Skip to main content

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks to a breakfast with Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Istana in Singapore November 17, 2012. REUTERS/Matt Rourke/Pool
2016 is hers if she wants it.
Who needs to wait until 2024 for Texas to be competitive?
The results are within the margin of error, but Clinton leads Marco Rubio 46% to 45%, Chris Christie 45% to 43% and Rick Perry 50% to 42%. She has a +7 favorability rating (50/43) with Texas voters and strong support among moderate voters—72% view her favorably, and she crushes her potential GOP opponents among this voting group.

“If Clinton is the 2016 nominee, she could conceivably expand the electoral map for Democrats in deep-red Texas,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.

Not just Texas. How about Kentucky?
Clinton has a 48/42 favorability rating with Kentucky voters. By comparison Barack Obama's approval rating is 38/59. Clinton would lead Rand Paul 47-42 and Marco Rubio 48-40 in hypothetical match ups. That's because Clinton gets 73-74% of the Democratic vote in those match ups, similar to the 72-73% of the Republican vote that Paul and Rubio get. The reason Democrats lose time after time in Kentucky despite having a large registration advantage is that a very large number of Democrats don't vote Democratic for President, but Clinton would win over a lot of the party faithful who have declined to support Obama, Kerry, and Gore.
The point here isn't that Hillary would win both those states. It would be a longshot. Point is, if she's making states like those two competitive, what prayer would Republicans have in the traditional battlegrounds?

As I noted last week, Republicans are already in a world of hurt—if 2012 looked demographically the way 2016 will look, President Barack Obama's 3.9-point victory would've been a 5.2-point victory. But Clinton would make the GOP's daunting task downright impossible, particularly in the wake of their hamfisted efforts to attack Obama by trying to gin up a rivalry between the president and his former primary opponent.

So when Dick Cheney said, "I have the sense that she’s one of the more competent members of the current administration, and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president," he wasn't trying to be nice to Clinton, he was trying to attack Obama. But oops. Four years of blowing kisses at Hillary can't be erased by a single manufactured freakout over Benghazi. The reality is that Hillary remains the nation's most popular politician and the most admired woman in the last 64 years, per Gallup.

On the Democratic side, several politicians are already laying groundwork for their runs, including Vice President Joe Biden. But really, 2016 is all about Hillary. If she wants it.

Originally posted to kos on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:43 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Tip Jar (149+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chrislove, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, Pinto Pony, icebergslim, sewaneepat, NearlyNormal, artmartin, bluehen96, Libby Shaw, Polly Syllabic, DaddyO, kharma, Beetwasher, mndan, lgmcp, absdoggy, annecros, bythesea, Radical Faith, SneakySnu, anodnhajo, Isaacsdad, ferg, TheLizardKing, ColoTim, Tunk, DFWmom, blue aardvark, 2thanks, Trix, blackjackal, jwinIL14, MI Sooner, bfitzinAR, rubyclaire, Dauphin, WisVoter, ImagineOhio, Rick Aucoin, TexDem, Chaddiwicker, bloomer 101, tofumagoo, johanus, randomfacts, GAS, Andrew C White, annrose, side pocket, Catte Nappe, dewtx, SilentBrook, trumpeter, itskevin, doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers, Elizaveta, Bluesee, MidwestTreeHugger, GeorgeXVIII, Debbie in ME, Happy Days, randallt, viral, louisprandtl, hester, poopdogcomedy, kevinpdx, GainesT1958, Shadowmage36, rogerdaddy, DeadHead, Sandy on Signal, BachFan, AdamR510, cheforacle, prgsvmama26, Judgment at Nuremberg, bronte17, Crabby Abbey, pademocrat, NM Ray, RiveroftheWest, MKinTN, alisonk, Egalitare, Troubadour, betelgeux, cynndara, Chas 981, ratcityreprobate, Australian2, BeninSC, Greasy Grant, immigradvocate, Canis Aureus, Monitor78, CoyoteMarti, oysterface, Powered Grace, Wreck Smurfy, GANJA, homeschoolmama, monkeybrainpolitics, cpresley, john07801, SaintC, OLinda, brn2bwild, Texdude50, davehouck, Mistral Wind, psyched, mconvente, Wife of Bath, TheCrank, jay23, democracy is coming, glitterscale, evilhoodedcrow, Siri, Mr MadAsHell, JVolvo, diggerspop, eeff, eztempo, JamieG from Md, RobertInWisconsin, stagemom, joedemocrat, cocinero, lady blair, annieli, Rolfyboy6, StellaRay, jes2, InsultComicDog, boofdah, rexxnyc, Larsstephens, SterlingSam, Jeff Y, renzo capetti, Dr Swig Mcjigger, Lilith, vcmvo2, sreeizzle2012, wdrath, implicate order, Sharon Wraight
  •  If she wants it. (28+ / 0-)

    But do we want her?  What has changed between 2008 and today, or will change between 2008 and 2016, with regards to our skepticism on her progressive credentials, all the Mark Penn and other stuff which led most people here towards Obama, Edwards, and Dodd during the the 2007-08 primaries?

    Look: she has become an icon, in large part because of the way that she finished that race, campaigned for the Obama-Biden ticket and served tirelessly as Secretary of State.  And I have no doubt that she would be our most formidable candidate.  But is she the most progressive candidate who can win in 2016?

    •  The words "progressive" and "Clinton" should never (20+ / 0-)

      be used in the same sentence.

      “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

      by 420 forever on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:55:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In your opinion (10+ / 0-)

        We have a long way to go as a nation. Hillary would certainly be more progressive than Obama, the less worse choice in the last election. She would be less progressive than I am in military and foreign policy matters, but NOT DOMESTIC.

        Here we go again with the Hillary Hater/Obamabots about to jump right out of the woodwork...

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:01:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  Didn't she come (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            randomfacts, Happy Days, vcmvo2

            out with a mortgage assistance program during the campaign?  I thought she was beginning to see the light regarding economic issues.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:09:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, (5+ / 0-)

              she was more ambitious on the mortgage front and had a bigger health care plan, which eventually became Obama's. She ran to the left of him on economics, but foreign policy was where most of the attention was directed prior to September 2008.

              "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

              by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:46:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Her health plan became Obama's? (0+ / 0-)

                I wish.

                We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

                by denise b on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:24:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, they were almost identical (0+ / 0-)

                  although neither could be said to have "borrowed" from the other. Hillary's endorsed the controversial mandate which eventually become part of it. That was the only significant difference. There was little policy difference between the two on this issue.

                  But so what? 2016 is light years away in political terms. Anything could happen with the Republicans.

                  Jon Husted is a dick.

                  by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:12:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Remember,... (0+ / 0-)

                    Bill started out a liberal too.  Then when he got his shellacking in 1994, he triangulated to conservadem, and seemed quite happy doing it.

                    The Clintons love POWER first.  They loved being president in a way that Obama, and especially Bush didn't seem to.  One of the things that infuriated the Right was that the Clinton's co-opted all of their good ideas (NAFTA, Welfare Reform, "the era of big government is over"), and raised money from all of their donors.  The first thing the Clinton's would do if they were back in the White House is consolidate power and start cashing in again.  Perhaps worst of all, the sleeze would be back - the same "sleeze" that dripped on Al Gore, and ultimately kept him out of the White House.

                    Obama doesn't always stand up for what he believes, but the Clintons don't believe in anything except themselves.  That was the objective history of their poll-driven, triangulated presidency of survival.  Why should we believe they have changed?  Liberalism is hard.  It requires you to row upstream against big money, and fight against your own self interest (as a wealthy powerful person) for the common good.  That takes a lot of strength, courage, energy and motivation.  The Clintons would have to dis the very people they tried so hard to win approval from.  People (almost all people) tend to get more conservative as they get older, not more liberal.  People didn't call Bill Clinton "the most successful Republican president ever" for no reason.

          •  Based on my opinion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Based on my observations of recent history. Just because I didn't convince you of my opinion doesn't mean it isn't valid. I'm not writing you a 100,000 word essay that wouldn't change your mind. I guess you're just a more 'pure' progressive than I am. Good for you.

            As I wrote below: Who, then? Who can win? Who would be better? Give me your opinion, if you like.

            "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

            by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:12:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think there's lots of folks who can win. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wu ming, Quicklund, JVolvo, Laconic Lib

              Can you share one of those observations which provides that certainty?

              •  More progressive on tax policy (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ffour, Happy Days, JamieG from Md

                Hillary has a history we can look at and point to--as the prime adviser to her husband. His record is, for all practical purposes, HER record--or as close a signpost as a candidate can have WITHOUT the actual experience.

                Bill Clinton signed legislation he pushed hard, legislation that raised taxes on everyone in his first year as President. Prosperity ensued. An extreme generalization...but an undeniable fact, one that almost every progressive economist and blogger has been endorsing for four years.

                Obama CUT taxes in 2010, for no good reason whatsoever. None. The Bush Tax Cuts became the OBAMA TAX CUTS.

                Bill had his faults, but the prosperity the nation enjoyed on his watch was shared by EVERYONE, not just the bankers. I hear she listens to him from time to time, when he's not hiding from her.

                Your turn. Who else but Hillary?

                "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

                by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:24:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wait. That doesn't work. (9+ / 0-)

                  You can't give credit to Hillary for her husband's few progressive accomplishments and not also saddle her with Nafta, DOMA, "welfare reform," and the like.  

                  Frankly, I'd rather just evaluate her on her own merits.

                •  Can we put on our reality based hats since we're (10+ / 0-)

                  still far from the election?

                  Bill was fortunate to govern during the boom.  While his policies were certainly better than Paul Ryan's and he didn't invade any countries just for fun, much of the prosperity was based on bubble economics.

                  •  What else do we have to go on? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JamieG from Md

                    Bill Clinton did not govern in a vacuum separate from his wife and her input. She did not serve as First Lady without a first-hand knowledge of policy and political maneuvering. Anyone who denies this is...just not based in reality.

                    She had more of a Presidential record to judge than Obama ever had...but if you don't agree, then I guess that means electing Hillary is like electing Laura Bush.

                    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

                    by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:45:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Sounds like a repub talking point (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    viral, JamieG from Md, Quicklund

                    My right wing colleagues always say that Clinton's economic boom was based on the bubble.

                    The dot.coms and Y2K remediation certainly caused a bubble in the stock market, but I have yet to see any evidence that the "bubbly" part of internet growth was the key driver of jobs or economic activity.  

                    Prosperity was deep and widespread.  (And a lot of the internet's impact from the '90's was real and lasting, not part of the bubble.)

                    Had it not been for the Iraq wars, the Bush tax cuts and the financial shenanigans related to housing, I think prosperity would have continued into the 2000's following a brief recession after the bubble burst.

                    Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

                    by Happy Days on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:06:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Presidents always get too much credit or blame (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Laconic Lib, vcmvo2

                      I think it's fair to say that anyone serving as President during the 1990s would have enjoyed the good economic groundwork created by the fall of the Iron Curtain. automation/computerization efficiencies, as well as the dot com stuff. That president turned out to be named Bill Clinton.

                      And no question but the Bush policies made things a whole lot worse than they had to be. The USA share of the overall global GDP dropped from 32% at the start of Bush 43's terms and stood at 24% at the end. The only similar loss of global economic stature in a similar amount of time occurred in the European nations paved flat by WW2.

                      Yayyyy Bush?

                      •  The reality is that Newt Gingrich (0+ / 0-)

                        deserves as much credit for the 1990's surpluses as the CLintons do.  And, no, the Clintons cannot be decoupled.  Their "marriage" of convenience was as close to a co-presidency as we've ever seen.

                        The bubble, combined with the 1993 tax increase, raised unbelievable revenue for the federal government.  Gingrich refused to let Clinton spend any of it on his base through new programs.  Clinton refused to let Gingrich refund any of it to his base through tax cuts.

                        So, the money sat there, reduced the deficit, and eventually produced surpluses.  Bush was elected on a platform of returning the surplus to the taxpayers.  Gore campaigned on using the surplus to pay down the national debt.

                        Sometimes divided government least fiscally.

                •  I considered the extension of unemployment (0+ / 0-)

                  benefits a very good reason to extend the Bush tax cuts in Dec 2010.  I suppose you disagree with that.

                  •  That the two were ever tied together (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Laconic Lib, Nada Lemming

                    and allowed to remain so is a perfect example of the political sleaziness that has come to characterize our system in its present routine daily dysfunctioning that completely turns off vast swaths of the American public.  To use that political manipulation mendaciously to beat another citizen with a cheesy guilt-trip is reprehensible, showin g no higher ethical standards than that of the average congresscritter.

                    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

                    by ActivistGuy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 04:30:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Obama has cleaned up a lot of Clinton messes. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greenbell, sebastianguy99

                  This is not a good argument for you to make. Obama had to clean up Bushes messes but he also spent a lot of his first two years fixing Bill's mess. Clinton deregulated lending institutions which helped lead to the mortgage collapse, passed media consolidation, did nothing significant on climate change, passed DADT and DOMA, sent our manufacturing sector overseas. More Clinton policies would be two steps backward and I want to go forward.

            •  Elizabeth Warren.... -nt- (4+ / 0-)

              "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

              by The Rational Hatter on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:35:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Senate (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Let here do something meaningful in the senate first.

                •  The same could have been said about Obama in 08. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I haven't seen any indication that Senator Warren is even considering a run.  I was merely answering DaddyO's question regarding who else I'd like to see.  

                  In any event, I won't be donating or volunterring for Secretary Clinton in the primaries.  And a vote for Clinton in the general does not mean that I support her policies.  She's a fine person, a Democratic icon, and - imo - not the best candidate at this time.  

                  "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

                  by The Rational Hatter on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:18:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, no dice (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    By the time Obama was in contention, he had two full years in the Senate plus a record as a state legislature. Maybe in two years, Elizabeth Warren may have some accomplishments worthy of considering her name— but she too will be verging on too old to run.

                    Jon Husted is a dick.

                    by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:14:16 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not sure why you think I was trying convince you (0+ / 0-)

                      But I'm not holding the majority opinion when it comes to Democratic leadership so I geuss I should expect random people at DKos attempting to explain why I'm wrong.  

                      BTW - did you just imply that State Senate experience was a reasonable qualifier for POTUS?

                      "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

                      by The Rational Hatter on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:38:48 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Elizabeth Warren is a Mass thing (0+ / 0-)

                      She would never translate to a presidential campaign.  It took her forever (and the help of a nice Obama tail wind) to dispatch Scott Brown in Mass.  And, Mass is a lot bluer than most of America.  

                      Obama beat McCain and Romney mostly because the American people liked him more.  Maybe a Dem doesn't need that in Mass or CA, but they need it in OH, FL, VA, and the other swing states.  The GOP would have to be even dumber than they are now to nominate someone the average American would less like to have a beer with than Elizabeth Warren.  

                      She can be a Senator for as many years as she chooses.  That is where she will have to do her work.

                •  Hillary never did anything meaningful during her (0+ / 0-)

                  entire 8 years in the Senate, yet she ran for President. At least Obama had 3 big pieces of legislation that passed credited to him.

                  President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

                  by askew on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:48:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I was very anti-Hillary (5+ / 0-)

          during the 2008 election because of her campaign tactics and a feeling I had about her being very much a micro-manager.  I was also very pro-Obama but I believe Hillary has matured greatly and is now the logical choice to carry on.  I think a number of us have come to trust the Clintons much more than we did.  I think public service has humbled them and both are smart enough to have learned from mistakes.  

          "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

          by artmartin on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:43:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  People imagining that Hillary turned liberal. (10+ / 0-)

        It's bizarre. This thread is full of people who are convinced that after an entire lifetime of being center-right, Hillary suddenly turned liberal with no evidence whatsoever. The cult of personality around her is just bizarre.

        And I really find it amazing that Kos has gone from complaining about Obama not being progressive enough to praising a figure clearly further to the right with a long history of weakly capitulating to Republicans. What's that about?

    •  Come on, Adam (21+ / 0-)

      Liberals don't care about trying to elect a liberal, they just want to win.

      I'm not the biggest President Obama fan in the world, but I voted for him over Hillary largely because I thought he would be less militaristic on foreign policy, and judging by this piece in NY Times, among other evidence, Clinton has consistently, perhaps even always, been on the hawkish side of issues as Sec of State, a hawk among hawks. No thanks.

      •  I need to take my temperature (7+ / 0-)

        because I actually agree with one of your comments for once.

        It was Clinton's support of the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman that had me opposing her in 2008, and unless I see some sort of turnaround, I worry that she's going to think she has to prove herself as just as tough as the guys.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:18:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey it happens to everyone now and then (6+ / 0-)

          Candidate Obama was also better on cluster bombs (President Obama not so much) and torture, Hillary supporting it  (in some cases) right up until the election.

          Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State will be her big selling point but for me it's a downside, even if she was sometimes carrying out the policies of her boss.

          Hillary when long-oppressed Egyptians rose up to demand their rights:

          "We support the fundamental right of expression and assembly for all people, and we urge that all parties exercise restraint and refrain from violence," she said. "But our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.''
          And when long-oppressed Bahrainis did the same.
          Well, we call for calm and restraint on all sides in Bahrain. We’re particularly concerned about increasing reports of provocative acts and sectarian violence by all groups. The use of force and violence from any source will only worsen the situation and create a much more difficult environment in which to arrive at a political solution.

        •  Of course she has had to prove it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JamieG from Md, vcmvo2

          She is a woman and she has to prove she is every bit as tough as the guys in order to be considered for President. At this point I think she has accomplished that but it is completely unfair to her (or any other woman attempting to go where she has attempted to go) to put her in a situation where she can't even be considered for the job unless she proves she's got bigger balls then the boys do and then criticize her for having big balls.

          No woman... no woman would have been able to get as far as she has without playing the macho game with the big boys. No woman.

          "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:48:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Come on, David (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        Liberals don't care about trying to elect a liberal, they just want to win.
        is nonsense. Liberals care quite a bit about electing liberals... emphasis on... electing... and that is another word for... winning.

        We want to elect the most progressive and/or liberal person that we can actually get elected.

        That limits our options. Bernie Sanders or someone similar isn't going to get elected President. Much to my regret but it is simply the way it is. We couldn't even get Howard Dean nominated let alone elected. And is rather moderate in a lot of his views.

        Hillary is also a woman. And in order for a woman to even be considered she has no choice but to show that she is just as tough as the boys are. No choice. Or she wouldn't even be part of the conversation.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:45:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Problem is, there's no Obama on the horizon (11+ / 0-)

      And she's been pretty much absolved for the Iraq vote.  If she runs, she'll be a lot tougher to beat than in '08.

      by Paleo on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:10:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Depends (9+ / 0-)

      In order to make Obamacare secure and nominate a few more SCOTUS justices, winning in 2016 is pretty important.

      Bring me a progressive who will win, and we'll talk. Bring me a progressive who might win if everything breaks their way, and we'll have a different conversation.

      Remember: if the GOP runs true to form, 2016 will be Rick Santorum's turn. I'll take Hillary trying to be as conservative as she can get away with over Santorum any day.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:16:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Santorum (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark

        the "next in line" candidates didn't run in 2012 because they knew Obama would beat them. 2016 will look very different on the Republican side and Santorum won't get off the ground.

        The good news is that even the Republicans best aren't all that appealing... but they'll be far better and more professional then the embarrassing joke of a crew they put up in 2012.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:52:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dunno (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Desbrisay, Andrew C White

          Romney finished second to McCain.
          McCain finished second to Bush.
          Bush didn't run in 1996, but no one ever considered Pat Robertson a viable candidate, and he finished second to Dole.
          Dole was second to Bush Sr.
          Bush Sr. was second to Reagan in 1980 and VP as well.
          Reagan was second to Ford in 1976.

          Except for Bush they've nominated the guy who got the second most delegates last contested primary since 1976.

          Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

          by blue aardvark on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:04:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yup, I hear ya (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue aardvark

            that is their style normally but this time will be different. Santorum will be an after thought. It'll be someone that knew better then to run in 2012.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:11:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  2016 GOP field will be dominated by (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Andrew C White

              Chris Christie.  Maybe Jeb Bush also, if he decides that 8 years is long enough for another candidate named Bush.  Maybe Huckabee (don't kid yourself, he could be formidable).

              Christie will be the front runner, unless he loses his re-election in NJ, of course.  There will be a few clowns, but unlike 2012, they'll be gone or irrelevant by South Carolina.

              The best GOP candidates sat out 2012.  2016, no matter what happens, will be more favorable ground for the GOP than 2012, if only because the Dems don't have another Obama.

        •  That will depend on the GOP (0+ / 0-)

          The so-called "next in line" candidates (if what you're referring to is sane candidates) didn't get run this time not because Obama was considered so unbeatable — don't you remember everyone here freaking out about how he was always losing? — but because sane, electable candidates got no traction with GOP primary voters. Anyone remember the scary, threatening Jon Huntsman and how we quaked in our boots? Anyone remember he topped out with 3% support among Republican primary voters?

          Unless the GOP has a radical makeover, those "better than Santorum" candidate will never get to the starting gate — but Santorum and even crazier people will.

          Jon Husted is a dick.

          by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:19:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope... they didn't run (0+ / 0-)

            the wise Republican candidates knew better then to run this year. They'll run in 2016... and unless we screw it up badly... they'll still lose.

            I was frankly fairly calm and confident about Obama winning re-election all the way through. The only time I freaked out about it was after he let Romney back in the game after that one debate. And then not because I thought he'd lose but rather because he really had Romney against the ropes and was in position to sink the entire Republican team and he let them back in the game.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:14:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt they could do much worse. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew C White

          Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

          by JamieG from Md on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:02:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Answer your own question. (17+ / 0-)

      Who else is walking through that door?

      We're pretty sure Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley are running. Maybe Hickenlooper. Maybe Schweitzer. Maybe Deval Patrick, or Kirsten Gillibrand. Maybe some out-of-nowhere types like Jack Markell or Peter Shumlin (or hell, Terry McAuliffe probably sees the White House in his future).

      Are any of those people obviously more progressive than HRC? Not that I can see.

      Assuming that Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren---the two most reasonably situated progressive heroes to mount a presidential campaign---don't run, who else is going to run to the left of HRC?

      Of course, I've been on the Clinton train since '07. But I'd be willing to back a more progressive candidate who has a shot at victory; thing is, like in '07, I don't necessarily see one.

      Contributing editor at Daily Kos and Daily Kos Elections, member of three-time NN pub quiz champion Sea Org.

      by Arjun Jaikumar on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:20:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No one is "obviously" more progressive. (11+ / 0-)

        I don't disagree there.  I do think O'Malley likely is more progressive, and I think anyone who'd try to run against Clinton would have to try to position him- or herself to Clinton's left to have any chance.

        •  I think that's fair (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, oysterface, mconvente, cpresley

          I don't necessarily agree on O'Malley, but I don't disagree either; it's often difficult to gauge where a governor stands on national/international issues until s/he actually starts running.

          But you're quite right that no one is going to have the slightest chance of beating HRC in a Dem primary without running to her left.

          Actually let's think about this. To beat her, you'd have to:

          - Recreate Obama's coalition; lock down African-Americans, get substantial majorities of young voters, first-time voters, wealthier urban and suburban whites (particularly among men), or,

          - Cut into Clinton's base substantially---women, Hispanics, gays, blue-collar whites.

          To me, that seems really tough for any of the current candidates from three years out, but not impossible.

          Contributing editor at Daily Kos and Daily Kos Elections, member of three-time NN pub quiz champion Sea Org.

          by Arjun Jaikumar on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:19:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You forgot step one (8+ / 0-)

            1.  Raise money.  

            And I don't know, frankly, how any of them do it until Clinton absopositively pulls out of the race, except for Biden. To be sure, some potential candidates already have federal accounts, but most don't.

            I think it has to be a generational race, but I think the past five years have shown you can't out-hustle Clinton.  

            I'm just flummoxed to think of an example of a party which had as big of an heir apparent nominee as Clinton is for 2016 -- W, 2000, I guess, but this is even more than that.

          •  To beat Hillary if she runs (0+ / 0-)

            would destroy the Democratic Party and Republicans would win in 2016.

            If Hillary runs she will be our nominee or we'll self destruct through our internal civil war. Period. Full stop.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:57:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Running to her left? (0+ / 0-)

            You honestly think someone could run to her left in the primaries and win the nomination?

            Maybe here on Daily Kos.

            Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

            by JamieG from Md on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:05:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I'm quite sure (0+ / 0-)

              that no one could win the nomination running to her right.

              What's the pitch to Democratic primary voters? "Vote for me instead of the most popular person in the party because I'm more conservative than she is?"

              Contributing editor at Daily Kos and Daily Kos Elections, member of three-time NN pub quiz champion Sea Org.

              by Arjun Jaikumar on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:34:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  No other person on the planet (0+ / 0-)

            could have beaten Hillary in 2008.  Because, nobody other than Obama could have gotten 90% of the black vote in a Dem primary.  That was the ONLY reason Obama beat her.  Obama killed her in the south, piling up huge margins in delegates.  Hillary won almost all of the states with smaller black populations, and all of the big states - but not by a big enough margin to offset Obama's wins in the south.

            I agree with Kos and others, if Hillary runs, I don't see anybody in the Dem party stopping her.  But, while she has generically favorable ratings, she is VERY polarizing in a campaign (as exemplified in these blog comments), and has a lot of old wounds to reopen.  A good, likeable, GOP candidate would have a chance to beat her.  With the 1990's economy behind him, nobody should have beaten Gore,...but GWB played him to a tie, and won in OT.

            Anything can happen.  It won't be 2008, and the economy won't be literally falling down around a GOP president's feet, either.

      •  It's the old story (6+ / 0-)

        The least-offensive candidate, warts and all.

        I will vote for Candidate Warren or Franken or Brown. In the primaries. If they win, I'll vote for them in the general election.

        But as kos sez, it's probably going to be President Rodham-Clinton. We could do MUCH MUCH worse. And all the complaints I hear are mostly about military and foreign policy matters...since when did those EVER sway a voter more than domestic and economic policy matters? WW II? Eh.

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:36:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  My thoughts exactly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MidwestTreeHugger, oysterface

        I posted a very similar diary to this here.

        "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

        by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:37:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  none of them are running (0+ / 0-)

        if Hillary runs... except for a couple that might run briefly so as to raise their name recognition and get in the running for VP. Gillibrand will certainly NOT run if Hillary runs. Neither will any of the several other quality women candidates in the Democratic party.

        If on the other hand Hillary does not run then you will see quite an interesting primary amongst the women let alone the more traditional male candidates and I hope to Gawd that we Democrats have sense enough to nominate one of the many fine women candidates we'll have to chose from.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:55:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Most people were not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, JamieG from Md

      led "towards Obama, Edwards, and Dodd during the the 2007-08 primaries."  The popular vote totals between Obama and Hillary were extremely close.  I'm not always a fan of, but they have a decent factual discussion of this:

      Any way you cut it, the candidates’ vote totals are within less than 1 percent of each other. Both candidates got roughly 18 million votes, but since four states don’t list official counts, the precise totals can’t be known.

      The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton’s win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state’s violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama’s margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.

      Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton’s total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan’s "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he’d have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.

      If you're going to reminisce about the 2008 primaries, please try to be more factually accurate.

      The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

      by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:35:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

      progressives make up a small proportion of the Democratic party, much less the electorate.  I'm not sure who might have more success, and if she runs, she'd probably dissuade most heavy hitting candidates from trying (including Biden)

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:48:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Progressive? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, Laconic Lib

      We didn't bother about a progressive candidate in 2008 or 2012? Why are we suddenly looking for one in 2016?

    •  ok, so support someon else. (0+ / 0-)
    •  "But is she the most progressive candidate... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, randomfacts, hester, cpresley, JVolvo

      ...who can win in 2016?"

      If she runs... yes.

      If she doesn't run... no.

      No one should fool themselves that Hillary is the champion of left wing progressives. She is a liberal but she is a pragmatist and fully a beltway power player.

      But the fact is that if she runs she will be the most progressive candidate that can win.

      If she doesn't run then we might be able to elect a more progressive candidate... but we should also not fool ourselves into thinking that "more progressive candidate" will be all that much more progressive then Barack or Hillary. Some... maybe. A lot... not too likely.

      I also think however, that we will see a more progressive Hillary run the next time around too. She'll be freer to move to her left given

      a) her prospective lead going into it
      b) following these next 4 years of a "lefter" Barack
      c) the leftward swing I fully believe the country is embarking on

      I also think we need to be fully cognizant of gender politics. It is time for a woman to be President and Hillary is that woman if she wants it. If she opts out then I think we should look at the most progressive woman we can get elected as a second choice. I think Democrats would be foolish... I think progressives would be foolish... to attempt to nominate a man in 2016. The good news is that there are several good women available should Hillary step aside.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:52:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the Dems nomimate a woman other than Hillary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeremimi, Andrew C White

        the GOP will win.  Period.  They'd haev to nominate the devil (who isn't running) or Osama Bin Laden (who's dead) to lose.  Or maybe Rick Santorum.

        Hillary is the only woman in America capable of winning the White House in 2016, just as Barrack Obama is the only black man capable of winning.  Our society hasn't changed that much.  They are just unique individuals, with special history, life stories, and personal appeal.

    •  what changed (0+ / 0-)

      is that obama has made the democratic party safe for economic and foreign policy centrism.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:59:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ummm -- those numbers will crash (5+ / 0-)

    as soon as the right wing gears up to attack HRC. Some of us haven't forgotten the 1990s just yet . . .

  •  Same shit, different day (10+ / 0-)

    I'm done with the moderate / centrist / turd way types in the Democratic Party. Especially if they're running for President.

    Are you guys ready for some more triangulation?

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:54:09 AM PST

  •  You are probably right (17+ / 0-)

    But, please Lord, no more Clintons, Bushes, or Kennedys or Rockefellers.  Could we have some people who have some kind of life other than embodying the nascent Politcal aristocracy?  

    "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man.'" J. R. Robertson.

    by NearlyNormal on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:54:55 AM PST

    •  HRC isn't exactly a dynastic pick (5+ / 0-)

      She worked for WJC's election just as hard as he did.  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:59:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair, "Clinton Dynasty" is a GOP meme... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, wishingwell obfuscate the very real dynasties on the GOP, specifically Bush. Jeb is on the short list for 2016, and as soon as he is elected and re-elected to something...anything, "Press" Bush will get the fast track treatment. Cousins Jenna and Barb not so much.

        HRC would bring a lot of advantages to a 2016 race, but I believe that a good 40% or more of likely Democratic Primary participants will support her only if she avoids the "It's Inevitable" strategy of the early part of the '08 cycle, and makes the positive case for '16. That will be a lot easier said than done: there will be some in her camp who will continue to advocate "clearing the field" and avoid "taking a stand" on some issues near and dear to Progressives in order to maximize appeal to the "Great Middle" during the General. See Penn, Mark or whoever the equivalents are in the 2016 team.

        When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Egalitare on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:56:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  that was my primary reason for opposing her in 08 (8+ / 0-)

      we dont just have 2 parties, we have 2 families.  or thereabouts.

      On DailyKos nothing is significant unless Obama doesn't do it.

      by glutz78 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:02:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who? Who? Who? (4+ / 0-)

      Nobody in this thread has a goddamned decent thing to say about Hillary, but who else is there? Joe Biden? John Kerry? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi?

      And is there any difference between the rightwing attacks on Obama and the ones some fear will come to Hillary in 2016? Let them attack. They're toothless at this point.

      If I didn't know any better, I'd say a helluva lot of the so-called progressives on this board just aren't READY for a woman President. Just a reminder of what killed her chances last time--misogyny, baby, and Obama playing a fake race card.

      Otherwise she'd be just starting HER second term.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:05:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Come on you can do better than that (8+ / 0-)

        This was a truly stupid statement made with no evidence, no justification and no goddamned sense.  Misongynists is so tame, why don't you get creative and make up some new attacks.  

        "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man.'" J. R. Robertson.

        by NearlyNormal on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:09:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can't be serious (0+ / 0-)

          That exact speculation made it to the front page of this very blog during the primaries in 2008. I agreed with it.

          Hillary has never faced attacks based on misogyny? Never? Truly stupid? Where were you in 2008--Siberia?

          "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

          by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:26:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course I'm serious (0+ / 0-)

            you essentially called me a misogynist, you don't know a thing about me, there was nothing misogynistic about my post and you trot the same old canard out there.  Yeah, truly stupid.

            "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man.'" J. R. Robertson.

            by NearlyNormal on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:41:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  This woman (11+ / 0-)

        is not interested in electing Margaret Thatcher.

        I want a President who will take care of needs at home and stop squandering resources abroad and stop cozying up to the rich and famous.  Let's find out if Hillary can still find Des Moines on her map.  

      •  Isn't it a little early for that? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        420 forever, Catte Nappe

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:17:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Pelosi too old. Kerry had his chance. (6+ / 0-)

        Reid too old.
        Biden? He deserves a chance to run at the top of the ticket if he can earn it.

        Running for President requires laying the groundwork years in advance. If some "true" progressive wants the job they need to step up in the next year or two.

        Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

        by blue aardvark on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:21:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who else? (4+ / 0-)

        Amy Klobuchar, Martin O'Malley, and Brian Schweitzer all seem ready.

        I'm not going to religitate 2007-08.  Clinton ran a flawed campaign.  She lost.

      •  I do (12+ / 0-)

        I have lots of nice things to say about Hillary.   There's just no point in saying it here and now.   If she's taking a four year break before she gears up for a 2016 run, there will be plenty of time then to debate her qualifications when she announces her intentions in a few years.  If she's gearing down and planning her retirement, there's really no need to debate her qualifications, because she won't be running, anyway.   It seemed to make sense, though, that she was previously criticized for a lack of experience, and now she has plenty of experience under her belt.   I can't help but wonder.   But, there's no point in rushing it.  Time will tell.

        This diary isn't about her qualification to run.  It's about her current favorability ratings.   I find it really interesting that she beats Rick Perry in favoribility.   Personally, I think a slime toad should be able to beat Rick Perry, but unfortunately and unfathomably, there are Texans here who support the wacko who says Texas should secede from the Union.

        If she runs, I'll support her all the way.  I would love to see Hilary become our first woman president.   It sure would wash the taste out of my mouth of having Sarah Palin, the woman who would set women back to the Dark Ages, trying to run as Vice President.

        •  Her favorability ratings would drop if she ran (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, rhauenstein, anastasia p

          Right now she is not a target of daily RW hate & propaganda ... but if she became the candidate, she would be (again), and that would affect her polls.

          They are not going after her right now.

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:51:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But would anything the right said (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DFWmom, mightymouse, Lysis

            stick at this point?

            I mean she's been in the public eye for the last 22 years and a favorite target of the Vast Right Wing Noise Machine for most of that time.

            People know who she is and have already formed an opinion about her.

            I don't see her favorability rating changing much even after the Right fires up the mighty Wurlitzer.

      •  So, people who aren't keen on Hillary Clinton (4+ / 0-)

        probably just aren't ready for a woman as President vs just not being sure about her as President?? "fake race card?" Um, ok!

        And to think, above you were pooh-poohing the thought of "Hillary Haters/Obamabots" jumping out of the woodwork and yet here you are holding open the gates.

      •  Say What?! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Hillary is my role model...has been since I was a little girl.

        I think we should let her retire and keep our hearts and minds open to new faces. Just because they haven't appeared yet doesn't mean that they will never be seen.

        We all have our own life to pursue, our own kind of dream to be weaving, and we all have the power to make wishes come true, as long as we keep believing. Louisa May Alcott

        by YoungArizonaLiberal on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:27:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I rec'd this but I have to say (0+ / 0-)

        I agreed with you up until the very last part where you say Obama was playing a fake race card. It's just that "Progressive" men as a whole feel extremely proud of themselves when they vote for a societally disadvantaged man and don't realize or notice that just over half of the population is consistently treated as being secondhand citizens in the most terrifying ways. Contrary to common (liberal) belief, misogynist men exist among the Republicans and the Democrats. The Repubs are more vocal and crazy about it, and Democrats commonly practice a more insidious version or put their blinders on and will never even think about lifting a finger to change the status quo - when it comes to women, that is.

        But you're right. It was exceedingly clear that grownup progressives, let alone the general population, was far from ready to accept the very concept of a female President. They did however love supporting someone (who ran as a) progressive and who looks black. Then they talked about it like voting for a Bi-racial President would mean they had helped demolish the final frontier in order to create a fully equal society or something. And that talk and ego-stroking was, sadly, not just a side-effect, but for many white progressives it was part of the core of why they voted for him. This is an attitude I wouldn't blame on the President at all - I really don't recall him using race other than telling people that he identifies himself as a black person and being outspoken about the rights of Black people. Anyhow, the world wasn't ready, never has been, but I'm still holding out hope for a new sort of age of Enlightenment in the near future that will cause us to be able to put the running of this country in the hands of a more proportionally representative batch of US citizens and to not summarily exclude any woman, no matter how qualified, from getting any sort of job normally given to a mediocre-to-good guy because she's got those icky ladyparts instead of a dick. It's so bad right now in our supposedly liberated age that having just as much subpar women as subpar men in say, Congress, would get me excited as hell (another thing they don't understand).

        Back before women could vote or run for any sort of political office, there used to be one cause they were allowed to take up, politically: Ending slavery. And they did fight for it really hard. Then women worked for civil rights en masse in the sixties and they barely got a nod from those privileged male "Progressives" who were yelling about equality in the streets. We have always done our part and more, but we have never been acknowledged accordingly nor been helped by the male liberals on a scale that could be called bigger than microscopic. Even the sexual revolution partly started with those very same men talking about feeling constricted because of the 50's and wanting to be able to bang several women at the same time (not that they'd respect them more individually, though) and get high. It might have been just a small part in the beginning, but it sure helped push some of the concepts surrounding sexual freedom and anti-puritanism into the mainstream because it was privileged dudes talkin'.

        Somehow non-lily-whites (and now - finally - the LGBT community) are the only disadvantaged people most male liberals can think of as being treated unfairly, subconscious choices or not. It's called male privilege, and eh, next time you're going to act like you won the final battle against the Evils of society and inequality, male progressives? I'm expecting you to present me with a black/hispanic atheist woman who is openly bi and nothing less.

    •  That's Kind of Hilarious That (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, cpresley, JamieG from Md

      You lump "The Clintons" in with the Bushes, Rockefellers, and Kennedys....

      That's like saying ANYBODY related to ANY politician is in a "Political Dynasty."

      My Grandfather was the Township Supervisor of Port Sheldon Township in Southwest Michigan... I'm part of the Great Bakker Political Dynasty lol....

      Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

      by TooFolkGR on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:58:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not sure she'll want it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, SilentBrook

    I was not so concerned previously about statements that she was too old, except that she looked so very frail and worn after the whole concussion thing.  I am thinking that SHE is thinking that it's time for a rest.  

    With what would effectively be Obama's third term, we might make some real headway on SCOTUS appointments, the demise of DOMA, and more.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:55:52 AM PST

  •  If Hillary runs (24+ / 0-)

    I think we could see a lot of victories down ticket.  

    It is not for me to say she must run, but if her health is good and she is rested, it is hers.  

    About triangulation.  There is all kinds of indicators at the national level the party is moving to the left.  

    If Hillary runs, there will be very few Blue Dogs to worry about and in Congress the Democratic Majorities should be big enough not to worry about them.  

    [Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

    by MoDem on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:57:45 AM PST

    •  What? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, Eric Blair, Laconic Lib
      If Hillary runs, there will be very few Blue Dogs to worry about and in Congress the Democratic Majorities should be big enough not to worry about them.
      You say this like there's any reason to believe that Hillary would want to be anywhere to the left of where we are today. If she were president, she'd be a strong president, and we'd get what she wants. Which is, it appears, more or less the same as what Obama wants.

      That's not what I want.

    •  Not to mention that (7+ / 0-)

      BC has made noise that he now realizes some of his policies were very damaging--for example, the banks and NAFTA.

      Since more people seem to be coming around to certain prominent economists' point of view regarding austerity, the finance industry, etc [with the exception of BO, of course], HRC might just do more to help regular people.  

      There are some predicitons that it will take the US, what, 10-15 years to recover economically.  While BO is fine with such a glacial pace [maybe that's no longer a good comparison with global warming], I don't see HRC being so indifferent.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:16:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good points (0+ / 0-)

        The Clintons are capable of making mistakes and adapting and learning from them.

        We do not know what they will do. We do not know what history will bring us in 2016. She's the best choice based on past performance and policies and temperament.

        If some here don't like her because of her policies, please tell me who else could win who has BETTER policies. Just like vote is for the best candidate in the primaries anyway. If Al Franken decides to run (ha!), he'll get my vote. In the PRIMARY.

        "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

        by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:31:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  We need to remember (0+ / 0-)

        that Bill Clinton came into office shy of 13 months of the collapse of the Sovet Union, the end of the biggest left-wing dream since the concept of leftism came into existence. For most of the century, 'left of the left' on a global scale meant you were a communist.

        Although American leftists like to think that we shed that skin in the 1940's, it was a shock. The pillar of anti-neoliberalism had just collapsed.

        Things look very different today.

        "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

        by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:13:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Even if her health is not good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We've had many presidents whose health was not good.   Her judgment in choosing people to assist her would just be that more critical, and I have confidence in her ability to do that.

    •  the concern is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that she'd rather be in a coalition with the blue dogs than the progressives, leaving a lot of the party outside looking in.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:50:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wouldn't it be great to know her position on (10+ / 0-)

    important issues before even considering her name?

    - SS / Medicare?

    - Defense spending?

    - Drone program?

    - War on Drugs?

    - Public option / single payer?

    - Israel?

    - Austerity

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:00:23 PM PST

  •  awesome. just like 2008 was... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, Willinois, Liberal Thinking

    ...going to be.

    On DailyKos nothing is significant unless Obama doesn't do it.

    by glutz78 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:01:26 PM PST

  •  It's early days yet. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, blue aardvark, randomfacts

    In early days I try not to settle too much for the middle.  If it comes down to it, I'll hop aboard.  It would be no small thing to have a very competent and fierce woman at the helm.  But, like I says, if we're only dreaming now, can't I dream of someone better?

  •  never happen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    artmartin, FistJab

    Polls 4 year out tend to be kinder in red states than election day. After the right wing media spends two years attacking the Clintons Texas won't be kind.
    I do think she could be competitive in Kentucky and WV though. They just hate Obama with a passion and the next nominee will do better as long as he/she is white.

    •  The right will attack Hillary (6+ / 0-)

      Rain will fall. The sun will rise. It will be colder in the winter than in the summer. Birds will fly. Cows will moo.

      And nobody's vote will be swayed. Especially when we find out what Teabagger Favorite the GOP nominates.

      THAT is the one thing that will prevent the GOP from winning the Presidency from now...until...I have no prediction, but you may have noticed Karl Rove's civil war trying to extricate themselves from the briar patch of Teabaggery?

      Never happen.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:17:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Republican women would vote for Hillary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Just ask Mourdock and Akin about that particular voting block.

        "Maybe we should march on the campus of the electoral college and occupy it until they change their vote"--some wingnut, Worldnetdaily

        by chicago minx on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:16:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It depends (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If they find another Mitt Romney, probably not. Remember all the Democratic women who were going to vote for Sarah Palin. I don't think Hillary is quite as attractive as some of her acolytes thing. I am squarely in her demo — educated, middle-aged white woman — and I never supported her. I always preferred other candidates in the 2008 race.

          Jon Husted is a dick.

          by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:28:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The thing is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      She doesn't need to WIN Texas she just has to scare the GOP nominee enough that they will spend money there.

  •  Only way for Repubs to win long term (7+ / 0-)

    is by raising the voting age for blacks, Latinos, gays and college-educated people to 30, and lower it for everyone else to 10 (8 in the deep south).

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:06:43 PM PST

  •  I can't get excited about this (8+ / 0-)

    at least not yet. Hillary was an awesome Secretary of State, a fearsome pol, and she's very articulate. But she's also ground zero as a springboard for more reich-wing hate. There's far too much of that now.

    And for what it's worth, I've really had it up to here with centrist Democrats, and that's what I see her as at this time.

    I can be persuaded, though. It's early. We'll see.  

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:06:53 PM PST

  •  As a Kentuckian, trust me ... (22+ / 0-)

    She would win Kentucky. By at least 5 points. Probably 10. You woudl be shocked at how popular she is among Republican women here.

  •  Can you believe that the site Hillaryis44 is still (8+ / 0-)

    up and that those crazy fucks are still waaaaay crazy. Like they are all about Hillary and hate Obama. They somehow get led around  thinking Rand Paul and Sarah Palin and Hillary are all  somehow in the same boat together.  They apparently idolize her without actually listening to a single thing she says. Hello? Is this thing on.

  •  I do not doubt that, should she decide (7+ / 0-)

    to run, Hillary will be the odds on favorite, not only for the Democratic nomination, but also for the general election.  The question is:  will she run?  Right now, I don't think she wants to.  Will she want it in 6 months or a year?  Could be, especially if Bill is pushing her to run (which I do not doubt he will be doing).  But, it is REALLY early for this, don't you think?

  •  In the absence of someone more progressive (7+ / 0-)

    who can actually win, my support goes to Hillary.

    Her tenure as Sec of State has been commendable and I can see what she'd be like as President.  If she's a centrist, I'd still take her over a Republican... and I'd much rather a centrist won than put up a strong progressive and lose.

    Now if someone better were to step up to the plate and demonstrate her/his ability to win, I'm more than willing to change my mind.

    Of course, this is probably all moot anyways, since it doesn't look like she has any desire to run...

  •  She'd crush them - reverse Bradley effect (13+ / 0-)

    I have purely anecdotal evidence from my friends near the right wing fringe that Hillary's gender would make it a blowout. Based on my entirely scientific sample of two Republican women on the eastern seaboard there are multitudes of middle aged and elderly Republican women that would talk all fringe right wing and tough to pollsters and in public but once they were in the voting booth they'd vote against every male that ever pissed them off, told them something was 'a man's job', dumped them, cheated on them, etc ... "This is for both my ex-husbands" etc ... Besides their general racism and class warfare the right wing male can be a sexist prick in personal relationships (hey so can us left of center males but I think my broad point holds)

    I'm not a Clinton fan - her and Bill and the current POTUS are way too corporate for my New Dealer tastes, but after the egregious Republican shenanigans of the 90s - Vince Foster to Monica etc - Hillary shattering the glass ceiling with a blowout would be very very sweet to this lesser evilist. And if we've got better Dems running down ticket ...

    But first, 2014.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:17:06 PM PST

  •  my reservation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    She ran a horrible 2008 primary campaign; she managed to turn name recognition, a poll advantage and an initial money advantage into a disaster.

    What if her 2016 general election campaign is this bad?  

    I think that she'd do a good job as president; I am worried about her getting elected to begin with.

    "Obama won. Get over it."

    by onanyes on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:19:34 PM PST

  •  Frankly, winning is most important in 2016. (11+ / 0-)

    And I think Hillary is the only Dem candidate who could win.  The 45th President will replace two conservative wing SCOTUS Justices.  A President Clinton would nominate two liberal leaning Justices - Liberals could have a 6-3 lean on the SCOTUS bench for 20 years.  

    2016 will be the year America elects a woman as President (or VP).

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

    by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:19:42 PM PST

    •  That is an incredible statement to make (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      almost four years before the next election with absolutely no clue if the Republicans will be able to walk back from The Crazy. "The only Dem candidate who can win"? Bullshit. We have zero idea what the landscape will look like. If the GOP stays crazy and/or divided, we will have dozens of viable candidates. If they somehow magically come together, they can easily trounce Hillary with the right campaign. Not every Dems is all agog about her, you know.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:33:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Hillary doesn't run (0+ / 0-)

      Biden is my next best hope.

      As much as I would like to see some new blood I don't want to risk president "frothy mix" in 2016.

      Not to mention that I feel we need an FDR, to get an agenda through dysfunctional Washington you need someone who understands how power works there.

  •  Despite what some here have said (4+ / 0-)

    there was not and is not a dime's worth of difference between President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.  

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:20:19 PM PST

  •  Don't we have enough to work on RIGHT NOW?? (7+ / 0-)

    We JUST WORKED FOR A YEAR TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT, can we concentrate on the myriad thousand critically important policy positions that need to get done, before speculation about 2016 begins? I know it's a really pretty shiny object, but let's agree to wait until AT LEAST 2014 before theorizing about who may or may not run for President??

    New Arizona State Motto; "Yeah, but it's a dry hate!"

    by Fordmandalay on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:26:04 PM PST

  •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

    I hope you won't lose your nerve again this time in favor of another community organizer would couldn't get anything done.  I hope you learned your lesson.

  •  Clinton & Biden will both be too old (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Willinois, mir123nj

    People, Reagan had dementia while he was president! We don't want to take a chance on that again. Clinton would be 69 and Biden 74.

    And, no, not everyone in their seventies gets dementia. But there is certainly a greater chance of it happening to someone of that age than someone in their 40s, 50s or 60s.

    I don't think it's as important for Congress, because older people do have a lot to offer and they are only one of many in Congress. But when you are talking about the top spot, I think we have to bring the age limit down. Starting what will hopefully be an 8 year reign at 69 is just too damn risky.

    I can tell you from watching my mother, that though it can start slowly, it can progress frighteningly fast. The difference that took place within less than one year was breathtaking.

    Plus, yeah, I don't think Clinton's progressive enough either. I don't think Obama is progressive enough. Can't we find a real progressive to run?

  •  She could have won in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It was her own damn fault, for skipping the caucus states, especially the early ones.  Had she given that a significant amount of attention, Obama would never have built up the early lead that assured him the nomination.

    One can assume she won't be repeating that mistake next time around.  (If she decides to run, that is.)

    "Taxes are for the little people" - Leona Helmsley (before being sent to jail for tax evasion)

    by Land of Enchantment on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:28:06 PM PST

  •  My primary vote goes to whoever picks (10+ / 0-)

    Joe Stiglitz as an economic adviser.

    I supported Obama in 2008 because I didn't want the Rubinites back in charge of the economy. I knew Hillary would bring back Bill's people. With Obama I thought we had a chance of something else.

    Of course, Obama brought in all the Rubinites anyway. 2016 is about electing someone who will tell the Rubinites to take a long walk off a short pier.

    But on the other hand, who am I kidding? As long as we're going to get neoliberal bullshit anyway, might as well make history and elect a woman.

    I guess.

    •  Well, you know it won't be Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Blair

      by Paleo on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:38:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure Stiglitz (0+ / 0-)

      is as anti-establishment as you think. Granted, I haven't been keeping in touch with his latest moves, but his original transition from World Bank chief economist to op-ed writer leaves me pretty suspicious. I think that a lot of establishment people will be balls-out populist when they're writing for public consumption but if you actually give them responsibility they'll behave just like a neoliberal in the end.

      "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

      by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:53:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stiglitz was an economic advisor to Bill Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Stiglitz was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1993-95, during the Clinton administration, and served as CEA chairman from 1995-97." Link

      I've got some problems with the Clinton's but let's get real.

      "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

      by Johnnythebandit on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:49:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We Should Concentrate on Congress (0+ / 0-)

      Frankly, who gets elected President doesn't seem to make any difference at all. The Republicans showed us how to run the government:

      (1) Get a bare majority in the House with a radical leadership.
      (2) Get 41 ideologues in the Senate.


      We shouldn't waste any more time or money on the presidential campaign. If we do a good job with Congress, we'll get a mediocre Democrat for President (may as well be Hillary), but we'll be further ahead on our agenda.

      I didn't spend a dime or a second on the Obama campaign. I put all my time and money into campaigns for Congress and state campaigns. All my progressive candidates won. I'm entirely happy with that result.

      How can we replace weak Republicans with Democrats and weak Democrats with progressive ones? I think that's the whole game right there.

  •  I'll make a prediction here and now... (4+ / 0-)

    Joe Biden is going to be our nominee.

    No sitting VP who has wanted to run for POTUS has been denied the Democratic Party nomination since Alben Barkley in 1953.

    And age be damned, Joe Biden wants it, I think.

    Cake or DEATH? Oh, I'll have cake, please.

    by wmtriallawyer on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:32:06 PM PST

  •  It is Hillary's if she wants it (12+ / 0-)

    Democrats would be fools not to nominate her and line up behind her if she is interested.

    I know a lot of folks have qualms and doubts left over from the Clinton days and her time as Senator... I do as well... but from a purely political point of view I think the value of her wiping out the Republicans for another 8 years after Obama would be incredibly beneficial to us all. I also think it is time for a woman to be President and she is clearly the leading woman in the nation. I hope she runs. She has my full support.

    If she doesn't run, as much as I love Joe Biden, I think Democrats would be wise to nominate one of the other fully qualified and capable women that will run in her place. I think it would be a serious mistake to run a white male and I think a fair part of those numbers we see in Texas and Kentucky (and elsewhere) are the women's vote.

    It is time.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:39:32 PM PST

  •  It would be ain interesting change. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, wu ming

    Looking at the past generation of 2, the GOP tends strongly to nominate the one next in line.  The establishment insider as a candidate.  Even Reagan was just another insider on the track, and every candidate since him has been someone established during his candidacy.  Prior GOP candidates followed the Ike precedent.

    Democrats, on the other hand, tend strongly to only elect outsiders.  Clinton was an outsider.  Carter was an outsider.  Obama was an outsider.  And the insiders who got nominated got trounced.

    I admit to a lot of curiosity as to whether this will continue.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:42:48 PM PST

  •  If Clinton is the best the Democratic Party can (5+ / 6-)

    come up with, I'm voting third party in 2016.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:43:16 PM PST

  •  I Liked Her As a Candidate in 2008 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milkbone, gooderservice

    But I've moved considerably to the left since then. I would really need to see where she is on key issues, especially 1) jobs and 2) the social safety net. If she fails to put forward an agenda that is strong enough on those issues, I'll pass.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 12:50:26 PM PST

  •  Tw've been seeing those PPP polls on my (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, JamieG from Md

    Twitter feed for months. I was wondering when Kos would finally say something about them. And yes im all for Hillary in 2016. :)

  •  Reminds me of The Onion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "We could do worse.  You know, like we always have."

    If she runs, her coat tails will wipe out folks like Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, and maybe even Rand Paul and Rob Portman.

  •  Yes, yes, yes... run Hillary!!! (6+ / 0-)

    Winning Texas and Kentucky means Tennessee might be in play too.  My Republican neighbor, she is in her 70's and Republican all the way, told me she wanted Hillary to win and I could put her yard sign up if she is the nominee.  Well, I can't wait for 2016!!  

    We will have lots of southern Republican women in our tent with us.  This will be good to have peaceful card games, book clubs and lunches with them again.

    Oh my I love this.  Best news since November 2012.  

  •  Nothing has changed since 2008 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    randomfacts, Liberal Thinking

    I want someone more progressive than Hillary. I want John Edwards! Oh wait, things have changed since 2008.

  •  To my progressive friends... (9+ / 0-)

    Times change, and people change.

    If you look at my previous diaries, you will notice I was adamantly against Hillary Clinton in 08, but now I'm almost certain she will be more progressive than Obama, and I will support her if she decides to run.

    From books and other accounts, we already know Hillary was more liberal than Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Certainly, the right-wing demonizing machine made us certain of it, albeit in a highly misogynistic and offensive way.

    MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN OBAMA? The DLC or third-way triangulation strategy was probably the only way a Democrat could get elected as President in the 1990s after what happened to Dukakis, and then Clinton only won in 1992 in a three-way race. It was a necessity of the time. The progressive movement was not harmed by the Clinton years (esp. the Supreme Court) given the fact that we have a two-term Obama now, and a Supreme Court that upheld ACA.

    But times have changed. The country is far more liberal than 1992, both demographically and culturally. Clinton doesn't need to go to the DLC or right to win like her husband did -- Obama proved it. Moreover, to state the obvious, Hillary is white -- there's a reason she's doing much better than Obama in Texas and Kentucky. And if Obama can win while being hampered by racists because of his race, Clinton will win in a landside. The gender issue is a much lower lift than race, as these polls show.

    In short, Hillary will have a massive amount of political capital after her win. Unlike Obama's presidencies, Republicans' obstructionism will be a far more dicey proposition. This means, Hillary will be able to push through policies that Obama couldn't -- cap and trade (or carbon tax), a strong public option, and even possibly constitutional amendments like the ERA, national popular vote, and repeal of Citizens United (REMEMBER, Citizens United was about a "mockumentry" against Hillary in 08).

    It is clear, after these years of Republican obstructionism, what we need is not only a president who wins, but wins big.  

    •  This is the most convincing argument (0+ / 0-)

      I've heard, though I am still very reluctant to support another member of the same family as a previous president. It's not healthy for our democracy to have ruling families, and she's already spent time at SOS.

      In any case, we'll have to see who runs and let the process take its course. If it appears that Clinton has the ability to crush the competition when we get closer to the election, that may prove very persuasive.  I think it is important to crush the opposition at this point; the point needs to be driven home about the illegitimacy of their cause.

      I do agree she is more progressive than Bill Clinton in the 1990's; I think Bill Clinton today is probably more progressive, too. He's certainly been a powerful advocate.

      •  To me a full fledged (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamieG from Md

        political family has two members who are blood relations both serving in office, and spans multiple generations. The Clintons haven't crossed that threshold and wouldn't be facing it unless Chelsea decided to run for office. To me the Clintons aren't so much a ruling family as a husband-wife couple who both happen to be high-powered politicians. King of like James Carville and Mary Matalin.

        "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

        by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:36:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  i think you overstate the dynasty thing.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        particularly when you consider she was US Senator and SOS on her own. If Chelsea runs later on, then dynasty yes.

        The Bush's are the dynastic mediocrities

        •  well, conveniently the Clintons (0+ / 0-)

          didn't have enough kids to ensure a real dynasty, but Chelsea is young, is working in media, and frankly, if she doesn't run for office before the age of 40 I'll be shocked.

          It's not a deal breaker for me, but I am interested in seeing who else is out there (who can also destroy the GOP).

        •  Right, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cpresley, JamieG from Md

          part of what makes dynasties problems is because certain people are expected to run for office and groomed for doing so, even if they themselves haven't shown much ability or talent. That leads to mediocre people with outsized political privileges.

          However, wives traditionally aren't expected to run for office, even in dynastic families. The Kennedys, Bushes, Rockefellers, were all dynasties of men.

          Hence, Clinton wasn't some mediocre mind who was thrust into politics by expectation, she was a brilliant and ambitious individual who as passionate about politics to begin with and decided to step out into politics herself. It entirely required her own initiative to break the mold, not simply to live up to it. Her position in politics wasn't one she was born into, it's one that she made for herself. To me the whole dynamic is fundamentally different than traditional dynastic politics.

          "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

          by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:52:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is fantasy thinking. (0+ / 0-)

      Based on what evidence has she suddenly become progressive after a lifetime of being a cautious, center-right politician?

      Is it her time as Secretary of State? Her mishandling of the Keystone XL pipeline was nearly the administration's top scandal due to the cozy relationship between her staff and Koch Brothers lobbyists.

      If I wanted a President who had served on the board of Walmart and is cozy with the Koch Brothers I would vote Republican.

    •  Dude. (0+ / 0-)

      The gender issue is a much lower lift than race, as these polls show.

      You're kidding, right? Once push comes to shove and Dems finally start realizing they'd have a female President, let alone the general public and the Right? The most likely subconscious (and sometimes painfully conscious) vote consensus will be "I'd rather go for a man, any man - white, Hispanic, whatever... just not a woman".

      The world wasn't ready in 2008 and it has never been - our society is built upon deeply ingrained misogynist concepts that are both cultural and systemic. The subjugation of women has been a huge part of the foundation of most societies on this planet and you think that some random polls of enthusiastic speculation prove that it could be overcome? I wish I was as optimistic as you, really.

      •  No way racism is a much bigger issue (0+ / 0-)

        About half of the countries in the world have elected female presidents. How many countries can you name that have ever elected a racial minority as president?

        A woman running for president would certainly face discrimination and bullshit. Most of it would be about how she is too weak to be a leader. But think about what Obama has faced. There is a huge chunk of this country questioning his citizenship, claiming he's some evil foreign communist.

        Women may be viewed as inferior by some, but they are familiar. Black people are seen as both inferior and the foreign. Countless political campaigns have used black people to scare up votes. Remember the Willie Horton ads? Or this classic Jesse Helms ad from 1990

        Notice the narrator was criticizing "racial quotas" and "minorities" not gender quotas or women.

        Let's remember that Hillary Clinton lost a squeaker primary because of her support for the Iraq war. Had she won the primary she would've easily beaten John McCain. And don't forget, McCain also made a woman his VP. If it's true that the general public would "rather go for any man" why would McCain nominate Palin?

        Women still face prejudice, but it can't be compared to that faced by black people.

        "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

        by Johnnythebandit on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:50:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We couldn't disagree more then. (0+ / 0-)

          Misogyny is the oldest form of systematic tool of oppression in history. Yes, racism has always existed between (sometimes even neighboring) tribes, clans and later citystates. It started to exist within citystates and the countries absorbed by Empires that pushed many people of various colors and backgrounds together. There are a multitude of reasons for the racism that occurred then and does now. But throughout thousands and thousands of years in human history of struggle and hatred, of racism and xenophobia, you could always count on ONE thing.

          All across the world, at whatever time in history, no woman has ever enjoyed the most basic of rights/has been able to take opportunities that her male counterparts take for granted. It's incredibly deep-rooted and what we see now are the remnants of the Neanderthal behavior of people thousands and thousands of years in the past - who were oppressed or not oppressed - who were gladly doing anything to hold more power over women, actively maintaining the constant oppression of women or at least aiding to it by way of silence and male privilege-induced blindness. Varying groups or persons have been and are oppressed by others because of racism, but women have always been oppressed anytime and anywhere they were present and it's still like that right now even though the West has made some tiny semblance of progress.

          Now, or a hundred years ago, pluck five women out of this world and see them in relationship to a random man from her country - you'll see the full spectrum of misogyny, including the blatant disdain, the systemic oppression, the hatred and the taking away of many rights men do enjoy (or having never granted any rights at all), in various states of extremity. Even in this country we call "free", society is rigged against women 24/7 just like what black people experience.

          The world (including the US) works against females and goes to appalling lengths still, having inherited the foundations of "society". Racism's origins, going back in time, are very different in concept, method and rationalization. Society works against non-white persons and against women - if not more against the latter when we're talking on a much more complete and different scale and if you insist on comparing apples and oranges.  Anyone who is reasonably intelligent, who has studied human history, who is not blinded by their privilege and the gender-based brainwashing  they've underwent from an early age on, who has traveled a lot/read a lot, who has good observational skills and is inquisitive and actually gives a damn can't miss those simple facts.

          I don't place one over the other. They're different, both in origin and execution, and as such can't be "ranked". Which is why I found that sentence I quoted in my previous comment so incredibly offensive. Okay, I'm done.

    •  She'd Crush Republican Opposition (0+ / 0-)

      While we wouldn't get liberal policy, we'd definitely not get Republican policy. Unlike Obama, Hillary would crush them the first time they stuck their nose out from under the covers.

      It was totally unnecessary for anyone to triangulate in the 1990s to get elected. That was just expedient. The U.S. was just as liberal then as it is now. It's only the talkers who say it isn't liberal. On every policy issue the American voters favor the liberal alternative over the conservative one, usually by 60 or 70 percent. What we needed was a great orator to defend that liberalism and give it voice.

      We didn't get that and it set us back.

      Our presidential candidate must be a staunch liberal and explain the needs and desires of the base. He or she has to provide cover for the thousands of other Democratic candidates running in the same election. If that candidate is weak, it weakens the whole ticket, and eventually you get someone like Mitch McConnell running the Senate or Newt Gingrich running the house.

      Right now, President Obama should be hard to the left of everyone else in Congress. He should be saying things like, I will agree to no cuts in social programs whatsoever, and if they dare send me any legislation with that in it, I'll veto it so fast their signature won't even be dry on it before they get it back.

      It's his job (or her job) as President to create the space for Democratic politicians. The reason we've had such lousy legislation for thirty years is because we haven't had a loudmouth (Joe Biden frankly comes to mind) in the office for way too long.

      If Hillary were a liberal she'd be a fine candidate and a better President. If horses had wings I'd fly one to the moon.

  •  Well if Dick Cheney says it, (0+ / 0-)

    who gives a fuck?

  •  She has been out of the spotlight. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99, askew

    Hillary had a little coverage as SOS, but she has been out of mind for most of the public. Numbers for any public figure go up in that situation. The problem for Hillary is that her numbers always go back down when she's back in the spotlight. The party needs more than her base of old white people to win.

    Obama is pulling the country left from where it was. 2016 is a year to get more progressive, not go backward.

  •  Please No! (4+ / 0-)

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:17:45 PM PST

  •  Awesome potential... (0+ / 0-)

    Fear is the Mind Killer...

    by boophus on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:21:51 PM PST

  •  I'd have a hard time voting for her (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, a2nite, sfbob, Liberal Thinking

    I don't think I voted for her husband. I didn't support her in the Primaries. I feel she is really neoliberal, too neoliberal, and also too hawkish. She's a Democrat I would vote for as an outvote only; I'd have a really hard time advocating for her beyond that. She has done well under Obama's guidance, but otherwise, I don't like her particular brand of politics.

    I'd still give some Republican her outvote, but I would feel intensely conflicted about it.

    Just my perspective.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:22:39 PM PST

  •  I never liked the Clintons in the 90's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And I think their behavior in the 2008 primary was absolutely appalling but I've started to come around on the idea of a Hillary run. Between Bill becoming the "Secretary of Explaining stuff" to Hillary's fierce testimony on Bengazi I starting to think that they may deserve a second chance after all.

    The fact that she will crush whoever the Thugs ran in the general election is VERY appealing too. I would laugh hard to hear the Thugs long for the days of the Obama Administration and complain that she was only elected as Obama's third term because he was so popular. Can you imagine the Repugs building up Obama's image to trash her's? That idea makes me SO happy.

    The question is, can we get a more liberal candidate than her who would do as well as her in the general election? I think Brian Schweitzer might but I think he's the only one. Everybody else has a good shot at winning, but those are the only two I think would be general election locks. We'll see what happens.

    It's fun to speculate!

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:24:42 PM PST

    •  Schweitzer isn't more liberal than Hillary. (0+ / 0-)

      Not overall - he is, for instance, much more the captive of the oilcos than she ever was.

      On some issues he's better than her, but his subservience to the fossil fuel companies was a big disappointment to me.

      "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

      by Australian2 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:19:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope (5+ / 0-)

    Hillary will run.  I WANT Hillary to run.  I would be more enthusiastic for her than I have been for any Democratic candidate in my lifetime.  And that despite the fact that I don't really agree with her on a lot of issues, where she's just a hell of a lot too conservative for my bones.  I want a woman POTUS, and I want a woman POTUS with personal power and authority.  I want to lock the little boys up in their playpens and have the country run for eight years by a grownup.

    But that said . . . I kinda feel for her as a person right now.  Jeez, there are lines in her face that shouldn't be there.  SecState hasn't been an easy job.  It's toughened and schooled her, and it's taken its toll.  I'm NOT saying she's worn-out, washed-up, or any of that rot.  I'm saying, ummm, hey . . . maybe we could give her a month or so off politics?  A  short vacation to rest and get some sleep, before we make power and the fate of the nation her job again?  I'm not saying I want her to fade away.  I just think we should give her a LITTLE time to herself before we start breaking the door down begging her to run.

    •  How about a year? (0+ / 0-)

      That leaves plenty of time to make a decision, and Hillary really does look like she could use a break.

      The last thing we want in 2016 is Hillary having to take time off the campaign trail because she's been in "all cylinders firing" mode for so many years. It certainly didn't do Romney any good to take the month after the RNC off...

      "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

      by Australian2 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:18:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everybody gets lines on their face (0+ / 0-)

      Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

      by JamieG from Md on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:52:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm throwing my hat in the ring right now. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    I'm going to run on a platform of affordable craft beer and free-chocolate Thursdays.

    But what about the big issues facing our nation?

    I'm glad you asked.

    I believe that, like the denoument of sitcoms featuring well-scrubbed, attractive white people, the big stuff always works itself out, usually with hilarious results and a healthy heap of poetic justice.

    I say we focus on the doable.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:27:03 PM PST

  •  Hillary would win GA n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal
  •  I will never support her in a primary. (5+ / 0-)

    Nothing she has done to date has even come close to erasing the stain of her foreign policy actions as Senator.

    Even leaving that aside, one of her key strengths as an administrator and diplomatic is a terrible weakness as a politician: She has the personality of a high school vice-principal.  If Republicans ran someone against her with even the slightest shred of personality - even the shitbird degenerate kind of another George W. Bush - it would not contrast well.  She's a weak candidate, period.  Any campaign would just have to work that much harder to get her elected.

    I don't like the way people are echo-chambering their way into believing the same lame "inevitability" bullshit that could easily have cost us 2008 if not for Barack Obama.  If we can't find anyone better than Hillary Clinton in 2016, we'll deserve whatever follows from that fact.

    Pour yourself into the future.

    by Troubadour on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:30:56 PM PST

    •  She had every advantage in '08. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, askew

      She lost because when people see more of her, they don't like her.
      I was at the Iowa caucus. In the Hillary corner there were a bunch of old white people. For Obama, there was a diverse crowd with people of all ages. We can't win a national election on the basis of her cult in the pundit corps and a bunch of old white Clinton-era nostalgists.

    •  We were in no danger (4+ / 0-)

      of losing 2008. The financial crisis guaranteed that. And as I said upthread, Hillary (barely) lost because Obama was just a phenomenally strong candidate, he transcended and redefined what it means to be a political candidate. It became an Obama movement, and not just an Obama candidacy. Hillary was a very strong candidate even in 2008, who just happened to encounter an even stronger one. But she's stronger now than she was in 2008.

      "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

      by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:46:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards finished ahead of Hillary in Iowa. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Hillary had the advantage of money, name recognition and organization. She still finished third in Iowa because 2/3rds of Democratic voters wanted an alternative. No, it was not because Obama was so amazing. She lost because when people see more of Hillary they don't like her.

        •  What about the other 49 states? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cpresley, JamieG from Md

          lily-white, rural Iowa is the only state that matters now? No.

          Even if that's the case, Hillary currently has a 50-point lead in Iowa (primary), so unless Iowa Democrats can't remember a thing, you're mistaken.

          But the primary went on to all 50 states, and it was very close. And given the high favor-abilities of Hillary even among Obama voters and even in 2008, there's no evidence that the people voting for Obama or Edwards were doing so because they disliked Hillary. Instead, the evidence strongly suggests that they liked Hillary, but they just liked one of the other candidates more.

          "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

          by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:57:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  First (0+ / 0-)

            It was not 50 states. It was over long before Hillary dropped out. Early states like Iowa got the closest look at the candidates. In later states, where the candidates had little time to campaign, it was based more on Hillary having better national name recognition. A majority of the voters who got to spend more time considering Hillary up close chose someone else. All the evidence is that she's an unappealing candidate.

            It's a little funny that you mention a poll because every national poll had Hillary winning in 08. She lost as soon as people started actual voting. Polls this early are meaningless.

            •  You can't just dismiss polls (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cpresley, JamieG from Md

              The polls were accurate. The final Des Moines Register poll nailed the Iowa caucus result almost perfectly. And secondly, there was a vigorous campaign going on until June 4, and people in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, D.C., and the other territories turned out in large numbers and voted the candidate they preferred. It was great for the Democratic party, and it as great for democracy in general. It was great to see our candidates visiting places that hadn't seen Democrats in generations. People in Iowa are privileged but they aren't the only ones whose opinions count. Even on the final day when Obama won the nomination, Hillary was winning South Dakota 55-45.

              You keep saying stuff like "all the evidence is" this or that, without actually providing any evidence. I've pointed to polls, which you dismissed. I pointed to election results, which you again dismiss. What else is there that's objective and we can turn to?

              "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

              by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:16:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  heh (0+ / 0-)

                I can dismiss polls taken three years in advance of the Iowa caucus because they have never, ever had any relevance to the eventual outcome. It was true in '05 and it's true today.

                When I wrote "all the evidence" I was actually mimicking the same language you used in your previous comment. :)
                We've both referenced polls and election results.

                There are some very plain lessons from '08. Hillary did well in national polls and late-state primaries because she was much better known nationally. But, a majority of voters in earlier states that got more exposure to the candidates chose someone other than Hillary. The obvious lesson from that is that people don't like Hillary when they see more of her.
                I realize you don't want to accept the most simple conclusion, but Hillary may win in '16 anyway by scaring potential challengers away from running.

                •  Except (0+ / 0-)

                  no one's saying they know what the outcome will be in Iowa, so saying today's polls won't predict Iowa perfectly is arguing against a strawman. Hillary is stronger at this point in the cycle than she was at this point in the 2008 cycle.

                  It has nothing to do with what conclusion I'm "willing" to accept. The problem is that you're throwing around words like "obvious lesson" and "plain lessons" that aren't obvious or plain at all, and are wrong. I've already posited an alternative hypothesis with polling support, to your hypothesis about the result in early states. Your hypothesis doesn't have any polling support, but mine does.

                  "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

                  by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:46:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sigh (0+ / 0-)

                    You have posted no numbers to support your wishful thinking that Hillary only lost because the first African-American party nominee was such an unstoppable force. If that were true then Hillary would have finished a strong second to Obama in Iowa, not third behind Edwards. Demonstrable fact.

                    And, no it was not some favor to the country that Hillary dragged out the nomination long after it was clear she lost, and long after other losers would have dropped out to unify behind the nominee. It's a shameful mark on the Democratic Party that the first black nominee had an unprecedented and completely unnecessary fight to the bitter end. It was the most embarrassing episode in the Democratic Party since the '68 convention. A sense of entitlement to the office is not an appealing attribute.

                    •  Obama ran an incredibly strong (0+ / 0-)

                      campaign in 2008. My only evidence for this is practically every political journalist and article written on the 2008 campaign, caucus turnout numbers compared to historical norms, fundraising compared to historical norms, rally size, technological sophistication, and the books written about the campaign since. Obama activated people like they hadn't been for generations; people thought he was going to be a sea change and he was frequently compared to FDR and Lincoln. To argue that he only stumbled onto the nomination because Democrats didn't like Hillary is utterly absurd, and directly contradicts polling of Hillary's favorability numbers within the Democratic party throughout the primary season, which were strongly positive.

                      If it was between Hillary and Edwards, Hillary would have crushed Edwards. Edwards wasn't even competitive in New Hampshire or South Carolina, or any other state for that matter, at all. The only reason he was strong in Iowa is because he'd performed well there in 2004 and spent the next four years building up his organization there. He needed a much bigger win in Iowa and he didn't get it.

                      Your self-imprinted shame on the 2008 campaign is solely a projection. The fact is, it was a triumphant campaign that the Republicans tried to emulate in 2012, and failed. It completely increased the visibility that minorities and women have as potential presidential candidates, completely changed the way we think about which states are competitive, completely reversed the notion that a few early states get to decide the nominee, completely revolutionized how we think about how to run campaigns, got 18 million people to vote for a woman for president (the most ever by far), got nearly 10 million Democratic votes than any previous presidential candidate in history, and elected the first African American president by a decisive margin. To call the campaign a "shame" is in itself a shame.

                      "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

                      by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 04:41:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Also, (0+ / 0-)

              it should be mentioned that the later states actually knew more about the candidates than Iowa caucus goers, because new stuff kept coming out as the primary went on.

              "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

              by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:18:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  People have seen her a lot... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cpresley, JamieG from Md

          In the last 4 years, yet she's the most popular politician and most admired woman in 64 years. I'm not saying that she wouldn't actually lose some support if there is a competitive primary, but the theory that the more people see her the less they like her doesn't seem to hold water.

      •  Strong Candidate weak staff (6+ / 0-)

        If she can inherit Obama's machine she will win in a landslide. Hopefully she won't bring back the bozo's from the 08 campaign that didn't even know about proportional allocation of delegates.

        "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02

        by ParaHammer on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:56:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can't rec this enough. (4+ / 0-)

          Hillary was, in 2008, a strong candidate. What's more, she was a strong candidate who - personally - matured during the campaign season.

          But she had an abysmal team, starting with that doofus Mark Penn. The (many) competent members of it didn't get along with each other, leaving the incompetent members to play factional politics instead of focusing on winning elections.

          Please Hillary, if you do run, DON'T HIRE MARK PENN!

          "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

          by Australian2 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:16:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I see no basis for the claim that she's stronger. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Willinois, askew

        She has proven herself an effective diplomat and administrator, and shown that she's comfortable in those roles.  But put her back in the campaign arena and there's no reason to assume what follows would be majorly different from what we saw before from her.  "Inevitability," "My time," pundit-driven campaigning, all that same old shit.  I know some people don't want to hear this, but she's a relic of an era we should all be grateful to have left behind.

        Pour yourself into the future.

        by Troubadour on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:57:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one's saying (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cpresley, JamieG from Md

          we know what a new Hillary campaign would look like. She has higher favoribilities and other polling numbers now than she's ever had, so there's that, if you're looking for objective data. I agree, that she'd still have to campaign. But you have no basis for the claim that her campaign would make the same mistakes that she made before. Let's see if she's interested and what themes she brings to the table first.

          "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

          by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:00:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think there is a basis for a negative view. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Her flaws as a candidate and a Senator in times past were not a result of strategic or tactical mistakes, but of basic attitudes toward politics.  To believe she would be meaningfully different in 2016, I'd have to believe she'd undergone a major personality change.  And as to polling data, I remind people that this is in reference to her current role - it all goes out the window when it becomes a contest of image and rhetoric.  

            Sooner or later you just have to admit that someone is not cut out for it, and stop trying to force one kind of shape into a completely different mold.  Someone who organized her entire campaign on the premise that America owed her the presidency for having been the wife of a President just fundamentally lacks for good judgment on that level.  And I'm a little disturbed at the lack of critical thinking of people who still respond to that kind of attitude.  I've seen nothing from her in her entire career - one that began, I might add, purely by political inheritance - that would make me think I'd specifically want her as President, and plenty to the contrary.  

            And for people hoping for another demographic "first," I'd just say I really don't think Hillary Clinton is worthy of being the first woman President: Without inheriting her husband's machine, she would have been some obscure bureaucrat no more prominent than Susan Rice, if that, and unlikely to rise to high elective office even in the Senate.  If the Democratic Party nominates Clinton in 2016, it would be a signal that we're returning to the days of weak leaders and empty platitudes.  That was the political school she rose to prominence in, and it's one best put behind us.

            Pour yourself into the future.

            by Troubadour on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:36:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What basis? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cpresley, CrissieP, oysterface, kaye

              What's the basis? So far all you've said is that her personality is like a "vice principal" at a high school. When I was in high school, the vice principals were basically the villains we kids loved to hate on because they were authority figures that frequently had a role in more serious disciplinary matters. In retrospect when I look back, they were probably just doing their jobs. In other words, all it says that you've labelled her like that is that you don't like her.

              Your next statement that she built her campaign on the premise that America "owed" her the presidency is projection. What's the behavior of someone who thinks something is owed to them? The person doesn't work hard for it, and instead whines and complains when they don't get it. Hillary doesn't fit that behavior. She worked really hard beginning in Iowa, visiting every county in the state by helicopter. She campaigned hard and participated and did well in all the debates. She came back again and again, and kept campaigning even when her chances were vanishingly small. Then when she lost, she endorsed Obama immediately, gave him a great speech at the DNC and served as his SoS for four years with no drama. By all accounts they have a great relationship. Everything Hillary has done from beginning to end is the opposite of what a person who thought something was owed to them would do. So I don't see where your conclusions are coming from.

              You say you're disturbed by lack of critical thinking - why don't you analyze your own statements critically? Look at the facts at hand and don't just make assertions.

              Next you criticize that her political career started with political inheritance. But it's not as if she didn't do anything on her own. Being the wife of a president doesn't automatically guarantee you a political career - hence why none of the previous 41 wives before her or the two wives after her were elected to office. No one's saying Laura Bush is a strong candidate. So, having Bill Clinton was a critical help to her. So what? Joseph Kennedy was a critical help to John Kennedy. There are donors in Chicago who were critical helps to Barack Obama. No one is an island, including politicians. We've all had someone else (and it's frequently a spouse) who we wouldn't be who we are or where we are without them. The only difference is that usually that contribution is private and hidden away, whereas in this case it is quite public and visible. But the functional role is the same. Hillary isn't the only one who's had help in her career and to pretend that her being the wife of a former president is disqualifying is absurd. There was no way she could have realistically disavowed being the former wife of Bill. And really, if you look at it from her biography, she originated wanted to keep her name, Rodham, to emphasize that she wanted to keep her career separate from her husband. It's only when Bill's opponent used that to attack him in the 1980 gubernatorial campaign and won, that she was persuaded to adopt the name Clinton.

              Next you speculate on what would have become of Hillary without Bill. But it's impossible for you to do so because you simply don't know. Before Hillary married Bill and moved with him to Arkansas, she was a high achieving lawyer, who had worked on the Watergate investigation, and she as already well connected and in fact had been mentioned as a possible future president. There's no way to say that she would have been no more prominent than Susan Rice, or as prominent as Susan Rice. We simply don't know.

              The rest of your comment is just a series of assertions with no reasoning or evidence behind it, so I can't really respond to it, except to say that I strongly disagree with pretty much all of it. But please, when you are talking about Hillary, or anyone in politics, use critical thinking, use evidence and facts, and try to be clear in your reasoning to support assertions. Your latest comment is not.

              "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

              by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 04:04:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The basis is her personality. (0+ / 0-)

                You can give her an excellent team, but ultimately it's still her being sold to the public.

                When I was in high school, the vice principals were basically the villains we kids loved to hate on because they were authority figures that frequently had a role in more serious disciplinary matters.
                Hillary Clinton is authoritarian, not just authoritative.  That's just how her personality is and how she approaches leadership.  It's actually sort of interesting - you can see how a guy like Bill, who is more a needy touchy-feely type, would have been into her as a balance.  The point is that she doesn't have the charm to cover up this authoritarian bent - she just comes off as vice principals seemed when we were kids.  
                What's the behavior of someone who thinks something is owed to them? The person doesn't work hard for it, and instead whines and complains when they don't get it.
                On the contrary, people who feel owed are very determined to get their due - a lot more determined than people who think they're working toward something that's merely extra.  And your characterization of Hillary's campaign is both partly apt and partly off the market: Yes, she did work hard, but she thought working hard entitled her to win and made that attitude obvious.  This attitude is semi-delusional in a presidential campaign - how much work you put into something is not the deciding factor in the quality of the outcome.  Talent is essential, and talent is sorely lacking.


                Pour yourself into the future.

                by Troubadour on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 06:22:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, (0+ / 0-)
                  Hillary Clinton is authoritarian, not just authoritative.
                  Another assertion without evidence. I can think of a lot of words that come to mind before 'authoritarian'.
                  On the contrary, people who feel owed are very determined to get their due - a lot more determined than people who think they're working toward something that's merely extra.
                  No one who runs for president seriously thinks of it has just something 'extra'. Running for president takes years of preparation, and everyone who runs a serious campaign will work hard at it. That doesn't mean they think they're owed at all. It just means they're taking the task seriously, which is a positive. A person who wanted to be president but just thought of it as something 'extra' - which you're setting up as the alternative to feeling that it's 'owed' would be a horrible president because they wouldn't take the job very seriously. Who knows, they might even quit halfway through, seeing as they see it as being 'extra'.

                  I want my candidates to want it as badly as possible, because it means they'll give it their all, and hence be better candidates. To me, wanting it is a plus, not a negative.

                  "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

                  by randomfacts on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:18:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I know what you are saying, I thought the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      inevitability thing, which she stole from Margaret Thatcher, was ugly and stupid. She will not make that mistake twice, she will get rid of the 1990's political consultants, warm up her presentation, and now she is looking inevitable.
      Her defense of Iraq and PATRIOT were repellant because they were both wrong and cowardly. I would have to hold my nose to vote for her. On the other hand, I believe she has a personal axe to grind with a certain set of Republicans, and would play Iron Lady and kick their asses, where Obama has been conciliatory. I think they are terrified of her.

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:22:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think they're terrified of her. (0+ / 0-)

        Based on her Senate career, I'd say it was the opposite.  To them, she's a known quantity who they spent over a decade preparing to destroy.  Undoubtedly she has an axe to grind, but she grinds it against everyone who personally obstructs her objectives.  I never liked her and I never will.  That's not saying it would be impossible for her to succeed and achieve great things, but there's absolutely no reason to think she would.  People are trying to rationalize nominating her simply because she's in a position to be nominated, and that's senseless and irresponsible.  Her actual record, both as a political leader and a campaigner, simply doesn't justify it.

        Pour yourself into the future.

        by Troubadour on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:42:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  now you're just trolling for hits, kos n/t (4+ / 0-)
  •  Of course a competitive Texas would cause the GOP (0+ / 0-)

    to go with an ev by congressional district scheme. :) But then that would also give al least 10 evs in Texas to Democrats.

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:49:19 PM PST

  •  You had me at 2. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    She has my vote. I would be hard pressed to think of a better choice for next.

    "For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document." Mike Lofgren

    by GANJA on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:50:27 PM PST

  •  Stop with the inevitability stuff. 2008 happened. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, ferg, Liberal Thinking, askew

    She ran already and got beat by someone who, on paper, she should have beaten handily.

    I don't see Biden or her as an automatic nominee. There is real value in having a rigorous primary season. I think much of this talk is meant to scare folks away from running. Hopefully the other potentially great candidate (and they do exist), will look at what happened in 2008, and some extent 2000, and not be deterred from running to become the "not Hillary" candidate.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:58:49 PM PST

    •  100% (0+ / 0-)

      We need a rigorous (and vigorous) primary. Obama gets away with giving away because he didn't have to fight off a primary challenge this time around. With everyone afraid of a Republican (ick!) we just put up with any old bullshit the Republicans throw our way.

      If you aren't willing to lose you will never win.

      It's time to put some real teeth into the Democratic Party. We need a candidate that's going to run like a Democrat and govern like one. Maybe we should draft Howard Dean. I think we could convince him to be a liberal, whereas I have my doubts about Hillary.

      •  Howard Dean held fiscally centrist positions. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Liberal Thinking

        I am still a supporter of Governor Dean, but sometimes I think people forget how centrist his economic and health care policies were in some instances. For example, he didn't run on single-payer or the public option.

        Until people vote as the answer in public opinion polling on the issues, the Democratic Party isn't going to nominate someone who isn't going to ultimately prove lacking to many here at DK.

        "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

        by sebastianguy99 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:47:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  True (0+ / 0-)

          That's why I say that maybe we could convince him to be a liberal. I think he, at least, is open to liberal ideas, whereas someone like Hillary Clinton has the idea she knows what's best and thinks it's just liberal enough to keep the base behind her. And, given what the Republicans throw up, it is liberal enough to keep the base under her.

          In any case, I use Dean for illustration only. With politicians you always get the bad with the good. You could put forward someone like Sherrod Brown, for instance, who is much more liberal, I think, than Dean. Maybe by 2016 he will be more of a national figure. But of the people who are viable presidential candidates, I'm not sure there are any that I'd go out and campaign for.

          I don't consider the presidency a must-have in any case. I consider Congress a must-have, and we have a lot of work to do there. That's where progressive ought to focus, IMHO.

  •  Wonder if the PUMA's will (0+ / 0-)

    come back into the fold.

    "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02

    by ParaHammer on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:59:25 PM PST

  •  She'll have to win it without my vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Or the votes of my friends and family for that matter. She has been a lackluster Secretary of State, at best. Before that she was a lackluster US Senator from my state.

    I'd rather have Caroline Kennedy run.

  •  Daffynition: "Party faithful" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the party faithful who have declined to support Obama, Kerry, and Gore.
    Hell, semi-anarchist me has a better Democratic presidential voting record than that, and when I didn't vote Dem I sure as hell never voted Rube the way these alleged "party faithful" have been doing on a regular quadrennial basis throughout this millenium.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:04:24 PM PST

  •  Some of you don't understand kos IMO (3+ / 0-)

    He's not particularly advocating for her, he's saying this is what polls are telling us at this point.  It's a Nate Silveresque take on elections. Personally  I love these kinds of diaries because I love discussing polls and voting patterns and possibilities based on data.

    "Maybe we should march on the campus of the electoral college and occupy it until they change their vote"--some wingnut, Worldnetdaily

    by chicago minx on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:08:07 PM PST

  •  no thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    I'd very much prefer an actual progressive, thank you very much. Don't forget that her focus on diplomacy as Secretary of State was about carrying out President Obama's policies. Every time she had a chance to talk about her own foreign policy ideas during the 2008 primaries, it was something pretty horrific. I mean FFS, she actually went on national tv and said she wouldn't be passed nuking Iran. Is that what we really want?? Count me out.

  •  With Hillary we can improve on healthcare, (4+ / 0-)

    SCOTUS, women's rights, climate change, and so on.

    Someone to her left can't win now. Maybe someday, but not now. She'll do nicely, and I'll support her.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:23:09 PM PST

    •  Anyone on Her Left Can Win (0+ / 0-)

      You don't seem to have paid attention to the last two presidential elections. The American people voted, overwhelmingly, for a liberal in each election. They voted for someone to the left of Hillary.

      They didn't get a liberal, but they certainly voted for one.

      The Republicans made sure they knew it, too.

      •  "Anyone on her left can win." Nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger

        They keep citing these polls that America is "left of center."

        When it comes to voting for a president, they stop short of "left." Put up a "pure progressive," and they won't get elected. If a Bernie Sanders could get elected (he's left of Hillary), I'd vote for him. He can't yet. Maybe someday.

        Americans won't vote for either extreme of the spectrum. They smell "extremist," and they veer off. I've seen it for fifty years. They won't vote for a Rick Santorum for President and they won't vote for a Bernie Sanders for President.

        "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

        by Wildthumb on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:02:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary NEEDS to run. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JamieG from Md

    The Presidency is hers for the taking. I would back Biden if Hillary decides not to run, but I'll sleep much better at night knowing that it's Hillary on the ticket. I'd rather not take any risks and I'm sure Hillary understands that as well. I just hope she realizes the importance of her potential candidacy.

    Biden COULD win, but I'd rather not gamble. C'mon Hillary.

  •  It would be irresponsible not to run (0+ / 0-)

    I know that sounds bad, but our country NEEDS a good Democrat to help erase the horror of the Bush years and ensure a majority on the Court.

    It would also be historic, and finally crack the ultimate glass ceiling.  

    Her country and history is calling her... it would be the epitome of selfishness if she decided not to.

    The Seminole Democrat
    Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

    by SemDem on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:34:26 PM PST

  •  Personally, don't get the nostalgia for SS Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    But at this stage speculation hurts no one so what the hey.

    Myself though, the best way to put it is this. I'll wager a Coke she is not the 2016 Democratic nominee. You get Hillary Clinton, I get every other American 35 years old and older. Any takers?

  •  All I can say is... (5+ / 0-)

    I hope she does.
    I hope she does.
    I hope she does.

  •  Voters hate black skin more than vaginas, I guess (0+ / 0-)

    But you know what, GO HILLARY anyway. I'll take another eight years anyway I can get it.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:39:48 PM PST

  •  I am NOT voting for Hilary. Period. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    I've had enough of the corporate faux liberalism. Nope. Not happening.

    Catch St. Louis' progressive talk show, The Murdock Report, every Tuesday @ noon! Stream or download it: I do the twit thing too @SmokinJoesTruth

    by Da Rat Bastid on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:40:36 PM PST

  •  Joe Biden is seriously prepping a 2016 run? (0+ / 0-)

    thats a BFD, coming from him

    People, not corporations. Democracy, not totalitarian capitalism. Fuck the NRA.

    by democracy is coming on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 02:45:22 PM PST

  •  How are her numbers in the other swing states? (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder how her numbers are in the other swing states that Obama put into play (Colo, NM, Va, NC, NH, IW)?

  •  So, I wasn't around the DK Clinton-Obama thing (4+ / 0-)

    was going on.

    I am a Clinton fan. I hope she runs .....

    Women are 51% of the population yet are represented in congress by barely 17%! Until our representation reflects the population, we risk sliding backwards .....

    by 51percent on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:16:09 PM PST

  •  How Hillary can win in 2016 (3+ / 0-)

    1.  Get out of Washington - The Beltway culture can be so insulating that you lose touch with the people outside of Washington.  

    2.  The national press is not your friend - They will report on all the bad things you do.  Don't take it personal, its just their job.

    3.  Talk to the local press - The people you need to vote for you read the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Denver Post, or The Des Moines Register.  They do not read The Washington Post (except in northern Virginia), Politico, or The New York Times.  The local press is also much more likely to ask you questions that aren't about the scandal du jour.

    4.  Know the rules - Do you remember how your staff thought California's primary was winner-take-all?  Make sure those people are no where near your campaign.

    5.  Think outside the box - Do you remember when you didn't think Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, or Indiana would be swing states?  If you read above, Kentucky and Texas might be in play.  Figure out how to do that, and you will avoid the "one road" trap that doomed Gore, Kerry, and to a lesser extent, Romney.

    6.  Don't worry about slicing the pie, grow the pie - This is how Obama beat you in Iowa in 2008, and how Obama was able to win farily easily in 2012.

    7.  Don't overdo the Sunday talk shows - While they can be useful for getting your message out, the Sunday talk shows at best only drive the news cycle for a day.  Besides, have you noticed who advertises on those shows?  Most americans don't buy things from Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, and ADM.

  •  Sad yet predictable (0+ / 0-)

    the response to this thread has been.

  •  Hillary would have lost (0+ / 0-)

    to Romney, and it wouldn't have even been close.

  •  2008 was Hillary's. (0+ / 0-)

    How'd that work out for her?

    She'll get the same amount of support in 2016 she got then.

    And Hillary vs Jeb would be like watching a rerun for the third time.

    •  That would not be an entertaining year. (0+ / 0-)

      But I'm just as sure that Hillary could beat Jeb as I am that we'll never have another Bush on the Republican ticket.

      •  Never underestimate the stupidity of Republicans (0+ / 0-)

        nor the fickleness of pendulum voters.

        The GOP is the "IT'S MY TURN" party. And it's Jeb's turn.

        •  Sorry, but Jeb's not insane enough (0+ / 0-)

          enough for that group.  They don't care about turns, either, at least so much as it applies to individuals.  Jeb's brother killed off the last of that tendency.

          All they care about is electability and party loyalty.  And Jeb wouldn't get a single Democrat to vote for him, and he's betrayed his own party way too many times for the party to forgive him.  He's beyond damaged goods, and even Hillary would have no trouble destroying him.  Hence, not a chance.  They'd let Ron and Rand have the nomination before they'd let that happen.

          •  If tea baggers really ran the GOP. (0+ / 0-)

            Romney wouldn't have gotten the nomination.

            The Bush Mafia owns that circus and it's Jeb's turn to be the clown.

            As for Jeb not getting a single Democrat, you're not considering the kind who elect the Ben Nelsons and Mary Landrieus.

            Pendulum voters? They can't even remember who the previous president was after 8 years.

            •  I said Democrat (0+ / 0-)

              not idiot who can't bothered to check the right box.

              You're jumping at shadows if you think Jeb gets the next nomination.  Prepare to be horribly surprised.

              And who said Teabaggers run the GOP?  But Bush n Co don't either:  The people who put them in power last time still do, but those (old white) guys know better than to try to run another Bush against any Democrat.

              Seriously, any person named Bush wouldn't have a chance against even an openly gay, female, black, baby eating kitten killing, terror-loving, communofascist Democrat.  It will not happen, and Jeb's only chance to restore his family's honor is to pull a Jimmy Carter.  I doubt he'll do that.

              I'm not saying he'll run, and I'm not saying he won't get some idiot support if he does.  But he won't win the nomination no matter what he does.

    •  Your kidding right? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      She went into 2008 with middling approvals. She is now the most popular politician in the country. She would crush any Democrat in a primary. There is no one on the horizon that has the same type of appeal that President Obama has. He's what I would call a once in a generation candidate. This board is filled with Hillary Clinton haters, but lets be honest, it has never represented the Democratic party very well.

      20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

      by ndrwmls10 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:51:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary has a ceiling of support among Democrats (0+ / 0-)

        and this thread demonstrates it. And she's not a good campaigner - too scoldy at times, which puts people off.

        But aybe she'll be unopposed or hire someone with more knowledge of and aptitude for politics than Mark Penn.

  •  I hope she runs. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eztempo, Sandy on Signal

    I don't know if she'd be a good or a bad president.  I hope she runs.  She will energize women in a way that somebody like Palin never could have, because HRC is smart, capable, and a hard worker.  

    If BHO is still popular, he'll help her.  Bill will help her.  

    And the Villagers have nothing to throw at her that hasn't already been thrown in great, steaming shovels full.  

    Personally I don't think Biden has a chance to get the nomination, even if HRC doesn't run.  But the Repubs will continue to be the party of angry white males and they will continue their weird sad slide into noisy irrelevance and some Dem will surely win.

  •  There's something just a bit unseemly about this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diana in NoVa

    Let me preface this by saying that I'm a big fan of Clinton (both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Explaining Stuff, for that matter).  I voted for her in the primary in 2008 even while noting that our problem was an embarrassment of riches. I think she has set a new standard for Secretary of State, and I would be thrilled to vote and work for her again in 2016.  She is one of the great statespeople of our era, and I believe that if she chooses to run and wins, she would be remembered beyond my lifetime as one of the historic great Presidents.  8 years of Obama followed by 8 years of Clinton would give this country a real chance to get our act back together.

    However, there's one thing that bothers me about all of this adulation right now: President Obama is barely 1% into his second term of office, and he deserves our focus right now.  Election season will ramp up soon enough, and we'll have plenty of time to work this, but for now, let's remember that we have a pretty good President right now who needs our support (and yes, making him do the right thing).

  •  Hillary Clinton?? (0+ / 0-)

    No thanks!!  She's had her place in the sun.  Time to move on from the Clintons and their ilk.

    Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as shall never be put out.

    by Bollox Ref on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:11:15 PM PST

  •  No thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    She'd be crazy to do the heavy lifting required to keep Democrats in power after eight years, counting as she'd have to on a party half of which jettisoned her in 2008.  You can call this sour grapes, on my part and/or hers (only the latter would matter, of course), but it's a fine line between sour grapes and sober analysis.  The Democrats should start cultivating their presidential bench now, because the one the party allegedly wants likely won't do it, and the one who most openly wants it probably isn't an ideal candidate.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 05:34:22 PM PST

    •  It's hard to believe that you're still holding (0+ / 0-)

      on to your belief that she won't run. All indications are that she will. Have you noticed the softening of her language lately leaving much more room for a change of heart on her part. Just be happy Rich, she's going to do it.

  •  My Scheme... (0+ / 0-)

    So Shaun Donovan leaves his position as HUD Secretary to run for Mayor of New York (and would be highly favored to win the primary amongst a fairly underwhelming Democratic bench, and he'd be a virtual cinch to win against any of the awful potential Republican candidates). President Obama then picks San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro to replace Donavan (which helps tamp down the issue of not naming enough minorities to his 2nd term cabinet). After mopping up in the Democratic primaries of 2016, Hilary Clinton names Castro, who now has 4 years as a Cabinet Secretary on top of his 4 plus years as the chief executive of America's 7th largest city as her running mate (thus nullifying the inexperience charge). So to sum up...New York City gets a great public servant as it's new Mayor, America gets a great public servant at HUD and in 4 years America gets a great Public servant as it's first Woman President with the first Hispanic American as Vice-President and likely President 8 years after that. What's not to love?

  •  Couldn't We Get a Liberal to Run? (0+ / 0-)

    Why do we want to go down this road again? The last Clinton we elected didn't bother supporting progressive ideas. We are still suffering the results of triangulation and strangulation of liberal ideas in the Democratic Party.

    I would much rather see someone on the liberal side of the equation. By 2016, we are going to need a thorough-going liberal to clean up all the toxic right-wing stuff enacted since the last Clinton Administration.

    Bring me a liberal and I'll work for them and contribute to their campaign.

  •  All hail... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade the Cackler-in-Chief!!

  •  In my best Dana Carvey impression of.. (0+ / 0-)

    George H. W. Bush:  

    Not gonna happen...She isn't going to Win TX or KY in 2016...Although she still will most likely be the next President....

  •  Winning w/coattails; left opponent in primary (0+ / 0-)

    A. If she runs, I hope that Biden bows out (we don’t need another primary contest in which differences of gender and personality dwarf differences of policy), and that the left wing of the Democratic Party unites around a single candidate who is thereby enabled to pressure Hillary to respond to Progressive concerns in the primary.  This is important for Overton purposes, and will assist Hillary to portray herself (accurately) in the general election as a relatively moderate Democrat.

    B. No. 1 priority is winning the general, ideally with coattails, so:

    (a)    it is very relevant when polls show support from Republican and Independent women (especially in swing and even red-to-pink states), who are a huge category of voters.

    (b)    Republican demonization of Dem candidates and their spouses, which has ratcheted up each cycle, and transitioned from Bill/Hillary to Al/Tipper to Barack/Michelle, and will continue to ratchet up against whoever is the 2016 nominee, will lose some of its force when trying to pivot back to demonizing Hillary, especially because the ‘inexperienced…new…black…foreign’ elements of Republican demonization of Obama all highlight Hillary’s experience/familiarity/white/heartland profile (Heartland: suburban Illinois Goldwater-supporting Christian who followed husband to Arkansas for many years, then spent several years retail-politicking upstate New Yorkers).

    (c)    Hillary’s charisma does not (to my male eye) match Obama’s or Bill’s, but many strong Presidential candidates have fallen far short of this standard. Hillary’s bounce-back from her Iowa stumble (and misguided campaign strategy and team recruitment) during the 2008 primary marathon must have taught her a lot about campaigning for President.

    (d)    Hillary’s basic intelligence and ability to learn new roles is legendary, and she has had an educational close-up view of every aspect of campaigning for, and serving as, President.

    (e)    Hillary’s vote on the Iraq war resolution was a big negative, but how many potential Presidential winners have avoided similar negatives? Both that vote and her later resistance to recanting it were transparently driven by her perceived need, especially as a woman candidate, to maintain an image of toughness.  This need should be somewhat reduced by her four years of experience as Secretary of State.

    Support filibuster reform by adding $0.51 to all contributions!

    by emorej a Hong Kong on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:57:39 PM PST

  •  I'd like just 1 person to list HRC accomplishments (0+ / 0-)

    Not what offices she's held, but what has she gotten done.  During her 8 years as Senator, she got 0 pieces of legislation enacted outside of a post office naming. In Obama's 4 years, he was able to get 3 pieces of legislation enacted, so why couldn't Hillary get anything done?

    As SoS, what has she accomplished? Yes, she worked hard but what does she have to show for it?  

    When I am looking at the 2016 potential nominees, all of them except Hillary have at least 1 major accomplishment that they can claim credit for. I can't find 1 for Hillary.

    This is why I can't support her in 2016's primary. She has no record of achievements of any kind.  I can't find anything in her record that would show that she would be an effective President who can deliver on campaign promises.

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 09:14:34 PM PST

  •  yes,hrc, but without mark penn+jerk/team of '08 (0+ / 0-)

    clime parches on. terms: ocean rise, weather re-patterning, storm pathology, drout-famine, acceptance of nature.

    by renzo capetti on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:34:02 AM PST

  •  this is great news for corporations (0+ / 0-)

    Obama: self-described moderate Republican

    by The Dead Man on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:33:29 AM PST

  •  Hillary is VERY viable - but yes, the neolib (0+ / 0-)

    Rubin-friendly policies of the last four Democratic terms would stay in place.

    Also, it does not speak too well to the Democratic Party's bench if one is relying on the electoral charms of someone who would be the 2nd oldest inaugurated president by the time January 20, 2017 rolled around - and of course if Biden won, he'd shatter the geriatric benchmarks.  DC is so full of incredibly constipated thinking, indeed all of this wild partisanship is over a postage stamp sized area of the actual marketplace of policy ideas, that more old blood is hard to stomach.

  •  Pretty far-fetched (0+ / 0-)

    This is as unlikely as that laugher of a diary you wrote back in 2007 - "If Obama runs, he wins"

    Whatever happened to him? Ha!

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:40:39 AM PST

  •  Let's Hope GOP Nominates Perry (0+ / 0-)

    Rubio and Christie are still not well known to people who only casually follow politics. Thus, I expect once Texas voters know them better, Hillary will be the underdog in Texas. However, for Rick Perry, a different story.

  •  I'd definitely prefer Biden (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary is WAAAY too entangled with the whole Third Way, DLC, DINO crapola. More austerity garbage, more crypto-Republican jack shit foisted off on us by alleged Democrats. Maybe even another foreign war if the opportunity presents itself.

    Joe's far from perfect but I do believe he'd act a lot more like a real Dem. Of course, my real preference would be a ticket like Elizabeth Warren and Jerry Brown but I know that ain't gonna happen. But I definitely feel the Party needs to move significantly to the left.

    As Harry Truman said, give the American people the choice between a Republican and a Republican and they'll elect a Republican every time.

    See the children of the earth who wake to find the table bare, See the gentry in the country riding out to take the air. ~~Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote"

    by Panama Pete on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:40:14 PM PST

GainesT1958, JWC, Trix, mikepridmore, hester, ferg, glitterscale, daninoah, Gooserock, Powered Grace, greenbird, MouseThatRoared, donna in evanston, Wintermute, Andrew C White, SanJoseLady, oysterface, eeff, polecat, Sandy on Signal, exNYinTX, Radical Faith, Morgana, bronte17, annrose, itskevin, oceanview, kharma, johanus, wdrath, Lilith, ybruti, tomjones, Wife of Bath, eztempo, TexMex, vcmvo2, bloomer 101, Bluesee, dewtx, stagemom, boofdah, Beetwasher, uato carabau, Tunk, Rusty in PA, kathny, jay23, lgmcp, Nance, hlee1169, BachFan, irishwitch, Debbie in ME, SciFiGuy, dopper0189, Gorette, gpoutney, Libby Shaw, JVolvo, Texdude50, ethanthej, cpresley, Sapere aude, john07801, BeninSC, Lysis, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, Shadowmage36, joedemocrat, bluehen96, MI Sooner, Oreo, GeorgeXVIII, leonard145b, Puffin, sable, chicago minx, jwinIL14, MKinTN, GANJA, rogerdaddy, jack 1966, GAS, Sixty Something, bythesea, Sharon Wraight, Greasy Grant, monkeybrainpolitics, Ask 4 Questions, tofumagoo, icebergslim, pademocrat, Jeff Y, noddem, sewaneepat, JamieG from Md, watercarrier4diogenes, artmartin, rubyclaire, prgsvmama26, Check077, JEnviro, Larsstephens, CalGal47, FogCityJohn, Crabby Abbey, Polly Syllabic, renzo capetti, samanthab, Mariken, itswhatson, ericlewis0, cocinero, annieli, MidwestTreeHugger, DrJohnB, lady blair, sabo33, Mr MadAsHell, lillyspad, Jed Lewison, trumpeter, PorridgeGun, IllanoyGal, The Rational Hatter, Daulphin, randomfacts, jolux, ratcityreprobate, annecros, Mathazar, Pinto Pony, anodnhajo, DeadHead, TheLizardKing, Chrislove, Siri, IndieGuy, JGibson, evilhoodedcrow, jes2, Marjmar, Canis Aureus, atana, poopdogcomedy, Fulgour, astrogeology girl, H E Pennypacker, Elizaveta

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site