Skip to main content

I must admit - it feels pretty good to be a Democrat right now - at least as concerns the presidency for the next 12 years.  Obama is set to clean up in November.  And in 2016? We have a rebranded Hillary cued up to return after a fantastic tenure as Secretary of State, made all the more notable just in the last few days.  

And who do the GOP have to run against her?  Santorum?  Gingrich? Christie? Bachman? Huckabee? Paul? Pawlenty? Perry? Huntsman?  

Meanwhile - who do we have waiting in the wings with an upper 60's approval rating - ready to send them crying to their mistresses? Oh yeah?

Hillary "Big Dog" Clinton - that's who!

Come on GOP - just admit it.  You're a bit scared right now, aren't you?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I love Hillary (hence the rec), (12+ / 0-)

    but don't under-count two possibilities.

    (1) She really does want to retire; or
    (2) The Democrats find someone else, just as good but younger, in the years between now and then.

    Focus on winning this election before fighting the next one. Yeah, yeah - I know, President Obama has it sewn up.

    Well, except for that whole Voter ID thing being designed to benefit Republicans.

    And the whole "coat-tail effect" we all want on downticket Democrats. Every extra vote for Obama, even in a safe blue or red State, may mean one more for a downticket Democrat struggling.

    So don't gloat - get out there and work for Obama/Biden 2012. After the election is the time to look happily forward to Hillary 2016.

    •  YES, I see too many diaries assuming the election (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Calamity Jean, Wee Mama

      is won. We need to GOTV. We need to read Obama Nightly news. We need to refer to Obama as President Obama when we are taking. Refer to Rmoney as that, of course, never with the title.

      I totally agree with you. it is possible to phonebank for President Obama from home. Every interaction with other people becomes a way to influence people. The economy and JOBS are the issue. Use jobs as an issue. Be prepared when talking with people. Carry iindex cards for them, index cards for you.

      Thank you, Australian 2 !!!

      My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

      by CuriousBoston on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 08:54:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. Don't worry. No complacency here. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jfdunphy, Quicklund
    •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If Hillary wants the nomination, I've got her back.

      But I think she wants to retire, and if that's the case, she's more than earned it.

      Elizabeth Warren on the other hand...

      An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

      by OllieGarkey on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 09:57:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  She's not running nor should she (7+ / 0-)

    She will be 69 which is at best pushing the age limit for a first-term POTUS. Let her retire in peace.

    Secondly ... all those great speeches by all that Democratic talent during the convention?  Those are the next generation of leaders. They are capable, and they are not just going to stand aside and let the nomination be bestowed upon anyone.  There will be a robust Democratic primary in 2016 and it's going to go to the young blood.

    •  More than that, I distrust political dynasties. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Quicklund, Wee Mama

      As a general rule. I do think that Mrs. Clinton could have made a fantastic President, but the United States has enough vestigial aristocracy without further promoting family political machines. For all the good that Messrs. Roosevelt, Taft and Adams did us, we're evermore heading to a world built on brand names more than brand quality.

      •  At this point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nature Guy

        this argument with regard to Hillary Clinton is simply silly.

        •  Why is it? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Anne Elk, Chi

          I'm not impugning her as a candidate. But I continue to be unsettled by the ease with which everyone disbelieves the sincerity of her professed desire to get out of the global eye.

          •  I did not say you impugn her candidacy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nature Guy

            I said "this argument [the political dynasty] argument with regard to Hillary Clinton is simply silly."

            The reason it is silly is that Hillary Clinton  has now won 2 Senate races, run a very formidable race for President Indeed it is that race that makes her the clear best choice for Dems) and served as out Secretary of State.

            She's not just a last name.

            The argument simply no longer applies imo.

            •  If it were my only objection, yes. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But when combined with everything that Quicklund and Ginny in CO have stated, I think it is fair to state that if the Clinton name wants to be retired, then let it be retired. For multiple reasons, the torch can pass.

              •  I say (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nature Guy

                I'd rather have that name on the ballot as our best bet to retain the White house in 2016.

                I'm surprised some of you do not consider that.

                •  I have considered it. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Chi, Quicklund

                  And frankly, I disagree.

                  With the positive news coming out of Massachusetts, I am willing to entertain the notion that Dr. Elizabeth Warren could be a great force in 2016, depending on if she wins and how she does. (Admittedly, I'd lean towards VP and not P after only four years in politics at that point.)

                  Martin O'Malley's a bona fide progressive who has acquitted himself very well multiple times; his DNC speech this year was a low point, and Chris Christie would have killed to have a low point that was that high.

                  Deval Patrick has been a very effective governor after a series of Republican Massachusetts governors (people often miss that), and as people mention, made quite a barnburner this year.

                  Sherrod Brown has done fantastically at being a progressive Senator in a Republican-leaning state, and is surviving one of the most money-laden challenges ever.

                  I'm forgetting someone here, but I can't recall. In any event, I suspect the talent for 2016 will rival that which presented itself in '08.

                  •  You disagree (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    chicago minx, TX Dem 50

                    based on the air.

                    Your personal preference for any of these fine people is simply not to the point - none of these figures would be as formidable a Presidential candidate in a general election than Hillary Clinton now.

                    The talent for 2016 will most certainly not rival the POLITICAL talent in 2008 , when President Obama ran and Hillary Clinton learned to be a tremendous politician.

                    These are our 2 active heavyweights  (the 3rd is retired, Bill Clinton)

                    There simply are no figures to match them.

                    But the reality is it really does not matter what you or I say, the nomination is Hillary's for the asking and none of the people you list would challenge her.  None of them is Barack Obama.

                    They are waiting (along with Andrew Cuomo) to see what Hillary decides.

                    I trust you would support Hillary Clinton in 2016 should she be the Dem nominee. The rest of this is just mental wanking by all of us.

                •  I do not consider her our best bet at all (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  I feel she would be something like our 10th best bet. Younger non-Boomer candidates are a better choice to lead  post-Boomer America. And I suspect many post-Boomers agree.

            •  she is not all that politically talented IMO (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund, Wee Mama

              she did not distinguish herself as a senator of a safe state except in DLC hackery, has not won a competitive race (and as long as she drew out the 2008 primary race in hopes of getting superdelegates to throw the race for her, she was not in the running to win it for about half of the race, despite how close it looked in terms of raw numbers), and does not love the process of campaigning the way that her politically formidable husband does. she has a solid base of supporters behind her, but would have a hard time getting much beyond them in the way that both obama and bill did, with somewhat different groups of voters.

              having watched her in action during the zeroes, i do not think that she is anything near our most powerful candidate.

      •  I am 100% behind that too (0+ / 0-)

        There is far too many quasi-hereditary political families already.  Let's have a little diversity in our diversity.

    •  Why shouldn't she? (4+ / 0-)

      Because you think 69 is told old to be President?

      That's not strong reasoning.

      Here's the thing - if she wants the Dem nomination, she is getting it. That's opinion of course, but it seems hard to dispute. Perhaps you think Julian Castro can challenge her. I think not.

      The other thing is, as a Democrat, she is surely our best bet. Winning a 3rd term is very difficult. We need to put our best option out there.

      It is Hillary imo.

      We don't need a "robust Democratic primary," we need to hold the Presidency.

      Hillary provides us the best chance to do so.

      •  Although I often agree with you Armando, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I generally don't voice it so as not to appear to be pandering.

        On your instant comment, I whole heartedly express my concurrence.

        Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

        by ROGNM on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 09:24:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agree. I fought hard against her in the 2008 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        primaries but I would fight hard for her in 2016.  She would be our best chance of holding the White House.  As much as I like the Warrens, O'Malleys and Castros of our party they would have a much tougher time than Hillary, and I want to win in 2016 more than anything.

      •  Just park this thought (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        And see how tired "best" looks in 4 years. In 2016 The Clinton Sensation will be almost 30 years old. And entire generation and a half of the Clinton electorate will have been replaced. A new generation of Democrats in their upper 40s and 50s will be seeking their chance. They will be youngest, hungrier, more energetic, and more in turn with post-Boomer America.

        If the Democratic Party cannot generate new leaders to take up the torch by 2016 it will pay for it's failure to grow and evolve. Cf 2008 McCain.

  •  Bush/Rubio 2016 (0+ / 0-)

    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

    by jbou on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 08:49:00 AM PDT

  •  I think she will run (6+ / 0-)

    she is rebranded, she's now herself, and herself is such a hard working wonk with a great personality and the ability to select the best people for the job, and give them the credit for their own contributions.   No one who works for Hillary dislikes her, she makes friends wherever she goes, because she's not just smart and competent and on top of things, she doesn't just work as hard as her hardest working colleagues, she doesn't just accomplish the best outcomes possible, she's nice.

    She won't be the youngest person to run for president, but she'll be the youngest woman. Madeline Albright is still going strong, women like Hillary don't retire while there is work to be done.  And I mean all the hard working woman, who she gladly represents.  

    Hillary 2016 sounds fantastic.  

    reelect the president

    by anna shane on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 08:50:51 AM PDT

  •  She will be 69 in 10/16 (6+ / 0-)

    Aside from the DLC mentality, I firmly believe it is not fair to the younger generations to have a president whose worldview was formed so much earlier in history. The world changes much faster at this point and the crises that must be addressed need bold action, less caution.

    I know there are a lot of people who are still gung ho for Hil (I lost that when we lost reform in the 90's) and don't want to accept her statement that she does not want to run.

    I not only accept it, it's sort of a promise. There are people out there who will emerge as highly qualified candidates and should be able to make their plans with all the effort involved, without being upstaged in '15. To think we need to rely on the older crowd doesn't say much for the party.

    Frankly, I don't think being 1st Guy would be good for Bill's health. He would be 70 and despite how well he did the DNC speech, the signs of aging are there.

    Now, could we stay focused on 2012 for the next 7 weeks? Isn't that the urgent priority now?
    If you want to start speculating after that, '14 will be critical too. By then, the field for '16 will be forming.

    "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

    by Ginny in CO on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

    •  Is it fair to say that they've "aged out"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Especially when Reagan became president at the age of 70 and Nancy Pelosi is still going strong in her early 70s?

    •  Not fair? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chicago minx

      Her statement that she does not plan to run is a promise to you?

      I am always amazed by the attitude that some Dems have that they would prefer to not put forward our best chance to hold the White House in 2016.

      It truly amazes me.

      •  she may very well not be the "best chance" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, Quicklund, Wee Mama

        She will have been on the shelf for fours years by then and other, better candidates may emerge. But the fact the 'amazes' me is why progressives don't work in the trenches between elections to promote progressive candidates and values.

        Hillary Clinton represents the conservative wing of the party who have denigrated "liberals' for the past twenty years. Many progressives here have talked openly about how Obama has not been progressive enough, guess what? Obama is much more progressive than the Clintons ever will be.

        If one believes, as I do, that America will be better off with a liberal democratic administration then Hillary is not the one. Amazing as it seems to you today she also may not be the best canddidate to retain the WH in 2016. That remains to be seen. It may be time for the democratic wing of the democratic party to assert itself and nominate a real progressive in 2016.

        America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

        by cacamp on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 10:45:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If she decides to run (0+ / 0-)

          She will decidedly not be on the shelf, she'll be running.

          As for the rest of your comment sure YOU do not want her to run, but that is not the same as saying she is the best bet to win the election in 2016 for the Dems.

          Urge her not to run if you like. Oppose her if you like.

          But let's not live fantasies about who the strongest candidate for winning would be.

          •  You don't get to claim opinion as fact (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cacamp, Wee Mama

            Someone says they do not feel Mrs Clinton would be the "best" candidate. You say that's just their opinion. You say Mrs Clinton is the best candidate. But that is nothing more than your opinion too.

            But let's not live fantasies about who the strongest candidate for winning would be.
            Let's especially not forget that no one person's opinion is fact.
          •  four years is a long time (0+ / 0-)

            It's called "the future" and neither of us can see it. Right now, before the 2012 election Hillary is the top candidate in the party. But in four years who knows?

            We do know for sure about her conservative politics which is why I'd rather we seek and work for a more progressive candidate. But you have my permission to ask her to run and work for her. Besides who know what her shelf life will be?

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 01:48:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It depends on the person. Hillary would still be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, jfdunphy

      a vital, intelligent candidate in 2016, partly because of good genes, a productive life and because she takes care of herself.  I say this as someone who turned 60 this year.  It would be up to her, of course, but if she ran she could easily withstand the rigors.

  •  Prediction: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nature Guy

    The next Democratic nominee will be a woman.

    Hillary Clinton or Kirsten Gillibrand

    Personally, I'm kinda hoping for Clinton/Gillibrand '16!

    Btw, I'm a guy. :)

  •  Forget 2016... (4+ / 0-)

    First we have to deal with 2012 & 2014 -  GOTV !

    "The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is democracy". Aristotle

    by MuskokaGord on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 09:29:11 AM PDT

  •  GO HILLARY!!!!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago minx, jfdunphy

    I was one of the hardcore Hillary supporters here on Kos in the '08 primary wars. Before that I was a hardcore Edwards, never mind about that now, ya hear?  ; )


    But hey, at least I'm right 50% of the time.....

    Yeah yeah yeah, I'm WAY more progressive that many of  Hillary's policys - but I can bet ya that Hilary actually in real life IS a super hardcore progressive - but she is a realist, a fighter, polling mega high now - and I am hoping for 4 more years of Obama, then 8 years of HILLARY!

    She has laid the groundwork for her coronation in 2016.  You Hillary haters can whine, moan, blah blah, but them's the fact's ma'am........hehe

    GO HILLARY 2016!

  •  Hillary or Elizabeth Warren (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, JTinDC

    or Howard Dean or quite a few others. The 2016 democratic primary could be a good time for Democracy.

    Re-elect President Obama because we don't need another selfish President

    by Timmethy on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 09:40:45 AM PDT

  •  If she can be persuaded to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago minx, Chi, Armando

    run in 2016, she will win.  We may actually need a "brand" name to run against the Rethug's brand name, i.e., Bush.  Jeb Bush will be the rethug candidate in 2016 and we will need Hillary to keep a third Bush from office.  

    69 is not too old, and the age thing will actually favor her: aging has toned down how shrill Hillary can become.  She will be everyone's grandmother, and that is not as threatening to some men as a young, aggressive woman.  

    It's a natural for Hillary to run in 2016 and as one who formerly didn't like her (I have completely changed my mind, thanks to her graceful but strong handling of the State Dept), I am one of her biggest fans.  My only fear is that she cannot be persuaded to run.  

  •  Hillary is too conservative for me (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, wu ming, Quicklund, Wee Mama

    We've been disappointed in how Obama has not been progressive enough so we should be looking for and working for a more progressive candidate to take his place.

    The Clintons represent the more conservative wing of the party who pushed the "new democrat" theme and the DLC. They took it upon themselve to purge the progressives out of the party not just the elected officials but all through the bureaucracy of government. Now old Clinton apparachiks are embedded throughout the village, within the administration and in democratic think tanks waiting to get back into power and further their brand of GOP-lite.

    Obama should serve as a stepping stone toward a more progressive government, Clinton would be at best a step sideways and at worst a big jump backwards. Try to remember who she surrounded herself with during her campaign. Those are the conservadems she'd have in her administration. Progressives should get prepared to fight for progressive candidates up and down the ballot including for the Presidency.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 10:26:14 AM PDT

  •  hell. no. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, cacamp

    none of the DLC dems who enabled the bush administration during the dark days of the zeroes have any business in the white house. period.

    we've got a good bench, anyways.

  •  You know how when you're watching one (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    program on TV and they keep superimposing annoying promos for the next program on the screen?

    It's like that.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:04:35 PM PDT

  •  I see too any comments assuming we need (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    look no further than Hillary. Assuming she wants to run I'd like to think she learned that running as the inevitable candidate had a down side.

    Assuming she's smart enough not to make that same mistake twice I hope her supporters don't do her a disservice by naming her the nominee this far out. She likely will, assuming she wants to run, get the nomination, but we'd be better off if we held a less heated primary than in 2008 and one in which primary voters head into primary season feeling they've got a choice.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 03:27:05 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site