283
You're welcome One of the 99 Sep 2013 #324
thank you Always Randy Sep 2013 #282
I'll tell you why. I love her, but she hasn't got the breadth and depth of exposure to be a credible ancianita Aug 2014 #495
thanks Always Randy Apr 2015 #560
No freshman Senator has ever become President? SheilaT Sep 2013 #230
I never said anything about her being a freshman senator. One of the 99 Sep 2013 #233
One ---thank you Always Randy Sep 2013 #285
You are right Sheila Always Randy Sep 2013 #284
There is more to a political resume than time in U.S. Senate gcomeau Oct 2013 #428
hello Always Randy Nov 2013 #435
get ready for Hillary Always Randy Apr 2015 #566
ELIZABETH WARREN IS A REAL PROGRESSIVE A FEMALE FDR socket Mar 2014 #451
do you think that Elizabeth Warren will announce soon Always Randy Mar 2014 #455
congratulations for throwing a cup of kibble to a pack of ravenous Chihuahuas. wyldwolf Jul 2014 #483
well thank you Always Randy Jul 2014 #489
And Hillary can? SheilaT Sep 2013 #229
Yes! nt One of the 99 Sep 2013 #234
thank you for your continued interest here Sheila Always Randy Sep 2013 #286
I have to agree with you PassingFancy Nov 2013 #436
Agreed. BlueDemKev Feb 2014 #443
what this country needs is a few good women Always Randy Feb 2014 #444
What this country needs is a few good PROGRESSIVES... BlueDemKev Feb 2014 #445
I really like the idea of women leading the country Always Randy Feb 2014 #448
That's what they said about Obama The Masked Shrike Mar 2014 #453
Please share your thoughts Always Randy Mar 2014 #456
Could you accept a Bush/Cheney administration? Always Randy Jul 2013 #42
If we want to "grow the Democratic presence in our elected officials" winter is coming Jul 2013 #190
SKP, you're my bud, but no way would Warren be ready in 2016. Beacool Jul 2013 #44
I am with you on this Beacool and i hope SKP gets on board too---ur invited Always Randy Jul 2013 #54
This........... Beacool Jul 2013 #58
Hillary LOST the election to Obama - not "yielded" karynnj Sep 2013 #200
She could have done a lot of damage to Obama, and would have juajen Sep 2013 #211
And had she done that there would have been no talk of 2o12 or 2016 karynnj Sep 2013 #222
and Obama would not have been Presiden if Hillary ran a third party Always Randy Sep 2013 #289
Nonsense. AtomicKitten Oct 2013 #409
I don't understand PUMA? Always Randy Oct 2013 #410
can anyone tell me what PUMA is Always Randy Oct 2013 #412
You might try rock Jul 2014 #481
Thank you Rock----some on DU Always Randy Jul 2014 #484
well there was plenty Always Randy Oct 2013 #411
oh, she tried AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #254
This looks rather Tea Party --but thank you AtomicKitten Always Randy Sep 2013 #290
LOL. AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #310
I am a supporter of Emily's list Always Randy Sep 2013 #320
love the theater AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #322
You may say that Atomic Kitten Always Randy Sep 2013 #323
everybody says some wid stuff in the campaign Always Randy Sep 2013 #378
you are right juajen Always Randy Sep 2013 #288
I think the Democrat would have won out right had Perot not run BUT attacked Bush as he did karynnj Sep 2013 #308
thank you karynnj for your comment Always Randy Sep 2013 #287
Do you like the fact that Hillary was a war hawk on the Iraq War although she of all people JDPriestly Jul 2013 #85
thank you JDPriestly Always Randy Jul 2013 #98
I want Elizabeth Warren to run. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #122
there's no one cleaner than Elizabeth Always Randy Jul 2013 #129
has anyone run a poll model of how EW Always Randy Oct 2013 #416
I don't know. But I think she would do well. We need better banking regulation and most JDPriestly Oct 2013 #417
Elections are not won on seat of the pants feel good--- Always Randy Oct 2013 #420
Elizabeth Warren's poll numbers are rising. Hillary is much higher but peaking. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #421
Please provide the link that shows EW rising Always Randy Oct 2013 #422
Warren's poll numbers are rising. Hillary's have nowhere to do but down - and her history predicts JDPriestly Oct 2013 #423
OK --when do you think Elizabeth will announce? Always Randy Oct 2013 #431
I don't care whether she announces. I think we should draft her as a candidate. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #432
Is there a grass roots organization ready to do that Always Randy Oct 2013 #433
Remains to be seen. JDPriestly Aug 2014 #500
If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire I'll contribute to her campaign. But neither has announced, even. ancianita Aug 2014 #496
I'm with you on that Always Randy Aug 2014 #498
I think she is trying to win Iowa through procedural tinkering. Read that on DU JDPriestly Aug 2014 #499
Agreed that she's not good presidential material. From the standpoint of no international work and ancianita Aug 2014 #501
Ethically and morally i think Elizabeth Warren should have her face on Mt. Rushmore Always Randy Aug 2014 #506
She would not be a good candidate for the Supreme Court. JDPriestly Aug 2014 #511
The short answer is no, it doesn't bother me. Beacool Jul 2013 #115
Of course she is not interested now Always Randy Jul 2013 #119
I think Warren would win. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #121
ok----when will Elizabeth make the announcement Always Randy Jul 2013 #130
Has Hillary already announced? JDPriestly Jul 2013 #131
now she did Always Randy Apr 2015 #561
Obama did not announce in 2005 - nor in 2006 karynnj Sep 2013 #201
Oh I think he "announced" at the Democratic convention in Boston--- Always Randy Sep 2013 #291
What a bunch of bull. juajen Sep 2013 #210
They can make their money any way they want, but they will, if not consciously, then subconsciously JDPriestly Sep 2013 #228
Anyone who gets elected will owe a debt to big money contributors. juajen Sep 2013 #361
don't we all---even EW Always Randy Sep 2013 #393
thank you----do you think EW will announce for 2016 Always Randy Sep 2013 #292
No, I don't think she will run. juajen Sep 2013 #346
I don't know. I would like to see her run. I think she could attract a lot of independent, JDPriestly Sep 2013 #394
this is so right Always Randy Sep 2013 #363
Sorry, I'd MUCH rather someone like Elizabeth Warren sign or not sign a bill on H1B visa expansion cascadiance Oct 2013 #426
Well, then, how about a Rodham? That is what she is, you know? juajen Jul 2013 #92
Hillary is not my pick----she is electable over another Bush/Cheney Always Randy Jul 2013 #100
Were you talking to me? juajen Jul 2013 #168
she is just what those wackos in Congress need to see Always Randy Oct 2013 #413
When she lived in the White House, she was called Mrs. Clinton. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #135
There is an archaic need for men to claim women by encouraging or forcing them juajen Jul 2013 #169
No---Michelle Obama will be the new Prsident in 2024 Always Randy Jul 2013 #178
ok - are you the resurrection of graham4anything? karynnj Sep 2013 #343
We both know the answer to that one davidpdx Jul 2014 #469
Seems pretty obvious - too many similarities karynnj Jul 2014 #472
it is worse---I have no idea who this graham is Always Randy Jul 2014 #474
I'm reminded of why I never changed my last name SheilaT Sep 2013 #231
Sheila ---you might also be critical of Hillary about the Lewinsky issue Always Randy Sep 2013 #293
She is smarter than Bill, I agree. In fact she's smarter than most. Little Star Sep 2013 #301
Agreed. n/t whathehell Jul 2013 #106
I absolutely agree. She will niot get my support in any shape or form on point Sep 2013 #351
keep your friends close, and your enemies closer Always Randy Sep 2013 #366
There is no way I'll vote for Clinton in a primary. No way. nt stillwaiting Oct 2013 #401
thank you for your contribution Always Randy Oct 2013 #408
+1 nt abelenkpe Aug 2014 #526
I am not sure what that means Always Randy Aug 2014 #529
+100 840high Apr 2015 #551
thank you Always Randy Apr 2015 #552
are you still on DU Always Randy Jun 2016 #576
How did most of those work in 2008 ? n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #2
I agree with you--Obama had the better team Always Randy Jul 2013 #10
I think he will if Hillary is the Democratic Nominee but do you expect Obama to endorse Clinton PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #12
2016 is now Always Randy Jul 2013 #29
Obama had been a state senator. Beacool Jul 2013 #45
7% is not "barely" karynnj Sep 2013 #204
That was a good win, and I donated a small amt. (all I could afford) juajen Sep 2013 #212
Hillary is nemesis for the Republicans Always Randy Sep 2013 #295
I would vote for Obama again if I could Always Randy Sep 2013 #294
ugh Marblehead Jul 2013 #3
have you seen the poll numbers for Warren and Hillary in Massachusetts ? Always Randy Jul 2013 #20
No. protect our future Jul 2013 #5
Because 10 years without a new war MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #6
That's a very catchy phrase! polichick Jul 2013 #15
Thanks! I think it will work well for her. nm MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #19
manny ---thank you for the response--have you seen the Mass. poll for Eliizabeth Always Randy Jul 2013 #21
Warren will do fantastically MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #37
OK Manny----so we both like Elizabeth Warren Always Randy Jul 2013 #46
Only 39 months. Her candidacy is doomed. MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #51
I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren. juajen Jul 2013 #89
thank you juajen Always Randy Jul 2013 #102
Agree. We are all counting on her to set an example of what a Senator is supposed to be. DhhD Jul 2013 #142
Was Obama equally unseasoned? Nm MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #108
Yep, but he was smart enough to choose Hillary for SOS, juajen Jul 2013 #172
and such a good choice Always Randy Jul 2013 #179
Is that you, Bill? polichick Sep 2013 #277
Do you read Taro cards or what? juajen Sep 2013 #388
I assume this could reflect Massachusetts reluctance to lose another Senator karynnj Sep 2013 #205
well MA is a dem stronghold Always Randy Sep 2013 #296
I am not referring to just getting a Democrat karynnj Sep 2013 #307
thank you-----I live next door in CT Always Randy Sep 2013 #317
Bullshit, but you already knew that. Beacool Jun 2014 #459
Hillary's stands against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #460
Did she initiate these wars or did Bush do it? Beacool Jun 2014 #461
She thought they were a good idea. MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #462
If she had been president, or any other Democrat for that matter, Beacool Jun 2014 #463
Certainly, we can agree that most Democrats voted against attacking Iraq MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #464
Dude, go post another one of your witty threads. Beacool Jun 2014 #465
As the U.S. Senator from New York at the time of 9/11 Always Randy Jun 2014 #466
So, to be clear, you're thinking she did the right thing in voting to attack Iraq? nt MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #467
To be crystal clear---let's qualify it Always Randy Jul 2014 #476
I like Elizabeth too Always Randy Jul 2013 #7
Just because they're likeable, doesn't mean they're your friend. Wilms Jul 2013 #9
thank you Wilms Always Randy Jul 2013 #24
It's way too early. And hitching the party to a Clinton??? Wilms Jul 2013 #32
thank you for your continued responseI used to believe in "early" Always Randy Jul 2013 #39
So ---how far does the support for Warren go Always Randy Jul 2013 #11
Of course, I cannot, I suppose, choose to vote for anything but a Democrat in 2016, djean111 Jul 2013 #13
Thank you Djean Always Randy Jul 2013 #16
I don't think many of them will. djean111 Jul 2013 #28
thank you again Djean---in the past few days 2016 snuck up on us Always Randy Jul 2013 #33
I think at least some will, and will lie about it. Jim Lane Jul 2013 #50
Thank you Jim---I am OLD White and screaming liberal at age 67 Always Randy Jul 2013 #55
I thank you and Always Randy for your thoughtful input! djean111 Jul 2013 #57
I don't think many GOP women at all will vote for Hillary--after all, she killed Vince Foster! She Nay Sep 2013 #356
You forgot the allegation of her killing Always Randy Sep 2013 #375
Just a slight correction....I think you mean Ron Brown and not Edward Brown RFKHumphreyObama Dec 2014 #543
Thank you for the post and the correction it is RON not Edward Always Randy Dec 2014 #545
How dare you compare Hillary Clinton to dumbnuts? juajen Jul 2013 #90
I was responding to the "women will of course vote for a woman" meme. djean111 Jul 2013 #99
Dumb Presidents make dumb decisions. Brains are very important. juajen Jul 2013 #173
and more than likely they were being coached and groomed by a woman Always Randy Jul 2013 #180
Oh please. Way to twist around what I said. Feh. djean111 Jul 2013 #182
I can actually do "snide" very well, and I refute your accusation. juajen Sep 2013 #214
Refute away! djean111 Sep 2013 #218
I do beg your pardon if I didn't know you were a woman. juajen Sep 2013 #339
I am an old white male Always Randy Sep 2013 #367
In what way to you equate Hillary with "corporatism"? juajen Sep 2013 #213
The TPP, for example. Really, all I need. n/t djean111 Sep 2013 #215
That was a tad vague, don't you think? juajen Sep 2013 #217
Not if you have been keeping up with current events. djean111 Sep 2013 #219
The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement seems to be a hard nut to crack. juajen Sep 2013 #347
I think a thread on the TPP would be good - but then again, perhaps a thread of its own djean111 Sep 2013 #348
Excuse me, I asked for no links. juajen Sep 2013 #390
If the TPP is indeed as bad as it seems to be, it will affect Hillary's presidential run. djean111 Sep 2013 #392
do you have a Always Randy Sep 2013 #395
the next election cycle is all about GENDER Always Randy Sep 2013 #396
not for this woman. djean111 Oct 2013 #397
If you are not supporting women Always Randy Oct 2013 #400
this type of civil discourse Always Randy Oct 2013 #398
I suggest you take a look at Emily's list.com Always Randy Apr 2015 #564
Hillary is the Republicans worst nightmare Always Randy Jul 2013 #103
I agree, it shouldn't be a gender issue davidpdx Jul 2013 #96
this is not a flawed assumption ---but rather one supported by the polls Always Randy Jul 2013 #104
Polls that are based on the assumption that davidpdx Jul 2013 #112
that is good----and the best part about the Democratic Party is Always Randy Jul 2013 #132
First of all Graham davidpdx Jul 2013 #141
Sorry I missed this---I am not "Graham" Always Randy Sep 2013 #374
present Always Randy Sep 2013 #389
please tell me who Graham is? Always Randy Oct 2013 #418
It must be killing you inside davidpdx Oct 2013 #419
nothing is killing me inside except the burrito I had last night Always Randy Oct 2013 #425
do you have polls supporting this Always Randy Sep 2013 #381
Unfortunately, it will be a "gender issue". juajen Sep 2013 #216
You are spot on!----A women President will also free men Always Randy Sep 2013 #300
Hey look ----I am from Connecticut --Eliizabeth Warren make a lot more sende to me geraphically Always Randy Jul 2013 #14
The polls always favor the entrenched old school powerful. Obama's numbers were low too. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #18
Hillary is not going to run?? Always Randy Jul 2013 #22
There are plenty of groups supporting her possible bid, but she hasn't announced. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #23
My respect for Hillary began in Bill's first campaign Always Randy Jul 2013 #25
That will be the problem. Hillary has all the corporate power on her side. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #86
If they're smart, it will be Christy. Paul will never make it. juajen Jul 2013 #94
The Republicans are a little short on gray matter---they are not smart enough Always Randy Jul 2013 #133
Yep, that's why I said "if they are smart". They love committing suicide. juajen Jul 2013 #171
Republicans---Folksy????/ yeah sure Always Randy Jul 2013 #105
Besides her stint on the board of WalMart when she was juajen Jul 2013 #167
Hillary ----without an announcement--has a team in place Always Randy Jul 2013 #26
BTW that's a superpac and not under Clinton's direct control. n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #31
we are talking about one powerful , ruthless politico Always Randy Jul 2013 #35
take a look at this one Always Randy Jul 2013 #138
You know that it is much too early for her to announce. juajen Jul 2013 #174
as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow Always Randy Jul 2013 #56
Yep, that she is, and yep, she can be ruthless. To be top dog, it juajen Jul 2013 #91
It's obvious that a large segment of the media wants her to run - and win tularetom Jul 2013 #30
I understand you completely---is there anyone building a team to primary her? Always Randy Jul 2013 #34
Our owners will pick someone currently unknown to us, to run in 2016. RC Jul 2013 #38
Another "Change" candidate ... blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #66
That's what I'm thinking. RC Jul 2013 #77
The no Way. = DLC, Iraq war, Corporate enabler. Hillary propaganda people go away plz on point Jul 2013 #40
thank you ON Point -let us not play in to the Republican Party's hands on this Always Randy Jul 2013 #41
You act as if Hillary was the only democrat that supported the Iraq war! juajen Jul 2013 #93
She wasn't, but I won't vote for any of the others either on point Jul 2013 #117
Good luck finding that paragon of virtue! juajen Jul 2013 #170
More on Hillary as a U.S. Senator from New york Always Randy Jul 2013 #177
kick Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #43
Thank you-Dawson Always Randy Jul 2013 #48
Hillary is excellent on the social issues. Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #49
you are exactly right Dawson Always Randy Jul 2013 #53
Oh, the Clinton's are "cultural warriors," all right: blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #68
that is a very good point Always Randy Jul 2013 #70
are you still on DU Always Randy Jun 2016 #575
Whenever Hillary's name comes up, a lot of you react emotionally and not with a clear head. Beacool Jul 2013 #47
Don't You Worry---this is sport for HRC Always Randy Jul 2013 #52
Actually, what Lott said was worse. Beacool Jul 2013 #60
there is absolutely nothing in her history that says she won't run Always Randy Jul 2013 #62
Foreign money is ILLEGAL karynnj Oct 2013 #414
When they were at yale Always Randy Oct 2013 #424
some more about the Clintons Always Randy Jul 2013 #137
Interesting. Beacool Jul 2013 #139
Perot had a lot to do with that Rstrstx Jul 2013 #189
Excellent point Rstrstx Always Randy Jul 2013 #192
BILL WON Carolina Sep 2013 #224
Your opinion. Beacool Sep 2013 #335
you are right on Always Randy Sep 2013 #338
GHWB was in the high 30% s in the weeks before the election. karynnj Sep 2013 #318
I know ---the Clintons are pretty powerful Always Randy Sep 2013 #321
Will she bring that ''Hope and Change" we were suppose to swallow? She's no progressive folks. YOHABLO Jul 2013 #59
Hola Yo hablo Always Randy Jul 2013 #61
From my perspective, Hillary is unelectable. Maedhros Jul 2014 #480
I certainly admire your tenacity Always Randy Jul 2014 #485
Bottom line: at some point, Democratic Presidential candidates Maedhros Jul 2014 #486
So ---in the meantime you accept the current minimum wage? Always Randy Jul 2014 #488
No. And also, I don't accept the TPP, or drone warfare, or the Africom deployments, Maedhros Jul 2014 #490
I am still with you on all of that Always Randy Jul 2014 #491
What does Nader have to do with anything? Maedhros Jul 2014 #492
there were those who felt as you do then Always Randy Jul 2014 #493
I refuse to be bullied into voting for someone who will work against my interests. Maedhros Aug 2014 #494
i agree with you wholeheartedly Always Randy Aug 2014 #497
Oh hell no 4dsc Jul 2013 #63
I completely understand how you feel Always Randy Jul 2013 #64
We oppose HRC and will fight against her nomination. blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #65
HRC: Queen of the Blue Dogs/Third Way/"New DEMS"/DLC/"Centrism"/Aristocracy/1% blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #69
that's good---who is your candidate Always Randy Jul 2013 #71
I'm with you, blkmusclmachine. NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #114
Who is this "we" you are talking about? juajen Jul 2013 #175
Barack and Michelle owe the Clintons fuck all. n.t Whisp Jul 2013 #67
I can understand if you have been offended---have you? Always Randy Jul 2013 #72
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #73
thank you ---that would be good --and hard to beat Always Randy Jul 2013 #74
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #75
I think it is ----and it's just one more indicator og how down to earth this man is Always Randy Jul 2013 #78
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #79
he is posting tonight --see below Always Randy Jul 2013 #81
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #82
Yep, I love Grayson. juajen Jul 2013 #95
She's a DLC, 3rd way, corporate shill. Apophis Jul 2013 #76
thank you Apohis yes ---but she is our corporate shill Always Randy Jul 2013 #80
I'm tired of having it about winning. Apophis Jul 2013 #83
with 39 months to go --who has the team Always Randy Jul 2013 #107
wow. "she is our corporate shill" thanks. that says everything. cali Jul 2013 #188
thank you Cali Always Randy Jul 2013 #193
We are still paying for Bill Clinton's huge mistakes in signing NAFTA and signing away JDPriestly Jul 2013 #84
I was not aware that Elizabeth has announced Always Randy Jul 2013 #109
Add one more to that davidpdx Jul 2014 #470
thank you Always Randy Jul 2014 #475
Absoluteliy right! juajen Jul 2013 #87
The why: Elizabeth Warren has not even hinted she's running for President. SunSeeker Jul 2013 #88
Elizabeth Warren should be part of the Decomcratic infrastructure Always Randy Jul 2013 #110
I agree. nt SunSeeker Jul 2013 #118
you have an *ahem, interesting way of wording your thoughts... ---- Whisp Jul 2013 #125
I don't think i understand---should i say thank you Always Randy Jul 2013 #127
That's the reality check that the Left chooses to ignore. Beacool Jul 2013 #116
that's ok ---they are still on the same team as us Always Randy Jul 2013 #120
No Elizabeth Warren is NOT running for president Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2015 #572
gramham4anything is that you? davidpdx Jul 2013 #97
That crossed my mind too :-) djean111 Jul 2013 #113
Where is Graham? Beacool Jul 2013 #153
He got tombstoned a while back. Thank god. nt Nay Sep 2013 #357
I didn't know. Beacool Sep 2013 #358
some people think I am GRaham Always Randy Sep 2013 #380
My first thought as well...n/t ms liberty Jul 2013 #124
I would rec this but it has been attacked by the haters. liberal N proud Jul 2013 #101
I like your signature on tolerance Always Randy Jul 2013 #111
My guess is HRC is the best this party will nominate... polichick Jul 2013 #123
what we really need is another 3 or 4 elections of Democrats in the White House Always Randy Jul 2013 #128
The Obamas dont owe the clintons anything Dustin DeWinde Jul 2013 #134
thank you for your post--- Always Randy Jul 2013 #136
Keeping the old girl relevant??????? Beacool Jul 2013 #140
Well I am sure glad that I didn't say that about Hillary Always Randy Jul 2013 #143
lol your histrionics are amusing Dustin DeWinde Jul 2013 #144
Dustin---let me ask you this Always Randy Jul 2013 #145
seriously? Dustin DeWinde Jul 2013 #156
damned autofill Dustin DeWinde Jul 2013 #158
I still don't get it Always Randy Jul 2013 #161
Dustin---check my post today on Michelle Obama---tell me what you think Always Randy Jul 2013 #146
Dude, you have no clue............. Beacool Jul 2013 #147
hey ---that is a good topic Always Randy Jul 2013 #148
Randy, I got no time to waste with this guy. Beacool Jul 2013 #150
addios mi amiga Always Randy Jul 2013 #151
hold the mayo on that sandwich toots Dustin DeWinde Jul 2013 #159
How shall we describe ourselves on this site Always Randy Jul 2013 #165
Hey Dustin ---we are doing a little early analysis ---help us out Always Randy Jul 2013 #149
lets see if she even wins the nomination irst Dustin DeWinde Jul 2013 #155
Rolling Stone had it right. AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #264
Same here DonCoquixote Jul 2013 #152
That'll be difficult. Beacool Jul 2013 #154
and if she decided to make a stink DonCoquixote Sep 2013 #227
Hillary's voting record has was even less acceptable to me than Obama's. snot Jul 2013 #157
OK Snot--thank you for the post Always Randy Jul 2013 #166
I don't think Hillary will win those 6 states in 2016 Hippo_Tron Sep 2013 #297
Good analysis Hippo--But Hillary WILL make those Red States purple more than Obama could have Always Randy Sep 2013 #306
m'kay AtomicKitten Jul 2013 #176
Yes, if she is the ticket............... UCmeNdc Jul 2013 #181
No thanks. Splinter Cell Jul 2013 #183
thank you Splinter Always Randy Jul 2013 #184
Give me a break Splinter Cell Jul 2013 #185
OK--Rand Paul is in New Hamshire today with TEd Cruz Always Randy Jul 2013 #186
yeah, hilly is inevitable. been there. done that. fuck that. cali Jul 2013 #187
Agree, I prefer a progressive like Warren or Sherrod Brown mvd Jul 2013 #191
thank you mvd --I think Obama would have been able to a lot more if we didn't lose the house in 2010 Always Randy Jul 2013 #195
Well it seems from the beginning President Obama didn't want.. mvd Jul 2013 #196
Thank you again Cali---I'm really into seeing Democrats win Always Randy Jul 2013 #194
Here is an interesting list: Democrats that voted yes for the Iraq War juajen Sep 2013 #360
there was a colosssal lie being told to the cou ntry at this time Always Randy Sep 2013 #377
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Cali davidpdx Jul 2014 #471
Let's keep the Rs guessing and spending for many years to come. Sunlei Sep 2013 #198
Just say No. bigwillq Sep 2013 #199
I understand ---and respect your "NO" to Hillary but...... Always Randy Sep 2013 #206
I don't care if Hillary is a dead-lock to win in 2016... Chan790 Sep 2013 #202
Is a new Republican President a shortcut to your goals--- Always Randy Sep 2013 #207
I'd ask you the same question. Chan790 Sep 2013 #209
OK --let's take this apart --piece by piece---Appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice Always Randy Sep 2013 #235
You chose the wrong topic. Chan790 Sep 2013 #248
Kate Winslet just called Always Randy Sep 2013 #252
Really ???? SamKnause Sep 2013 #203
Perhaps Ted Cruz or Rand Paul Always Randy Sep 2013 #208
She understands how to work the system. Dawson Leery Sep 2013 #221
People said the same Carolina Sep 2013 #223
What? Carolina Sep 2013 #225
Good Morning Ms Carolina----What am I smoking? Not Acapulco Gold--take a look at my brand Always Randy Sep 2013 #237
And to all those citations, Carolina Sep 2013 #239
how shall we fare in downticket if we don't support the leader Always Randy Sep 2013 #241
non sequitor Carolina Sep 2013 #244
OK Carolina---is your answer "stay home" on Election day if Hillary is the nominee Always Randy Sep 2013 #245
you are definitely putting the cart before horse Carolina Sep 2013 #271
Joe Biden is responsible for giving the job to Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas warrant46 Sep 2013 #303
that was exactly my point Carolina Sep 2013 #311
I agree with you warrant46 Sep 2013 #312
Hello Carolina---thank you again Always Randy Sep 2013 #319
I think Hillary has a good chance of winning cash__whatiwant Sep 2013 #226
Thank you Cash---Hillary playing dirty? Always Randy Sep 2013 #238
Y es cash__whatiwant Sep 2013 #328
you are so right on that Always Randy Sep 2013 #337
Who needs to play the weak angle when you can be openly complicit and TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #438
The truly scary thing about all this SheilaT Sep 2013 #232
Hi Sheila---thank you for your response--Here is a Conservative spin from the Daily Beast Always Randy Sep 2013 #240
Well if a Republican conservative columnist at the Daily Beast SheilaT Sep 2013 #265
have you seen any of the work done by "Ready for Hillary" Always Randy Sep 2013 #281
This woman votes policies, not personalities - even female personalities. polichick Sep 2013 #236
Au contrar Ms Polichik---check in on Emily's list and a new site listed below Always Randy Sep 2013 #242
This woman, as in I, can only... polichick Sep 2013 #243
Thank you Polichik--who is your candidate Always Randy Sep 2013 #246
Nobody has said they're running... polichick Sep 2013 #247
OK ----what is you opinion of Always Randy Sep 2013 #249
I don't have an opinion of them as candidates... polichick Sep 2013 #250
Well the "good old boys" club hasn't done too well at this Always Randy Sep 2013 #253
That old "electable" story has been used to elevate corporate candidates... polichick Sep 2013 #256
If you recall Hillary was the US Senator from New York on 9/11 Always Randy Sep 2013 #259
Sorry, not buying the old DLC story about electability and idealism, etc... polichick Sep 2013 #261
maybe we are on the same page Always Randy Sep 2013 #268
I don't think she'll run anyway - she probably feels... polichick Sep 2013 #269
if the winds were hurrican level she would not stop Always Randy Sep 2013 #270
I guess she could try to fashion herself into an anti-war populist. :) polichick Sep 2013 #272
Polichick you are so right Always Randy Sep 2013 #275
I was kidding - who would buy HRC as anti-war populist? polichick Sep 2013 #276
People change Always Randy Sep 2013 #278
have you had a chance to check out Wendy Davis or Allison Grimes yet Always Randy Sep 2013 #369
Thanks for those links Always Randy..... Little Star Sep 2013 #304
You are welcome Little Star Always Randy Sep 2013 #309
I liked it very much. In fact I started a thread.... Little Star Sep 2013 #314
I just looked at the site Always Randy Sep 2013 #315
I would love to see Elizabeth Warren as chief executive! gopiscrap Sep 2013 #251
so would I Always Randy Sep 2013 #255
Simply, No. 2banon Sep 2013 #257
Ahhhhhhhhh---Frida Always Randy Sep 2013 #260
Frida kahlo is a favorite of mine Always Randy Oct 2013 #430
down ticket thinking should let our intellect control our emotions Always Randy Sep 2013 #258
She is a horrible decision maker. No Thanks! Whisp Sep 2013 #262
oh yeah AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #263
Thank you Atomic Kitten for your response Always Randy Sep 2013 #267
not my quote - ask the author AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #273
well --it's brilliant anyway----in Hillary's favor Always Randy Sep 2013 #274
Her bash level here on DU seems to be lower than nationwide Always Randy Sep 2013 #266
That's not a 65% approval rate. That is 65% who say they would vote for her in the primary at this musicblind Sep 2013 #362
Yes --I do Always Randy Sep 2013 #384
Well, I'm not afraid to say it... Auntie Bush Sep 2013 #279
thank you Auntie---I think there is about 20% on DU that hate her Always Randy Sep 2013 #280
Seems like only that 20% post on here. Auntie Bush Sep 2013 #313
well sometimes people can not accept reality Always Randy Sep 2013 #316
That's nothing new. Beacool Sep 2013 #344
Nice to have someone confirm that! Auntie Bush Sep 2013 #345
She and Bill love banks and wars. What more could Democrats want? JDPriestly Sep 2013 #298
Yes I like her too---which election cycle are we talking about? Always Randy Sep 2013 #299
Your post illustrates the problem Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #302
thank you D I K Always Randy Sep 2013 #305
OK --just saying---suppose the Koch Bros Always Randy Sep 2013 #334
Let's worry about 2014 FIRST. 4dsc Sep 2013 #325
I am starting to think she is not the shoo-in we are to believe she is, djean111 Sep 2013 #326
Hello djean111 --thank you for posting Always Randy Sep 2013 #330
I am under the impression that one of the reasons she is being touted is that she already has a war djean111 Sep 2013 #333
thank you for your response Always Randy Sep 2013 #336
Lets worry about BOTH brooklynite Sep 2013 #327
thank you brooklynite Always Randy Sep 2013 #331
you are right Always Randy Sep 2013 #359
Hello 4dsc Always Randy Sep 2013 #329
thank you 4dsc ---2014 is the new 2016 Always Randy Sep 2013 #332
this post is getting more visits and replies than I thought possible Always Randy Sep 2013 #340
your ty posts make up for over half. Whisp Sep 2013 #341
shameless AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #342
Well--you might think that, Atomic Kitten Always Randy Sep 2013 #352
constructive engagement Always Randy Sep 2013 #355
What a load. HappyMe Sep 2013 #349
I can understand how you feel Always Randy Sep 2013 #350
The Obama's owe the Clinton's nothing. Whisp Sep 2013 #368
Yes Whisp--your's may be "justifiable" anger Always Randy Sep 2013 #370
Obama couldn't do it without a Clinton... Whisp Sep 2013 #371
this is not a black man/white man thing Whisp Always Randy Sep 2013 #372
You will never convince me, and many others, that Whisp Sep 2013 #373
I understand Always Randy Sep 2013 #376
OK---ket's talk about legacy Always Randy Sep 2013 #383
You may find the thought offensive but Always Randy Oct 2013 #415
old wine in old bottles madrchsod Sep 2013 #353
I am sometimes curious about the genesis of comments on this blog Always Randy Sep 2013 #354
Seriously, and asked with no sarcasm or rancor - is ginning up support for Hillary your job? djean111 Oct 2013 #403
and without rancor or sarcasm as well Always Randy Oct 2013 #404
I am quite afraid of whatever it is that Hillary would mean by djean111 Oct 2013 #405
yes---on women being crafty and mean spirited Always Randy Oct 2013 #406
I am (rightly, I believe) worried she will use that bully pulpit for social security reforms djean111 Oct 2013 #407
Since Warren WON'T be running, what will you do? brooklynite Sep 2013 #387
I have the same information --but I give the emotional support to those EW supporters Always Randy Sep 2013 #391
Come 2014 there won't be many R's left...Thank God and President Obama Tippy Sep 2013 #364
Oh I hope you are so right Always Randy Sep 2013 #365
oh yes ---the failure of the Clinton impeachment Always Randy Sep 2013 #386
Well it looks like CNN does not want Hillary to be President Always Randy Sep 2013 #379
give it up. Whisp Oct 2013 #399
Thank you Whisp --I think that is a good opinion, but Always Randy Oct 2013 #402
thank you Always Randy Feb 2014 #447
this was from Oct '13----- Always Randy Mar 2014 #449
Good Morning Whisp Always Randy Jun 2014 #458
Nancy Pelosi: Hillary Clinton Would Be More Prepared For White House Than Obama, Bush- Always Randy Sep 2013 #385
update Novemeber 7 2013 Always Randy Nov 2013 #434
Your first point is exactly why she will lose. You're focusing on personalities, ie 'the unbeatable grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #437
all very good goals Always Randy Feb 2014 #439
There is a school of thought.... sendero Feb 2014 #441
Sendero--thank you for a well thought out reply Always Randy Feb 2014 #446
Hillary is not the 'Evil-Anti-Elizabeth-Warren'. Divide and Conquer McCamy Taylor Mar 2014 #450
I apologize in advance Always Randy Mar 2014 #452
i Would Support Hillary 2016 Corey_Baker08 Mar 2014 #454
I know there are a lot of people on here Always Randy Mar 2014 #457
Her team was "unbeatable" the last time, too. EEO Jun 2014 #468
I agree with you----Obama really had his stuff together to beat HRC Always Randy Jul 2014 #477
I was a Biden supporter before it became a two horse race in 2008. EEO Jul 2014 #482
kick & recommended. William769 Jul 2014 #473
thank you William Always Randy Jul 2014 #478
Response to the original post: northoftheborder Jul 2014 #479
That's fine and dandy, but: DFW Jul 2014 #487
You wrote three paragraphs Scootaloo Aug 2014 #502
You are exactly right---it is from the position of keen observer that I write Always Randy Aug 2014 #507
wait a minute Always Randy Aug 2014 #509
Against a Republican? Sure. Against other Democrats? Good question Scootaloo Aug 2014 #510
I think I've got this now Always Randy Aug 2014 #515
Go Hillary! !! chrisstopher Aug 2014 #503
I was shocked that the OP wasn't signed "Third-Way Manny" RufusTFirefly Aug 2014 #504
another cheerleader thread for Hillary? RedstDem Aug 2014 #505
I remember hearing of Hillary Clinton's inevitability in 2008. This is all theory and speculation. EEO Aug 2014 #508
Theory, yes. Speculation, no. brooklynite Aug 2014 #512
Theory, yes. Speculation, yes. EEO Aug 2014 #513
Speculation (noun): the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. brooklynite Aug 2014 #514
A theory is merely a group of tested speculations. EEO Aug 2014 #517
Thank you for that clarification Always Randy Aug 2014 #521
Yes it is a lot of theory but not much speculation Always Randy Aug 2014 #518
She needs to make the case, and not just run on "inevitability" Warren DeMontague Aug 2014 #516
Point to a Clinton supporter who calls her victory inevitable. brooklynite Aug 2014 #519
Right. Warren DeMontague Aug 2014 #520
not so today Always Randy Apr 2015 #567
and we deserve a better choice for SCOTUS than Scalia Always Randy Aug 2014 #522
Herble derble derble dooooo!!!!!! Warren DeMontague Aug 2014 #523
Primary---oh yes Eric Cantor went to one of those in Virginia a little while ago Always Randy Aug 2014 #524
Right, whatever. Warren DeMontague Aug 2014 #525
Warren thank you for your interest in this Always Randy Aug 2014 #527
Actually, you guess wrong. Warren DeMontague Aug 2014 #528
I seem to detact a dash of rancor in your comments Always Randy Aug 2014 #530
This thing lumbers, it doesn't dash. Warren DeMontague Aug 2014 #531
If only DU could be the sole vote Always Randy Dec 2014 #537
It took you 3 months to come up with that? Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #539
thee were no surprises to me in mid term results Always Randy Dec 2014 #546
Im out here in the actual world, and I can tell you she's not generating a ton of enthusiasm, yet. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #547
here are some real world things that I see Always Randy Dec 2014 #548
I'm sure she is. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #549
the season is upon us Always Randy Apr 2015 #553
but it does reinforce GOTV Always Randy Apr 2015 #554
Hillary Needs A Story tgards79 Aug 2014 #532
You are right ---she needs a lot of new people too--i am hoping she picks the right vp Always Randy Aug 2014 #533
No one will challenge her? JaydenD Aug 2014 #534
first of all ---thank you for your response Always Randy Aug 2014 #535
Can't really say until the field is known. JaydenD Aug 2014 #536
I would like to update this conversation Always Randy Apr 2015 #565
this is another good take on Jeb and Hillary Always Randy Dec 2014 #538
So much wrong; so little time. area51 Dec 2014 #540
wrong time Always Randy Dec 2014 #541
I would like to revisit this now with you and as the election comes closer Always Randy Apr 2015 #563
You win on BIG, BOLD, DIFFERENCE-MAKING dynamics and themes. Her very candidacy is HISTORIC. RBInMaine Dec 2014 #542
Thank you for the post RB Always Randy Dec 2014 #544
I think HRC is doing that Always Randy Apr 2015 #562
Revisit of a popular thread Always Randy Apr 2015 #550
"The women vote coming from the entire country will be overwhelmingly for Hillary" area51 Apr 2015 #555
which part is insulting Always Randy Apr 2015 #556
Go Hillary! workinclasszero Apr 2015 #557
yes in deedy----and we need her to appoint the new SCOTUS Always Randy Apr 2015 #558
Thats for sure eh? workinclasszero Apr 2015 #559
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #570
hillary gobears10 Apr 2015 #571
K&R RandySF Oct 2015 #573
Great post Gothmog Oct 2015 #574
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
1. No.
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 03:51 PM
Jul 2013

No more Clintons, no more Bushes.

We need a progressive, a champion, someone like Elizabeth Warren.

.

brooklynite

(96,543 posts)
440. I can tall you something about him...
Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:13 AM
Feb 2014

...he doesn't want to run (trust me, I know the top people in the Ohio Democratic Party).

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
442. well ok
Sat Feb 22, 2014, 06:26 PM
Feb 2014

but I was wondering about his background------what can you tell me about his position on issues

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
17. Thank you---I love Elizabeth too
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:32 PM
Jul 2013

can you tell me about her team?----has she visited Iowa----the Republicans are there now

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
427. Since Warren is *not* an idiot...
Tue Oct 22, 2013, 11:47 AM
Oct 2013

...I somewhat doubt she has any intention of attempting a serious presidential run in 2016. She may run without putting much effort into it just to gain exposure and a place on the platform to air policy positions as a set-up for a real run down the road, kind of hope she does... but throwing serious resources into it? That would be crazy. Save it for 2020 or 2024. She simply does not have the resume right now.

(And nobody even bother mentioning Obama, his political resume was far FAR deeper and his public profile larger when he ran.)

One of the 99

(2,280 posts)
36. I love Elizabeth Warren but
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 05:41 PM
Jul 2013

nominating her will just hand the election to the GOP. She's great but she can't win. That's reality.

Wabbajack_

(1,300 posts)
160. Why not?
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 04:35 AM
Jul 2013

Not that I think we should run a freshman Senator but what's the problem?

We should have the slight edge in this next election I don't think we hafta pick Hillary Clinton just cause she's got the name recognition.

One of the 99

(2,280 posts)
164. Not trying to patronize you
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:59 PM
Jul 2013

But if you can't figure out why already, you never will and nothing I have to say will change that.

One of the 99

(2,280 posts)
220. Wow it took you a whole 2 months to come up with that?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:21 PM
Sep 2013

And it is very obvious that you only see what you want to see so I'm not going to waste my time explaining concepts that you'll never understand.

ancianita

(36,999 posts)
495. I'll tell you why. I love her, but she hasn't got the breadth and depth of exposure to be a credible
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:50 AM
Aug 2014

commander-in-chief of over 1,000 military bases and a joint chiefs. There's more, but that's the core of my argument.

Hillary has what it takes at this point in history.

Vote for whoever you want in the primaries. But let's try to see the long game, as well, and unite around someone who will win. We can fight to get our issues on the party platform until then.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
230. No freshman Senator has ever become President?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:35 AM
Sep 2013

This is a trick question and you should do some research before answering.

One of the 99

(2,280 posts)
233. I never said anything about her being a freshman senator.
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 06:44 AM
Sep 2013

So don't put words in my mouth. That's very dishonest of you.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
428. There is more to a political resume than time in U.S. Senate
Tue Oct 22, 2013, 11:53 AM
Oct 2013

Perhaps one should do some more research into the REST of the current President's political resume before attempting to formulate "trick" questions?

 

socket

(1 post)
451. ELIZABETH WARREN IS A REAL PROGRESSIVE A FEMALE FDR
Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:19 PM
Mar 2014

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I will not vote for Hillary. She has shown poor judgment in Arkansas, and as First Lady. Her stint as Senator, she voted against the Levin Amendment to forestall the war in Iraq. The reason she said was that "it would have made the president's authority subordinate to the U.N. That was a misleading statement.

Levin made it quite clear in an October speech on the senate floor that

"My resolution affirms that, under International Law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self defense, affirming the fact that there is no U.N. veto U.S. military action."

Source: Sam Stein of the Huffington Post.Com. Feb. 1, 2008.

For all her movement on the civic stage, Hillary has really not much to point to that says "I did this, that, and the other." And as Sec. of State, she was nothing more than a Meet-and-Greet Ambassador-at-Large. She tackled no hard issues. None. She even failed at health care as First Lady. lizabeth Warren, on the other hand, can point to a whole new department she created and organized, but the Repubs would not vote for her to head it. As a junior senator, she is spearheading a lot of measures. She's dynamite!

As a senator, Hillary was low key for two terms - - except for her vote for the trumped-up war in Iraq. I suppose because it would look good on her resume as an aspirant first female commander-in-chief!

It troubles me that we Americans are dumb as hell. All want Hillary because she is a woman. They are not asking the right question:

IF HILLARY IS THE ONE, WHAT HAS SHE DONE? A bumper sticker material?

Reading list: Partners in Power by Roger Morris - paperback at Amazon
St. Hillary by Michael Kelly - New York Time Magazine. May 13, 1993.
Hillary the Pol - The New Yorker. May, 1994.

Hillary is reportedly smart, but not smart enough to run the nation. She would be great as a social engineer - - tinkering with human behaviors, etc. a Carry Nation, or an Amy Semple MacPhearson (phonetic sp.) to Bill, an Elmer Gantry.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
455. do you think that Elizabeth Warren will announce soon
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 12:17 AM
Mar 2014

If she does not run , which of the republicans will you vote for?

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
489. well thank you
Thu Jul 31, 2014, 08:51 AM
Jul 2014

I think it is important to hear every voice---but as election nears we all need to be one voice--thank you for your reply wyldwolf

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
286. thank you for your continued interest here Sheila
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:04 AM
Sep 2013

I never realized the that there was so much contention on this site

PassingFancy

(33 posts)
436. I have to agree with you
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 08:56 AM
Nov 2013

Warren is a great politician; however, she's just not ready for the win. Give her 2020 or 2024 and she'll be ready then to chew up every republican and spit them out in about 15 seconds.

BlueDemKev

(3,003 posts)
443. Agreed.
Sat Feb 22, 2014, 09:48 PM
Feb 2014

Although progressives are slowly becoming a majority, it is very slim and a person like Elizabeth Warren won't win a national race. She will be an easy person for the Republicans to paint as "far left-wing elitist from Massachusetts."

Don't fret about Hillary...she's made some mistakes but overall she is highly-progressive woman who will continue to move this country in the right direction ('right', meaning left).

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
444. what this country needs is a few good women
Sat Feb 22, 2014, 10:30 PM
Feb 2014

and I can't wait to see a news report that shows a group of women hovering around a microphone the way we see Issa---Boehner---and the rest of congress now------it can't happen soon enough

BlueDemKev

(3,003 posts)
445. What this country needs is a few good PROGRESSIVES...
Sat Feb 22, 2014, 11:35 PM
Feb 2014

...I don't care if they're male, female, white, black, hispanic, straight or gay...

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
448. I really like the idea of women leading the country
Thu Feb 27, 2014, 08:01 PM
Feb 2014

it well past the time for hurtful things that men have done to them------women will caucus and get to the bottom of things much faster than the group of clowns in the Congress right now-----GOTV ----and vote for women

 
453. That's what they said about Obama
Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:29 PM
Mar 2014

In reality, "She's great but she can't win." is the quintessential quote for Hillary.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
42. Could you accept a Bush/Cheney administration?
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 06:44 PM
Jul 2013

Cheney's daughter is running for the Senate in Wyoming-----she might upset a long time Republican there ----they have no conscience-----so that is Sen Cheney in 2014--------then Jeb Bush runs for president and makes Sen Cheney his running mate----I can understand your dislike for Clinton----but we desperately need to grow the Democratic presence in our elected officials---then ---we foment change

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
190. If we want to "grow the Democratic presence in our elected officials"
Thu Jul 18, 2013, 02:29 PM
Jul 2013

then going with another centrist is the wrong thing to do. We need new faces pushing the old Dem ideology, not the same-old same-old pushing the weaksauce that so-called Dems consider "pragmatic". Their pragmatism could literally be the death of us.

Beacool

(30,262 posts)
44. SKP, you're my bud, but no way would Warren be ready in 2016.
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 06:49 PM
Jul 2013

Besides, she will do a lot more good in the Senate. Presidents serve a limited amount of time, with good health, she could be a champion for liberal causes for the next 20 years. Think long term.





Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
54. I am with you on this Beacool and i hope SKP gets on board too---ur invited
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 07:39 PM
Jul 2013

But not just EW ----I think Wendy Davis is a heroine-----she took on those good ol boys in Texas and deserves a seat at the National table-------I think there are some great Latinos coming up in Arizona that will just turn the tide (from Red to Blue) in that state

I have not seen any polls ---that show Elizabeth Warren to be a contender ----I am quick to admit that she is a national player though-------but this is a time to galvanize our party----Hillary yielded to Obama for the election and thereafter and it puts her on this stage today-------and I can't wait to see what happens to Rush Limbaugh when she gets in----come on SKP ---we can't let guys like Trent Lott sully Hillary and not give her a day in the sunshine-----

karynnj

(59,615 posts)
200. Hillary LOST the election to Obama - not "yielded"
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:55 AM
Sep 2013

She held out even after all the primaries were done praying for a surge of super delegates to overturn the decision of the pledged delegates.

There are many good reasons - and you stated many for HRC, but the idea that she willingly stepped aside for Obama is not one of them. In addition, no brownie points for supporting the eventual nominee - it is unusual not to and should be a negative - even if it is Kennedy.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
211. She could have done a lot of damage to Obama, and would have
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:34 PM
Sep 2013

if she hadn't calmed her millions of supporters down, and urged them to support Obama. You have a short memory.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
289. and Obama would not have been Presiden if Hillary ran a third party
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:13 AM
Sep 2013

like Ross Perot did and helped Clinton win his 2nd term------and Hillary would be back for 2012 and 2016-------what happened was ---Hillary counted the votes ---and saw the writing on the wall-----and endorsed Obama ----that is what good politicos do----some on DU need to study this a bit

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
409. Nonsense.
Wed Oct 9, 2013, 11:27 PM
Oct 2013

I assure you most Democrats would not support her if she ran as a third party candidate. To suggest that is offensive to lifelong Democrats. You've revealed yourself with that ridiculously ignorant PUMA talk.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
484. Thank you Rock----some on DU
Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:01 PM
Jul 2014

think that because some don't do things their way --then there is no party unity--------there is such a stark contrast between the GOP/TP that the actual fate of our country depends upon our party unity---Boehner is drunk and third in command of the country---Palin is drunk and could have been the VP---or worse if McCain died---the Democrats are the only adults in the room right now

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
290. This looks rather Tea Party --but thank you AtomicKitten
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:23 AM
Sep 2013

please tell me more about deleteClinton.com---and how is it funded-----the quality of the video sound bites are not quite ready for prime time----so it dilutes their efficacy-----but someone is obviously spending money on this and I don't think it would come from within the Democratic ranks-----I think I detect some Tea Party earmarks because they are usually low info people

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
310. LOL.
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:16 PM
Sep 2013

Tea Party? Pfft. Nice swerve, but it's a compilation of some of the crap HClinton tried to pull during the 2008 primary such as talking about and having her surrogates press O's high school drug use and his attending Rev. Wright's church, also bringing up out of the blue Farrakhan in a debate, etc., etc.

Keith Olbermann had it right when he said she was running against Obama as if she were the Republican.

I didn't vote for her in 2008 and I won't in 2016.

Carry on with your proselytizing.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
320. I am a supporter of Emily's list
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 10:01 PM
Sep 2013

women there seem to want to win----not get even-----there are so many people standing in the way of women it is time to stand up against those people-------but I do wish you well---and hope we can be as one

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
323. You may say that Atomic Kitten
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:31 AM
Sep 2013

but I am primarily a seeker of wins by the Democratic party-----now after the win-----I don't mind fine tuning the candidate a bit

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
288. you are right juajen
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:10 AM
Sep 2013

look at the damage Nader caused by splitting the vote----and although on the other side ---the Clintons can thank Ross Perot for his third party run---it got Bill elected for a second term------

karynnj

(59,615 posts)
308. I think the Democrat would have won out right had Perot not run BUT attacked Bush as he did
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 11:28 AM
Sep 2013

Bush was below 40% by early 1992 - having been sky high a year before. The year before is when many Democrats decided not to go for it. By the election, Bush was at about 34% in approval rating. Had this been a normal 2 man race, it should have been a clear Democratic win - like 2008. (though from 2005 (after Katrina), it was very clear that we were well positioned to win in 2008.)

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
287. thank you karynnj for your comment
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:07 AM
Sep 2013

I think Hillary was smart enough to fold the tent------maybe some on DU should take a page from her book on this

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
85. Do you like the fact that Hillary was a war hawk on the Iraq War although she of all people
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:20 AM
Jul 2013

should have known better?

What about the fact that she served on Walmart's board but did not stand up for the women working for Walmart at that time in that they had so few opportunities for meaningful promotions?

And then there is the fact that Hillary is so fond of outsourcing and giving our good jobs to guest workers from places like India, etc.

Hillary is the corporate candidate. She is not the candidate of the 99%. We can't afford to elect Hillary.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
98. thank you JDPriestly
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:40 AM
Jul 2013

you forgot to mention that she worked for the Barry Goldwater election campaign-----

On all of what you say----I agree----she is a political animal----and a woman----not easy for them to survive if they don't make some deals here and there---it happens to the best of us-----

but I must ask you , if you have an alternate candidate, and if that alternate has an election team in place now that we are a mere 39 months away from the election -----we do need a strategy that wins this from the Republicans

and I can defend some of her positions as merely "staying in the game" ----which you have to do sometimes--

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
122. I want Elizabeth Warren to run.
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:58 AM
Jul 2013

I think the country is ready for a fresh face and a brilliant mind. She has both.

She taught law at Harvard and is used to being challenged. Her understanding of finance (bankruptcy) and consumer economics are just what we need.

She can appoint a really competent person to the State Department (someone really focused on foreign policy) and take a consumer-friendly, financially wise tack on trade. That would be a wonderful change.

Will the American people accept her?

She has a Southern midwestern way about her. People like her.

She is known for her criticisms of the banks. People will love her for that.

Nobody below the top 1% like the banks right now. People with savings are getting near 0% interest. People who want to borrow either can't qualify because of the damage they experienced during the Bush recession or because they can't get decent jobs with decent incomes (we out here are still hurting) and because the banks are using the low interest loans they get from the government to scoop up cheap properties, not to invest in American main streets.

I think that the time will be ripe for an Elizabeth Warren in 2016. And -- she is a woman. She also does not have the baggage about bank backing that will hurt her with minorities.

Those entrenched in the Democratic hierarchy may prefer Hillary. But Hillary will not be as easy a sale as they think. Hillary has too much baggage. I used to be a big Hillary fan, but no more.

Elizabeth Warren is the image of integrity and common sense. I think people will be looking for that in 2016.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
129. there's no one cleaner than Elizabeth
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:29 PM
Jul 2013

and I saw her debate with Brown---she is good----and I know there is a base-----but the election is 39 months away----a very short time------first things first----has she said she would run----if so , does she have an election team in place----is she funded------but more importantly ----would you want to risk her removal from political life and such an early juncture as 2016 if she loses------would you rather build an unbeatable base for her for the future----I think Elizabeth will have to say she wants to run----and soon--Rand Paul is running all over Iowa getting ready for the primaries now-------what do you know about her willingness to run-------

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
417. I don't know. But I think she would do well. We need better banking regulation and most
Thu Oct 17, 2013, 01:56 PM
Oct 2013

people agree on that. We need someone who understands the economics of boosting the middle class. That's precisely what is the pressing interest of the Tea-Baggers. Elizabeth Warren is an expert on the economics of the middle class and why so many are losing ground.

She is not a leftist, but she does appeal to ordinary people. She talks and feels like one of us. That wins voters. Hillary does not have those qualities.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
420. Elections are not won on seat of the pants feel good---
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 09:11 AM
Oct 2013

I am asking for poll numbers and you say "I think she would do well ." That's love and very romantic---we are up against a bunch of rabid right wing wackos who are doggedly determined to march this country back to 1950's. All the polls on HRC say the Republicans can't beat her, but I am not all that comfortable if Karl Rove starts jiggling the vote. But OK let's think for a minute that all of us on DU, who love her so much that we convince EW to run----do you want to be responsible for her downfall in a Presidential election? I think not. But even so it takes a huge machine to win an election and national poll numbers that show a winner.

So I see it this way

in 2014 to 2016

It's all about GENDER

Allison Grimes replacing Senator Gridlock in Kentucky----Wendy Davis as the new Governor of Texas-----Hillary in the White House---for 8 years----after that or during that Michele Obama for Senate from South Carolina -----let's let women lead the country back to sanity------in this scenario where do you see EW---

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
421. Elizabeth Warren's poll numbers are rising. Hillary is much higher but peaking.
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 03:51 PM
Oct 2013

The bad stuff about Hillary is going to come out strongly.

And I doubt that Hillary has the humility to put her worst out there and admit to it. She is extremely proud. That is one of her biggest problems.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
423. Warren's poll numbers are rising. Hillary's have nowhere to do but down - and her history predicts
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 11:36 PM
Oct 2013

that as her negatives emerge, she will go down.

Democratic leaders Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Gov. Deval Patrick have slightly higher approval ratings than they did five months ago. Warren’s approval jumped to 52-39 from 44-39, and Patrick’s was 50-43, up from 48-41.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/elizabeth-warren/

Hillary is peaking too early:

As she prepares to step down as secretary of state, Clinton has a lifetime high favorability rating of 66 percent, according to the Post/ABC poll, with less than a third of respondents holding unfavorable views. Two-thirds of Americans approve of her job performance in the Obama administration.

That goodwill translates into broad support for Clinton to make a second run at the presidency in four years, with 57 percent supporting her candidacy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/hillary-clinton-2016-poll_n_2243843.html

When Benghazi hearings were underway, her poll numbers fell drastically.

Hillary Clinton Favorability Slips Slightly
Unfavorable views up to 39%, from 31% in April
by Andrew Dugan

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Hillary Clinton's favorability rating fell slightly in June to 58%, from 64% in April. That is the first sub-60% rating Americans have given her since 2008. Clinton's unfavorable rating now stands at 39%, up from 31% in April.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162986/hillary-clinton-favorability-slips-slightly.aspx

People know about Hillary. Her reputation precedes her. Her peers think highly of her. But her personality is not one that sells. If it were, she would have won in 2004 and we would be talking about Obama for 2016. Women want a woman. That is what is putting Hillary as high in the polls as she is. But as for Hillary herself, the Republicans would wait until after her nomination and then bring up all her history. It would be foolish of us to pick her.

Elizabeth Warren has a reputation for standing for the people against powerful interests. That is what Americans want. The Tea Party exists because that is what Americans want. The Tea Party is a bunch of loons. Elizabeth Warren will stand up against powerful interests in a stable, sensible way that really benefits the whole country.

Hillary Clinton has a lot of scandals just waiting to be talked about. Her relationship with India was discussed this past week by someone who seemed to have done a lot of research on it. Americans are not going to buy into that. And that stuff is out there. The Republicans no doubt have a huge file on her, colorful stuff. I hope we go with Elizabeth Warren and not Hillary Clinton. Give Elizabeth Warren a chance. She is presidential material. They are about the same age. Someone younger would be ideal, but women tend to take mommy breaks. (I'm a woman myself and know what that means to a career.) So a female president is likely to be older than a male with her qualifications.

Ordinary women can identify with Elizabeth Warren. She has a spectacular biography. An outstanding student, an early marriage that failed and then an amazing career in law culminated by a professorship at Harvard. That appeals to women. And Elizabeth Warren accomplished all that pretty much on her own rising up from Oklahoma. There wasn't any husband-former-president to stand by her side. Elizabeth Warren is married, but her popularity is not linked to her husband.

I back Elizabeth Warren. She is a winner, and she has the right character that we need now in the White House.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
500. Remains to be seen.
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:30 PM
Aug 2014

And if she does not announce, we will have Bernie Sanders' announcement.

But I think Elizabeth Warren will announce. She has already taken on some of the Clintons' favorite "achievements" and criticized them very effectively.

Glass-Steagall is one Clinton milestone that Elizabeth Warren has criticized in resounding terms. Elizabeth Warren's stance on the TPP puts Hillary in her place, since Hillary was in the State Department when that agreement was being negotiated.

Elizabeth Warren has more of the enthusiasm of labor behind her.

It is a matter of time and a question of whether she can raise the money to reach enough voters. Elizabeth Warren is getting out and even going into the South. Elizabeth Warren is much more likable and more focused on her issues than Hillary.

Elizabeth Warren has less baggage than Hillary.

I'm a woman. Remember how Bush said he was someone you could have a beer with? Well, from a woman's point of view, Elizabeth Warren is someone you could go to lunch with. I don't think Hillary projects that kind of warmth and easy accessibility. That is one of the reasons that I think Warren would make a better candidate. She may be prone to more campaigning mistakes because she is not the professional that Hillary is in that respect, but Elizabeth Warren is the kind of person you forgive quickly and easily. She has more humility than Hillary. And that is one of her strengths.

Elizabeth Warren is in public office to achieve things for people like her parents. Hillary is in public office because she has always striven for leadership roles. That is, believe it or not, a plus for Elizabeth Warren. She does not seem ambitious for personal satisfaction. She seems ambitious to better the lives of people like her own parents.

I hope you have read Elizabeth Warren's book A Fighting Chance. If you have you understand what I am talking about when I speak of her family.

ancianita

(36,999 posts)
496. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire I'll contribute to her campaign. But neither has announced, even.
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:56 AM
Aug 2014

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
499. I think she is trying to win Iowa through procedural tinkering. Read that on DU
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:20 PM
Aug 2014

today. She needs to rework her personality and her record. Just tinkering with rules will not make her good presidential material even if she does win the primary.

ancianita

(36,999 posts)
501. Agreed that she's not good presidential material. From the standpoint of no international work and
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:34 PM
Aug 2014

from the public's view that she couldn't handle being commander-in-chief. Just my opinion.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
506. Ethically and morally i think Elizabeth Warren should have her face on Mt. Rushmore
Sat Aug 2, 2014, 08:52 AM
Aug 2014

but....................I have not seen a poll that would get her the Democratic nomination ----and there is no chance for her to win a national election-----do you think she would be a good candidate for the Supreme Court

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
511. She would not be a good candidate for the Supreme Court.
Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:05 PM
Aug 2014

You want good people in their 40s and 50s for the Supreme Court.

She would make a great president. End of sentence.

Hillary will probably do her campaign in. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will be standing by. We cannot allow the banks and businesses to do what they have done to our economy repeatedly in the past. We cannot allow that again. And Hillary Clinton will do nothing to change the ethics of American corporations.

Beacool

(30,262 posts)
115. The short answer is no, it doesn't bother me.
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:30 AM
Jul 2013

I could break it down, but I'm at work.

BTW, did anyone even ask Warren if she is interested in running for president? She never ran for anything before she was elected to the Senate and barely won that seat. How do you think that she would do in a general election?

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
119. Of course she is not interested now
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:29 AM
Jul 2013

and we need to help her grow her base ----running now would make her a sacrificial lamb -----she needs an organization --and I think there are some great people on this site to help her----and Wendy Davis

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
121. I think Warren would win.
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:47 AM
Jul 2013

She is the only one speaking truth to power about the banks.

She is mainstream America. She is a woman. She is not tainted by one scandal after the other as is Hillary.

The world is blowing up, and Hillary just retired from the State Department.

The Edward Snowden revelations have only now started to be comprehended by people. It even took the press quite a while to finally put two and two together and realize that the collection of metadata is about controlling the leaders in social networks. You like action films. You will get lots of action films glorifying the government. You like chick films. You will get chick films about women who sacrificed for America. That's how this propaganda is going to work.

And they will be able to sell anything, possibly even a flawed candidate like Hillary to the nation.

Limbaugh has his crowd down. He is the propagandist par excellence.

But when the government propagandizes in that way and when we are, as a country, in more danger from "free" trade and our own gun fetish than from any foreign wars, we are headed for trouble.

Hillary was at the top of the heap in the State Department and knew about all of this. It will be easy for the Republicans to find all kinds of shocking details about what happened when she was there.

Hillary and Bill began as idealists, but now they are just part of the elite. They know it -- and they live well, especially considering that we heard they had relatively little money when Bill entered the White House. I think the story was they did not even own a house. They have made many times their wealth since Bill left office. That does not bode well for the coutnry. Their financial well being and lifestyle depends on their pleasing their corporate masters.

Elizabeth Warren was a law professor. She cares about the interests of ordinary Americans. It's time we had a president who really cared about us. She is not going to have a career after the White House. She would make a great, honest president. Someone free from the pressure of having to put a couple of kids through college after the White House. We need that for a change.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
131. Has Hillary already announced?
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:43 PM
Jul 2013

She tried in 2008 when she wasn't viewed as such a party hack, so sold-out, but she couldn't make it.

Elizabeth Warren's support is still very grass-roots. I hope it will encourage her to announce at the right time. Her message is so strong and will appeal to so many Americans.

Hillary might succeed if she renounced the 1% and spoke out for the people. But she has been such a corporate shill that I don't think she can do it.

karynnj

(59,615 posts)
201. Obama did not announce in 2005 - nor in 2006
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:58 AM
Sep 2013

He announced in 2007 - the first hints that he was seriously considering it in December 2006. Not to mention this was in the face of the "Hillary is inevitable".

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
291. Oh I think he "announced" at the Democratic convention in Boston---
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:26 AM
Sep 2013

years earlier----he was my fav from the get go-----and if there were another Obama type here now we would be on their bandwagon----but there is not-----

juajen

(8,515 posts)
210. What a bunch of bull.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:25 PM
Sep 2013

Who died and made you kingmaker?

So, an ex-President and First Lady cannot make money by giving speeches and writing books?

If you have proof that they have profited illegally, then show it, but stop the innuendos and republican crap.

I will certainly vote for Elizabeth when it is time.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
228. They can make their money any way they want, but they will, if not consciously, then subconsciously
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:18 AM
Sep 2013

owe a huge debt to the powers that pay their bills.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
361. Anyone who gets elected will owe a debt to big money contributors.
Mon Sep 23, 2013, 12:39 AM
Sep 2013

That's the way our elections run. It takes a lot of money to run for the President of the United States.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
346. No, I don't think she will run.
Fri Sep 20, 2013, 01:08 AM
Sep 2013

I believe that she will be a force in the senate, and come along later. Hillary might not want more than one term; if this happens, Elizabeth will have had another four years to season. I believe she is too smart to try for 1216.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
394. I don't know. I would like to see her run. I think she could attract a lot of independent,
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 03:28 PM
Sep 2013

angry Republican and other votes as well as Democratic votes because she demonstrates common sense and doesn't play favorites. She is not a tricky person. She cares about consumer rights -- those are the rights of the middle class. She would make the best candidate I've seen so far. Common sense prevails. And she does not have a record of defending loser wars or bankers or offshore accounts or huge tax loopholes for the lucky sperm folks. She is pretty clean of all the things that are making Americans skeptical.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
363. this is so right
Mon Sep 23, 2013, 10:44 AM
Sep 2013

Elizabeth Warren could be so marginalized in a run that occurs too early in her political career-----she is the long term candidate that return our country to decency

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
426. Sorry, I'd MUCH rather someone like Elizabeth Warren sign or not sign a bill on H1B visa expansion
Tue Oct 22, 2013, 11:24 AM
Oct 2013

... or "free trade" bills such as the TPP, etc. The Koch brothers have paid off the Clintons through their contributions to the Clinton's DLC to do their bidding before on things like NAFTA that Bill put in place with other corporatists before that DESTROYED American middle class jobs the last few decades. Ross Perot warned us then about these corporate shenanigans, and even Lou Dobbs has been right about warning us on Hillary's stance on indentured servant programs like H-1B that along with overpriced college education, is driving pragmatic smart kids away from high tech careers and more to others such as health care, finance, law and others that are more likely to have domestic jobs. It is not the BS that kids are driven away from the challenge of a high tech education/career. When I entered the workforce during the early days of Silicon Valley, many American kids like me were drawn to this field, and companies like Sun and HP had reputations for not laying off anyone, and hired domestically very well. Now the world capital for high tech has moved from Silicon Valley to Bangalore the last decade and there's a reason for that. Washington is serving those wanting to make money at the top of these industries, not those of us who actually do the work and come up with the technologies that allows them to automate more of the work around the country, that provides a hell of a lot more of the "value" of the work output than the execs and high level managers that take all of the rewards that the corporatists in Washington serve.



We need someone with an agenda that serves the rest of us and not the Kochs NOW! Climate change won't wait for two more elections for us to get our leadership right here. We need to get this to happen in 2016. Elizabeth Warren is in the best position to provide that for us AND serve the interests of women as well!

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
100. Hillary is not my pick----she is electable over another Bush/Cheney
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:47 AM
Jul 2013

who is your candidate----are they funded and is there an election team in place now----Rand Paul is in Iowa---whatya got ??

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
135. When she lived in the White House, she was called Mrs. Clinton.
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 05:20 PM
Jul 2013

She is a Clinton.

We do not want an aristocracy. Two Bushes were enough.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
169. There is an archaic need for men to claim women by encouraging or forcing them
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 01:08 AM
Jul 2013

to take their last name. If they were truly related, their marriage in most states would be against the law. She is a Rodham and proud of it. I took my husbands name when I married, because it was the norm and expected in 1963, but I have never been related to him, nor is Hillary related to Bill. She does not have one drop of Clinton blood in her body. Give it a rest.

It looks like it might be three Bushes, if the Republicans get their way.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
178. No---Michelle Obama will be the new Prsident in 2024
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 07:02 AM
Jul 2013

and then maybe Chelsea Rodham-Clinton----after that the Obama women-------it is their turn

karynnj

(59,615 posts)
343. ok - are you the resurrection of graham4anything?
Thu Sep 19, 2013, 02:04 PM
Sep 2013

I seriously doubt the Democrats remain continuously in power through 2024 - or even 8 or 16 years later than that in the first place - much less with just Clintons and Obamas.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
474. it is worse---I have no idea who this graham is
Tue Jul 29, 2014, 05:15 PM
Jul 2014

but this post has been around for a bit---do you have an objection to something I have said here?

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
231. I'm reminded of why I never changed my last name
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:38 AM
Sep 2013

and really cannot understand why so many women do.

I won't be running for President myself, but when Hillary buckled to the pressure to change her last name after Bill lost an election, that made me lose a certain amount of respect for her.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
293. Sheila ---you might also be critical of Hillary about the Lewinsky issue
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:31 AM
Sep 2013

but remember that she is a political animal-----so her think was this -----right now I ride on Air Force One every day-----if I divorce Bill because of Monica I'll be riding coach----smart woman----and she is smarter than Bill

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
408. thank you for your contribution
Wed Oct 9, 2013, 04:53 PM
Oct 2013

do you think there will be a primary?----who do you think will be running ?----have they started an election team yet?----have they announced? ----would you vote for Hillary in the general election?-----I am asking this because Hillary's team is now getting the 2014 candidates on her side by helping them-----making appearances --------

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
10. I agree with you--Obama had the better team
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:02 PM
Jul 2013

but don't you agree that his team now owes the Clinton a return of the favor at 2012 ----and subsequent campaign trail stumping

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
12. I think he will if Hillary is the Democratic Nominee but do you expect Obama to endorse Clinton
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:11 PM
Jul 2013

at the beginning of the Democratic primaries ?

Speaking of the Obama team, an interesting recent story:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/

karynnj

(59,615 posts)
204. 7% is not "barely"
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:02 AM
Sep 2013

and she did it against a media loved incumbent who was above 50% in his approval rating. At the point Obama ran for President, he had no race in his past that he won that he could point to which was tough.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
212. That was a good win, and I donated a small amt. (all I could afford)
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:44 PM
Sep 2013

to help in any way I could. I like her a lot, but she cannot win the nomination or election without more experience. Obama was really the only candidate that could have done that. Republicans know that it's a done deal if Hillary wants it. Why do you think they won't let Benghazi die a natural death?

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
295. Hillary is nemesis for the Republicans
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:35 AM
Sep 2013

I can't wait------thee will not be the filibustering that is going on now-----she will get every bit of dirt on all of them---they will tow the mark when she asks

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
20. have you seen the poll numbers for Warren and Hillary in Massachusetts ?
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:36 PM
Jul 2013

Elizabeth gets about 4% Hillary gets 55%---this is Warren's home state ---what will she do across the country?---does she have an election team?---is she funded?

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
21. manny ---thank you for the response--have you seen the Mass. poll for Eliizabeth
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:37 PM
Jul 2013

Elizabeth gets about 4% Hillary gets 55%---this is Warren's home state ---what will she do across the country?---does she have an election team?---is she funded?

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
46. OK Manny----so we both like Elizabeth Warren
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 06:52 PM
Jul 2013

where is her election team? where are her Iowa visits? ---we are 39 months away from the election-----if she is going to be a candidate we will need something more than that very sharp and clever logo on your signature-----what have we got? ----better still --when will this grassroots campaign organize----lip service is great ----and she is probably the best elected official since Jimmy Carter------but where's the beef? (kind of a silly question since I am a vegetarian)

juajen

(8,515 posts)
89. I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren.
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 03:25 AM
Jul 2013

When she has earned a presidential nomination, I will certainly support her. She is good, but unseasoned.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
102. thank you juajen
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:51 AM
Jul 2013

I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren----a lot of people on this site unknowingly want to make her damaged goods in the next Presidential election------that would be tragic----let's save her as a continuous weapon in the Senate for now---I would hate to see her leave the Senate with so much undone------she is our rising star and fresh face in politics

DhhD

(4,695 posts)
142. Agree. We are all counting on her to set an example of what a Senator is supposed to be.
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:00 PM
Jul 2013

Warren seems to be fulfilling Obama's promises or what we perceived to be his spoken duty. She is like a pseudo-president as the US Senate is more powerful for liberals than the White House, at this point in history.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
172. Yep, but he was smart enough to choose Hillary for SOS,
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 01:18 AM
Jul 2013

thereby getting that experience as his right hand without having to be experienced himself.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
179. and such a good choice
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 07:04 AM
Jul 2013

the Republicans were pissed-----they knew this was a real groomer for Hillary for 2016-----and they know that they can not beat her---just lovin' it

karynnj

(59,615 posts)
205. I assume this could reflect Massachusetts reluctance to lose another Senator
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:06 AM
Sep 2013

There were comments I saw in various MA online versions of newspapers that were angry in 2008 that Kerry would have accepted a position as SoS if it were offered - rather than representing MA - as he had since 1984.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
296. well MA is a dem stronghold
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 12:39 AM
Sep 2013

Brown was an aberration---and even Romney for a while------but they made him put in affordable health insurance which is quite the topic of the day

karynnj

(59,615 posts)
307. I am not referring to just getting a Democrat
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 11:22 AM
Sep 2013

Massachusetts - even before Kennedy's death was concerned that their Senator was working for them - not looking for a higher position. Consider that in Massachusetts, most people graduating college in 2008 had had the same two Senators since they were born! In the Senate, Massachusetts had enormous clout. Both of their Senators were among the most powerful in the Senate - which worked very well for Massachusetts. ( Kennedy chairing HELP and being a senior Senator on the Armed Services committee and Kerry chairing Small Business (which really helped the smaller high tech MA companies) and being a senior Senator on Finance and Foreign Relations made Massachusetts a powerhouse in the Senate - and when the Democrats were in power, they had the strongest House delegation.

Now they have two freshman Senators - both of whom are exceptional in their own ways. Warren is brilliant and knows the banking problem inside and out. Markey was the leading House advocate for the environment. However, there is no way that they command the clout that Kerry alone had - much less Kennedy and Kerry. Note that the same could have been said for Obama in 2005 - the Senate, not the rest of the world, puts huge value on seniority and when seniority and competence exist together (as was the case for both Senators Kennedy and Kerry) it is hard to beat .

Beacool

(30,262 posts)
459. Bullshit, but you already knew that.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:51 AM
Jun 2014

There were no wars under Bill Clinton that were initiated by the US.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
460. Hillary's stands against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 11:28 AM
Jun 2014

were magnificent.

I'll bet you didn't know that! (Me neither.)

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
462. She thought they were a good idea.
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:36 PM
Jun 2014

Are you thinking that if she were president she wouldn't have thought they were good ideas?

Beacool

(30,262 posts)
463. If she had been president, or any other Democrat for that matter,
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:41 PM
Jun 2014

we wouldn't have invaded either country.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
464. Certainly, we can agree that most Democrats voted against attacking Iraq
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:50 PM
Jun 2014

And if one of them had been President, we wouldn't have attacked.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
466. As the U.S. Senator from New York at the time of 9/11
Sat Jun 28, 2014, 09:53 PM
Jun 2014

Hillary had to be seeing all of this through a different set of eyes. When Bush and the Republicans did not come through with the funding they promised to help NYC Hillary held their feet to the fire and won support for the NYPD and the NYFD. Manny I can understand your admiration of Elizabeth Warren, but not your lack of support of Hillary.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
476. To be crystal clear---let's qualify it
Tue Jul 29, 2014, 05:25 PM
Jul 2014

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

the environment surrounding NYC at the time made it gullible to the Bush lies of WMD----Hillary's willingness to vote yes had to be tied to a package of pork for NYC----she is not one to do a knee jerk ---"oh I am pissed off at Saddam so I'm gonna get him" ---she is shrewd, cold and calculating. She had to fight Bush to get every dollar to NYC----and she did a fantastic job----so Manny to be "crystal" on the issue YES --she did the right thing

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
7. I like Elizabeth too
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 03:59 PM
Jul 2013


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/george-w-bush-least-popular-living-ex-president/

Bill Clinton has a 66% favorable rating-----I just can't see him going to the Democratic convention or on the campaign trail stumping for Elizabeth-----and as good as she is---I don't think we want the current Republican fire to rage------Elizabeth is a bigger target for the extreme right and she would help them GOTV on the Republican side----so she could be a "Nader effect" ---I don't think Elizabeth would be party to that
 

Wilms

(26,795 posts)
9. Just because they're likeable, doesn't mean they're your friend.
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 03:59 PM
Jul 2013

There are 300 million people in this country, most of whom are not named Clinton or Bush, and some of whom really are Democrats.

And as far as, "make sure that a woman is finally elected President" goes, consider that you get to vote at 18 years of age...and leave high school behind.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
24. thank you Wilms
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:52 PM
Jul 2013

are any of these 300 million polling above Hillary for 2016?-----my heart is with a lot of other candidates----but I think an overwhelming blow is needed to get the Republican party out of filibuster position---like I said my heart is with you on this----but my head says to win---you need a team ---and money----and I don't see anyone that is viable to raise the support ----take a look at the polls ---Hillary in Massachusetts is at 55%---and Elizabeth is at 4%

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
39. thank you for your continued responseI used to believe in "early"
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 05:49 PM
Jul 2013

I haven't made a timeline on this--yet----but maybe we could do it together ---and see how much longer anyone can wait to announce---------what kind of team do they have-------I really think that if anyone announces it will be supported by the Clinton's---and paid for by them---just to create some diversionary tactics-------and on this issue I don't believe that Elizabeth Warren would do that----she is too ethical--Biden---yup

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/

we are now 39 months away from the election itself-----

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
11. So ---how far does the support for Warren go
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:05 PM
Jul 2013

even if it means a new Republican president in 2016----I am not talking about the "feel good " emotional side here----I am talking about winning

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
13. Of course, I cannot, I suppose, choose to vote for anything but a Democrat in 2016,
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:15 PM
Jul 2013

but as far as a primary goes - I would never in a million years vote for someone just because they have the same genitals as I do.
I keep reading that we wimmenfolk will of course vote for another woman, just to make some sort of point.
Hey, didn't work for Palin, did it?
I think that is a very flawed assumption, to count on GOP women votes for Hillary just because she is a woman. Not gonna happen, IMO.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
16. Thank you Djean
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 04:29 PM
Jul 2013

Please don't think ---as a father of 3 daughters-a lifelong Democrat and a company policy and procedures manual that was gender neutral 40 yrs ago----that I use the term ''wimmenfolk"----and let's not ever think that a Palin had credibility anywhere-----but Hillary---like her or not---- as far as the Republican women go----even Laura Bush has said that a lot of the Republican candidates scare her------all of the women that I know go crazy when they hear the "Republican Rape Genie" philosophy----that is significant stuff-----and if Hillary's opponent has to pander to the Teapublicans -----she is going to win by a landslide-----and some of her surrogates at the convention will be Elizabeth Warren, Wendy Davis, Michele Obama----

So a question for you---will more Republican women vote for Hillary than voted for Obama?

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
28. I don't think many of them will.
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 05:19 PM
Jul 2013

All of the GOP women I know just hate "liberals" and love the GOP - no critical thinking required. I don't even think they think of Hillary as a woman per se, she is not like Sarah Palin.
And yes, pretty ironic that Hillary will be considered a liberal by GOP voters. She will be demonized as such, as will whoever the nominee is.
I think the TPP will not bother the GOP, but will hurt Democrats.
I fear that proposing chained CPI will hurt Democrats - a sound bite is worth a thousand rebuttals.
That's why I am hoping for new blood that can disassociate from the bad things the GOP will bring up.
Again, sound bites are going to trump logic. One of the things than sank Romney, really.
This is just me using my brand of logic and considering the things that bother me. I don't like Hillary's policies and corporatism, and the GOP voters, male and female, may not want to see a woman in the White House, anyway. So the fact that her policies are (IMO) more corporate and conservative than what being a Democrat used to stand for won't resonate with GOP voters. Hillary will be
"the other", no matter what.
As far as republicans being scared of some GOP candidates - hey, Hillary scares me, and I won't vote GOP.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
33. thank you again Djean---in the past few days 2016 snuck up on us
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 05:28 PM
Jul 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/10/hillary-clinton-super-pac-hires-obama-campaign-aides-ready-for-hillary/2503777/

I think that an election is so "big business"" now that any hope for human frailty is only in the lesser of two evils----and I have not seen anything from the Tea Party or the Republicans that looks anything like concern for the weak----I would agree with anyone that said Hillary is a ruthless corporate driven politico ---but her base is a religious right calling for all sorts of nasty intrusion into women's lives and to the weak---so she will vote support them in any way that she can-----or at least not bark our a 47% theory
 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
50. I think at least some will, and will lie about it.
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 07:08 PM
Jul 2013

They're in social circles where everyone votes Republican, and they won't want to admit what they did -- but they'll get in the voting booth and think about all the shit they've taken from men, some of whom the men who are now making jokes about Hillary not being "tough enough" to be President. They'll feel some solidarity with her.

As against that, some Democrats (mostly older men) will share that feeling that a woman couldn't be tough enough. They'll refuse to vote for Hillary for that reason. They might just leave the line blank (and lie about it, if in their social circle it's unthinkable).

I hope Hillary is not the nominee. I'd rather see a liberal. If she does run, though, my guess is that the identity politics of gender will, on balance, work in her favor, but probably not to a huge extent.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
55. Thank you Jim---I am OLD White and screaming liberal at age 67
Sun Jul 14, 2013, 07:47 PM
Jul 2013

and have always voted Democratic----I think the one thing about Democratic men is that they seem to be on the right side of history a lot more often than Republicans ----you don't see any of this social diatribe coming from the Democratic Party-----on this blog you don't see the idiotic threats that are so frequent of the Tea party sites ----yeah we have had our whackos ---but the long and short of it is that we are loyal to the team----and we don't have party leaders that preach divisiveness----we are pretty much "big tent" ---we will vote for Hilllary

Nay

(12,051 posts)
356. I don't think many GOP women at all will vote for Hillary--after all, she killed Vince Foster! She
Sat Sep 21, 2013, 10:42 AM
Sep 2013

is a ballbuster! She's still married to that philanderer! She lied about being under fire!



Most GOPers I have the misfortune to know hate both Clintons with a passion and believe the many tinfoil-hat myths that were spread around when they were in the White House.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
375. You forgot the allegation of her killing
Wed Sep 25, 2013, 08:54 AM
Sep 2013

the Secretary of Commerce--Edward Brown-----that's in the lore as well----and as far as the Lewinsky matter ---Hillary had daily flights on Air Force One----divorce Bubba=flying coach-----also there are some that say she knew all about the affair ---just one of many------on the Republican matter -----GWB's mother and daughter support a Hillary run ---and take a look at a new blog called Emily's List-----it will help you get in tune with women's politics ----anyone with your energy can do ,ore-----like for instance help get out the vote in Kentucky where Allison Grimes is trying to take Mitch McConnell's seat-------and on the gender issue------the last election was the black issue-----the next one is the GENDER ELECTION----and every woman who has had to put up with misogynists will be at the polls-----it's not so much that they love Hillary (kinda hard to love her)but one of your first accusation is one of Hillary's best traits ----she is a ballbuster ----and I can not think of a better group of ment that need their's busted than the Republican's ----starting with the slut calling Rush Limbaugh---he might have to retire !!!--------and it is about women --more and more ----a news reported said Wendy Davis has bigger balls than Ted Cruz---------this is emaciation politics and it is long overdue-------do you think that those force a woman to have invasive ultrasound treatments --do not need a little ballbusting-------I just can't wait-------and oh yeah the latest one is ---"she's too old"---wait until AARP reads that

juajen

(8,515 posts)
90. How dare you compare Hillary Clinton to dumbnuts?
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 03:33 AM
Jul 2013

No, not the same genitals, but a female that is brilliant and owns a pair. You get my drift, I'm sure. New Yorkers of both political persuasions would also say that she was a brilliant Senator, also.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
99. I was responding to the "women will of course vote for a woman" meme.
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:47 AM
Jul 2013

And being considered brilliant means squat. Actually being brilliant means squat. It is all about the money now.
In any event, I am not very fond of anyone who helps architect the TPP - gender does not matter. Not going to be enthusiastic about more corporatism, ever.
I don't think of the presidency as some sort of symbolic award or whatever, either. I was working all through the feminist fighting years, I worked for some shitty women and some awesome men - and some awesome women and shitty men. I remember how Carly Fiorina was supposed to be some fantastic breakthrough for women. And she about ruined Hewlett Packard. So I am leery of the "finally a woman" thing. Brilliant senators - I am told that Warren makes a great senator, why waste her as a president......I like Warren because she hasn't had time to cut all the deals with Wall Street and corporations as yet.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
173. Dumb Presidents make dumb decisions. Brains are very important.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 01:25 AM
Jul 2013

I would say that the great majority of our past Presidents have been brilliant, especially the successful ones. Are you insecure with having a brilliant woman President?

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
180. and more than likely they were being coached and groomed by a woman
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 07:12 AM
Jul 2013

men don't always like to admit that a woman gave them so much-----but it is obvious-----a good marriage is teamwork---great women--yes!!!!----Eleanor Roosevelt---Rosalyn Carter---Jacquie Kennedy---Barbara Bush--Hillary OMG yes-----the country was falling apart about the Monica thing ---and she says ---Bubba ---put it back in your pants and get Presidential---oh she is so smart--------some foolish people thought she should divorce Bubba--and Hillary says-- ride coach instead of Air Force One NAH!---not HRC---

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
182. Oh please. Way to twist around what I said. Feh.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 07:41 AM
Jul 2013

That is a snide question, not worth answering. Actually, it is not really a question, more like a sneer.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
218. Refute away!
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:11 PM
Sep 2013

Asking me (a woman, by the way) if I am insecure about having a woman as president is ridiculous. And a bit sexist.
And I am speaking as one who doesn't think all those people voted for Bush to go to Iraq, I believe they voted to have him go to Iraq if evidence was presented to them and they accepted the evidence. Bush took that ball and ran with it, ignoring Congress completely.
In any event, nothing you or anyone else says here at DU will affect my vote. We are just having a discussion.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
339. I do beg your pardon if I didn't know you were a woman.
Thu Sep 19, 2013, 04:23 AM
Sep 2013

Last time I checked there was not an "F" of "M" beside our mostly disguised gender names.

I also do not know your age; but, am guessing that I am somewhat older than you. Please correct me, if I am wrong. I am 72 years old.

Most of my young adult life was spent trying to get out from under the ever present male, who controlled my life. There were many of us, and we worked hard to be seen as intelligent humans, and not just a stick with boobs and a convenient knothole. It was very hard for me to gain an education, for women either had money to go to a marriage market college or they were stuck as the "help" or the "girl", and neither of these names were respectful. I had a good brain, but not a chance to enhance it with learning or experience until I was much older. No female doctors of lawyers in my young adult life. Our chance came much later than that.

Probably, this background doesn't interest you. But, it is an explanation for why I believe we need to break that damn glass ceiling; and, this will take a talented and brilliant woman to accomplish, for many men as well as women will be frightened of change. She was taken down in the primary because she didn't have enough "foreign" experience. In other words, because they didn't want a woman and they could grab on to this supposed fault. It didn't matter that she had more experience than anyone else running, and she actually had been a Senator for eight years. It was an excuse because they did not want to scare away the little women voters, because they were voters in higher numbers than men. There were other factors, but none made any sense. Then, Obama needed her. She became SOS, one of our very best, and no more can anyone say she does not have foreign experience.

Before I die, I want a smart, well placed woman to take charge of this country. She's it. There is no one else as well placed. I only hope she will run, and not just say it isn't worth it. It's hard not to feel that way when you watch the first black President beset at every turn. Obama is a brilliant man, he's loyal to his wife and children, etc., but, still, he is just not good enough for those white haired, shit-eating, arrogant white men. To Hell with them! They have torn this country into pieces. I cannot believe what our beloved country has become. I am leaving it in horrible shape for my five children, three of whom are brilliant and well educated women, who will still be living in a country with only male leaders, if that ceiling still stands. I pray every day that she will stay strong and be willing to take up the sword. If she doesn't, I can only say "Thank You, brave woman! You gave it your all. The Democratic Party desperately needs to stay the party "with the big tent". So Mote it Be.




Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
367. I am an old white male
Mon Sep 23, 2013, 05:20 PM
Sep 2013

and I support everything you said---look Hillary can tick just about anyone off----we could spend hours picking her apart ----but to what end ----to really get this country into the new millennium we need a woman President----ok --we proved that a black man can be President and the country will not fall apart----to the contrary he is a sterling example of a man----often the only adult in the room----and Hillary can bring all of this full circle----I can not think of anyone better than her to put the right wingers in their place------and I can't wait to watch----after her the doors for change will be truly open------no one will be able to sa anything about a woman in the Oval Office----and we all know she is truly capable

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
219. Not if you have been keeping up with current events.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:12 PM
Sep 2013

Anyway, resurrected conversation over, you are just pointlessly jabbing. Shrug.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
347. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement seems to be a hard nut to crack.
Fri Sep 20, 2013, 01:42 AM
Sep 2013

I certainly don't know much about it, and it seems that not many do. I think we need a thread on it. Perhaps you might consider that, for the info on it is sparse, and I certainly do not know enough to do this. I do know that Hillary supported it, and, on the surface, I think it could be a real problem. However, I do not know enough to make a judgment. Perhaps you do, and I would love to hear your opinion and what you feel Hillary is doing supporting it.

Perhaps there was a thread on this, and I missed it. If anyone has knowledge of one, maybe they could point it out to me.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
348. I think a thread on the TPP would be good - but then again, perhaps a thread of its own
Fri Sep 20, 2013, 07:28 AM
Sep 2013

would make the TPP to easy to isolate and perhaps be ignored. There are many fine threads about the TPP here.
A TPP thread would be good for required reading before someone uses the "link please" delay tactic. At this point, Google is likely a best friend, since I have noticed that sometimes when links are provided, the sources chosen are Snowdened. Again, a delaying tactic IMO, in hopes people will lose interest. Flak.

Hillary supporting it? I am given to understand that she is/was in the thick of negotiating and building it.

Hard nut to crack? If you mean hard nut of secrecy built around it by the Obama administration, well yes. Congress has to jump through hoops in order to see any of it (google grayson TPP (or trans pacific partnership) or look through TPP OPs here), and Obama wants this thing to be fast tracked when it does lurch out of the shadows. No discussion, no stripping out objectionable parts, a subversion of the Constitution, in my opinion. Why does he want that so badly? Not because it is stellar, according to those who have seen parts of it.

If you mean hard nut to crack as in how to make this thing palatable, I sincerely doubt that is possible. Better luck with that with Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce, no luck at all with voters who find out about it. Which is the whole point of the secrecy - I understand that around 600 corporate leaders are involved, but Congress and the public - veil of secrecy.

I am not going to link to everything - there are links throughout the TPP OPs here, and Google is always your friend.
I say this because I am not going to defend my feelings about the TPP, nor am I going to be sunk in a little blizzard of "prove it". It doesn't matter if others just say oh, too early to tell, or let's wait and see when it is enacted, really.

I am also interested in what Hillary thinks of the Chained CPI thing, Social Security in general, I believe she is for the Keystone pipeline. I doubt she will bother pretending to not be corporate, and I feel she may be counting on Bill's charisma (faded quite a bit for me) to counteract this sort of thing. Time will tell, but so far, FOR ME - she is going to be the lesser evil, and I hope she is primaried.

Being a woman? How did Carly Fiorina being a woman work out for Hewlett Packard? Not too well. As a woman who slogged through the sexist corporatism in the 60's, 70's and really onwards, I will not just climb on the train of wanting Hillary because she is a woman. That is, actually, just as sexist. I don't want revenge, I want a non-corporate president.

This is how I feel. There will be no point in dissecting my post and sinking it in a flurry of "links please". And then there is this - many many people will vote according to how they feel, they are not going to say or respond to "links, please", they are just going to vote.

Oh, and my hair is not on fire, (not directed at you), and when I find work I am a software quality assurance person, I am used to hunting down any possible problems, I take nothing at bland face value.

juajen

(8,515 posts)
390. Excuse me, I asked for no links.
Sun Sep 29, 2013, 10:31 PM
Sep 2013

My suggestion was that we all need more discussion on it; but, this thread is about a Hillary presidential run and its inevitability.

As far as a corporatist presidency is concerned: In the hoped for event that Citizens United will someday be overturned, that is one of the major reasons why we desperately need a democratic win in 2016. If the republicans get to put even more conservative judges on the court, Citizens United will never be overturned.

For this reason, we need the most electable candidate possible; imho, that is Hillary. We also need a woman to take advantage of all the bad press the republicans are getting over "women's issues",and, no other woman or man in the democratic party is as qualified as Hillary Rodham Clinton to become the next President of the United States.

I loved Bill Clinton and hated NAFTA. I voted for Ross Perot because of it. We cannot and will not ever have a perfect President who pleases all of the people all of the time, etc. On the surface, I already hate TPP, and can fight against it like hell whomever is President.

I did not even attempt to be an expert on TPP; however, there are many things I am heavily educated on and, on those issues, I speak out.

I do not have the time nor the desire to know all there is to know politically these days. I choose my battles carefully and attempt to get an overall picture of coming attractions or disasters and post on them.

DU is a huge forum with a lot of very wonderful and educated people. All of our voices, knowledge and opinions make it an outstanding place to go to on the internet for information, which is forthcoming because we have so many who contribute their knowledge and wisdom; of course, if we get bored with all of that serious thinking, we can always slip off to the lounge for a drink of fun.

You took offense when none was intended. Because of you, I did some research on TPP, and will do more, after I take my required naps of the day, and catch up on some frivolous fiction. I am, after all, retired.


 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
392. If the TPP is indeed as bad as it seems to be, it will affect Hillary's presidential run.
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 07:17 AM
Sep 2013

That is why it is relevant here.
Things like the TPP and chained CPI will be used against any Dem that runs. And if Hillary is responsible for part of crafting the TPP, then I am not really sure what kind of a supreme court judge she would nominate. If she, like Obama, takes a pass on public funding because corporate funding is so much more lucrative, then I have my doubts that she will change the status quo.

Women's issues? The GOP base does not care about them. Dem women may vote against the GOP because of women's issues, but as a woman, I don't see the GOP war on women as a reason to vote for one.
I think perhaps some are discounting the visceral hate the GOP has for Hillary, too. Hatred of her may bring more GOPers to the polls.

Always Randy

(1,063 posts)
396. the next election cycle is all about GENDER
Mon Sep 30, 2013, 10:53 PM
Sep 2013

this was posted on Politcususa tonight by Anya



"Hey GOP, I despise you as much as you despise me, the thirty-something unmarried American woman.

I can see what you shady assholes are trying to do and I will not vote for you, none of my friends or family will either. You assclowns are done controlling American women and we are over you; your creepiness, hypocrisy and patronizing garbage is so 1912, that we are done with you.

I hope your wives divorce you and your daughters have massive parties the day you die."