Skip to main content

President Barack Obama has lunch with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the patio outside the Oval Office, July 29, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
This is some pretty interesting news for 2016:
The largest liberal “super PAC” in the country has begun raising money to elect Hillary Rodham Clinton president, formally aligning itself with her undeclared presidential ambitions more than two years away from the election.

The group, Priorities USA Action, which played a pivotal role in helping re-elect President Obama, also named new directors to steer the organization, appointments that will both cement the group’s pro-Clinton tilt and thrust veterans of Mr. Obama’s political and fund-raising operation into the center of the post-Obama Democratic Party.

The most important of these appointments is that of Jim Messina, campaign manager for the president's re-election bid in 2012, as co-chair (along with former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm) of the transformed Priorities USA. Messina is the current chair of Organizing for Action, which marshals and coordinates support for the Obama Administration's policies, and will remain in that position as well going forward.

The NYT article opines that Messina's move "can only fuel perceptions that Mrs. Clinton’s potential candidacy has the tacit endorsement of Mr. Obama himself." No one says that Messina coordinated the move with the president, or even ran it by him beforehand, so we're talking about speculation at this point.

Nevertheless, this move is one more building block in the creation of a perception that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable Democratic nominee, and that she has the support of the powers that be in the Democratic Party. Being the "inevitable nominee" didn't work out so well for her in 2008, but this time, who knows?

Originally posted to Ian Reifowitz on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:47 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

  •  More preemptive stuff (12+ / 0-)

    With the Republicans trying to shorten THEIR primary season so that the clown car aspects aren't as obvious, this appears to be how we're fighting back. I'm waiting to see if she's moved leftward on anything before I get upset by this.

    •  HRC was the Prohibitive Favorite in 2008 (12+ / 0-)

      And she blew it.

      She was a flawed candidate in 2008.

      And she'll be a candidate with more flaws (advising the President to embark upon war against Syria) in 2016.

      HRC represents the reactionary, intransigent wing of the Democratic Party.

      We can and will do better than she.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

      by PatriciaVa on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:13:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All candidates are flawed. (5+ / 0-)

        by DAISHI on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:24:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  She seems to be wrong for 2016. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PatriciaVa, dhshoops, Nannyberry

        We seem to grow tired of parties after two terms in power.  George H.W. Bush bucked that trend and HRC might, absent some serious upturn in the economy and lots of people going back to good jobs, she seems to old, too well-known, too more-of-the-same for 2016.

        I say that as somebody who wished she had been the candidate in 2008.

        She's had a good run.
        She's served her country well.
        She has much yet to offer.

        I just don't see President of the USA in her future.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:24:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Something is not just telling you this... (9+ / 0-)

          I agree that this is not so much a disparagement of Hillary Clinton. It's more that the timing of a candidacy is essential to its success. Lincoln was the right man at the right time, and I believe President Obama has been as well. The country may need a more powerful dynamic of societal fairness than Hillary can produce. I doubt we are ready to elect a "more of the same for eight years" candidate.

          •  Amen! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, Helpless, Nannyberry

            I am NOT going to be enthused about supporting the crew that brought us NAFTA,the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Summers, Geithner, and all the other sellouts of the great American middle- and working-classes.
            That said, if the voters do choose her, I'll obviously support her over whatever nutcase and/or serial liar the Pubbies put up.
            But let's all hope it doesn't come to that.
            And after 30+ years of plutocratic takeover, there's no reason at all that it should.

          •  Right Candidate for the times (4+ / 0-)

            Who knew that "hope and change" would win over millions,especially the youth vote in 2008.  The "we are at war with Osama", didn't.  Hillary lost because Obama got the message for his time.

            2016 will be the same. The only candidate so far that has emerged with a great economic, "expand the Middle Class" is the Freshman Senator from Massachusetts who is fighting to control banks, reform WallStreet, expand and improve Social Security and will not Brooke more economic sanctions on Iran and its new generation of it's Green Revolution.

            Unless, Hilary can embrace that, then it will be difficult for us to embrace her.  I do believe we are ready for our first woman president.  But that woman president must defend and reform Washington not defend it.

            •  There's a great opportunity for somebody who (0+ / 0-)

              actually embraces ordinary Americans as being important to the country.

              Somebody who can make us believe they are on our side could go a long way.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 06:37:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. GHWB was the only (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          3rd consecutive term for a party since the office was term limited after Roosevelt. That's actually a factor that scholars use in their prediction models for presidential elections, though it pales in comparison to the impact of the economy and approval of the incumbent president.

          It's hard to say what the economy will be doing, but short of a miracle, it's likely that Obama's approval will be low enough to be a net negative for the next Democratic nominee. So indeed it might not be her time.

          You won't believe what this gay dolphin said to a homeless child. First you'll be angry, but then at the 1:34 mark your nose will bleed tears of joy.

          by cardinal on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:18:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If that's the case (0+ / 0-)

            it doesn't matter who we nominate, since anyone will lose.

            •  Maybe. If the fundamentals of (0+ / 0-)

              the election suggest a toss-up, then the nominee can matter greatly. But in lopsided years it doesn't matter. I'd say it's too early to tell at this point; but if we're going by current indicators, then the fundamentals are bad but not horrible for Democrats, thus suggesting that the nominee can matter.

              You won't believe what this gay dolphin said to a homeless child. First you'll be angry, but then at the 1:34 mark your nose will bleed tears of joy.

              by cardinal on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 12:07:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  "...can and will do better than HER" (0+ / 0-)

        The objective case is "her"; the subjective "she".

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:00:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct -- but.... (0+ / 0-)

's a common, and understandable, mistake.
          In a different, but superficially similar, context -- such as, "I can do [task xyz] better than she [can]," -- the subjective case would be called for, even though it would sound jarring to many ears.
          Pronoun case is often a stumbling block for even the best-educated and most articulate, especially when it comes to the "relative pronouns," such as "who" and "whom."

      •  No one remembers Syria. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rainmanjr, Dr Swig Mcjigger

        As Nate Silver once explained, voters' interests shift quickly, and no one will remember or care about a military  intervention that never even took place. Unless there's significant American involvement (like Iraq or Afghanistan ) most voters don't care about foreign  policy to start with (anyone recall the Libya intervention ?)

      •  "She was a flawed candidate in 2008." (0+ / 0-)

        IMO it was more about dem voters not wanting B Clinton part 3

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:52:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually Hillary won (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

          among registered Democrats.  

        •  Partly, but mostly it was about HC (0+ / 0-)

          I think our Party recognized that single payer wasn't going to be possible and that's what Obama tapped into.  His adoption of Rmoney-care was the middle ground most believed was possible.  That and his charisma is why Obama won the nomination.  The odds were pretty good that either Dem would win the WH after what W did but it was going to be more certain with Obama.

          "If it takes all night / that'll be alright / if I can get you to smile before I leave." Jackson Browne

          by rainmanjr on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:23:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because Obama ran to the right of HRC (0+ / 0-)

            Single payer vs. Romneycare was just one example where Obama took the more moderate, centrist position compared to HRC.

             I think the country as a whole has moved to the left (marriage equality, legalization of marijuana, women pay equality, etc.)  HRC would probably be the right candidate for these times, she was a tad too "leftist" (when compared to the more centrist Obama) for the average voter 8 years ago, but with the country's leftward lurch we have seen over these last 8 years it would be a better fit.   I expect HRC as president to start the groundwork to move from managed care to single payer coverage for starters.  

            Warren is good, but she would be an underdog against someone like Jeb Bush in an election we have no business losing (given the demographic shifts strongly in our favor.)  Given a choice between them, I would rather not take the chance on Warren losing the race because we MUST win this next election at all costs because of the serious Supreme Court justice implications and the relative freshness of the ACA, which could at that point still be rolled back to previous status quo by a Republican president and a sympathetic House.    

      •  4 years as Sec. of State (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger, sukeyna

        was a nice add to her resume.

        Clinton may not be a favorite choice, but she is the most electable candidate.  It is easy to love Warren with her more populist agenda, but she will likely be more effective in the Senate or a cabinet seat than in the Oval Office.  (She would be a fine VP choice.)

        Say what you will about Clinton.  At the very least, even a bad Clinton presidency would be far better than any GOP presidency.  And the Dems won't damage her by putting her through the primary thrash that Romney went through and the GOP hopefuls for 2016 are doomed to repeat.  

        'As our area of knowledge expands, so too does our perimeter of ignorance.' - Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by American Expat on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 12:14:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary is slam dunk for nom; most electable Dem (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smartalek, American Expat, sukeyna

          I agree that Hillary is the most electable Democrat.  

          If she runs, she'll get the nomination.  No one could beat her here in the PA Dem primary.

          Because many nationally connected Republicans have known her ans worked with her over the years, she also tends to dull their partisan swords against her.  They will still oppose her and scream Benghazi (or whatever), but there will be less frothing at the mouth from most establishment Republicans.

          She can also say that when her husband was President and Democratic tax and spend policies were adopted (without a single Republican vote in Congress) we actually had federal budget SURPLUSES - in fact, not just trickle down theory. Only time in almost 45 years (since 1969) when federal budget ran surpluses.

    •  This is how Goldman Sachs is fighting back (12+ / 0-)

      Hillary's financial base is Wall Street and big corporate through and through.  

      The corporate board of directors of the Democratic party is doing its damnedest to make sure uppity voters don't get any ideas.  They want the "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the party -- otherwise known as Democrats -- to be enthused for 2014, then squelched before they get any ideas about creating a competitive primary for 2016.  

      Just like in 2008, they're trying to present Hillary as the fait accompli, to shut down any upstarts they'd have to go to some trouble to co-opt.  I don't think it'll work any better in 2016 than it did in 2008.  

      We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:30:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah they suffered so badly under Obama! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Where do you think up this things?

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:01:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ...and they still hate him... (0+ / 0-)

          ...because he's "anti-business."
          Obama raised far less from Wall St in '12 than he did in '08.
          Where have you been for the last 3+ years?
          Just two of many well-known sources on the subject:



          •  But he still is objectively (0+ / 0-)

            no less pro-business than Clinton would be. I think Wall Street doesn't like Democratic Presidents, especially black ones. However, to the point that Clinton is some kind of rightwing monster in Democratic clothing, I think you may be quite surprised at how much progressive legislation she may get done. She is widely admired for her pragmatism and toughness. She is also more liberal than either Obama or her husband, but without the aloofness of the former or the emotional neediness of the latter.

            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

            by Anne Elk on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 01:35:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunate, but apparently true (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CoyoteMarti, liberte, smartalek

        I like Hillary Clinton; I only wish I could trust her positions or her policy instincts.  This is the senator who flipped on the disastrous pro-Wall Street bankruptcy bill, who still seems to think that she was right to vote for the AUMF, who I see no obvious reason to trust on sovereignity-destroying trade agreements, on standing up to the security state, on standing up to IP maximalists, on pushing back against the overreaches of the financial services industry.

        I'd like to be persuaded otherwise: I respect her as an honorable woman and public servant, and I respect the strength she's shown under difficult circumstances.  I only wish I thought she would show the same strength on core policy issues that she has in response to political attacks.

        •  Flashmans (0+ / 0-)
          I'd like to be persuaded otherwise:
          I know what I would be getting from Hillary , there is no guessing about who and what she is , for me any way , and after watching Obama flip flop all over the place , there shouldn't be much doubt for anyone else on how she will govern , if she would be honest about how she would govern  , that would at least be a refreshing change for everyone

          Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

          by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:07:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Dallasdoc (0+ / 0-)
        to shut down any upstarts
        They learned their lesson last time , this time they will go in early and buy out anyone who tries to get some traction  

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:01:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  non-binding (0+ / 0-)

      Primary campaigns are not binding and so I think it would be better to evaluate her now, in the light of her actions, rather than hope she will suddenly "see the light".

      We need to get out of damascus politics.

      Damascus politics is failed politics

      Hillary Clinton is the "Bomb Syria" candidate

      by GideonAB on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:54:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Waiting (0+ / 0-)
      I'm waiting to see if she's moved leftward on anything before I get upset by this.
      Like California is waiting for rain, Minnesota for the polar vortex to go away and the East Coast is waiting for it to stop snowing.  Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

      Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

      by Helpless on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 06:46:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Leftward? (0+ / 0-)

      Dave, leftward of Cargyle-Hilary is still too far Right for America.  Either real Democrats primary challenge her or the rest of us (we outnumber the wealthy Blue Dogs but only have our votes, not lots of bucks) will bail in precedent-setting numbers.

  •  Big coup for Clinton (18+ / 0-)

    wooing the Obama campaign folks is a very smart move politically.  Still need a challenger to push Clinton to the left.  This definitely makes that task more difficult.  Taking on the Clinton machine was already a tall order.  Taking on a combined Clinton/Obama machine will be a nearly impossible task.

    "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

    by puakev on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:04:11 AM PST

      •  Who cares about the GOP ... (3+ / 0-)

        When we can trash our own best chance to win?

        Bonus: extra self-righteousness!

      •  Certainly, but for those hoping (5+ / 0-)

        for a serious challenge to make Hillary Clinton tack left, a Clinton-Obama machine merger makes a such a challenge more difficult.  It's not that I oppose Hillary necessarily.  If she's the nominee, I will support her.  But what I care most about in a Democratic candidate is that she is as liberal as possible.  That question is up to Democratic base voters, and a Clinton-Obama merger has the potential to seal up an enormous swath of the base.

        Now, simply having the Obama campaign heads doesn't guarantee this result, but it makes it far more likely.  Messina and Priorities USA have connections with the donors, activists, and operatives who made up the army that elected Obama.  Merge them with Clinton's own army of donors and operatives, not to mention merging their two massive email databases, and you have a very formidable operation.

        Only a truly unique and compelling political talent along the lines of an Obama could draw away enough voters to overcome such a machine.  I don't see Schweitzer being that guy.  Considering how popular both Clinton and Obama are within the Democratic base, I don't see how running aggressively against Clinton and Obama, as Schweitzer seems keen on doing, will play well with women, African Americans, and other key members of the Democratc base, especially considering Schweitzer's not very liberal stances on social issues and the environment.

        Which is a good thing if having Hillary Clinton as your nominee is your top concern.  But if having as liberal a candidate as possible whether that's Hillary or whoever, is your top concern, then it's a little worrying.

        "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

        by puakev on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:52:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, Schweitzer would run to the right of HRC (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          on social issues and the environment, making HRC look more progressive by comparison?  

          Instead of throwing about slams like "She is the corporate candidate" let's be honest here:  HRC is quite liberal on virtually all social issues like abortion rights,  marriage equality, environmental issues, gun control, education, etc.  When she was Senator of NY she routinely ranked in the top 10, top 12 lists as "most liberal" Senators:

          Could there be a "more" liberal candidate?  Warren does not have a sufficient resume yet to beat the GOP machine back.  

          Just my opinion, but my foremost worry is what happens with the Supreme Court over the next 10 years (Scalia and Kennedy are 77, Ginsburg is 80, Breyer is 75.)  We might be looking at as many as four Supreme Court justices to replace over the next 10 years, which makes the 2016 election an absolute must-win for us to turn the conservative tilt in the highest court around for decades to come.   I see us winning with HRC, not so much with Warren, Kucinich, etc.  

          •  On economic issues Schweitzer is to Hillary's left (0+ / 0-)

            and that is where she needs pushing.  I've got no problem with her on social issues.  Her closeness to the Wall Street-friendly Rubinites troubles me.  Given that the circles and world Hillary has lived in for the last 20+ years or so is that of the centrist political establishment, there is worry that her economic program will reflect that.

            But fortunately her economic policy preferences going forward haven't been defined clearly yet.  That is where a serious challenger who is economically to Hillary's left would be immensely valuable.  If such a challenger were to gain traction by running strongly to Clinton's left on economic issues, it might force Clinton to move left as well.  At the end of the day Hillary is a politician and her primary goal is winning.  If to secure victory she has to take up a far more liberal/populist economic agenda, then bully for her, but more importantly bully for us.

            Problem is, a Clinton-Obama merger makes it far less likely that a more economically liberal challenger can gain any traction.  Absent such a counterweight, Hillary will feel no pressure or imperative to tack left economically, which means she may hew to the centrist course that permeates the establishment circles she runs in and which her top advisor - her husband - most favors.

            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

            by puakev on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:28:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •   But there stands Hillary, like a stone wall ... (6+ / 0-)

      I too would prefer someone more leftist than her, but that would lose
      the independents, and probably the election, also.

      •  Maybe not, though. (11+ / 0-)

        I do think a strong progressive stance can win. Obama ran left in 2008 and 2012, at least compared to previous recent Democrats.

        •  I need to see Nov's results first. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unca Joseph, Ian Reifowitz

          Before agreeing that a progressive stance can win I'll have to see how we fare in Nov.  Prog's didn't do well in 2010 but the youth vote didn't show up (that might have changed things).  The populace has gotten pretty damned cynical about politicians, though, so we may not have as easy a time as we think.  Also, that kind of money machine would be vital against CU money.  Not many on the Dem side can raise that kind of cash but she can.  I think this is game on.

          "If it takes all night / that'll be alright / if I can get you to smile before I leave." Jackson Browne

          by rainmanjr on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:37:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nov '14 won't be predictive of '16 bcs... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian Reifowitz

            ...the turnout patterns will be so different.
            That said, obviously a surprisingly leftist / populist slant in the normally-conservative-leaning off-year voters would bode especially well for a progressive stance in '16.
            But the inverse would not be true at all; even a repeat of 2010 wouldn't argue against a left-leaning result in '16 -- just as 2010 didn't keep Obama from winning in '12, nor did it preclude a Democratic majority vote nationally.

          •  It ain't gonna be pretty (0+ / 0-)

            Loss of the senate seems highly possible now. Loss of more House seats is a given.

      •  It's more than time for a woman president... (12+ / 0-)

        I think Hillary will win big this time.  

        With no sign of republican intransigence letting up, I also think it will be good to have an experienced Democrat in the White House--someone who knows how to wield executive power and  combat political foes in order to get things done.

        Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

        by Happy Days on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:10:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  experienced Democrat (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unca Joseph, Patango, smartalek

          People can put in time without learning much from it.

          Why in her history shows that she will be good on employment, NSA reform, keeping the US out of wars?

          We cannot afford another war.  This is a redline which disqualifies her

          Hillary Clinton is the "Bomb Syria" candidate

          by GideonAB on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:43:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Amen. Who's more hawkish (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Unca Joseph, GideonAB, madronagal

            among Dems than Hillary? Always eager to show how tough she is.

          •  I disagree. She was SoS, after all. (3+ / 0-)

            A very popular one.  She built many relationships with foreign dignitaries and leaders.  HC (ironic initials) understands that Americans don't want more war and Obama will be leaving her in a good spot, if all goes well in Iran and Syrian chem-weap dismantling, so she may not have that problem at all.  But she also brings to that chair her husband and Obama.  I think she's a force and very willing to go further left if she feels secure.  Her healthcare preference was far more Prog than Obama's, after all, and it's said she disagreed heavily with NAFTA.

            "If it takes all night / that'll be alright / if I can get you to smile before I leave." Jackson Browne

            by rainmanjr on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:43:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  not sure (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              why you say that she understand that Americans do not want war. She was an advocate of bombing Syria.  So she did not put that understanding into practice.

              She has had an opportunity to move left and not taken it.  We cannot afford to just assume that she will magically improve.

              We need someone with a good track record, not another gamble

              Hillary Clinton is the "Bomb Syria" candidate

              by GideonAB on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 02:01:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That was b4 the idea of dismantling... (0+ / 0-)

                She was for a military strike on Syria, yes, but that was before the idea of dismantling the chem-weap's surfaced and got advanced.  There weren't many options, then, and a strike (not war but it could have led to it) seemed likely.  Voting for Iraq was the 2nd big reason she didn't get the nomination.  I agree that she's too hawkish but voting for war hasn't worked out well for her.  I doubt she'll have McCain goading her into such a stance and there won't be a lot of hot spots in 2017 for it.  Not if Obama's efforts in Iran and Syria are paying off.  She doesn't magically improve, no, but she does learn and she's studied under a brilliant statesman.  Obama.  I do believe that, in any event, she wouldn't go into war unless it seemed absolutely necessary.  Obama taught her a lesson in diplomacy and holding back, despite criticisms, that were hard to not notice.

                "If it takes all night / that'll be alright / if I can get you to smile before I leave." Jackson Browne

                by rainmanjr on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:12:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Happy Days are here again! (4+ / 0-)

            I would dearly love to see Elizabeth Warren seated in the Oval Office!
             It is now 'ladies choice', as American women will constitute the largest
            and most powerful voting bloc in our upcoming national elections.
             The foolish republicans are even now increasing with the utmost fervor
           their "War on Women".  They are concentrating their immense hatred
           on a woman's constitutional 'right to choose'.
             Seemingly, they have never learned the lesson which is contained
             in Euripides's play, Medea . . .
                 "Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned,
                  Nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned," - William Congreve

        •  she will get many suburban GOP women votes (4+ / 0-)

          What makes Hillary less than perfect in the eyes of many diarists on here (those who want a purer leftist candidate) makes Hillary MORE acceptable to middle of the road, moderate, swing voters, especially suburban women, including suburban Republican and no-party-stated women.  

          I foresee an election where many suburban Republican women tell their husbands they are voting for the Republican, but when they get in the privacy of the voting booth they will vote for Hillary - to elect the first woman President.

      •  President Obama got elected despite Reverend (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Unca Joseph

        ...Wright, and you believe that someone to the left of HRC would lose independents?

        Mayor Castro is to the left of HRC.

        Mayor Castro has executive experience.

        Mayor Castro has had to work for everything he has.

        And Mayor Castro will be our nominee, a far superior nominee to HRC.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

        by PatriciaVa on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:15:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well...glad you think so. (0+ / 0-)

      Too bad she won't be running against Mitt Romney.

      The real question is whether the Republicans can field a decent candidate.
      Or maybe the Greens...who knows?

      Hillary's as inevitable in 2016 as she was in 2008.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:26:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can we at least be happy that this means we'll (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wuod kwatch, smartalek

      probably flip scotus? If the dnc dscc or dccc send you mailers, send that link back to them and tell them you won't send money to people who defend democrats who betray progressive principals!

      by daeros on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:35:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unless the party base has Clinton/Obama fatigue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and said challenger (Brian Schweitzer, who has all but declared he's running, being the most likely candidate) makes a splash during the debates and energizes the Warren wing of the party. If he does it could cause headaches for the neo-liberals (aka "Billary").

      Also, Schweitzer is a better on television than both Hillary and Obama combined, in my opinion. At the very least, we're gonna find out how having a superior message for change, not to mention a real gift of the gab, translates into popular support and excitement heading into Iowa. Hillary, if she's smart will try and con the Warren wing into thinking she's moved to the left. Because Schweitzer, if he's smart, will position himself as the OWS (without actually saying it) candidate, while making a move for left-libertarians by coming out for nationally legalized marijuana, attacking the NSA, drones, etc.

      No doubt Hillary will play it safe though, leaving Schweitzer with a huge pool of untapped voters and donors to go after... Again, if he's smart. Nobody else in the democratic party would dream, or is even capable, of appealing to independents.

      That's my hope at least.

      •  But Schweitzer Said A Really Dumb Thing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rainmanjr, Osiris

        I can't tell you how delighted I was when Brian Schweitzer burst on the scene a few weeks ago, apparently saying everything I've been longing to hear from a presidential candidate.  Finally, I thought, a challenger to the hawkish pro-Wall Street Hillary.

        But the fact is that many of us, myself included, still have a more favorable than unfavorable opinion of Obama.  He got health insurance done after one hundred years of failure; no, the program's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than nothing, about 30 million people better than nothing.  He got the first nuclear arms treaty passed in years.  He repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  And right now he's in the midst of delivering on an extraordinarily courageous initiative that he promised as a candidate, negotiating directly with Iran on their nuclear program.  That was one of those ideas which had the foreign policy establishment folks in this country reaching for their smelling salts, but it was the right thing to do, and not a single other presidential candidate on the horizon said anything like that.

        And yet when Schweitzer was asked the other day if there was anything in particular for he would single Obama out for praise, Schweitzer's smart-ass answer was "I'll try to think of something."

        Come on, Governor Schweitzer; snark is not an attractive trait, especially when accompanied by willful ignorance.

  •  Sigh (4+ / 0-)

    Oh well I guess. More air take out of the room and left with an empty feeling and the Clintons to look forward to. I knew it was going to happen when Obama saved Hilary with the Sec of State position. That left the door open for her and she's taking it. But where's the loyalty if Biden wants to run?

     Just great {rolls eyes and at 2016}

  •  Guessing this is the quo for the quid of (12+ / 0-)

    Bill Clinton campaigning for Obama in 2012.

    Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

    by whenwego on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:20:48 AM PST

  •  HRC will not be the next president. A real (20+ / 0-)

    progressive candidate will rise to oppose her and he or she will prevail.

    After everything we've been through, I can't imagine a candidate that takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs for a speech will be our nominee.

    •  Well, if that is to happen... (4+ / 0-)

      ...I suspect we'll see evidence of a priority shift among voters in this year's congressional elections.

    •  Eat your peas, sir (11+ / 0-)

      I fear we are stuck with her and I'm only wondering when she is going to condescend to remove herself from the plutocrat dinners long enough to tell us how mushy those peas are going to be.

      Will we get both war with Iran (Schumer surrogate) and cuts in Social Security (Rendell surrogate)?  Only the plutocrats know for sure.  

    •  If I were a betting man, I'd bet you on that. (8+ / 0-)

      Your "certain" prediction is possible, but as of now Hillary Clinton is a clear favorite and there is no "progressive candidate," unless you consider Schweitzer "progressive."   Still a long way off.  

      Could you vote for Hillary Clinton if she is nominated?  I suppose we can wait and see what happens.  Based on your writings, I don't see how you could vote for HRC, but I may misunderstand.  

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:31:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you're dreaming (10+ / 0-)

      what do you think the current party is? It's a subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs.

      Dear NSA: I am only joking.

      by Shahryar on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hate to tell you Ray (5+ / 0-)

      because I think we're ideologically at the same point in the spectrum.  

      I think Hillary is a shoo in.  We don't have a strong progressive that can beat her outside of Warren and she's not running.

      Now that doesn't mean we can't influence policy under a Hillary presidency.  For starters we can make noise and get a solid progressive on the ticket with her so that in 10 years we will have the ideal candidate at the top of the ticket.  Being that Hillary will be a very strong candidate at the top against whatever crackpot piece of shit the GOP serves, we can focus on other races.  For example in the Senate we have a good opportunity to pick up 6 to 10 seats and maybe more if a strong enough wave is created.  We can get more progressives like Warren, Murphy, Baldwin, Brown, Merkley and so on.  We can elect more progressives in the House in the blue seats and flip the House.  

      If Hillary is the president and the Dems retake the House and have a strong filibuster proof majority in the Senate then they can influence Hillary if not directly then by exerting pressure on her to veer left.  We already know the GOP will oppose her every step of the way so it'll be pointless to even try and include them in the discussions.  But progressives can use that as leverage to extract various demands from her.  

      But in order for all this to happen we need to start now.  Not wait til the convention to come together.  We need to start grooming candidates for races in 2016, cajoling others like Russ Feingold to take the plunge and come together behind someone to if not challenge Hillary at least make enough of an impression to be included on her ticket.  Personally I like Schweitzer as her VP.  he balances her ticket, gives it a bit of populist juice and since he's from Montana he'll give Dems a legitimate voice outside of the liberal coasts.  I think if we focus too much on Hillary we'll miss a tremendous opportunity to influence policy in this country for a decade at least.    

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 05:13:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Progressive Congress (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bill W, Noodles, politicalceci

        A progressive VP gets us nowhere.  The VP doesn't really have a lot of say over policy.  A progressive Congress, on the other hand...

        •  Au contraire (0+ / 0-)

          A progressive VP will give us a very good shot at getting us a progressive president in 10 years.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:25:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't agree (0+ / 0-)

            How many VPs have gone on to be elected President in recent generations?  Bush 41, Johnson, and Truman are the only ones I can think of, and in both Johnson's and Truman's cases they were incumbents due to the death of president they served under.  Gore and Mondale were both defeated.

            No, it's congress we really need to work on.  A progressive congress will give a progressive president room to work.

            •  Personally I think we need both (0+ / 0-)

              We'll just agree to disagree.

              Lets look at the cast of VP's in recent generations.

              Darth Cheney - didn't run

              Al Gore - got election stolen from him

              Dan Quayle - lost re-election with Bush.  Dumber than a potato or is it potatoe?

              George H.W. Bush - won election in 88

              Walter Modale - lost re-election with Carter.  Got ass handed to him in 84.

              Nelson Rockefeller - quit in 76.  Bob Dole became VP candidate with Ford and both lost.

              Gerald Ford - Became president and lost re-election in 76.

              Spiro T. Agnew - Um yeah.

              Also you forgot Richard M. Nixon who was in fact VP under Eisenhower.  In fact Truman, Nixon and LBJ were three VP's who eventually went on to become presidents as well. The only VP's  from 1945 to 1975 who didn't go on to become presidents in their own right were Alben Barkley who was deemed too old in 1952 (and sure enough he dropped dead 4 years later), Spiro Agnew who well...  , and Hubert Humphrey who was just on the wrong side of the Vietnam War, started campaigning late due to LBJ bowing out late and as a result split the party in half.  

              So I don't get what you're trying to say.  For many reasons the VP has not been a very effective stepping stone but that's not because of the office.  It's because of the people.  

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 11:43:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  We don't have to roll-over for Hillary (0+ / 0-)

        If the money-backers think that we are all going to just roll over and play dead for Hillary, we need to send them some different signals. We need to start doing it NOW.

        I dont' want another non-progressive Democrat in the White House.It is too costly. Even if the progressive Dem loses , it sends a signal to the other side that the people want something different.  

        •  A 'signal'? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rainmanjr, sukeyna


          Do you not see what an unalloyed disaster a GOP win would be?

          And PLEASE don't spout off about there being 'no difference.'

        •  Well who do you suggest then? (4+ / 0-)

          Dennis Kucinich?  As much as I like the guy, he's done more harm to our cause than good.  

          So unless a strong progressive candidate who can credibly challenge Hillary stands up, we may not have a choice.  If your choice is Hillary or Ted Cruz what will you do?  Bitch and complain?  Vote Third Party?  Meanwhile you just squandered an opportunity to support and promote progressives to far more winnable races at the Senate and House levels.  The president is a figurehead.  Congress is where the real power is.  If that weren't the case then the House GOP wouldn't be such a pain in Obama's ass and our country wouldn't be stuck in this morass we find ourselves in.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:30:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  "Ahhh, Ahhh … ElizabethWarren… Choo" (4+ / 0-)

      God Bless you ...

    •  folly - won't happen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      HRC will swamp any and every opponent (if any do run) in every primary and essentially every caucus.

      There is NO groundswell - none - for any Democrat - ANY Democrat - to oppose Hillary for the nomination.

  •  The difference this time (10+ / 0-)

    is (1) no Barack Obama and (2) hopefully she will campaign as if she needs to win the nomination and not just receive it.  It's not 2008.

    I'm still keeping an open mind on HRC.  If nominated, I will vote for her in the general election.   As for primaries, hard to know now, but it is possible even though I have some issue differences with her (at least based on the 2008 campaign).  I also has issue differences with Barack Obama then.    

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:28:24 AM PST

    •  Not if she continues DLC battleground state crap (0+ / 0-)

      That's what sunk her against Obama. The old DLC crew ran her campaign. If she doesn't change tactics it will be especially tough as conservatives of all stripes will come out to vote against her. There will be a huge turnout to keep her out of the White House more than to support any given GOP candidate. Even running a smart campaign will not make it easy. Don't underestimate the right's fear and hatred of her.

  •  Clinton President? HELL NO nt (8+ / 0-)

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

    by 420 forever on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46:29 AM PST

  •  Well, if so, I hope her health is good. It's a (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, TomP, TheLizardKing, Ian Reifowitz

    long wearing road and it grinds people down.

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

    by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:53:51 AM PST

  •  HRC's profile stronger now than in 2006-8 cycle (6+ / 0-)

    so it is essential, for the purpose of demonstrating how many Democratic primary voters are to Hillary's Left, for these voters to be offered a single alternative candidate.

    A possible exception to this argument is the potential usefulness of additional Black, Latino and/or female candidate(s) capable of attracting Democratic primary voters who might prefer Hillary over a White male candidate to Hillary's Left.

    These are the only scenarios that seem likely to give Hillary sufficiently serious competition to pressure her on policy-positioning and VP-selection.

    But Progressives' top priorities should be dictated by the fact that Hillary's actual policies after election will be determined more by the make-up of Senate/House than by anything that happens during the Presidential election.


  •  Ian, this sentence is pretty funny, frankly... (6+ / 0-)
    ....No one says that Messina coordinated the move with the President, or even ran it by him beforehand, so we're talking about speculation at this point...
    Either you've never worked professionally in a major campaign, or you should be thinking about join the communications staff of one...not sure which one it is. But, if I had to put my money on one or the other, it'd be the latter.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 12:19:13 PM PST

  •  God save us... (6+ / 0-)

    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:52:16 PM PST

  •  Gosh, I hope I get invited to the coronation (4+ / 0-)

    I'm keen to see who Chelsea wears!

    It always seems impossible until its done. -Nelson Mandela

    by chuckvw on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:54:10 PM PST

  •  Please no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How many times did she say that her running for office days were over? I'd love to see a montage of that, it would take me to a happy place that I know doesn't exist.

    Not sure who I grow the most weary of, her or Bill.

    •  now, now! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      How many times did she say that her running for office days were over?
      She's a politician.  Expecting honesty out of a politician is, well, kind of foolish.  Especially when the politician's ambition is in play.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:07:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know, I'm bad. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But it is not often that a politician is so damn adamant about a thing knowing good and well that it is a lie.

        I can understand, not necessarily forgive, a politician who acts differently once reality hits in but this was so insultingly brazen.

        •  Oh, please. Couple of holy rollers we've (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CoyoteMarti, sukeyna, Tuffie, liberte, pdkesq

          got here. Are you two seriously dense enough not to have recognized the ridiculous game-playing the MSM engaged in during her time in the administration when it came to this question?

          Anything but denials would have fed rumors that she would challenge President Obama in 2012. She was a great team player and you two schmucks call her a liar.


          •  Blaming the media already? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's going to be a long, long election season. Oh well, it will be nice to see all the PUMAs come back to the party now.

          •  What's pathetic is that she never answered (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            with something like "I am delighted to serve in President Obama's administration" -- period.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 07:16:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  There's a certain thrill to lying repeatedly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          while comfortable in the knowledge that one can get away with it.  Classic transgressive act à la Nietzsche.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 07:14:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Goodnight, folks! (5+ / 0-)

    Sorry, I can't hang around for the rest of the discussion. It's up early with the kids for me.

  •  She is too conservative for me. no thanks. NT (5+ / 0-)

    "We need a revolution away from the plutocracy that runs Government."

    by hangingchad on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:00:51 PM PST

  •  Jim Messina? I love Jim Messina. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson

    especially with Kenny.

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:01:20 PM PST

    •  Jim Messina STILL has it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Excellent musician and songwriter.  I almost met him once when my sister was prepared to marry Rusty Young.  Thank goodness she didn't.

      No comparison to the WH Jim Messina.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:27:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like Hillary, but ... (6+ / 0-)

    I like Hillary, but she is a bad manager.  Twice she started out with inevitable projects, health care and her candidacy, and twice she blew them.  She started with all the ducks lined up in a row, with full expectations of success, and then proceeded to blow them. She hires unsuitable people.  While Obama's campaign purred like a cat, hers was marred by public infighting.

    If she runs she will get the nomination.  I will vote for her in the presidential vote..  Given the structural advantages we have in the electoral college and the pathetic bench the Republicans have, she will win.

    I still fear what her administration will be like.

    •  You will vote for her.......... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      River Rover, White Buffalo

      But you fear what her administration will be like?

      Does not compute.  Why vote for her?

      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 Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:10:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My line of thinking... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...has been that, if Hillary were to be elected president, she'd probably be a one-termer and may not even win re-nomination. Her administration would probably become rife with infighting not long after taking office, in fact, one possible reason why Elizabeth Warren wants Hillary to run for president (she signed a letter asking her to run) is because she'd easily become a prominent critic of Hillary from the left not long after Hillary were to take office and easily overshadow Hillary's presidency.

      There are three natural adversaries of the progressive movement: Republicans, the Democratic establishment, and the mainstream media

      by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:14:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary is not good at leadership. I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, Portlaw

      She screwed up health care and she let infighting mare her campaign. Why would you vote for this person? It would be self-abuse. You don't have to settle for Hillary. She is not a progressive and she is a warhawk. She is good at fighting. I enjoyed the hell she gave Republicans as Secretary of State. But that is not good enough for president.

      You are telling the people that you will settle for second best even when you don't need to. That is so irrational.
      Sometimes I think Democrats like kicking themselves in the head. I can't figure it out.

      •  She didn't run an impressive campaign either (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        owlbear1, Portlaw, Citizenpower

        Remember when she and Bill had to lend her campaign money just to limp through the next set of primaries? Her focus on primaries while ignoring the caucus states was a fatal mistake. Obama killed it in the caucus states and while she was limping he made his biggest gains on her in the Chesapeake primaries and never looked back.

        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

        by fcvaguy on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:07:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Please, god no......... (10+ / 0-)

    No more Clintons.

    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 Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:04:51 PM PST

  •  Meh. Who is Priorities USA? (6+ / 0-)

    Their web site shows little to nothing about the organization, who works for them, who sits on their board, etc.

    If Jim Messina is involved, count me out. He's an ignorant, corporate ass-kissing kid.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:09:48 PM PST

  •  Messina (8+ / 0-)

    So nice to know that if Hillary runs, she'll have the same adviser as David Cameron. It makes the Democratic Party's principles pretty clear, then, no?

  •  Well done and also very timely piece, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, Ian Reifowitz


    There is a concurrent diary running which lists potential Republican nominees for the 2016 election.  

    Reading your diary with this specific news, and weighing the list of names on the GOP side, I'd say the Republicans are looking at some pretty rough going.  

  •  Dean/Sanders or Sanders/Dean in 2016 (3+ / 0-)

    Please make it so!

  •  I'll take any rational Democrat (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, randomfacts, TXdem, Tuffie, sukeyna

    over any Republican, any day of the week, any week of the year.  Yes, that includes a Blue Dog (which Clinton isn't) or a Third Way (which I don't think she really is).

    Would I like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, or the like better as president?  Most probably.  Would I be happy with Clinton?  I believe so.  I supported her in the primary in 2008, but even then my sense was that Obama would make an excellent president, and in the event, he out-executed her and overall I've been quite happy with him.

    In the event, a lot could happen between now and 2016, and it's still about 18 months from things really starting to heat up.  But we do need to win in 2016 and then 2020 -- and not overlook the midterm election, too!

    •  Why would you waste this opportunity? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patango, Portlaw, histOries Marko

      Why would you settle for a Blue Dog?
      Why not support someone who isn't on an austerity kick ?

      The lack of spine in Democrats makes me very disgusted at times. You get what you ask for. I want more. At least when you run a Sherrod Brown or an Elizabeth Warren, the other side knows where your heart and mind are.

      What better time to offer a real progressive than when Mitt just crashed and burned and Christie, the Great White Hope for the Republican Party, is on a down-slide? Send a message to the other side. Seek out and support a candidate that we can be proud off.

      •  Exactly , I would rather not have ANY (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        GOP light , blue dog or moderate voters voting with the dems FOR PRESIDENT , that is how we get crappy legislation and governing , look at all these dem clowns who supported or laid down for Chris Crispy Cream Christie , they all look like a bunch of chumps and suckers now , that is not what we want the dem party to look like

        State elections for federal reps are another story , sometimes you have no choice besides a blue dog , but their breed will be dead soon also  

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:55:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  ahhh - because we want to win?!? (0+ / 0-)

        No one will beat Hillary in the PA Dem primary. Probably the same for most of the Midwest states' Dem primaries.

        Not sure where you expect to amass the primary and caucus votes for your "purer" Democrat.

        With Obama's tacit support and the Clintons' fence-mending with the African-American movers and shakers and general population since 2008, she will have overwhelming support among African-American primary voters.

        Assuming your alternative is male, she'll have overwhelming support among women (including non-college and college women - the crusade to elect first woman President).

        Another Dem will not beat HRC for the nomination in 2016 - a'int gonna happen.

        •  It may happen but you can let the money- (0+ / 0-)

          people backing her that we are alive and well and
          want representation.

          I am sure that the money people backing Mitt were pretty upset when he didn't pay-off. He was suppossed to be a good investment, a sure thing. That is why we have some Republicans questioning the importance of the Tea Party.
          Don't throw you vote away on Hillary right out of the gate.
          We haven't even gotten to the highway yet.

  •  I'm underwhelmed. n/t (5+ / 0-)

    The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

    by psnyder on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:29:36 PM PST

  •  How far left? (0+ / 0-)

    Depends on the Republican running. She could appeal to indies that lean right, and if it is a far right or libertarian, how many lefters would sit out?

  •  Clinton/Booker 2016! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    There is a time to think and a time to act and this gentlemen, is no time to think! Bud Boomer

    by celtic pride on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:39:40 PM PST

  •  Liberal? Really? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "The largest liberal “super PAC” in the country has begun raising money to elect Hillary Rodham Clinton president."

    That's all you need to know. Now get in line all of you! The all-mighty super PAC commands you.

  •  I feel everywhichway about this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nebraska68847Dem, Tuffie, owlbear1

    Like most people who have commented in this thread, I'm way the flip to the left of Obama and HRC. In 2008, I was very nearly ecstatic when Obama beat Clinton, but disappointment and disillusionment with Obama followed very quickly and hasn't gone away. How much does it really matter anymore that Obama kicked the DLC to the curb when he then goes and hands Geithner and Summers the job to "clean up" Wall Street? So at this point, it's not all that clear to me how much worse things could get under a Clinton presidency. Except, I know all too well that things WILL get worse, because the time to reverse what hypercapitalism is doing to the planet and to our society and political system is running out fast.

    Then there's this: When was the last time the Democrats held on to the White House for a third cycle? That's right, that would have been 1948. The pollsters tell us that Hillary could pull it off. And there is a reason why Hillary Rodham Clinton may pull off what no Democrat has done since Harry Truman. Like Obama, she can offer a winning narrative for her presidency: first female president. Can we recruit a progressive challenger who could do the same? If not, are willing to live with what the next Republican or Teahadist president will do to the Supreme Court, and via it the nation?

    I'd love to see a strong challenger rise on the Left. But currently I'm not seeing that challenger.

    "I understand, Mr. Spock. The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity."

    by brainwave on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:53:37 PM PST

  •  Now you can see why Bill did that knockout (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    speech for Obama in the convention.

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:58:38 PM PST

  •  Totally baffled (3+ / 0-)

    by how the Times can claim Messina sought, needed, or wanted Obama's approval.

    He's a hired gun, and works for a paycheck.

    I am a Progressive. I believe in one simple phrase: "... with liberty, and justice for all."

    by Nebraska68847Dem on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:04:56 PM PST

  •  Messina is also the Tories camapaign strategist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    hired by David Cameron to get him re-elected next year.


  •  I was hoping (0+ / 0-)

    Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm would run , they new it would be wise to take her out maybe , she might have one up her sleeve yet

    I would love to see the liberal Hillary run , win , and govern as such , but I am not delusional

    I would also like to see her go far right , and lose really bad , and re establish the left of the dem party  

    Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

    by Patango on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:12:02 PM PST

  •  if she wins the nomination... there goes the party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    unless she vowed to make Iraqi reconstruction a centerpiece of her admin i could not vote for Hillary.  i imagine there's alot of dems who feel significantly more distaste towards her than many did about Gore and continuing Clinton's trade policies.

    God knows what hybrid of evil the RNC will put forth as a candidate, but if Hillary gets the 2016 nomination, 3rd and 4th parties will start looking very, very attractive regardless of political leanings.  

    From the little bit of perusal of "those" websites i do, there's quite a bit of distaste on the non-rabid, non-authoritarian right for the current crop of clowns being tested for the right's presidential candidate.

    I imagine alot of small "d" dems feel the same way about Hillary.  I don't see her braking our march to fascism anymore than Obama has.

    elipsii: helping the masses express aposiopesis for...

    by bnasley on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:29:37 PM PST

  •  No No No (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, kathg

    Anybody but her.  Please.  We've had enough DINOs.

    We. Need. A. Real. Democrat.

    "Everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die" --- Albert King

    by HarpboyAK on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:41:25 PM PST

  •  NOPE, "Sorry" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    After SIXTEEN years of status quo, corporate arse-kissing-- first by Bill Clinton who enabled our now train wreck economy by agreeing to NAFTA (one million jobs lost) and agreed to get rid of Glass-Steagall Act--

    and eight years of the Obama administration who brought in Clinton alumni Emanuel ("F*** the unions!), clueless Larry Summers, etc. etc.; I'm not supporting this total nonsense any longer.

    HRC in 2007 after Obama starting using the bogus change meme: "Hey, I'm for change, too!"

    No you're not, and that's a big problem.

    "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 02:41:38 AM PST

  •  too many people here want to repeat Nader 2000 (0+ / 0-)

    Florida disaster it seems.

    Scary.  Talk about not learning our lesson ....

  •  Too many here miss the obvious. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz, tomwatson

    I fully understand why so many progressives have misgivings about Hillary Clinton as a candidate for the Presidency.  However, just as many in the GOP live in absolute denial of the facts regarding the state of their many possible candidates, so do many in this site in particular live in denial about the realities of Hillary Clinton's run in 2008.

    First, at very best, a brilliant, once-in-a-lifetime candidate, Barack Obama, whose very candidacy itself was historic, bested her by very little indeed.  Most neutral observers would point out the fact that candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took an almost equal share of enthusiastic delegates to the Democratic Convention in 2008.  Thus, when President elect Obama selected Hillary Clinton for his top cabinet position as Secretary of State, it was not just a result of his thinking in terms of working with a "team of rivals" in the vein of Lincoln, it was also a result of his realizing early on, unlike the passions of the inveterately Left, that he needed to heal the rift with that veritable other half of the Democratic Party.

    Secondly, the landslide victory of Barack Obama in 2008 was also very much a function of that Hillary Clinton "other half" of that Democratic Party going just as enthusiastically to the polls to begin a new era, away from the hard-core Right's influence in Washington.

    Thirdly, 2008 represented a truly open year for Democratic candidates.  The Democratic natural constituency and donor base was fully divided between Obama and Clinton.  This included the labor movement, the Hispanic and LGBT community and Hollywood.  Everywhere then one found divided loyalties.

    Now, regarding 2016, the landscape has changed dramatically.  Hillary Clinton is now the former United States Secretary of State, with an extremely close relationship with President Obama.  Should Vice-President Biden not elect to run, can there be any doubt that President Obama will not enthusiastically campaign for Hillary Clinton should she be the nominee?

    And can there be any doubt that among all possible candidates for 2016, men or women, whatever their political affiliation, nobody even approaches the credentials of Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Indeed, in the entire history of the United States, how many others have served in as many and diverse national roles as has former Secretary Clinton?

    Moreover, her candidacy this time round is even more historic, if only because, by nearly everyone's observation, she might now relatively easily become the first woman President of the United States.

    I do not submit that should she elect to run again her path will not be difficult.  For many years, many among the MSM have been bound and determined to prevent a "Clinton restoration" to the White House.  Expect the beltway media to be merciless in their condemnation of "Clinton privilege," pointing out time and again every element of her already well investigated past, from her work for the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas through her multiple affiliations today, with constant references to her husband's already well-reported dalliances and social contacts.

    There will be a hue and cry from the more progressive bloggers.  Many on the Right, particularly the inveterate Clinton haters and conspiracy theorists, will again produce tales of "Clinton body counts," and strange accounts of presumed Clinton cults.  And there will be candidates endearing themselves to the press and public as veritable Daniels fighting the Clinton powerhouse.

    That said, the reality of our current political landscape and of what is likely for 2016 is vastly different from 2008.   Should she decide to run again, Hillary Clinton enters the fray this time in a way unprecedented in American politics--having the likely blessing of the President of the United States, whose own powers to move masses to the polls is unprecedented.  She will have at her disposal his supreme fund-raising base, as well as an already well-established base representing millions more nominally called "Ready for Hillary."

    And she will bring with her the experience of having been expected to win her party's nomination in 2008 but losing to now President Barack Obama.  That itself is an asset, adding to her more than four decades of experiences in the political realm.  And she will surely have support from more than a few across the political aisle, who will appreciate both her maturity and her extraordinary resume.  Thus, unlike most any other candidate among the current field, she could well emerge with a forty state sweep into The White House.

    Regardless of the presumptions by the punditocracy, we do not yet know even if she has decided to run.  And it is a political certainty that all politics is in flux, and even a week in the political arena can be game-changing.

    But should Hillary Rodham Clinton become the Democratic nominee in 2016, it is well past time that all, particularly within the progressive blogs, accept the reality of her past, to prepare themselves for the possible reality of her future.

  •  oh sweet jesus (0+ / 0-)

    what can we do to stop her!
    I want anyone but her.  she was on the midst of okaying the Keystone pipeline until environmental groups went after it.
    one of her aides is the main lobbyist for Canada.
    I admit I voted for her in the primary against Obama
    because he voted present on important issues that he didn't want his opinion known.  He has been a disappointment on several issues.  The first half of the pipeline Obamas half went into operation on 1/22. We need  a   more liberal person to get behind.  How about O'Malley from Maryland.  I am not sold on Schweitzer  I  am afraid he is with ranchers and that isn't good more land for cattle less for everything else.  their killing wolves to save caribou for the hunters.  why we reintroduced them to kill them is beyond my thought power. what about his baby the TPP, I haven't heard anything about that. I read that he is going to ask for fast track.  He talks about income inequality yet will have no problem shipping more manufacturing jobs to the pacific nations.  

    •  Forward, not Backwards! (0+ / 0-)

      O'Malley has great politics. I'm anxious about his charisma and political chops on a national stage, given his awkward nerd-love 2012 DNC performance. But I hope he can make a go of it. He has overseen a successful MD economy during the Great Recession, the Maryland DREAM Act, and marriage equality. A better track record than a lot of governors have.

      "We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon." ~FDR

      by hsuper on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:53:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would rather have Biden. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

    by swtexas on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 06:57:52 AM PST

  •  Whither Progressives? (0+ / 0-)

    "Being the 'inevitable nominee' didn't work out so well for her in 2008, but this time, who knows?"

    Being the inevitable nominee didn't work out last time because progressives opposed her.  Will they support her this time?  Who knows?

  •  Legitimizing a corrupt system (0+ / 0-)

    In our bribery based representative government, depending on politician saviors is exactly what the oligarchy wants us to do.  

  •  GORE 2016!! (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary can't win in 2016. That is going to be Al Gore's year to shine.

  •  The purpose of primaries (0+ / 0-)

    The left needs to support a progressive candidate, even if it's a futile project. Let's just look at the last two competitive cycles. Democratic primary candidates in 2004 gave zero concern to opposing the Iraq War until Howard Dean came out strongly against it, and progressives supported him for it. Democratic primary candidates in 2008 gave zero concern for health care reform until John Edwards came out strongly for it, and progressives supported him for it.

    There will in this cycle, like all competitive cycles, be a candidate who speaks to the progressive zeitgeist on an issue that all the other candidates are ignoring. Maybe it's climate change, maybe it's poverty, maybe it's comprehensive immigration reform. Who knows? But when it happens, and it will happen, progressives and the left need to get strongly behind that candidate, if only to ensure that said progressive agenda item becomes the signature policy of whoever ends up in the White House, Hillary or otherwise.

    "We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon." ~FDR

    by hsuper on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 10:04:50 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site