Skip to main content

This diary is dedicated to you, the reader. I pose a simple question, which may require you to at least temporarily suspend your disbelief in the question. (So please don't tell me that Hillary is going to run, and win.)

Suppose that neither Hillary Clinton NOR Elizabeth Warren run for the democratic nominee for President of the United States. Who do you believe would run? Who do you (much more importantly) think should run?

Please provide your answer and support your answer in the comments below. This is important! A radio show topic, and perhaps...FREEDOM depend upon it. Thank you.

Originally posted to An American Citizen on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:47 PM PST.

Also republished by Netroots Radio and "Progressive Politics:Tennessee Style" (PPTS).

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 (12+ / 0-)

    Nurse Kelley says my writing is brilliant and my soul is shiny - who am I to argue?
    Left/Right: -7.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

    by Bud Fields on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:47:09 PM PST

  •  I'll start paying attention in about 2 years. n/t (10+ / 0-)

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)
    This message will self-destruct upon arrival in the NSA archives in Utah.

    by MTmofo on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:03:32 AM PST

  •  I'll wait and see...more than two on the bench (8+ / 0-)

    One downside of having a frontrunner as strong Hillary Clinton is that other potential candidates may not engage in speculation early on. They'll wait until they're absolutely sure they want to run.

    And even potential candidates who consider Hillary Clinton a practically unbeatable opponent have good reasons to run. They might be thinking about the future--at best, VP this time, at worst, getting experience with national campaigns, building networks, increasing name recognition, that kind of thing. If a frontrunner falters, who knows what might happen.

    I don't know much about Steve Beshear, the governor of Kentucky--except that he has done an amazing job of bringing ACA to Kentucky. He was working with a Republican-dominated legislature, but still got it through, and he's making it work. I really admire him, but all I know about him is his ACA work.

    The other thing to watch for: whom do the Obama campaign geniuses decide to work for in 2016?

  •  Martin O'Malley, Brian Schweitzer, (6+ / 0-)

    Mark Warner, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Andrew Cuomo are the people I'd have my eyes on.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:25:13 AM PST

    •  NOT Cuomo, please! (5+ / 0-)

      Yes, he's running,. NO, we shouldn't nominate him. He's so far up Wall Street's ass, it'd be like nominating Larry Summers or Tim Geithner for POTUS!

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:26:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Either O'Malley or Schweitzer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      would be good, but we simply can't nominate a white male in '16. We need to generate the enthusiasm of '08. The "let's make history" enthusiasm. How else to overcome the pattern since WWII of only giving one party 8 years in the White House (broken only by the 12 year Reagan-Bush I run)?

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:45:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the enthusiasm of '08 wasn't just about race (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        if harold ford had been the candidate, he would have crashed like a lead balloon and quashed any and all enthusiasm. obama's run and campaign narrative were a lot more complex than that.

        •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Not just any African-American politician would have done the job. It was nearly a flawless campaign.  It also tapped into the desire to have a huge change from Bush--and not just a return to the past as Hillary represented.

          And I don't want just any woman president. But we need Democrats to win. We have much more messes to clean up and we need to get a progressive majority on the SCOTUS.

          That's not going to be easy. We need a narrative and I think that a female nominee will be part of that.  That's why I think Gillibrand is the best hope both for winning and a progressive agenda if neither Hillary nor E. Warren runs.

          "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

          by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:58:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  personally, i think 2016 will be a dem win (0+ / 0-)

            regardless of the candidate, just because of the nature of the ongoing demographic and ideological shifts in the electorate, combined with how the two great party coalitions are faring internally at the moment.

            so my emphasis is less on electability than on party building and policy, and whose support a given candidate bases their campaign run on. i don't know gillibrand well enough to pass judgement on her yet, but i've seen enough hillary clinton for a lifetime.

            it will be interesting seeing how the field shapes up, as events over the next year or two start to shape the context everyone will  be competing in.

  •  Not. A. Clue. Isn't it about time (6+ / 0-)

    that we allow our pols to actually do their jobs, instead of requiring them to jump from one hoop into another, as they try to retain their jobs?

    Well, except for the clowns in the House. They should have to jump through hoops b/c they certainly can't think their way out of problems.

    Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

    by Youffraita on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:56:58 AM PST

    •  biden has been a great veep (4+ / 0-)

      but he has always been a lousy presidential candidate, and i don;t see that changing in 3 years. i can't see much that castro has accomplished other than being another bland centrist on the make with clinton ties.

      •  Could be. (5+ / 0-)

        But, from where I analyze (which has been right every time for 150 years), Biden is a sure thing. Hillary isn't.

        As for Castro -- when Obama gave the keynote address in 2004, he flew under the radar as he was groomed. As per Castro's keynote address in 2012. I expect no less.

        •  That isn't to say that Hillary can't win. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew F Cockburn, DMentalist

          in fact, I'd be really surprised if Dems didn't win in 2016. Especially if the financial sector is needy.

          •  It's Biden vs. Hillary that worries me (4+ / 0-)

                Biden doesn't really talk about running, but he hasn't ruled it out yet either.  On the other hand, you'd think that if he did plan to run, he should have started organizing and fundraising by now.  And I suppose he's the one guy Rand Paul would prefer to run against, since running against Biden would at least neutralize that whole plagiarism issue for Paul...

                 But the possibility of Biden and Hillary BOTH running does kind of worry me.  Both candidates would have a claim to be the rightful successor to Obama.  Hillary because she was almost the nominee in 2008 so now it's her turn, and Biden because the VP is ALWAYS considered to be the rightful successor to the President.  

                 It seems to me that a contest like that could really tear the party apart.  To start with, who does Obama endorse?  If he endorses Biden, then the legions of Hillary supporters who begrudgingly gave their support to Obama after the primaries in 2008 feel totally BETRAYED.  On the other hand, how can Obama NOT endorse Biden, or even remain neutral and endorse nobody?  If a President isn't willing to endorse his own Vice President, doesn't that cast doubts over his own two terms as President?  If Obama throws Biden under the bus like McCain did to Palin, isn't that a tacit admission that Obama showed poor judgement in choosing Biden, a tacit admission that a continuation of the Obama-Biden policies would be bad for the country, a tacit admission that it's time for a change?  And if it is time for a change, why shouldn't the voters choose the Republican candidate?

                 A Biden candidacy might also revive the "anyone but Hillary" sentiments that helped defeat Hillary in 2008.  If Clinton challenges the sitting Vice President, she might once again be labeled as the self-entitled, power-hungry politician who cares more about her own self-aggrandizement than the good of the party.  Some voters may choose Biden for the same reason they chose Obama in 2008: to make a statement AGAINST Hillary.  When Barbara Bush recently commented on the prospect of Jeb Bush running that America has had enough Bushes, and that the Presidency should not be limited to one or a few families, I couldn't help wondering if her real intent was to lay groundwork for opposition to a Hillary Presidency based on that same anti-dynastic sentiment.  If the Presidency shouldn't be limited to one family like the Bushes, that same principle applies to the Clinton family as well.  

                 If Biden wins, denying Hillary's chance to be the first female President for the SECOND time, Hillary's supporters might be too bitter to rally their support for Biden the way they ultimately did for Obama.  If Hillary wins, she is likely to be portrayed as the power-hungry Lady Macbeth who threw Obama's rightful successor, "Good Old Joe", under the bus.  And it gives the Republicans the opening to say, "See? By refusing to nominate Biden, even the Democrats are rejecting Obama's legacy."  

                 If a contest between Biden and Clinton causes this kind of divisiveness and bitterness, the Republicans might capitalize on it, winning the White House by presenting their candidate as the sane, unifying alternative as opposed to the chaos coming out of the Democratic Party.  Fortunately, I think it's also true that no matter how crazy and contentious the Democratic primaries might become, the Republican Tea Party freak show is sure to be even crazier.

                 So now that I've thrown all these wild speculations out there, let me toss out one more wild and crazy conspiracy theory to consider.  By all appearances, Hillary definitely does seem to be firing on all cylinders in preparation for a run in 2016.  But I do remember that after the campaign in 2008, when asked if she might run again, Hillary's answer was an emphatic "NO! Once is enough!"    And despite the fact that she's favored in the polls, Clinton must know that historically it is a very rare thing for a front-running candidate who loses the nomination to come back and win in the next open cycle, especially when the candidate he or she lost to goes on to win the White House.  So, what if Clinton actually doesn't intend to run?  What if the whole thing is just one giant head-fake?  What if Clinton thinks her moment has passed, and she no longer wants to be President, but she does want to be the king (or queen) maker?  What if she wants to spend a few years amassing a gigantic campaign war chest, but then drop out of the primaries early, offering her endorsement, and her war chest, to another candidate, perhaps Biden, perhaps Elizabeth Warren?  With the financial advantage of the Clinton war chest, and the electoral advantage of the Clinton supporter voting block, that candidate sweeps the primaries and rides the momentum through the general election into the White House.  A couple years later, Hillary's appointed President returns the favor with an appointment for Hillary that can't be taken away in 4 or 8 years.  Introducing Hillary Clinton, Supreme Court Justice!    Might just have to invoke the nuclear option on filibustering Supreme Court nominees to make it happen, but it would be worth it!  Hey, I SAID it was a wild and crazy theory....

          •  agreed on dems winning in '16 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LeftHandedMan, Pluto

            if not on the candidates per se. dems have shown an ability to fucking things up in the past, but the wind will be at their back.

            •  I hope the wind (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              will be at our backs in '16. But what if the economy is still sluggish--considering GOPers keep trying to kill it. What if the ACA is only a partial success? Or if the media keeps muddying the waters about the success? Or if the NSA crap or drone wars or failure of all the troops coming home in '14 ignites anti-war protests?

              Will the wind really be at our backs, then?  There is so much that can go wrong and Obama's numbers could be a weight on the whole party.

              It's way too soon to panic and I'm not. But I think we need to realize that even if things are good by '16, we need more than just an ordinary candidate to get past the 8 year itch to go to the other party.

              "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

              by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:10:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  be wary of political formulas WRT the presidency (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bud Fields

                the historical context is always so different between elections, and the electorate is not the same every four years, and the number of candidate/campaign variables so vast, that any simple formula is essentially false.

                the reason for my confidence lies in the ongoing demographic shifts, the current quality of the GOP bench, the deep internal contradictions of the GOP base, and the increasing revulsion the electorate has for the openly stated policy aims of the republican base.

                while the GOP may be able to eventually rebrand itself and muzzle its base to the point that their candidates can become palatable to voters in enough states to add up to a majority of electoral votes, that day will not come as early as 2016.

  •  Let's see (19+ / 0-)

    Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont

    I think he will make an independent run for President, and I think it's important his views get that kind of national airing. He is under no obligation to quit the Senate while he runs, and I think he can both do his job and make an argument to the American people for more progressive policy solutions to our nation's problems.

    That said, lets say he defies conventional wisdom and his own established path and runs for President as a Democrat. (Presuming that his running is not as much about being President as much as getting a certain set of ideas and progressive positions a hearing they might not get as intense and consistent a hearing without him in the race.)

    I would be very happy if he decided to run for the Democratic nomination for President, because I think the Party could actually benefit from his infusion of non-hostility to non-Conservative and non-Reasonable Centrist/Very Serious Personesque policy solutions and his incredible ability to communicate progressive ideas with a robust argument we could use as a party.

    Brian Schweitzer, former Governor of Montana

    I believe former Governor Schweitzer did not run for that Montana Senate seat for a reason, and I think that reason is that he is considering running for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016.

    I think his running would be good for the Party because he is an economic populist in a time where America is just thirsting for such a figure, he is just not somebody I think that the Republican Party is prepared for. I don't think he ever stops coming like a freight train on his message and his slate of ideas. Not in a debate, not in a political campaign. He's smart, populist, and you are not going to bully him or roll him with Rove/Atwater bullshit.

    I think he would have his moments as a US President where he would disappoint me as a liberal on some issues (I'm sure he won't be my favorite on gun issues), but, I think he would be a great President.

    Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio

    I have never believed that Elizabeth Warren was going to run for President, mainly because she was not an enthusiastic seeker of the Senate seat that we are all currently very blessed that she occupies as a Democratic Senator. I think Sherrod Brown gives you the same kind of Democrat you would get from a Warren candidacy, and, as with Sanders, I think it is important that his voice and his views get that kind of national airing. He's tough. Smart. Able to stand up to the Rove/Atwater shit with poise and grit. He is not likely to pander to the conventional wisdom positions and solutions to our nation's problems.

    I would have no problem with imagining him as President, and a great one.  

    Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator New York.

    I think if Hilary Clinton doesn't run, because I see her as somebody who would be one of the quickest to be endorsing a Clinton candidacy, she could step in and go far running as a tough smart woman who knows how to get things done in a Party that is widely supported by women, especially single women, the force who put the party over-the-top in election after election that they win. I don't believe that if a Mary Landrieu or a Claire McCaskill were to run that they would capture any of the pull or mystique of a Clinton-like candidacy. More like the Blanche Lincoln meh.

    I suspect that she and Martin O'Malley will be on a lot of Villager's lips as VP candidates. Along with Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear.

    Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York.

    If Hilary Clinton is in, he is out. He won't waste his time.

    If she is out? Jesus.

    I think, sans Clinton, Andrew Cuomo comes out like a bull in a china shop for the Democratic nomination for President, and he will be as subtle and reserved about charging in like Ralphie's little brother in "A Christmas Story" was subtle and reserved about running for the presents underneath the Christmas tree. He is my nightmare candidate. The man who runs like he's a Democrat running like it's still 1994 to 1998 in America. I expect he will run for President as if Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post is the average Democratic primary voter. You want to know how a guy like Ted Cruz ends up being President despite being a mawkish panderer to crazy and more crazy? Look at this man. A beltway denizen's dream Democratic candidate for President. If Tom Friedman got to decide who was President, he wins by a landslide. Well, if Michael Bloomberg won't run. I expect he would be walking into a woodchipper with most everybody else. The Village champions him as the ideal Democrat for the job, and, then they turn on him instantly for the final. He gets mugged by the GOP ala Dukakis, and mugged by the Village ala Gore in 2000.

    Forget about Cruz, if St. Chris Christie finds a way to shock the world and get through all of the Teahadi landmines and the GOP contests of the American South to win the GOP nomination, I bet Cuomo v. Christie ends up in President Christie, over months before election day, and it's not even close.  

    Mark Warner, Senator from Virginia

    I think he could run. Eh. Another Fred Hiatt and Tom Friedman golf clap candidate. About as inspirational to the Democratic grassroots as a Wonder Bread and steamed egg white sandwich. I think if Andew Cuomo runs he has the most to lose in terms of being the Village's choice for the job. I don't expect he would even come close to winning the nomination with or without Cuomo in the race.  

    Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland.

    I think he wouldn't come out of the gate as the favorite, but he is a smart, capable governor who has a lot of good qualities about him as a Democratic politician. I think he would run a campaign that was mildly populist and certainly progressive. I think, like Sherrod Brown, he would be a great candidate to run as a champion of renewing the American middle class and getting America back to work.  

    Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky.

    Like Martin O'Malley, I don't think he comes out of the gate as the favorite, but he is also a smart, capable Governor. He could argue that he knows how to win in places where a Democrat has a rough go of it, for certain. He's not a weakling or a wimp. Kentucky's implementation of the ACA has been one of the brightest spots of a healthcare law that has been under constant attack since it was passed, and I think this success would be the driving factor behind him being a viable Democratic primary candidate.

    I suspect he would be a conventional wisdom VP choice before he was even up to speed as a Presidential candidate by the beltway.

    I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

    by LeftHandedMan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:19:39 AM PST

  •  in addition to the names offered above (13+ / 0-)

    i think mark udall, senator from colorado, could be a contender. he has done well in a swing state and region that dems want to build on, has a fair amount of political experience in state leg, the house and senate, and has a good balance of progressive stances on foreign policy, intelligence abuses, and renewable energy. him and brown might make a solid ticket.

    one of the frustrating things as a progressive is that while the electorate has shifted pretty decisively left over the past decade, the wave of elected officials associated with that shift are still by and large at lower levels. so we're stuck with most of the statewide-elected dems being decidedly right of the primary electorate, with a bunch of rising stars who aren't really very well known outside of their districts. in another decade, they'll be senators and governors and such, but not yet.

  •  Vermin Supreme nt (7+ / 0-)

    “Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ” ― Paulo Freire

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:08:49 AM PST

  •  If not Hillary, who? (9+ / 0-)

    Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren,  Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, Kirsten Gillebrand,  the bench is deep. I almost wish Hillary wouldn't run!

  •  Chris Van Hollen (9+ / 0-)

    I have absolutely no indication that he's interested in running, now or ever, but I'd support him whole-heartedly if he ever ran for any higher office.  Among Maryland politicians, I'd certainly rather see him run than O'Malley.  

    I'll give credit to my wife for first telling me about him.  He was a junior member of the Maryland legislature when my wife went to some hearing of a committee he was on.  She used to work in the legislative office of a major federal agency, so she'd been to a lot of committee hearings, and said he was the most impressive in a hearing  that she'd ever seen.  Here exact words were, "This guy is going places."  A few years later, he was elected to Congress, and a few years after that, he was a member of the House leadership.  The guy has an excellent presence on TV, and he is always, ALWAYS prepared so that he knows what he's talking about.

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:21:48 AM PST

    •  The last person to go (0+ / 0-)

      directly from the House to the WH was John Quincy Adams.  Van Hollen would make a great Speaker or Senator. From there,  he might be a good POTUS candidate.

      I like him.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:39:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cory Booker is running. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OllieGarkey, chipoliwog, wu ming

    He hasn't announced, and I don't know which cycle he is aiming at, but there is no doubt he is planning it. He will carry the flag for the Clinton/Obama corporatist wing of the party against our progressive champion.

    •  He'd better wait a cycle. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, Andrew F Cockburn

      America will not vote for 2 African-Americans back to back. I wish we were better than that as a nation, but we aren't.

      On the merits: I want to see first if Booker is as corporatist in the Senate as he seemed to be as Newark mayor. If not, if he's becomes a progressive, I'd support him as VP.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:41:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  nobody wants Kerry? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think John Kerry would be a good pick, riding on the success of the Syria deal and the Iran deal.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:33:12 AM PST

    •  72 in 2016. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leevank, SouthernLeveller

      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:48:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry's last shot was in '04 (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG, Egghead, AmericanAnt, hooper, RoIn

      and he knows it. One of the reasons he's doing so well as SecState is he wants a legacy. He's not going to coast as Hillary did. This is his last chance at making history as more than a failed POTUS candidate and the hero of the Winter Soldier hearings.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:31:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey I'd pull my John Kerry coffee mug out of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, DMentalist

      Storage and support him again! One of the saddest days of my life was when he lost to Shrub, that's when the outright stupidity of the American voter really struck me for the first time. (blows dust off mug)


      "Purple Haze, all in my brain...lately things, they don't seem the same...actin' funny, and I don't know why....'SCUSE ME, WHILE I KISS THIS GUY!!" - Jimi Hendrix

      by Fordmandalay on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:39:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  nobody wants kerry (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that was made abundantly clear in '04.

      •  Have to respectfully disagree (0+ / 0-)

          Kerry came just as close to beating Bush in '04 as Hillary came to beating Obama in '08.  So if Hillary came close enough to run again, so did Kerry.   In fact, John Zogby was so confident that Kerry would win in '04 based on the polling trends, he staked his reputation on predicting a Kerry victory.  In '04, it came down to a couple hundred thousand votes in Ohio.  If the Republicans had not been so relentless in their voter suppression efforts and everybody who WANTED to vote for Kerry had gotten the chance to, he very likely would have WON.  However, I suppose it's just as well that he didn't, since that would have likely meant that the Democratic nominee in 2012 would have been John Edwards.  

             I do wish Democrats would resist the knee-jerk reaction of labeling every candidate who loses an election as a LOSER.  Democrats could actually learn something from Republicans on how to treat former candidates.  Goldwater, Ford, George HW Bush, Dole, and McCain, despite having lost Presidential elections, have all been regarded by the Republican party with RESPECT at minimum, and in some cases REVERENCE.  They even respected NIXON enough to give him another shot after losing to Kennedy.  

              Kerry wasn't my first choice in '04, and likely wouldn't be my first choice if he were to run again.  But he is highly qualified, and he deserves respect for that.  He was a good candidate who came very close to winning in '04, and he would have been a good President.  

        •  hillary was nowhere close to beating obama in '08 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that she persisted in campaigning long after it was clear the race was lost, in hopes of persuading superdelegates to pull a coup and go against the election results, does not speak to her political acumen.

          yes, kerry lost a close race to bush. given that bush was a positively awful candidate with vulnerabilities everywhere, that does not reflect well on kerry. i know very few people who voted for him out of anything other than a sense of obligation, and fear of another bush term.

          •  Another respectful disagreement (0+ / 0-)

              First, if you were correct that Clinton didn't come close to beating Obama, that would only further prove the point about Kerry's viability.  If Hillary deserves another shot even though she "didn't come close", Kerry surely deserves another shot because he DID.  

                 However: According to the table of estimated vote tallies from the Wikipedia article on the 2008 primaries, using the estimate which is most favorable to Obama, the tally was: Obama 18,107,587, Clinton 18,045,829...a difference of 61,758 votes out of over 36 MILLION votes cast (and there are other estimates which actually give Clinton the popular vote lead), so YES, it was very, very CLOSE.  Obama deserves all due credit for adopting a strategy which allowed him to win the delegate count, but the popular vote is certainly more relevant when judging a candidate's future election viability.

                 As for your second comment, I hear this refrain from cynical Democrats in every close election.  If the Democrat barely loses, it's: "But the Republican candidate was SO AWFUL,  our guy SHOULD have WON.  Our guy really SUCKS!"  If the Democrat barely WINS, it's: "But the Republican candidate was SO AWFUL, our guy SHOULD have won by 10 POINTS! Even though he won, our guy STILL SUCKS!"  

                 But that attitude simply denies the reality of contemporary American politics.  I certainly thought that Mitt Romney was a horrible candidate, but he still got over 60 MILLION PEOPLE to vote for him, and he lost by less than 4 percent of the popular vote.  That's just the polarized nature of our party politics.  If Jesus Christ returned to Earth and ran for President as a Democrat, at least 47% of Americans would vote for the other guy.  The fact is, no matter how good your guy is, there are going to be a large number of voters who vote for the other guy no matter what, and there will be a large number of  misinformed or low-informed swing voters, who vote capriciously based on distorted impressions absorbed from well-financed propagandists and our woefully inadequate mainstream media, and sometimes, no matter HOW good your candidate is, no matter how RIGHT on the issues, the voters will just get it WRONG.  

                 When that happens, it doesn't necessarily mean that our guy sucks, and we shouldn't be so quick to pull out the knives and skewer him.  When a warrior for our cause fights the good fight and loses, he should be treated with honor, and encouraged to go on to fight another day.  

                 I actually differ from Kerry quite a bit when it comes to positions on domestic issues.  But while I may disagree with him politically, he still has my respect.  His life story is admirable, and he is an extremely savvy and capable man, which is easily proven by his recent accomplishments as Secretary of State.  I was proud to meet him during his campaign in 2004, and even though I didn't vote for him in the primaries, I was proud to vote for him for President.  If you read the other comments on this post, you'll see there are others who feel the same way.  

                 Of course, there's also a lot of people who consider him a bit of a bore, as you apparently do, and that's totally cool.  It's a valid viewpoint.  I just think that even if he is a bore, he's accomplished enough in his life to be worthy of respect.  


            •  you can boldface in all caps all you want (0+ / 0-)

              but neither kerry nor clinton were competent candidates.

              i don't oppose clinton because she lost a primary, i oppose her because she's an awful candidate, and from a faction of the party that has done great harm to the party, over the past several decades. she did not have a chance of winning for most of that primary, and showed real incompetence in blowing her significant starting advantages in that race. and i find the whole idea that any candidate "deserves" to win a primary before running to be totally absurd and entitled.

              likewise, kerry ran an awful race, and blew a huge amount of opportunities in his hapless race against bush. willing to take out the long knives for fellow democrats in the primary, but weak against republicans in the general.

              that being said, i am very impressed with the job kerry has done as SoS so far, as i was unimpressed with clinton, but he was a crap presidential candidate in '04, and would be in '16.

              •  Just one quibble (0+ / 0-)

                    All of your points are fine, but I take exception to your opening statement, "you can boldface in caps all you want."  It implies that I use ALL CAPS in the manner of a flamer, which simply isn't true.  I use bold face and caps as they should be used, to emphasize important points, not TO SHOUT AS FLAMERS DO.  I also use such typographical variations simply because I'm rather long-winded when I write, and it just makes multiple paragraphs easier to read if you break up the sea of grey type with some bolding and some CAPPING. (Sometimes italics too, but I tend to avoid italics because my goal is to make my text MORE READABLE, which bold and CAPS do, but oftentimes italics does not.)  Notice how in my posts the bolds and CAPS are only applied to one or a few words in a sentence, in order to EMPHASIZE those specific words, just as I would emphasize those  words in normal conversation.  NOTICE HOW I DON'T BOLD CAP ENTIRE SENTENCES AS A FLAMER DOES.    Also notice how, in the second paragraph of my post, the vote tally statistics which are bold/capped are indisputable facts.  The statement "you can boldface in all caps all you want" does not make them any less so.  A fact is a FACT is a fact.  The typography makes no difference.

                     And I guess that leads into the larger point.  As I said at the start, all of your points in your most recent post are fine.  If you want to argue that Clinton or Kerry used poor strategy in their campaigns, or that their political ideologies make them undesirable candidates, those are valid positions.  The reasons you give for those positions are valid arguments.  On the other hand, "you can boldface in caps all you want" is NOT a valid argument.  Neither is "Nobody wants Kerry", or "Nobody wants Clinton.", because the election results of 2004, the primary results of 2008, and the other comments on this page demonstrate that both candidates have supporters.  You can certainly argue that those supporters are WRONG, but you can't argue that they don't exist.  

                     I'm glad we found a point of agreement on Kerry's performance as SoS.  As to whether he could be a good candidate in 2016, I really don't know.  It won't happen, because you can't conduct a political campaign and be Secretary of State simultaneously, and I think Kerry loves the job too much to pull a Jon Huntsman and leave the post early.  I'm sure that if Al Gore were to run again, he would run a very different campaign than he did in 2000.  I don't know if Kerry is capable of transforming himself the way Gore has, but then I never would have expected such a transformation from Gore either.  George McGovern ran for President for a second time in 1984.  He didn't get very far, but I'm sure he made the primary season a bit more interesting.  I'd likely feel the same way about a second Kerry campaign.  I might not vote for him, but I'd be interested in what he would have to offer.

                     Thanks for the stimulating discussion.  Happy Turkey Day!  

  •  Sherrod Brown, American badass (10+ / 0-)

    He's the real deal.  He's an experienced policymaker.  He's tough as shoe leather and might be the closest thing we ever get to another LBJ when it comes to wrangling Congress.

    And most importantly, he's the JOBS-JOBS-JOBS candidate, which is the ONLY way we can win in 2016 if the economy doesn't suddenly pirouette by way of magic.

    He'd have the Rust Belt swing states on lockdown by default, when they're usually the toughest and most contested states for Democrats.  

    He's exactly the candidate we need.  And the dream ticket would be him and Tammy Baldwin as VP.

    Sherrod Brown 2016

    by Stormin on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:51:01 AM PST

  •  Sherrod Brown (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And he could pick Amy Klobuchar or Kirsten Gillibrand as his veep. Or something to that effect (a VP pick of Brown or Warren for that matter would make 'em pretty old in 2024 if the ticket were to have won, whereas these two gals are pretty young).

    A charismatic, electable progressive from a key swing state in a key swing region. Can't go wrong there. IMO a VP pick of someone like Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, also plays a bit more 'nice' too than Brown, would help give it sort of a Midwestern 'Heartland' appeal that our favorite Yankee tickets wouldn't.

    •  Brown is good on the issues (0+ / 0-)

      but lacks the charisma needed. We have to have a movement candidate in '16 to overcome the 8 year itch/give it to the other party phenomenon.

      He'd be a good a VP pick for Gillibrand.

      Klobuchar is too cautious. She hasn't made any cause in the Senate her own.  All she has going for her is being a youngish woman from MN.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:35:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think Democrats HAVE to nominate a woman in '16 if we are to have the kind of enthusiasm ("Let's make history!") which will overcome the American voters' usual pattern of switching to the other party after 8 years in the WH. It's also long past time to have a woman president.  And Gillibrand has been making "I'm running, but only if Hillary doesn't" noises.

    She's a good choice. We know she's a fighter for progressive issues: Ending DADT, repeal of DOMA, passage of ENDA and the Respect for Marriage Act, going after the military rape culture.

    We DON"T know where she stands on many other issues and need to find out, but that's true of almost anyone whom we'd nominate.

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

    by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:22:28 AM PST

  •  I'd support Warren, Al Franken, Howard Dean, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Another Grizzle, hooper, DMentalist

    John Kerry (again), Sherrod Brown, either Castro (it would be delicious to see the RW heads explode with 'President Castro') - I'd like to see a full-fledged, hardcore, energetic Liberal again.

    "Purple Haze, all in my brain...lately things, they don't seem the same...actin' funny, and I don't know why....'SCUSE ME, WHILE I KISS THIS GUY!!" - Jimi Hendrix

    by Fordmandalay on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:27:25 AM PST

  •  I am totally enjoying the comments. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, AmericanAnt, SouthernLeveller

    Although I am disappointed nobody has suggested Zombie Warren Harding yet.  Maybe you guys don't think you're at that stage of desperation, but I disagree.

    My comments are coming from a place of love.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:56:55 AM PST

  •  Sen Amy Klobuchar (0+ / 0-)

    If the nomination moves to a new generation, Sen Klobuchar is great on the stump and has already been presenting herself to all the right groups for more than a year.

    •  But what are her issues? (0+ / 0-)

      She was an early candidate for me, but I keep watching for her to step up and take the lead on anything and, so far, nothing. She's a reliable vote for Democrats, but where's the leadership?

      Elizabeth Warren has banking and economic issues. That's her cause and she isn't waiting for others to take the lead.

      Kirsten Gillibrand has led on repealing DADT and DOMA, and getting rid of the rape culture in the military.

      We need to know where they stand on a range of other issues, but we know they are fighters who will take initiative.

      Where's an example of Klobuchar doing that?

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:20:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's hard for me to imagine (0+ / 0-)

    someone simultaneously corporate enough and well-connected enough to win, and yet also ideologically admirable and consistent.   A great progressive candidate who can't win is not much use to me.

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

    by lgmcp on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:20:23 AM PST

  •  Schweitzer and Brown for their economic politics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Clinton for her electability.

    •  Why do people assume Hillary is electable? I see (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      USHomeopath, wu ming

      no evidence of this.  Just Villagers, baggage, and bankers.

      Seriously, what's the story?

      That aside, I'd like either Brown, Warren, most of the others.  

      •  Polling, For One Thing (3+ / 0-)

        Polls have pretty consistently showed her the strongest candidate against any and all Republicans and even show her putting states like Kentucky, Arkansas, and West Virgina in play.  Certainly polls taken this far out before an election need to be taken with several cups of salt but the premise is there.

        “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

        by RoIn on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:55:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  she won't poll that way a couple of years (0+ / 0-)

          from now. This is not about where the country is today. It's about guessing where the country will be at the next presidential election.

          There's a trajectory. People are becoming more and more aware of how the 1% is tilting the field and how the corporations and big banks are affecting us all. It's becoming more obvious how complicit the Clintons are in that. People will want a change.

          working for a world that works for everyone ...

          by USHomeopath on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:15:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, that's my main reason (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          for wanting Hillary to run. I'm selfish. I want an LBJ scale landslide that gives us huge majorities in Congress, including lots of progressive company for Warren,  Sanders, Sherrod Brown, etc.

          "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

          by SouthernLeveller on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:23:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm starting to like the idea of President Franken (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Maybe THIS is the Al Franken decade!

    "Purple Haze, all in my brain...lately things, they don't seem the same...actin' funny, and I don't know why....'SCUSE ME, WHILE I KISS THIS GUY!!" - Jimi Hendrix

    by Fordmandalay on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:58:35 PM PST

  •  Thank You@ every commenter so far! :) (0+ / 0-)

    I gotta tell ya, I'm stunned. I'm sending this to the friend with whom I had this theoretical discussion on Sunday nite. Neither of us had many of the names you have forwarded so far, and neither of us had anywhere NEAR all the names.

    I really appreciate those comments that did the full stop analysis of the situation, and their candidate(s). I think this is an excellent teaching tool for us all. Please  continue. :)

    Nurse Kelley says my writing is brilliant and my soul is shiny - who am I to argue?
    Left/Right: -7.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

    by Bud Fields on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:30:31 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site