Skip to main content

No, I haven't become a centrist overnight and I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heart beat.

I have been watching the attacks on Wendy Davis on the right and that has reached a nasty level.

I tend to be a realist in American politics whilst still willing to push from the left and Hillary has a real chance of winning in 2016. No matter on how many issues that I have fundamental disagreements with her policies she is far better than anybody on the right, and yes this will be another election based on "better than the crazy".

My reasoning for my positive diary title is for something else entirely.

In 2008 we elected the first African American to be our President. The result of such an abomination sent the right wing completely over the edge and they took the GOP into conspiracy laden racism with the birther and tea party movements. The only appalling thing of Obama's presidency has been to get millions of Americans health insurance, Oh the utter evil of it all.

The soft  underbelly of endemic racism was ripped open for all to see [apart form those subjected to it daily], it opened many eyes that racism was alive and well in the US, post racial my ass.

During this time we have seen sexism reach levels that have not been seen for decades coming out of the right. The war on women has been real

Examples at the state and federal level have included restricting contraception; cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasounds; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, and prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their policies.
Elected republicans have fallen over themselves in a mad dash to show their complete lack of understanding of women.
Roger Rivard (R-WI):  ”Some girls rape easy.” – October 2012
Mitt Romney: “I went to a number of women’s groups and said ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.” —October, 2012
Todd Akin (R-MO): “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down” - mid 2012 Senate Campaign
Nobody plans to have an accident in a car accident, nobody plans to have their homes flooded. You have to buy extra insurance for those two.”
-Barbara Listing, leader of Right To Life, comparing rape to a car accident, May 2013.
"Women don't care about contraception." - Republican governor from South Carolina, Nikki Haley
The quotes can go on for pages, and if you think that is bad, you aint seen nothing yet.

Hillary Clinton is a lightening rod for the craziest nastiest republicans, possibly even more so than Obama and if there is anyone that couldn't care less what they think it is her.

Personally I like my homophobia, sexism and racism out in the open where I can see it, rather than hidden by some soft focus idealism of a society that does not exist. I like my right wingnuts frothing at the mouth rather than pretending to be compassionate conservatives. Only when the hatred is out in the open for all to see can it be dealt with.

If Hillary does run for 2016 every woman in the world will see exactly what the right thinks of women in general, it might even open the eyes of women on the right who are aiding and abetting the war on women.

It is going to be really nasty, but it is long past time that the right's inherent sexism was viewed upon a world stage. I'm ready for the filth, are you?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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: How nasty will it get, and if Hillary is (264+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    earicicle, Jim P, KrazyKitten, Youffraita, murrayewv, Leftleaner, Morgan Sandlin, Chi, Bob Friend, blueoasis, MikePhoenix, sunbro, renzo capetti, Pluto, joanbrooker, dsb, sprogga, SaraBeth, eyo, JKTownsend, allensl, skohayes, rapala, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Onomastic, wtpvideo, rat racer, MartyM, a2nite, cassandraX, ratcityreprobate, Mike S, Remediator, Curt Matlock, claude, Dave in Northridge, GwenM, Hammerhand, reflectionsv37, glitterlust, paulex, Nance, expatjourno, Dave in AZ, DSC on the Plateau, VeggiElaine, Brainwrap, serendipityisabitch, reginahny, TheLizardKing, Jon Sitzman, kathny, jeannew, Dartagnan, Livvy5, joelgp, DerAmi, sandav, pioneer111, democracy inaction, rmonroe, TexMex, decisivemoment, Galtisalie, NM Ray, Matilda, waterstreet2013, CwV, The grouch, HeartlandLiberal, TheMeansAreTheEnd, Lawrence, lunachickie, kj in missouri, Tommymac, dle2GA, Blue Jean, mjd in florida, Pat K California, kerflooey, deha, The Lone Apple, buffan, BlueFranco, joyous, muddy boots, Matt Z, randallt, Diogenes2008, Windowpane, princesspat, zerelda, mookins, Bonsai66, side pocket, pierre9045, mikeVA, Denver11, gchaucer2, GreenMother, AJayne, Lying eyes, poco, mconvente, dopper0189, sideboth, Lysis, Carol in San Antonio, HoundDog, theKgirls, Chitown Kev, clinging to hope, nyceve, collardgreens, Mother Mags, high uintas, enhydra lutris, cpresley, Lefty Ladig, i saw an old tree today, Bush Bites, ArthurPoet, unfangus, Bear, MBNYC, Lost and Found, 3rock, indubitably, Jjc2006, Joe Jackson, puakev, commonmass, Haf2Read, fou, Kascade Kat, Nannyberry, JamieG from Md, Texknight, roberb7, middleagedhousewife, quill, Chrislove, Brahman Colorado, I love OCD, OllieGarkey, Alumbrados, splashy, brn2bwild, CDH in Brooklyn, TracieLynn, barleystraw, sfbob, kenwards, cazcee, sabo33, absdoggy, thomask, nickrud, bleeding blue, countwebb, Asinus Asinum Fricat, implicate order, bkamr, pixxer, Themistoclea, annieli, CA Nana, ridemybike, TofG, stone clearing, MadGeorgiaDem, Mr Robert, puckmtl, oldliberal, AnnieR, virginislandsguy, batchick, bbctooman, LSophia, gramofsam1, terrya, Pam from Calif, freakofsociety, Radiowalla, cookseytalbott, bristlecone77, DEMonrat ankle biter, tofumagoo, LefseBlue, The Hindsight Times, bsegel, left my heart, leeleedee, psnyder, camlbacker, Chinton, Susan from 29, onionjim, Sylv, filby, GAS, blueoregon, Cedwyn, shesaid, Linda1961, Mostserene1, Little Flower, BayAreaKen, TrueBlueMajority, jplanner, sea note, marylrgn, zorp, kjoftherock, ColoTim, cocinero, ypsiCPA, fcvaguy, tb92, Bongobanger, Audio Guy, Bule Betawi, karlpk, vigilant meerkat, jessical, Tunk, kickthecan, joejoe, StellaRay, Bridge Master, catwho, Skennet Boch, Laurel in CA, Mnemosyne, Wufacta, anodnhajo, eagleray, Eric Nelson, MidwestTreeHugger, pademocrat, La Gitane, tegrat, Getreal1246, terranova108, science nerd, deepeco, John Poet, gnothis, bob152, Bob Duck, travelerxxx, Tortmaster, Colorado is the Shiznit, molunkusmol, isabelle hayes, sewaneepat, leonard145b, Unbozo, Dr Swig Mcjigger, opinionated, runfastandwin, NinetyWt, cowdab, Oh Mary Oh

    elected it will reach fever pitch. Once out in the open [even more so than today]  it can be refuted.

    "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

    by LaFeminista on Fri May 23, 2014 at 11:54:50 PM PDT

    •  Or refudiated, in the parlance of Palin! ;-) (58+ / 0-)

      This is an well reasoned argument, LaFem. You can't snuff out cockroaches when they're hiding in the crevices. Better to put out some tempting bait and turn on the lights so we can smack 'em down in the open.

      Make the 'modern Republican woman' defend the cockroach underbelly of her party, and then step into the voting booth--mark her secret ballot- for whatever cretinous white male insectivore candidate represents its values. I like it.

      Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

      by earicicle on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:06:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please, no vermin comparisons. They do terrible (20+ / 0-)

        things but they're still human.

        Insect comparisons for enemies have a dark history.



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

        by Wee Mama on Sat May 24, 2014 at 03:57:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Meh, slap them down as they scuttle about. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnieR

        The blood of millions, and the rape of Mother Earth  demands it.

        • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." Thomas Paine
        • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King

        by Tommymac on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:46:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why should the modern Republican woman defend (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnieR

        the cockroach underbelly?  If anything, the modern Republican woman should disprove the, ummm, cockroachism.

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

        by dinotrac on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:20:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Birds of a feather and cockroaches need not apply (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eagleray, raines

        Hillary has been know to provide us with some bad choices as regards her campaign advisers but her main reason for going first before Elizabeth Warren is so that we make sure we control appointments to the supreme court for a full 16 years instead of just 8.

        Over the next eight years only two are likely to leave
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Kennedy will become 88
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Scalia will become  88

        Though the rest remain that could be enough.
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Thomas will become 76
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Alito will become 74
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Roberts will become 70

        Its possible nobody leaves in which case during Elizabeth Warrens term which runs through 2032
        presuming lifespans haven't been extended that much

        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Kennedy will become 96
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Scalia will become  96
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Thomas will become 84
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Alito will become 82
        Roman Catholic (opus dei?) Roberts will become 78

        there is a reasonable chance of a liberal court with which to address climate change.

        "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

        by rktect on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:13:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's kinda hard to (0+ / 0-)

            understand your age numbers because they don't seem to correspond to the year 2016 to 2020, 2020 to 2024 and on.
             That said if the Democrats got the numbers we would impeach Thomas.
             I'll be surprised if Scalia doesn't end up in the looney bin in a year or two.
             That said 2032. Goodness. If we get through this summer without a major climate disaster let alone 2016, 2020. If this destroying of the planet is not changed, 2032, ? wish I were young and had that kind of optimism.

          March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

          by 3rock on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:35:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was figuring like this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Slightly Wobbly

            Kennedy and Scalia were both born in 1936. Our next President comes into office in 2016 and should be there until 2024. 2024-1936 = 88. The next president after that should get another 8 years making them 96.

            Somewhere in that range of time before 2032 we should be able to get a court which can reverse all this present courts nonsense and begin to take on climate change.

            Now if we had started doing climate change mediation in the 1950's when we first became aware of the problem we might stand a good chance of survival until 2100.

            Most major projects take 25 years to plan and organize. First come master plans, environmental impact studies, traffic studies, utility studies, economic impact studies, then gradually some funding gets identified and committed to by approving declarations of need and then the actual design begins.

            That gets us to 2039 so we are about seven years behind schedule and would need to fast track the programming phases.

            Assuming we could just say money was no object when compared to avoiding an extinction event, sort of like if you are being mugged at gunpoint, and we could get the present seven billion inhabitants of the planet to agree that some of us surviving a bit longer would be a good thing, we might reduce billions of deaths to millions of deaths for another few decades.

            By 2050 our present spike in temperature since the industrial revolution may be doubled and closely linked to that is sea level rise. By 2035 no coastal flood insurance, no crop insurance, no insurance against natural or unnatural disaster will be affordable.

            Each year we will spend more than our present gross national product in disaster relief remediation and repair.

            At the same time improvements in healthcare will be offering us longer more productive lives our population will be crashing as everything in the tropics becomes uninhabitable and refugees stream toward the poles.

            By 2100 we will have lost all our coastal cities globally. Ninety percent of our worlds population will be refugees, most of them starving, plagued by drought, crop failures, lack of potable water, famine, disease, pestilence.

            It would be good to have fewer people who see their job as obstructing the process of avoiding catastrophe and hindering us rather than helping.

            "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

            by rktect on Sun May 25, 2014 at 05:30:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

                What my question is, is what if the new weight of the ocean is holding the tectonic plates longer? I.e. Earthquakes happen less but when, LARGER? The Indonesian & Japanese earthquakes shifted the axis of the earth.
                 I also TOTALLY believe that like anything not well, there is this ENORMOUS capacity to heal. I think mother earth could reverse this path to destruction but it will take going totally green. I think she just puked. I could see an earthquake that is off the scale in size that starts a tectonic plates reaction worldwide. I don't think she's done puking myself.
                 So back to my original reply. You see a long term hypothesis, I see a much shorter shift.

              March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

              by 3rock on Sun May 25, 2014 at 07:57:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is what Wikopedia calls WP OR (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3rock

                but to do you the courtesy of an answer, I don't expect the weight of water changes just because its temperature and pressure vary.

                If there is more of it due to melting yes, there is then more load on the ocean plates and less on the land plates where previously the opposite was the case and this results in isostatic rebound, the ocean plates could drop and the land plates rise resulting in a change in sea levels, however there are other factors.

                Prevailing winds can pile the ocean up higher in the direction toward which the winds blow. A change in the direction of the prevailing winds as with the el Nino starting up now will also change sea levels.

                Gravity attracts more strongly when land is close by the surface of the water causing it to rise and less strongly when it is farther away at great depths causing sea levels to drop.

                Interior to the planet where its mantle is heated into the plastic range seismic waves can travel causing what one fault does to affect another great distances away.

                "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

                by rktect on Sun May 25, 2014 at 08:29:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank You (0+ / 0-)
                  Interior to the planet where its mantle is heated into the plastic range seismic waves can travel causing what one fault does to affect another great distances away.
                    The things to think about :)
                     A change in axis?
                     The loss of the weight of water ice on the poles?
                     A change in gravity?
                     Teasing: Maybe that's why people are talking like they're slow...
                     1st dib on one of the "better" caves of a new Himalayan type Mt.

                  March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

                  by 3rock on Sun May 25, 2014 at 06:50:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I too want Hillary.... (22+ / 0-)

      and yes, gender matters, as did/does race.  If those things did not matter (no matter how may ways many say they should not matter) then why for two hundred plus years could ONLY white males be even considered.

      Like you,  I have policy issues/differences with Hillary.   But the same was true for me with Obama.  Yes, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are much more aligned with my views. But I do believe with the corporate ownership of most media, with the corporate domination of our government, to get elected one must play the corporate game, even if superficially.  But that does not mean that once in office, our choice cannot move left, especially if she has a strong democratic congress to have her back.

      BUT, and I have said this over and over and over, people can and do change and evolve.  FDR was pulled to the left...he did not start out as the heroic figure he became for the poor and the middle class.   We can and should pull ALL of our dem office holders for all offices to the left, especially since the center has been pulled so far to the right.

      NO ONE is a perfect candidate.  Hillary, for me, has always been way to the left of Obama on public education and I hope she comes even more so to the left when she is our president.

      “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

      by Jjc2006 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:40:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not Brilliant (27+ / 0-)

      Vote for Hillary because the Republicans hate her? Only the Republicans don't hate Hillary's policies -- not the Republicans who really run the GOP -- no more than they hate Obama's policies.

      No, the GOP Big Money LOVES the Obama/Clinton neoliberal assault on the American People and also LOVES the Obama/Clinton neocon assault on the world. But the bipartisan oligarchs have realized that getting their GOP partisan patsies to hate the Democrat nominee/leader will make the Democratic partisan patsies support the Democratic leaders even more, even as those Democratic leaders adopt and espouse neoliberal/neocon policies.

      Now THAT'S brilliant. ... For the plutocrats.

      I guess Greenwald was right. We will get the first female president after the fist black president, maybe followed by the first gay president (because the GOP can hate gays too). And each will be a neoliberal and a neocon.

      Winning! ... Except for global warming, income inequality, corporatism, warmongering, etc.

      •  brilliant (6+ / 0-)

        Angela Merkel
        Dilma Rousseff
        Sonia Gandhi
        Cristina Fernandez
        Julia Gillard
        Yingluck Shinawatra
        Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
        Laura Chinchilla
        Sirimavo Bandaranaike
        Indira Gandhi
        Golda Meir
        Elisabeth Domitien
        Margaret Thatcher
        Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo
        Dame Eugenia Charles
        Gro Harlem Brundtland
        Milka Planinc
        Benazir Bhutto
        Kazimira Prunskienė
        Khaleda Zia
        Édith Cresson
        Hanna Suchocka
        Tansu Çiller
        Kim Campbell
        Sylvie Kinigi
        Agathe Uwilingiyimana
        Reneta Indzhova
        Chandrika Kumaratunga
        Sirimavo Bandaranaike
        Claudette Werleigh
        Sheikh Hasina
        Janet Jagan
        Jenny Shipley
        Anne Enger Lahnstein
        Irena Degutienė
        Nyam-Osoryn Tuyaa
        Helen Clark
        Mame Madior Boye
        Khaleda Zia
        Chang Sang
        Maria das Neves
        Anneli Jäätteenmäki
        Beatriz Merino
        Luisa Diogo
        Radmila Šekerinska
        Yulia Tymoshenko
        Cynthia Pratt
        Maria do Carmo Silveira
        Portia Simpson-Miller
        Han Myeong-sook
        Zinaida Greceanîi
        Michèle Pierre-Louis
        Sheikh Hasina
        Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir
        Jadranka Kosor
        Cécile Manorohanta
        Kamla Persad-Bissessar
        Mari Kiviniemi
        Julia Gillard
        Iveta Radičová
        Rosario Fernández
        Cissé Mariam Kaïdama Sidibé
        Yingluck Shinawatra
        Helle Thorning-Schmidt
        Adiato Djaló Nandigna
        Alenka Bratušek
        Sibel Siber
        Tatiana Turanskaya
        Aminata Touré
        Erna Solberg
        Laimdota Straujuma

      •  The best of both worlds would be electing (13+ / 0-)

        Elizabeth Warren.
           I know, she's "not running," but that's only until she is.
         

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:30:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can you name a dude you think would win (7+ / 0-)

        without being a neo-liberal and a centrist? If not, your singling out of Hillary is sexist. Thanks for insulting the intelligence of women who think that Hillary will provide more value to them than a neo-liberal dude. Again, it sounds an awful lot like sexism. You can disagree, but you don't have to say she- and by extension, we- aren't smart enough to meet your standards. Your mansplaining of what women need is not appreciated my me, but unfortunately, I think you're smart enough to choose sexism rather than fall into it courtesy of blind idiocy.

        •  What precisely was sexist about the comment? (9+ / 0-)

          Pointing out that there are issues of greater moment than the gender, race or sexual orientation of a candidate makes one guilty of one sort of -ist or another?

          Now, that's "blind idiocy".

          The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

          by Wolf10 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:44:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I said exactly what was sexist about that comment. (0+ / 0-)

            If you can't name a non-neo-liberal male that has a chance of winning, then you shouldn't attack women for saying hey, this women is a neo-liberal candidate who I will eventually support because she will be the candidate with a chance of winning. Did you vote for Bill Clinton and Barck Obama? If so, why do you think it's more outrageous to vote for a neo-liberal candidate who's a women. It isn't if you're not sexist. It is if you are.

            •  The last neoliberal presidential candidate (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike

              I voted for was Obama the first time he ran because  I foolishly believed he would walk his talk. And that is the last time I will ever do so. I will happily help reelect my black congresswoman for no other reason than for her political views. As for "electability", I've been voting for 50 years and I've decided to waste no more of those votes remaining to me based on that particular criteria. My conscience demands it.

              The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

              by Wolf10 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:23:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I won't be voting for HRC in the primary, either. (0+ / 0-)

                If you've made a real change in how you vote, fine. But if you don't see that women benefit when more women in power, it's wither because you're not paying attention or because you have the privilege not to care.

        •  if that's sexist, was it racist for many of us (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blue Jean, deepeco, isabelle hayes

          to want Obama to win in part because he was Black?

          Is it racist for Black people to have wanted Obama to win because, at least in part, he was Black?

          I've heard Republicans say that even they felt proud on the eve of Obama's election.

          80% of the people who make laws for our country are of one gender, and that is the most egalitarian it has ever been.

          I don't think it's sexist if women would vote for HRC in part because she is female. It is so long coming, and so needed. Our gender needs to fully participate in the governing of our country. On the national level, women don't have much of an impact considering they are half the population. The talents and gifts of all kinds of Americans with all different life experiences must be brought forward to contribute.

          I wouldn't vote for HRC because she is female. But it sounds like the diarist wouldn't either. It's that if she runs and wins the nomination she will be the Democrat in the race running against some right wing Republican (all Republicans are so beholden to their far right and will be dealing with reactionaries in Congress so would be dragged there anyway)

          It will be an easy choice based on party affiliation alone. In a general election, we need to choose which of two. That's our only decision point. Any Dem will be easy for me, a pragmatist, to vote for just because they are in fact better at this point than ANY Republican. Republicans  leading in Congress and in the Senate will result in the deaths of thousands.

          Easy to vote for HRC because/if she's the Dem nominee. Happy to vote for her because she's a woman.

      •  It's quite foolish on your part (7+ / 0-)

        to quote Greenwald regarding this matter. His comment was very misogynistic.

        Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

        by freakofsociety on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He is right. And this sucks. (0+ / 0-)

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:18:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  6 Years Later (12+ / 0-)

      Completely agree with this excellent diary, LaFeminista.

      I made similar arguments here in 2008, when I supported Hillary over Obama (which was not a well-received position on this site, to say the least). I believed then (and still do) that gendered realities explain much of the suffering and disorder in the world and we couldn't waste more time before confronting them head-on.

      Here is the 2008 diary I posted at the height of the primary wars here in which I explained my reasoning. Hillary is not perfect, we know that, but we need more gender realignment in the corridors of power. And we need to engage the war on women on all fronts, and smoke out all the layers of misogyny that construct this patriarchal world.

      Women won the right to vote less than 100 years ago. Don't take anything for granted.

      by Athena on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:28:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why would it have to be Clinton? (10+ / 0-)

      There are other female politicians who would actually make good presidents - if you only want to elect a woman to expose society's sexism, why not elect a woman who isn't Clinton?

      •  It doesn't have to be, I never said that it "has" (9+ / 0-)

        to be, it seems however to be the logical progression until someone else steps forward and wins.

        "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

        by LaFeminista on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:47:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why not? (8+ / 0-)

        Well, let's start with the obvious:  no other women are stepping up to run.  I don't see you making any alternate suggestions either.  Perhaps you have a willing female candidate up your sleeve that we don't know about.    

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:06:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are exactly right. There is a small (6+ / 0-)

          minority on the site that really doesn't want her. But when ask for an alternative, you either get crickets, Sen. Warren or "it's too early". It not too early. Legitimate candidates always start making noise around this time (see BHO in 2006 and GWB in 1998).

          What scares me is that when no credible alternative appears, the HRC intra party opposition will go into tear down mode. Now is the time for them to recruit a candidate. I accepted in January that Warren wasn't running. I looked at our non-existent bench and said we have to change the courts at least and got behind HRC. If not her, who?

          •  I'm just worried she won't run (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Amber6541, elwior, Exquisite

            we talk here as if it's a given that she'll run, here on DK. Dems aren't talking about who else might run if she doesn't. Worrisome. She has a right not to run if it isn't right for her but it seems we'll be left in the lurch if she doesn't. I'm one who thinks Biden wants to run, but that he is too old to win as he'd be the oldest President ever. His gaffe making would stop him, too. We would, I fear, end up with a Republican President.

            •  jplanner, I posted an article from Vox last week (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jplanner

              on Andrew Cuomo that I felt every progressive should read. He is hated here, but outside of DKos, he would be viable. If he wins by a landslide again and HRC doesn't run, look out. He is our worst nightmare.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

              by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:48:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Viable where? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike, elwior, Exquisite

                He can't win in the middle west.  He makes Paul Ryan look all warm and fuzzy.  Brown could win Ohio and win it all.  

                •  Again, on DKos his appeal cannot be seen. (0+ / 0-)

                  Myself included greenbell. But it is irrelevant because she is running.

                  New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                  by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:07:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  He's horrible, and his support (4+ / 0-)

                in NY is very brittle. Not only did his level of support drop to 39% when a third-party candidate to his left is introduced into the race, but my local Democratic just voted him "no endorsement" (which means we're not asking our members to carry his petitions or work for him in any other capacity). I've heard local elected officials hope that a challenger will emerge (a decent one is not likely, BTW).

                He'll still win this November, but I want him to be aware that he's got a lot to answer for. I plan to undervote in the absence of an acceptable alternative.

                "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                by sidnora on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:44:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks I'll check it out (0+ / 0-)

                I don't know much about him.

            •  She doesn't have to run, as far as I can see (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AlexDrew

              we're already having all the campaign fights and arguments before she runs, so when she finally declares everyone will be sick of talking about it.

              Just let her declare at the last possible minute, claim the nomination (she's already gotten people to essentially guarantee that they won't run against her) and then sail to victory with a billion-dollar campaign budget. Get some high-priced marketing guys to crank out two or three ad campaigns, and you're home free. All you've gotta do is to remind people that there is an election and that Hillary Clinton, whose name they know, is running. The Republicans don't have a viable challenger and they know it. Americans don't want another Bush even more than they don't want another Clinton. Most of them will stay away from the polls; the ones who go will vote for Hillary because there literally will be no other option and no real debate, except perhaps for Jeb Bush, whose association with his brother will sink him.

              Unless the Republicans have a hella scandal to sic on Hillary, they've got nothing. Because they won't do the things they'd need to to actually challenge her effectively:  triangulate big time on economics, talking a lot about small business and home grown American jobs and preserving Social Security; and stop saying and doing all that stupid shit about rape, forcing vaginal exams on people, and denying people contraception (or trying to). Dump that stupid shit; it doesn't get you anybody except the farthest (religious) right. And triangulate on some basic economics stuff, and you could clean her clock. But no Republican is going to do any such thing. So they're toast. Unless they come up with a fabulously compelling candidate (who?) or a really poisonous scandal, they're done.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:28:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  its Warren or bust far as I can tell (0+ / 0-)

            It's like Bernie Sanders has cooties or something lol

            "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

            by TheHalfrican on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:09:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary hasn't stepped up to run either (0+ / 0-)

          but that must be ignored to justify your argument.  

      •  Because inevitability. And big money. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Morgan in Austin

        And pragmatism.

        This diary is called "Making the Best of It."

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:19:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So your priority is picking fights? (13+ / 0-)

      No thanks. I like leaders who actually try to get things done for the benefit of society.

      I realize that's a lot to ask in the US political climate at this point but you seem to be part of this problem not the solution.

      Another 4 year or 8 years along the current trend while politicians play is not going to be helpful to people in need.

      Sorry, I can't tip or rec this, I find it to be a very negative diary and a very sad commentary on US politics.

      I also think it's kind of sad that a hawkish, corporatist like Clinton is the front runner and will probably win.

      We seem to agree on something: Warren would be better.

      No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

      by koNko on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:24:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Vote Hillary because she's a misogyny magnet? (14+ / 0-)

        That is a very sad, lukewarm argument for a President.

        And Hillary will be President.

        She will lead the richest and most powerful nation in human history, a nation run by, of and for the mega-rich, a nation that seems determined to wreak every last cent out of the destruction of resources and its own working populace.

        All of that will continue under Hillary.

        The diarist appears to admit as much. And it's a pretty slick move to set the bar for judging Hllary's coming presidency at how much hate she flushes out of misogynists.

        The country and world really need more. It's honestly tragic.

        •  ROTFLMAO!!! (0+ / 0-)

          That's awesomely put.

          American Electoral Politics

          The boy stood on the burning deck
          Whence all but him had fled
          "I can't stand Bush," he cried, "I guess
          I'll vote for Hillary instead."

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:29:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is there whether you like it or not (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou, La Gitane, Exquisite

        I prefer to see it exposed fully and finally we might have a responsible discourse about how to resolve it.

        Post racial was so modern until it was proved to be a load of BS.

        "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

        by LaFeminista on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:12:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that presidents are responsible (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          travelerxxx, Exquisite

          for a helluva lot of different things, historically speaking.

          President Obama will be remembered for many things, but first and foremost, being our first Black president. And with it all the rancor, hatred and division that it incurred. It sure as hell needed to be flushed out, and if Obama's presidency contributed to that then that is a good thing.

          Bush was horrible. He damaged this country in so many ways. I don't think being the first Black president, or the first female president, would be worth the pain that Bush caused, but I don't think Clinton would ever come close to that.

          Is she a liberal? No. Is she establishment, friends with the 1%? Yes. But will she run the country well? Yes, I think so. Meaning that she won't drive it into the ditch again, or start two wars, or nominate radical right-wing justices... And yes, LaFeminista, I do agree that whatever "damage" she would inflict would be worth flushing out the woman-haters, just as we are doing now with the racists.

          As W himself would say, smoke 'em out.

          Mediocrity cannot know excellence ~ Sherlock Holmes

          by La Gitane on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:36:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  1% pillaging is NOT "running the country well". (0+ / 0-)

            Obama's won't be celebrated for his principles, ideas, or acts.

            Neither will Hillary.

            Hillary spent her time at State beating the drum for war in Syria, so why wouldn't she wage war as President?

            Bush was appalling and over the top evil. Others are milder, more banal, and the damage they inflict is more insidious.

            The USA today is not better for African-Americans than it was in 2008. Nor will the USA in 2020 or 2024 be better for women (or anyone else outside the 1%) than it was in 2016.

      •   I think we have to vote for someone who will beat (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Amber6541, Exquisite

        a Republican nominee.
        Unless you think the poor, our country and our world can bear four or eight years of a Republican President right now. At some time in those years, a Republican House and Senate may very likely go along to assist him with unprecedented evil that will make a HRC Presidency, in comparison, look like Bernie Sanders running the country.

        •  Ah yes, only a 1% shill can beat a GOPer. (0+ / 0-)

          It is not possible in human history for a candidate not owned by billionaires ever to win an election against the right wing.

          HRC's presidency will look very much like Obama's: 95% of GDP gains going to the 1%, party on, Wall Street!

          But hey, at least Rush will turn red and yell a lot.

          Aim high, Democrats!

    •  I hadn't thought of it this way n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  GOP is deathly afraid of Hillary..... (0+ / 0-)

      so let's make their nightmare become reality.

      Hillary 2016

      •  I'm afraid of Hillary... (5+ / 0-)

        I am supposed to be one of her 'for sure votes'.

        I am white, educated, professional and 60 years old.

        I don't want her in the oval office.

        She is a 3rd wayer.

        If young people get enuf exposure to:

        Hillary's 3rd way beliefs, compares to
        Other progressive Democrat's beliefs

        then I think we can get some better candidates in the running, in the primaries.

        By saying Hillary is the best we can get, 2 years out, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

        THIS is the time to look at all the possible dream candidates and show them to the US voters.

        By the time 2016 rolls around, make sure the other dream candidates are household names. Then, the voters, in the primaries can make informed decisions.

        There are lots of facebook pages out there right now supporting Eliz Warren, etc. This is how you inform young voters in the 21st century.

        If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

        I am not ready to crown Hillary.

        I want information about other candidates. DKos should be steering the conversation. We should be having discussions on lots of candidates.

        just my 2 cents.

        I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

        by karma13612 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 03:31:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't need "dream candidates"... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JamieG from Md

          we need candidates who can WIN.  And win the independent vote.  Throw your vote away on some "dream".  I'm voting for Hillary.  The consequences of this election are too important to let the GOP win.

          •  Any vote not for Hillary is "thrown away"? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            karma13612

            The only candidate who can WIN is the sell-out.

            And we wonder why the national party is broken.

          •  Elizabeth Warren could win (0+ / 0-)

            Sherrod Brown could win.

            They need to be introduced to the American public

            We have the time to do it.

            We need the willingness of the democratic party to make sure more than Hillary is introduced to the American public.

            If they put 1/2 as much effort into raising awareness of candidates other than Hillary, then we would not be coronating Hillary.

            I think the democrats have a deep bench. I think the problem is that we don't let the candidates off the bench to show what they can do.

            Simple as that. It's a big country and one area of the country doesn't know about the great candidates available beyond their own backyard.

            I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

            by karma13612 on Sun May 25, 2014 at 09:04:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Warren could never win.... (0+ / 0-)

              she is too far left.  The country is not a mirror image of DKos.  It is largely centrist.  

              Like I say, throw your vote away.  Hope you like Jeb Bush as president.  Because if you don't support Hillary, whom every polls shows as the only Dem candidate who can win, you will be responsible for what happens to the Supreme Court, and the country.  Yes, YOU will be responsible.

              The stakes are high.  Think carefully.  And vote for the Democratic candidate, even if you dislike her.  Or suffer the consequences.

              Hillary 2016.

              •  lets see what (0+ / 0-)

                Things look like in 18 months.

                As I have stated in the past, if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her, but I will not help her get nominated.

                I plan on promoting other candidates until such time one of those candidates has earned the democratic nomination.

                I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

                by karma13612 on Tue May 27, 2014 at 07:50:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We already met Warren..... (0+ / 0-)

                  she got caught lying about her "Indian"" heritage.  At the same time, There has been HUGE support for Hillary by all demographics, even Repubs, against the Rove attacks (Source: MSNBC).

                  Again, throw your votes away and let a Repub walk into the presidency.  Because that is the only way the GOP can beat Hillary, if Democrats do not support her.  

                  I'm sick of this self-righteous "perfect candidate" meme.  Not only is Warren flawed, but she is unknown to most of the country.  She has zero chance.  

                  Do you want to win, or feel good about yourself.?  Must be nice to be so saintly.  

                  Hillary 2016.

                  •  i think she (0+ / 0-)

                    Is getting pretty well known as she continues her role in the senate.

                    And she is getting lots of visibility at her speaking engagements.

                    I am not familiar with her indian heritage issue still lingering. I thought that was cleared up since it surfaced during her Senate run.

                    Anyway, i think she is better known than you realize.

                    Lets respectfully agree to disagree.

                    As far as self-righteous, if you knew me, you would realize how much that is NOT me.

                    I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

                    by karma13612 on Thu May 29, 2014 at 03:11:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  winning pyrrhic victories is a worthy goal (0+ / 0-)

            Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

            by The Dead Man on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:47:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  is that why they're getting ready (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlexDrew, cybrestrike

        to vote for her?

        the rank-and-file as well as the leadership

        They sure don't sound scared to me. They sound fine.

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:33:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They're afraid of her because she steals their (0+ / 0-)

        thunder -- and shows the oligarchs that neoliberal democrats are the best able to deliver their agenda:  Corporate policies, but with enough faux empathy for the 99% to divide the left and keep it ineffective.

        Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

        by The Dead Man on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:46:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You just might have enough of a devious mind (44+ / 0-)

    to have a very successful political career. I mean that as a compliment.

    Of course, it would work precisely as you describe it.

    On the other hand, sheesh, the toxic fracking fumes, the Bankers robberies, and the eternal war-debts fall on crazy Repub and good Dem alike. There are all these ticking clocks going on right now that need addressing, too.


    A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

    by Jim P on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:20:49 AM PDT

  •  Don't care if we elect a man or a woman (58+ / 0-)

    as long as they don't push aggressive foreign policy stuff and also, as long as they are good economically.

    I've seen neither from Hillary, apologies.

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

    by mahakali overdrive on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:19:32 AM PDT

  •  Sold. Eom (11+ / 0-)

    "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -- JC, Matthew 6:24

    by Chi on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:21:41 AM PDT

  •  I have to say, I am not a Hillary fan. (23+ / 0-)

    But your logic makes sense.

    It would totally exacerbate the problem the GOP has with younger voters.

    You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

    by MikePhoenix on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:37:34 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to see some Hillary bitch slaps (38+ / 0-)

    of the crazy-assed rw'ers.

    She coined the phrase 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. I think she'd be quite happy to bury a hatchet in the skull of the VRWC. And she's plenty smart enough to be a successful POTUS.

    I'm plenty good with Hillary. despite her flaws.

    "I did not have sex with that bridge"

    by Scottsdalian on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:39:14 AM PDT

    •  She was right too! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, aimeehs

      She knew what she was talking about, which is a big plus in my book.



      Women create the entire labor force.
      ---------------------------------------------
      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:12:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that would be the one thing that would... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, elwior

      ...engender me to grudgingly vote for her in the general election.  i have other people in mind for the primaries.

      i thought the Chris Matthews interview with Governor Schweitzer was very telling even as he denied wanted to run for President.  i hadn't considered him before but he is viewed as a bit of a fire brand.  i don't know if he has some downsides and which side he falls on with regard to big oil.

      i'd also like to see more of Governor O'Malley in action.

      for now, i am really against yet another third way (New Democratic) president.

      I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

      by blue drop on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:49:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Any female candidate can show (7+ / 0-)

    the world how sexist the GOP are - that doesn't take any skill or talent.  

    How about we nominate the best person for the job, who just happens to be a woman?  Sort of like we did in 2008, when the best candidate happened to be black.  

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:50:40 AM PDT

    •  I agree with the sentiment, but the person I (23+ / 0-)

      believe you are referring to, Senator Warren, has apparently endorsed Hillary and is not running.

      Which now that I think about it, makes me think that she must believe she would have some influence on SoS Clinton.
      Hmmmm.

      You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

      by MikePhoenix on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:16:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you think anyone influences Hill and Bill? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        waterstreet2013, Fabienne
      •  Hillary will build a strong foundation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        For Elizabeth Warren to run a truly progressive campaign.

        Voters should select people to represent them in their government. People in government should not select people who may vote!

        by NM Ray on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:45:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Elizabeth Warren has NOT endorsed Hillary Clinton, (5+ / 0-)

        and she's not running-yet.
           Having Elizabeth Warren running would be the best of both worlds, not only having a woman running, but a real progressive, a Populist in fact.
           And unlike Hillary Clinton, a candidate with a great deal of charisma.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:28:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, okay. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samanthab, JamieG from Md
          Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

          "All all of the women — Democratic women I should say  — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

          "I'm not running for president. I'm not running for president. I'm not running for president." Warren said in a series of video clips shown prior to the interview.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

          by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:29:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I respect Senator Warren enough to believe her (0+ / 0-)

          that she will not run for President in 2016 (no 'yets" about it). The woman is integrity personified. It is not in her character to say "I will not run" numerous times and then run. I don't care if other people have done it, she is pretty unusual for a politician. I believe that if she had any possibility of running she'd have hedged her bets if only a little. I will be happy to be wrong.

          In a way she's sort of promised the people of MA to finish her term as Senator but I can't find that reference right now. She's told us how deeply moved she is to serve us, talks quite a bit about taking a stand for us and not letting us down. I think in her own mind-I am not saying I believe this-she would feel she was quitting on the people who elected her to not finish her term after all the switching of Senators MA has had especially (six different ones in the last few years). I think this is what she thinks, this is not what I think necessarily.

        •  She signed that letter that went around the (0+ / 0-)

          Democratic women senators.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:49:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Warren doesn't seem to work that way (0+ / 0-)

        She doesn't want to be President, at least right now. I think she deserves my respect as my Senator enough that I will believe what she says.  I don't think she calculates she will have influence as a reason to back HRC-she's not calculating and political that way. She back her as far as I know, when directly asked by the media. Because HRC is a Democrat and so is Warren, and no other Dem has stepped forward or has put forward by the media as a potential Dem candidate.

        If Biden said he was running for example, or anyone (Duval Patrick of MA, who sadly won't run for anything any time soon), she'd not pick between HRC and the other I'd think.

    •  Absolutely, but at this time Hillary is the only (27+ / 0-)

      one on our side likely to run. Also she has taken everything they can throw at her before and still kept on going. That takes a special type of mind, I would prefer Warren but that is not going to happen.

      "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

      by LaFeminista on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:44:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do beleive Hillary will be left of BHO. (5+ / 0-)

        Not much, but because of the slings and arrows she has endured from the Gross Oldman's Party, we on the far left will be able to appeal to her more, shall we say, aggressive side - and push her a bit more to the left.

        HC frothing at the mouth has to arouse fear and loathing in the typical RWTP nutjob.  

        Pass the popcorn, please.

        • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." Thomas Paine
        • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King

        by Tommymac on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:05:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's ZERO evidence Hill will be left of BHO. (9+ / 0-)

          And there are warehouses of volumes of evidence to the contrary.

          Bill ignored the left, with disastrous consequences.

          As a Senator, Hillary ignored the left, with disastrous consequences.

          As a Secretary of State, Hillary continued to ignore the left.

          Out of office, Hillary continued to ignore the left. She and Bill built their personal multi-million-dollar fortune on generous contributions from their Saudi, Walmart, Tyco and assorted 1%"friends".

          Let's not delude ourselves that Hillary is a leftie. Nope.

          •  I don't think she will ignore the left (0+ / 0-)

            But I also agree that she isn't to left of Obama.

            Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

            by freakofsociety on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:09:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Who is a leftie that can win that will run? (0+ / 0-)

            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

            by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:31:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  THIS! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AlexDrew

              Some don't seem to care or understand this or don't see how things are now in our country, in their idealism. The media is so lame that they spout what Reps feed them now-and this is new/worsening. It confuses the people. So even if our lefty nominee actually was the perfect match for what people really believe, I don't think they'd come to see it. Dems simply cannot/do not, yet, counter-message Republican lies and media repetition of them effectively.

              I heard some people here say they don't care that in one particular election cycle our nominee might be too far to the left to actually be un-electable. The find it preferable to vote for their ideal candidate, rather than holding their nose and voting for someone like HRC.  Some see her no different than a Republican, anyway. I think they are gravely mistaken.

              •  Wall Street is OK (6+ / 0-)

                with either Jeb or Hillary.

                Interpret that as you will.

                •  Realpolitick. They are earthbound, result (0+ / 0-)

                  oriented people.

                  New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                  by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:53:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Money is non-partisan and gender-neutral. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cybrestrike, Choco8

                  ;-)




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:57:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I disagree with none of what you said here really (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    travelerxxx, DeadHead

                    And even with the money and Wall Street worship, I still think that HRC is substantially better then Jeb et al. Because I am about voting for the better of the two I have to choose from, if one is HRC and another is Some Republican, I have an easy choice.  I don't have to like the result for similar reasons you mention, but I can feel I chose correctly at least.
                    Republican behavior-any one that I can think of that might run for President on their side-has become particularly immoral even in moment to moment public life. They lie more blatantly than I've ever in my lifetime seen politicians lie. And their lies do great harm and now with the ACA and refusal of Medicaid expansion, we see that Republican lies are even more concretely going to kill people and make hundreds of thousands (or more?) suffer needlessly.

                    Even HRC is not like that. Jeb sometimes comes off as not-crazy but even he is tied to the likes of them. They can't be allowed to win the Presidency. I'm a bit old fashioned even for my age in calling myself a patriot (seems sort of taboo here). It may be because my parets were first generation American. It doesn't mean I think the US or it's people are better than others but we do have some once-unique ideals (amongst repugnant ones such as a slave is 3/5ths of a human being) from our founders that pushed the world forward.  We do have some values even though sadly we very often don't act like we do (or do no longer). In caring about my country and yes even my countrymen/and women-all kinds of them-and the world I just think current day Republicans need to be opposed no matter what.

                    •  You certainly don't need to convince me... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Patango, cybrestrike, jplanner

                      about the nature of Republicans.

                      That's why I'm a Democrat.

                      I just prefer to wait until, you know, someone actually announces first.

                      What I don't understand is why everyone seems so eager to declare 2016 over before it's even begun.

                      Is it so we can focus on other things, like 2014?

                      Is this the preferred away of directing our focus on more immediate goals? If it is, it certainly doesn't seem to be working very well.

                      The more we talk about it and consider it a foregone conclusion, well, the more we argue about how it shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.

                      Seems counterproductive at this point. I'm not saying that people shouldn't think about it. They should.

                      It's just the more vocal group of people here who are basically coming at this like those of us who aren't sold on Hillary are doing something wrong by talking about it, that I have a problem with. A variety of tactics have been used to "shame" or marginalize people into shutting up about it 2.5 years before the day we actually cast our votes.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sun May 25, 2014 at 03:08:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I agree with the hyperfocus on 2016 not being wise (0+ / 0-)

                        There is utility to argue how it should't be a forgone conclusion as I don't want Dems to not look around at other possible candidates. And an air of inevitability is not good for HRC or for us. I don't want Dem energy wasted needlessly in forgone conclusions on someone who hasn't announced yet.

                        I guess I go on about Republicans winning because I can't see any other Dem but HRC beating a Republican, especially EW which many Progressives ardently want and some say she will run (I don't think so). I might be assuming more people when they dislike HRC are saying "Warren" than is actually true. It's that thing about wasted Dem energy that concerns me because I want any Republican beaten and I don't think she can (she's my Senator and I worked on her campaign and think she's wonderful)

                •  I interpret it as not good. And also (0+ / 0-)

                  it still doesn't mean the two are equivalent.

                  There is just so much bad that any Republican including Jeb will do, so much potentially worse even world altering especially if the Senate goes too (look at their dominated states!), that HRC is still preferable to Any Republican Today, at leas to me. Given our current SC and immovable House also, a Republican Presidency and Senate is a nightmare to contemplate.

                  I appreciate the lightheartedness of your comment.

            •  Well, since we purchase political office (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike

              in this country and can't win the Presidency without a billion-dollar campaign chest, nobody.

              Are you OK with this?

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:56:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Were you okay with it? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SouthernLiberalinMD

                New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:04:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was *wrong* in 2008. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AlexDrew, cybrestrike

                  I hoped (heh) it could be OK.

                  Man was it ever not OK.

                  Like supporting NAFTA, fool me twice, shame on me.

                  There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:21:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  They are two separate issues, but BHO's 2008 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SouthernLiberalinMD

                    decision is the main reason I don't get too worked up over the Koch Brothers. I did not like it then and I fucking hate it now.
                    It raises the bar for a candidate like Sen. Warren and Sen. Brown.

                    I remember in 1996 it was big deal when Phil Gramm $20 million!!!

                    I do hate it, but our hands are not clean.

                     

                    New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                    by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:28:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not going to support very many more (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AlexDrew, cybrestrike

                      big-money candidates in my life.

                      If Alan Grayson wants to pour a bunch of his own money into his campaign, I guess that won't stop me supporting him.

                      But the big-money candidates I'm willing to support from here on out are few and far between.

                      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:58:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Never said she was a Leftist. (0+ / 0-)

            Just that we have a good chance to push her more to the left than she is now.  With Hillary I know where she stands, right of center; unlike BHO who deceived the electorate in 2008 and ran a progressive campaign but has run the show as a republican lite.

            That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.  ;)

            • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." Thomas Paine
            • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King

            by Tommymac on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:32:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  ROTFLMAO (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, cybrestrike

          She's practically wrapped her arms around Big Money. In the few areas where Obama has had some vague liberal leanings--i.e., actually having an EPA and making some gestures toward energy efficiency--Hillary is going to be right of him. Also in the only other way that he's shown liberal leanings:  the fact that we're NOT at war with Iran and we're not doing every little thing Netanyahu wants us to do almost before he asks. All that would go down the tubes if/when Hillary becomes President.

          And we're not going to be able to push her anywhere. How are we going to do that--ask real nice? Maybe if I ask her real nice she'll create a jobs program or regulate Wall St, or prosecute them, or bail out homeowners instead of them, or invest big in our infrastructure or protect Social Security. She never has been in favor of this kind of politics or economics for twenty years, but if I ask her real nice this time, maybe she'll shift to the left.

          This is risible, I'm sorry. Hillary's whole job in American politics has been to push the entire system to the right. That's what being a Clinton Democrat is all about.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But it IS going to happen LaFem. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety, cybrestrike

         Her present line of "I am not running for president" is just the way the game is played so she can fly under the radar, and then step in when the time is right.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:30:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well if she decides to run (0+ / 0-)

          and is seen as strong challenger then we can formulate an opinion on that.

          Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

          by freakofsociety on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:10:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  elwior, what are you basing this on? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jplanner

          Campaign organizations have to be built in almost every state; money has to be raised etc...The HRC side is doing that with Obama's old team.

          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

          by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:34:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly, the fix is in and has been in since 2009 (3+ / 0-)

            I would guess.  She got SoS.  The Clintons agreed not to make trouble for Obama.  Obama agreed not to rock the neo-liberal boat and to support Hillary in 2016.  

            It's classic machine politics and if I believed the machine was working for me I'd stand back in admiration but I don't think neo-liberalism has anything whatever to do with what's good for me or the American middle class.  

            But it is a lovely machine.  Resistance is impossible.  Any serious candidate is barred from the race.  

            Where do I get my "Hillary Clinton:  I have no right to choose" bumper sticker?

            •  I do agree that the fix is in, but there was (0+ / 0-)

              never really any other alternative. Our bench just isn't that deep.

              But I am amazed that BHO's entire top campaign brass is falling in behind her.

              New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

              by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:08:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  the time is right, right now (0+ / 0-)

          you have to build a foundation now and announce early next year to mount a credible campaign

          EW is not doing any of that

          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
          DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:07:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's still early. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority

             Two years before the election is about right, though the announcement doesn't happen until the early the following year.

            "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

            by elwior on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:16:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Although touring around (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            America to support her book, and being on all sorts of
            talk shows doesn't hurt.

            She is helping raise funds for other campaigns, so don't you think there might be some quid-pro-quo that will happen if she decides to run?

            I don't think it is inevitable that Eliz Warren  will not run.

            She stopped short of fully stating that she is endorsing Hillary during the recent conversation on Face the Nation. The phrasing was on the order of , 'we're not there yet'.

            She is just as savy as anyone else that is still not sure if she is running, or if she wants to endorse Hillary or someone else. The letter that all the female Senators signed was not a full throated endorsement. They all did it. It was probably an unavoidable situation.

            I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

            by karma13612 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 03:48:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  the best person for the job won't be running (12+ / 0-)

      for a political office.

      so that's the problem with that strategy.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:57:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Skill and talent matter. Heidi Heitkamp (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, DiesIrae, AlexDrew

      honed it to a keen edge. Overcame that 30% down-in-the-polls margin in 3 months.

      In North Dakota.

      Anybody do better than that in a Red State ???

      (Yeah, she backs the drillers and oil interests. The biggest employers in her state... d'oh!)

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

      by waterstreet2013 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:01:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  men have a long way to go to reach (13+ / 0-)

    harmlessness towards women.

    it is not taught well in childhood.

    hillary could be a bright encouragement for the world's women.

    I've been seriously wondering who should be on her vice presidential running mate list?

    that's going to be a puzzler til the good fit choices emerge.

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:01:02 AM PDT

  •  I disagree with your premise (16+ / 0-)

    First, I believe  most voters are probably tired of the "war on women" meme..  it has run its course and you can't keep flogging that dead horse.

    Second.. Even if the above were not true, your attempt to tie anti-Hillary sentiments to the war on women is ludicrous.

    It is just like saying if you are against anything Obama does, you are racist.  Once again, people are tired of these false equivalencies.

    I really dislike Hillary.  And I will not be lectured by you, or the Democratic Party or anyone else that I am against women or sexist for disliking her.  Nor will I allow anyone to call me racist when I disagree with Obama.

    I hope for the sake of the Democratic Party that someone else runs.. or at least that Hillary doesn't.  She is a flawed candidate, and many Dems voters find her lacking - at the very least lacking in charisma of someone like like Obama.

    And that's not even mentioning the dynasty factor.  In a country of 300+ million people, we cannot find someone not name Clinton or Bush?

    You want Hillary?  Fine.  Everyone gets a vote in their state's primary.  Me?  I'll be voting for anyone else on the ticket... possibly a Green candidate if there is one.

  •  I can think of far worse than Hillary (7+ / 0-)

    I'm not a huge Hillary fan but I would be very likely to vote for Wendy Davis if she ran for pres in 2016.

    •  Do you think she is going to win the Gov race? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      freakofsociety

      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

      by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:06:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think HRC (17+ / 0-)

    Will make a fine president. For mtself I would love to see her repudiate some of the horrible economic/fiscal policies implemented during the Clinton administration. (e.g Repealing Glass Steagall)

  •  As a woman, grandmother, mother, and member (9+ / 0-)

    of the human race, sexism is the least of my concerns.  

    I will not vote for Hillary.

    by dkmich on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:26:51 AM PDT

  •  I Hate to Ask This But Don't You Live Offshore? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, ctsteve
    Personally I like my homophobia, sexism and racism out in the open where I can see it
    If I correctly understand that you are offshore, this blowback from our choices doesn't really affect you.

    Now I don't have any problem with expats and foreigners commenting on US politics or expressing their preferences, given the extent to which we affect the entire world.

    This is one area however where the bulk of our influence stops at the shore, and so those elsewhere don't face the consequences that we do.

    If I'm misinformed by all means drop a few HR's on my jar and at least we hide the comment from casual onlookers.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:34:09 AM PDT

  •  We can get a sampling from this 2008 diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, elwior

    by David Brock featuring Tweety, Chris Matthews:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I hope Tweety checks his tone this time around.

    "This is a center-left country. Democrats can act that way and win. In fact, they must." -- Markos

    by cassandraX on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:40:10 AM PDT

  •  Ha, no (22+ / 0-)

    Don't think this would be worth all the people who would suffer and die because of her pro-Wall Street, pro-war polices, but to each her own moral math.

  •  Woman or not, I vote on policy not personality or (23+ / 0-)

    gender. I think her policy positions (at least what they were when she was an actual candidate) were the worst for the country. Sorry but no go.

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

    by temptxan on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:22:00 AM PDT

  •  The Republicans don't want no girls (13+ / 0-)

    in the treehouse.  

    But at some point, maybe real soon, that treehouse is going to fall to pieces.  

    All this Benghazi squawking is the result of the GOP's realization that "If we don't smear her now, she's going to kick our sorry butts."

    All personal opinions of Hillary Clinton aside, the Republicans are very afraid of her chances.  

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:22:30 AM PDT

    •  Especially with the attack on Hillary (8+ / 0-)

      based on Benghazi being flogged daily, we need to stick by her. She may not be our ideal candidate, but this attack on her is unfair and dishonest, and requires a response by us affirming our support for her. If you are anti-Hillary, for whatever reason, you're effectively on the same side as the Benghazi! crowd.

      •  I've been watching Trey Gowdy and (5+ / 0-)

        other Republicans gathering in the back alley on the Benghazi issue.  

        I very seriously doubt if most Republican primary voters could find Benghazi on a map, even after nearly 24/7 FOX howling and insinuation.  

        "We want to find out the truth of what happened" translates to "Jeez, if we don't take her out now, Hillary's going to steamroll us into political obscurity."

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:43:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The simple fact that she has been (14+ / 0-)

          deeply hated by the right for decades is enough for me to support her with gusto. Do I agree with Hillary on everything? No. Do I find her as attractive as Barack Obama? No. But is she hated every bit as much as he is by the right wing in this country? Yes.

          •  Agree -- the Republicans have been (5+ / 0-)

            nasty and dismissive of her from the very beginning.  

            Her husband was the voters' pick for 8 years.  They tried to impeach him over a blow job but failed miserably.  

            It's beyond the average GOP operative to tolerate much if any diversity.  Barack Obama has the wrong skin color.  Hillary Clinton is the wrong sex.  The Republicans are just a rigid failure when it comes to updating their geopolitical files.  

            They're clueless on issues affecting actual people and they're cruel to Democrats who get it.  

            The more strident the attacks on her become, the more electable she's likely to be.  

            Keep it up, Republicans.  You may be in for a very long night on the first Tuesday of November, 2016.  

            "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

            by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:51:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I fought the Hillary-Obama wars (17+ / 0-)

              here in '08 (on Obama's side) and it was a real debate, with real uncertainty in the outcome (for a while). But this time around, the Hillary debate is really just a joke. Unless she takes herself out of the race, the nomination process is over before it begins, and her electoral chances in the general, no matter who wins the GOP nod, looks fantastic. I will not ever seriously debate those here who insist we look elsewhere for our candidate, because I just don't think those folks are serious people politically. Polls of the American people show that Hillary is an electoral force of nature, and those here who say "but people like me on the far left will not support her" are delusional that the protestations of the far left will matter in a national election. And it pisses me off that they are willing to risk a Republican presidency just to roll the dice and try to nominate someone who would be popular on Daily Kos. Does everyone here not recognize that our community is to the left of the American political center?

              •  Very good points, doc2, and applicable (12+ / 0-)

                a long time prior to the 2016 election.  

                If I ever get my Time Machine fixed and oiled up, I'm going to see that George McGovern defeats Nixon in 1972.  I still take the outcome of that election personally.  But it taught me that I'm not going to get my first choices all the time in politics.

                If it could be arranged that I did, Sirhan's bullet would have missed Robert F. Kennedy in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.  

                City of the fallen angels, indeed.

                Barbara Jordan or Bella Abzug would have served two terms in the White House if the choice were mine alone.  

                I had the great privilege of hearing Bernie Sanders address a crowd, and I felt that even though the audience loved him, I loved him more.  But Bernie Sanders is not going to be our next president, I don't think.  Extremely fine with me if he is, but the smart money is not on that bet.  

                Hillary Clinton is poised to be nominated and to win the general by handsome percentages over whoever the Republicans nominate.  The Republicans are a thick bunch, but even they know how formidable she is.  

                "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:08:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I like your spin, shows you are on message (7+ / 0-)

                If you aren't for Hillary shut up.  That seems to be the message of the Clinton machine.  Too bad that just might turn into if you aren't for Hillary stay home.  You're going to make her the next Al Gore and then all we'll hear for the next 8 years is blame for the left staying home.  

                Want my vote?  Earn it.  You do that by listening to me on the issues and responding to my concerns.  You don't do it by strong arm machine bully tactics.  

                •  By all means, support (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AlexDrew

                  some other candidate for now. But when Hillary destroys them you'll get behind our candidate or find yourself kicked out of this community. So go on with your "I want a pure liberal" mantra while such talk is acceptable here.

                  •  I wouldn't vote for Vladimir Putin (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior, Choco8, cybrestrike, Johnny Q, schumann

                    and NBC was telling me last night that his favorability with Russians is over 80%.  But I do admire your use of words that convey violence.  It goes nicely with the authoritarian cult of personality messaging.

                    •  Bad analogy. Putin is a far right winger. (0+ / 0-)

                      A REAL far right winger, not a "right winger" like you guys claim President Obama or Hillary Clinton to be.  So of course if you were Russian you wouldn't vote for a far right winger like Putin any more than you'd vote for far right wingers Santorum or Ted Cruz in the US.

                      Saying one would not vote for Putin if you were Russian has no bearing on whether you'd vote for Hillary Clinton, unless one is so deluded as to believe Hillary Clinton is a far right winger like Putin is.

                  •  Every comment like this... (5+ / 0-)

                    Makes non-supporters of Hillary ever so slightly more likely to say "fuck it" and stay home.  It doesn't help, and it will hurt down-ballot, where their votes might actually matter.

                    •  They represent 8% on an extremely progressive (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DMentalist

                      blog. So out in the real Dem party, I would guess they are 1-2%.

                      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                      by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:53:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sometimes that matters. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cybrestrike, orestes1963

                        In 2010, Republican Renee Ellmers defeated Democrat Bob Etheridge by less than 1% of the vote for a house seat in North Carolina.  And don't forget about Al Franken's 312 vote win in 2008. (0.0108%!)

                        It happens, mostly downballot, more often than one would think.  The VA Attorney General race in 2013 was decided by 907 votes.

                        This is actually a pretty interesting list.

                        My main point is that if Hillary runs, Hillary wins.  Attacking people that don't support her is counterproductive because if those people decide to stay home, OTHER Democrats that could have won could lose.

                        •  aseth (0+ / 0-)

                          2016 will not be that close. Look at the map and think electoral votes. Half of DKos could stay home and it wouldn't matter, so 8% is nothing.

                          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                          by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:10:51 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Except aseth was talking about downballot races. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just sayin'.

                            The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

                            by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:05:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Still applies. A few disgruntled purist (0+ / 0-)

                            will not affect this race. If nothing else, identity politics will prevail. She will have long coattails.

                            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                            by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:40:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  There's your problem... (6+ / 0-)

                        You think this is an "extremely progressive blog."

                        I used to think so, too.

                        Nowadays, not so much.




                        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                        by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:06:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You only wish. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cybrestrike

                    Not that you haven't expressed similar sentiments before, which, as it happens, didn't come to pass in that particular context.

                    That failed prediction makes it difficult to take you seriously now.

                    Anyone who's been around this site for awhile knows how these things work.

                    The best way to get "kicked out of this community" is to do something stupid, like running around the week prior to election day telling everyone to not vote for the Democratic nominee, or to advocate staying home or to vote third party.

                    People don't have to "get behind our candidate" in order to avoid being "kicked out of this community," they just need to avoid being stupid about not supporting that candidate, if that's what they choose to do.




                    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                    by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:31:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  you vote for someone because he/she was/is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cybrestrike, tardis10, orestes1963

            hated by Republicans?

            I think that would be the last reason for me to vote for someone.

            Basically that means that you are hooked on the Republican hate speech and feed into it. That's not what I would suggest you to do.

            We know a hell of a lot, but we understand very little.- We are simply dramatically stupid - Manfred Max-Neef - I agree with him.

            by mimi on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:17:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The hate speech comes unbidden from (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lysis, JamieG from Md

              the Right Wing propaganda machine.  

              A vote for a specific (potential) Democratic candidate does not mean that voter is "hooked" on anything.  

              It means they aren't buying Right Wing bullshit.  

              "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

              by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:39:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh, then if I would vote for a woman (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike

                that is not hated by Republicans, it would mean I bought into Right Wing bullshit?

                I think to show that I would not buy into Right Wing bullshit would be best done to vote for that candidate who most sincerely and effective fights Right Wing bullshit.

                If Hillary Clinton is that kind of candidate is still not clear to me. I think there are other candidates possible that can look as promising on that front.

                We know a hell of a lot, but we understand very little.- We are simply dramatically stupid - Manfred Max-Neef - I agree with him.

                by mimi on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:07:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And it's entirely possible that one or (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lysis, JamieG from Md

                  more such candidate will emerge to form the primary field.  

                  Or not.  

                  Hillary Clinton, by the way, was among the very first Democrats to suggest that a right wing conspiracy operates at the expense of democracy and public service.  

                  I don't think anybody's arguing that she is perfect.  But this is politics, and she is very well positioned at the moment to be the nation's next president.  

                  "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                  by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:15:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I actually remember seeing a link... (0+ / 0-)

          ...I think might been on the front page one day a couple weeks ago that pointed to a certain number of people who think Benghazi is the biggest scandal ever think that Benghazi is in Cuba. So, yeah.

      •  (Benghazi.) BeiRUT!! (Benghazi.) BeiRUT!! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lying eyes, mjd in florida, Nedsdag

        Reagan sent in troops in 1982-1984 and got more than 400 of them killed. He also screwed the pooch and failed to protect refugee camps -- as many as 3,500 dead at Sabra and Shatila. And he had Navy gunners shell residential areas, where the cemeteries memorialize that utter bloodiness.

        Also: Reagan lost 675 Americans to organized terrorism. Obama has lost 10. (That's assuming we count Maj. Hasan at Ft. Hood as delusional, a fantasy-revenge episode.)

        The more they pump Benghazi, the more likely a counterattack on Reagan at Lebanon succeeds at a broad rejection of the GOP Reagan-as-George-Washington shtick.

        That's a big price to pay for the GOPers.

        "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

        by waterstreet2013 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:24:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Uh... Sarah Palin. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator, Bonsai66

      They would have put that dumb xxxxx in as Vice President.

      Anything to facilitate their anti-democracy, organized theft scams.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

      by waterstreet2013 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:15:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. I was not much aware of Palin until (4+ / 0-)

        the veep speculation began that year...

        And then when I began to learn who she was and who was actively promoting her for the ticket (Bill Kristol, etc.), I thought, "God, I hope she doesn't become a national figure over this."

        But the gods and goddesses didn't grant my wish.  There she was, accepting the veep nom in Minneapolis at the Republican convention, shrieking and whining and tossing red meat out to the delegates, who were stomping and cheering for her.  

        Made me sick to my stomach.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:19:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  he-man woman haters club oath (0+ / 0-)

      I, ____, Member in good standing of the
      He-man Woman Haters Club do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to. And especially: never fall in love. And if I do, may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours or until I scream bloody murder.

      I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

      by blue drop on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:57:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, these bullshit hearings are going (0+ / 0-)

      to backfire on them. Whereas Barack's strength is with young voters, Hillary's strength is with women. Unlike young people who tend to be fickle in their voting habits, women vote and we never forget.

  •  Bankers are probably keeping their fingers crossed (9+ / 0-)

    that women will think this way and will vote for Clinton.

    •  And they're probably wetting their pants (18+ / 0-)

      at the thought of Nancy Pelosi holding the gavel in the House and people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders leading the charge against them in a filibuster proof senate thanks to Hillary at the top of the ticket.

      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 Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:29:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  Obama didn't have a filibuster proof senate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hawkjt, freakofsociety

          so your very limited analysis completely falls apart.

          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 Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:06:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton = Obama. Period. There, if you want more (8+ / 0-)

            of my limited analysis.  Personally, I prefer it over fantastic thinking such as yours.

            Clinton = Obama = Status Quo corruption = Wall Street = KeyStone XL approved = little guy/gal gets screwed

            •  Limited is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              freakofsociety, barleystraw

              the operative word here....actually zero analysis would be more appropriate.

              You want a miracle worker, not a President. Someone that would bring down the American economy and throw the world into a 30's style depression....that's the ticket.

              Enjoy your own analysis...it is so special.

              •  Get a clue. Climate change is going (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Choco8, cybrestrike, schumann

                to bring down the economy....and kill millions.  Those millions, of course, will be in the 99% so the government won't be putting too much effort into saving them.

                And, wow, instead of trying to disprove my statement(which I wish you could, but you can't since it is true), you merely throw out your own unsupported alarmist drivel.

                •  Again with the end times? This is why it hard to (0+ / 0-)

                  get the american public to listen to us on climate change.

                  New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                  by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:57:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, so it's MY fault. So typical. Shift the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cybrestrike

                    blame.  

                    What you're saying is that the American public doesn't want to hear the truth?  They don't want the facts?  They want to be kept in the dark and don't want any action taken to arrest climate change or to prepare for the consequences of accelerating sea level rises?

                    The fact is our government, our elected officials, are deliberately keeping climate change out of the conversation because their corporate donors, i.e., the 1%, don't want it in the conversation.  The 1% wants business as usual.  They have nothing to worry about from climate change.  They have plenty of resources to prepare themselves.

                    •  Climate change didn't happen overnight. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      eyo

                      And it won't be fixed in one fell swoop. Can't be actually. So bring the public along without talking down to them and without the histrionics. Incremental.

                      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                      by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:51:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Unfortunately, NOTHING gets done without (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cybrestrike

                        histrionics. Nothing gets done unless people start shouting and it starts looking like elections might be affected.

                        I have been living this bullshit for forty years with a different issue.  A lying, thieving government that works to increase the profits of the wealthiest and that's about it.

                        All it wants from us is complacency and good behavior so that they can keep on doing what they do best.

                        There is no "incremental".  It's foot-dragging.  

                        •  Why isn't anyone listening if histrionics works? (0+ / 0-)

                          The public is tuning out the yelling,  and the pols pay lip service. A change in tactics might be in order.

                          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                          by AlexDrew on Sun May 25, 2014 at 06:44:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You are very confused. (0+ / 0-)

                            The public isn't "tuning out the yelling".  The public doesn't hear anything because our government is disgracefully silent on what are the inevitable consequences of climate change.

                            The "change in tactics" we need is for government to educate the public and to take action on climate change.  Instead our government turns a blind eye to climate change to please their campaign contributors.

                            I, a member of the public, am yelling at politicians.  Don't tell me to hush up and be polite.  

                          •  The yelling isn't working. Buy it's your life (0+ / 0-)

                            good luck

                            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                            by AlexDrew on Sun May 25, 2014 at 03:07:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  You have used this sleazy technique before (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DeadHead, cybrestrike

                    associating legitimate concerns about climate change with "end times" fairy tales.

                    •  It's no different than christians who say (0+ / 0-)

                      we are inviting crisis when we don't comply with___fill in the blank.

                      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                      by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:50:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  So losing it would be no biggie (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orestes1963, AlexDrew

            As long as They don't get a filibuster proof Senate, there's nothing they can do.

            You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

            by Johnny Q on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:37:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AlexDrew

              this is the key that gives away their weak thinking- without a filibuster proof majority, the president can't do anything.  So, if that majority is not in the cards, why bother to vote for president since s/he can't get anything done anyway?

  •  I don't want Hillary Clinton in 2016. (20+ / 0-)

    A lot of people say that she hasn't taken a stand on anything. She actually has. We saw her show during the primaries back in 2008 (and beyond, while she was on her speaking tour). We know she's a corporatist. We know she's a hardcore technocrat. We know she's a neoliberal.

    And...most importantly--we know she is the embodiment of what used to be the DLC. The same cabal of wealthy people (and their shamelessly willing functionaries, be it in the corporate media, K Street, Wall Street, and Congress) who have one thing one on their mind--taking everything from the 99% and putting it in their pockets.

    Rahm Emanuel, Cory Booker, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo--they're all the same ideologically. Sure, they look different, but put them in a room and I guarantee you they'll all nod their heads in agreement when someone starts espousing the 'virtues' of entitlement cuts, deficit reduction, charter schools, public-private partnerships, regulatory 'reform', and any other neoliberal policies.

    And one more thing to understand is this--there is no 'moving them to the left'. This is who they are. They're locked in to this economically--for their personal benefit and for their backers' and friends' benefits. Remember, President Obama stands in contention to possibly be the first billionaire ex-president of the US. He's going to get his (more so if the TPP & TTIP pass).

    As for the sexism and all of the other loathsome isms that conservatives embrace? We already know that the Republican Party are complete monsters. We have to understand that a great many people in this country actually endorse their particular brand of lunacy (sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-choice, etc). We don't need a Hillary Clinton candidacy to show us that.

    And we don't need a Hillary Clinton presidency to further wreck the country. We can do much better. So much better. So why are we settling for the smaller dumpster fire?

    The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

    by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:26:21 AM PDT

    •  No one's voted for anybody yet (15+ / 0-)

      in the 2016 primary or general.

      Nobody's announced, for that matter.

      Voters voting in Democratic primaries can decide for whom their vote is cast when the time comes.  We know some of the names bandied about but have no ballot in front of us so far.  

      If the eventual general election ballot boils down to a pick between HClinton and ___ (Jeb, Rand, Huck, etc.), a lot of us are going to ask ourselves which of those two major candidates we want making Supreme Court picks.  

      We might prefer that a choice closer to our hearts was available, but the hard-bitten pick is still there, staring us in the face.  

      I don't want 4 to 8 years of Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush making court appointments.  

      I'd vote for the Democratic ticket, and I think a whole lot of others are going to do the same.  

      "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

      by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:33:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe someday a Democrat with (17+ / 0-)

      a lock on the White House will be a perfect liberal in every way. But for now, the one Democrat with a lock on the White House is an imperfect liberal. The meme that we should dump an imperfect presidential shoo-in for what's behind door #2, and take our chances in the general, is anathema to me and to all who remember what it was like to live 8 long years under George Bush and Dick Cheney. But let's roll the dice! How bad could Ted Cruz or Rand Paul be, right?

      •  She's not an imperfect liberal. (10+ / 0-)

        That's the problem. She's a perfect centrist, and would have been considered a moderate Republican twenty years ago.

        I'd like someone that hasn't voted for stupid wars.

        •  Too bad. She's our (9+ / 0-)

          standard-bearer, and every one of us needs to get over however she's disappointed us in the past. It's that simple. She'd be a far more liberal president than any Republican, and she'd be a far more certain victor than any Democrat.

          •  No, I will not 'get over' it (11+ / 0-)

            It's that simple.

            •  Why is it that you think (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bonsai66, mconvente, Lying eyes, emelyn, fou

              that a small number of anti-Hillary liberals is going to matter? So you won't get over it, whoever you are. So what?

              •  Maybe it will, maybe it won't matter (9+ / 0-)

                You all have already made it perfectly clear you don't want my vote. You'd better hope you're right about it not mattering.

                •  This is a Democratic website. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Bonsai66, Lying eyes, emelyn, AlexDrew

                  If you are saying that you won't vote for the leading Democratic nominee there are other sites that may be more welcoming to you.

                  •  Why don't you just.... (12+ / 0-)

                    ...say 'America, love it or leave it' and get your rhetorical conversion over with.

                    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                    by delver rootnose on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:51:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  If the machine was really confident, it wouldn't (7+ / 0-)

                    need the bully tactics and they're going to backfire.  Prediction:  Hillary will be defeated by her own supporters.

                    •  Like Actaeon torn to bits by his (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emelyn, AlexDrew

                      own hounds?

                      I'm not seein' it, greenbell.

                      No matter who on our primary rolls likes her or doesn't like her, Hillary Clinton's supporters are numerous and dedicated.  

                      No one would even hear the word 'Benghazi' if she were not an extremely formidable (potential) candidate.

                      "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                      by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:11:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Numerous, dedicated and obnoxious (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        elwior, cybrestrike, Johnny Q

                        Think I've forgotten that from 2008.  The cult of personality thing is going to wear thin.  People do not like being bullied.  Republicans are just trying to smoke her out and bring up her negatives.  They'd do that with any front runner.  She's trying to play coy and lock up the nomination without taking a stand on any issue.  I only wish the Republicans were trying to get her on the record on some other issues since Democrats won't do that.   Of course, maybe they think she agrees with them on the issues.  

                        •  Disagree. Political opinions of (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AlexDrew, JamieG from Md

                          public figures vary, but she has been the target of some of the nastiest criticism out there, and has been for a long time.

                          And politics aside, she has borne it out with considerable dignity.

                          Do I have this right -- you're calling her supporters "obnoxious"?  

                          I believe those supporters' votes are as legitimate as yours, are they not?  We Democrats all get to vote in the primaries if we choose to show up and cast a ballot.  

                          A Democrat supporting a candidate you don't prefer is not "obnoxious" for her or his support of that candidate.  

                          "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                          by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:31:10 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Forgive me, I'm not calling you specifically (5+ / 0-)

                            obnoxious, just reminding you how obnoxious the PUMA crowd got in 2008.  It just gets over the top and it didn't work in 2008.  I know the machine is making sure the field is cleared so she faces no challenger in the primary but what that means is that she is going to be untested when she gets to the general election campaign.  I just think people may be so sick of hearing HILLARY by 2016 that it just might not work at all. I know it doesn't work on me.  I don't like being ordered around and told I have to vote for her and told that it doesn't matter where she is on any issue or if anyone ever discusses issues that matter to me.  

                            It is ALL about HILLARY.  Americans want campaigns to be about them.  They want a candidate who remembers that they are serving the American people not just their own insatiable need for power and glory.  

                          •  greenbell, I'm not seeing who it is (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JamieG from Md

                            that's ordering you around.

                            I did follow the PUMA dust-ups in 2008, but had already aligned with the Obama camp long before and didn't give it a whole lot of thought.  There were some sharp words exchanged, to be sure, but I would expect that when two leading candidates in the primary field are elbowing each other for room under the basket.  

                            You have characterized her negatively as a power-monger, but isn't anyone who seeks high office in pursuit of the same power?  As the application of power goes, I prefer Barbara Jordan and Paul Wellstone to Richard Nixon and Jesse Helms, but our system allows all those people to have a crack at it, and not just the ones I like.  

                            My guess is that HClinton is running, that she'll assemble a mostly-new team of advisors and handlers, and that we'll see a polished and sure-footed campaign.  

                            Over on the GOP side, all is despair and wailing.  

                            "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                            by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:59:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am sorry Remediator but.... (8+ / 0-)

                            ....this..

                            but our system allows all those people to have a crack at it, and not just the ones I like.  
                            ...is just not true.  Who gets on the ballot is chosen for us long before the ballots are printed.   And money and media and power players and quid pro quo determine who will be on the ballot far more than voters.

                            This is the heart of the plutocracy we currently live under.  We only get to vote for the chosen champions of the various factions of rich and powerful peoples.  Right now all that is happening is the sales job to make it sound like it was our choice.  

                            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                            by delver rootnose on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:22:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  delver, we'll have to disagree on (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JamieG from Md

                            this one.  

                            Money is an evil in politics, and yes, I'm gung-ho for reform of the system, but it simply isn't going to change soon.  

                            As it stands, there are primary outcomes which very definitely involve voter turn-out and public perception.  The Koch Brothers certainly want their candidates to prevail, but there are examples of primary outcomes which thwart Big Money.  

                            A lot of excellent grassroots work goes on under the media radar and can produce some inspiring outcomes.  

                            On this site some thought Tammy Baldwin had no real chance against Tommy Thompson in their recent U.S. Senate election.  Tammy won.  Some very serious Big Money was spent against her odds, and she prevailed.  I would suggest that the grassroots organization and volunteer base she built were also the victors in that race.  

                            I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, far from it.  Plenty of room for meaningful reform.  

                            Power draws a lot of different personalities.  I was an Obama voter in the 2008 primary fracas.  But I don't dispute HClinton's qualifications for the job.  First choice, no.  But strong contender and qualified woman?  Yes.

                            "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

                            by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:32:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I am not voting for Hillary (7+ / 0-)

                    I voted for Carter in 1980, Mondale in 84, Dukakis in 88, Clinton twice, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, enthusiastically voted for Obama in 08, unenthusiastically voted Obama in 2012.

                     I will vote against her in the primary (unless they are all corporatist) and if she wins I will NOT vote for her.  I am sick and fucking tired of these kinds of "democrats".  

                    We ended up with Bush not because of Nadar but because Gore was a coward who would not fight the republicans for stealing the election.

                    And I will continue to say that on this Democratic site thank you very much!

                    To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                    by Indiana Bob on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:27:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If when she locks up the nomination (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emelyn, AlexDrew, JamieG from Md

                      you continue to say that you are not going to vote for her, you will be either autobanned or banned by the admins. Until then you'll be allowed to post such rants, though few people here will take you seriously. You might want to start thinking about finding a more hospitable place on the blogosphere for your views. We're about electing Democrats here, and if she is our nominee for president, this community, in its entirety, is behind her.

                      •  Banned? You sure about that? (6+ / 0-)

                        I think anyone here intending to go "PUMA" in 2016 will have to walk a fine line insofar as avoiding advocating for candidates other than the Democratic nominee, but I don't think anyone should be banned for simply stating that they're not voting for the nominee.  

                        •  Anyone that says "I won't vote for HRC" AFTER (0+ / 0-)

                          she's won the nomination is implicitly campaigning against her by making such a comment.  And, if in the same comment they list the reasons WHY they're not voting for her, then they are explicitly campaigning against her.  Let's not play dumb.  Otherwise, why are they making the comment at all, if not to, at least to some extent, persuade some other people to their point of view?

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

                            People state their opinions without necessarily trying to persuade others to agree with them all the time.

                            If I say...

                            I love the Grateful Dead. Jerry Garcia is the greatest musician who ever lived.
                            ...that doesn't mean I'm trying to get you to agree with my opinion of the band or the late guitarist.

                            Context is important.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:06:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's the best you could come up with? LOL!!! (0+ / 0-)

                            Very weak indeed.

                            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                            by AlexDrew on Sun May 25, 2014 at 06:47:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I won't vote for HRC if she wins the primary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Indiana Bob

                            I don't give a shit who you vote for, and I don't give a shit what you think about my choices. I will not vote for this same garbage for another 4-8 years. I will support and vote for progressives. Only. That is not HRC.

                      •  Not true. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        freakofsociety

                        I was an uncertain voter in '08. I kept toddling from candidate to candidate and had even settled for ::shudder:: Edwards at one point til his campaign fell apart.

                        I remember the PUMA's here, and even the diehard Edwards people---the ones who were banned got banned because they became insufferable purist WATB.

                        And I didn't get banned even though I waited until the last minute to even change my mind---mulling it over, so to speak. Which I tend to do. What I didn't do was behave like an insufferable purist WATB.

                      •  Good GOD (6+ / 0-)

                        Obnoxious authoritarianism - you haz it in spades.

                      •  Few from here are taking YOU seriously! (7+ / 0-)

                        Your relish for the days to come when Hillary dissenters may be banned is disturbing.

                        Why are you so excited by the elimination of critical thought when the Wall Street machine candidate is inevitably selected?

                      •  I think you should apply for... (4+ / 0-)

                        ....a job as a moderator here.

                        Projected site stats after your first month:

                        Average diaries/day: 2
                        Average comments/day: 7

                        Number of registered users: 1,345,342
                        Number of users in good standing: 10
                        Number of actively participating users: 4




                        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                        by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:08:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But since you and your posse only rep 8% of (0+ / 0-)

                          the site, where do you come up with these numbers?

                          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                          by AlexDrew on Sun May 25, 2014 at 06:48:55 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I will state my view here on this site (0+ / 0-)

                        without fear.  If Hillary changes her stance on many positions, which could happen, then i will vote for her.  If she doesn't, I won't.

                        But you, kos, or anyone else are never going to compel me to suppress my political opinions.  

                        If I get banned, so be it.  Feel free to suggest that to the admins if other my opinions threaten you so much.

                        To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                        by Indiana Bob on Sun May 25, 2014 at 02:09:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Indiana Bob, why take it out on her? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Remediator, DMentalist

                      Her husband was an open DLC'er, and you voted for him. Gore was an early member of the DLC. Obama is a center/left Dem. They get your vote but not her? Why the litmus test now?

                      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                      by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:03:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am not taking it out on her (0+ / 0-)

                        In 2004 I voted for "lesser of two evils", like I always had done.  I promised myself not to do that again.  I didn't believe Obama was "lesser of two evils" I thought he was going to be great.

                        2012 came along and I broke my promise to myself by voting for "lesser of two evils" after Obama exposed himself as a wall street loving, drone bombing, whislteblower jailing, Afghan surge supporting, NSA spy supporting, Education ruining, illegal war supporting person he really was.

                        I will never break that promise I made to myself ever again.  If Hillary drastically changes terrible policies she supports, I will vote for her, otherwise, I won't, it is just that simple.

                        To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                        by Indiana Bob on Sun May 25, 2014 at 02:01:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  can we put that Jeb Bush 2016 sign on your lawn? (0+ / 0-)

                      We're not asking you to pay for the sign- Koch Bros already did that.

                      I'll just put it right here, front and center si it's easily seen from the road.

                      •  no jeb bush sign (0+ / 0-)

                        but if Jill Stien runs I will have that one in my yard unless we have a real democrat running.  If Hillary changes many of the things she now supports, I will vote for her, but as of right now, I won't.

                        To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                        by Indiana Bob on Sun May 25, 2014 at 02:03:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Dont go anywhere quince! (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Choco8, cybrestrike, elwior, quince, Johnny Q

                    I look forward to your opinions on this "Democratic" website.

                    To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                    by Indiana Bob on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:31:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you ever tire (7+ / 0-)

                    of going after people your incessant and feeble authoritarian BS?

                    I sure do.

                    I can't even count how many times a "doc2" type has tried to hound somebody off this site in the past few weeks for not toeing the DLC line.

                    Crikey.

                  •  I vote for progressives (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Johnny Q, cybrestrike, karma13612

                    I only vote for progressives. Clinton is no progressive.

                •  I love how we're supposed to submit... (15+ / 0-)

                  ...to some preconceived concept that Hillary Clinton is the best that we can get.

                  Because we can never do better...we can never achieve better. We must accept...mediocrity? I say 'no' to that.

                  The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

                  by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:01:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Don't you just love.... (10+ / 0-)

                  ..how they have already coordinated Hillary before a single primary has started.  Sorta like they want to scare away any other contenders.  That is a real sign of confidence in their candidate isn't it.

                  We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                  by delver rootnose on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:49:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  So what? So you won't even need a Ralph Nader (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike, aseth, Choco8, Johnny Q

                this time if that's going to be the machine's attitude.  It's not going to be as easy as the machine propaganda maintains.  Some voters may think 8 years of this change stuff has been enough and they don't want to vote for another "first".  They want to send a different message over there on the center right.  Besides once she gets as far right as she's going to go why shouldn't they just vote for the Republican for a change.

              •  doc2, they won't matter. They know it (0+ / 0-)

                and it is killing them to know they can't stop her. What I don't understand is: why have the litmus test now? Why not 2012 when it was clear that BHO was a centrist? Why not bail on him?

                That tells me that once she has GOP opponent, the 8%'ers will fall in line.

                New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:57:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DeadHead, Choco8

                  Might as well go out and just proclaim "Resistance is Futile" in big bold letters already.

                  Or better yet, petition kos to put that on the website banner.

                  The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

                  by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:12:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why the litmus test now? (0+ / 0-)

                    New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                    by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:42:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What do you mean, "now?" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cybrestrike

                      That seems to imply you somehow know those who are supposedly "litmus testing" now didn't do the same previously, thus making them guilty of applying a double-standard or something.

                      Why would you take issue with such tests, anyways?

                      Are they bad? Do you find them threatening in some way?




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:12:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If the problem is that HRC is a "neoliberal" (0+ / 0-)

                        BHO is cut from the same cloth. One guy said he voted for Bill Clinton twice and Gore once, both founding members of the DLC. Obama is definitely a center-left Dem and this was known by 2012, but the support was still there.

                        So yes, why threaten to withhold your support now? What has changed?

                        My hunch is that for all the bitching and moaning, once she has an opponent, they will come around.

                        The democratic party is like a bus. The people on the bus don't like the direction it is traveling, but all they can do is squat.

                        Chris Matthews on the The McLaughlin Group during the 1992 Dem Convention. It was in reference to liberals complaining about how Clinton 42 was dissing us.

                        I think we about to see a replay of that.

                        New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                        by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:22:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There's also the possibility... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          karma13612, cybrestrike

                          That it's precisely because some supported Obama that they find themselves more reluctant to vote for more of the same.

                          Everyone has their limits.

                          Fool me once, and all that.

                          Would a Republican be worse? Of course. That isn't the issue here. Everyone knows how bad they suck.

                          The problem is having to choose between another crappy Democrat and that really crappy Republican.

                          And it's that sense, this far ahead of the election, that we don't even have a say in trying to make that choice be between a not-so-crappy Democrat and that really crappy Republican, that's bumming me out. And I'm not alone, it appears.




                          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                          by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:31:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  As I have stated before, my support for her (0+ / 0-)

                            is because of the courts. I can't pretend that someone will pop up. I keep asking who because I spent a month thinking about it before I made up up mind to support her.

                            I will not canvass for her nor give her money, but I will vote for her. No litmus test from me.

                            For the 2016, we can't do any better.

                            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                            by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:41:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And I'm saying, that month you spent... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cybrestrike

                            Pondering whether or not to support her wasn't exactly time well spent or informed.

                            You're basing your decision on your own hypotheticals two and half years out and in favor of a candidate who isn't even a candidate yet

                            Fine.

                            It's your time/vote to do with as you choose. Just don't expect people who are still expressing reluctance — even after the efforts of you and others, even the site owner — to jump on the bandwagon with you guys this far out.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:04:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are definitely not alone in this. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead, cybrestrike

                            I voted happily for Obama in 2008. I voted for Obama in 2012 because he was not challenged, and that is understandable.

                            I am not going to automatically go with the inevitable candidate.

                            I want choices. I want good choices. And AFAIK, at this early stage we can still have dialogue about potential candidates.

                            If this site will not allow me an opinion, then that is really really sad.

                            I love DKos, but reading thru some of the comments made so far, it appears as tho I will not be allowed to voice my desire for more choices in the primary.

                            I want more choices during the primary. And I am not afraid to state this. After all, this is a free country. If I am still allowed to carry loaded weapons into movie theaters (totally stupid), then I should be allowed to voice my opinions on a blog. I am not intimidating anyone, I am just stating my opinion.

                            thanks for your comment Deadhead. Good to hear a voice of reason.

                            And I will try to always end with this sentence so people know I am still sane: If Hillary is the nominee, she will get my vote.

                            I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

                            by karma13612 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't let some of the more authoritarian... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cybrestrike, karma13612

                            Commenters get you down.

                            They're all bark and no bite.

                            Especially the tough guy further upthread talking about how people are gonna get banned if they don't pledge fealty to The Presumptive Nominee.

                            Regarding your last sentence, well, some might say that's a sign of the OPPOSITE.

                            I'm kidding, of course. Sort of. lol.

                            Your vote is your own. Don't give it away without a fight, is the way I look at it.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:53:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yea, I see your point. :-) (0+ / 0-)

                            thanks for reassuring me on the right to my opinion.

                            I was worried that maybe I really was not allowed to not support Hillary once she is the nominee!

                            Since this is a progressive blog, I figured free respectful, constructive speech would be allowed.

                            You have confirmed that for me, and now I can continue in my normal commenting style!

                            I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

                            by karma13612 on Sun May 25, 2014 at 09:09:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe the consequences of "Gore = W" in 2000 (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DMentalist, AlexDrew

                  were still fresh in their minds in 2008 and 2012, so they weren't as big on litmus test.  As the "Gore = W" fiasco fades from memory, some become increasingly willing to try litmus tests again.  smh

                  We'll probably get "HRC = Ted Cruz" comments in 2016.
                  Or even "Rand > HRC" comments.

          •  She's not my stanard bearer. (4+ / 0-)

            You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

            by Johnny Q on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:38:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  She's not even (10+ / 0-)

          a centrist.

          Some day, we need to acknowledge how far right the dem party has moved since Reagan.   And maybe, just maybe, do something about it.

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

          by dfarrah on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:51:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is BHO a centrist? (0+ / 0-)

            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

            by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:09:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  BHO is a moderate conservative. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead, orestes1963

              His policies and viewpoints have demonstrated as much.

              The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

              by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:12:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So why didn't you and your fellow purist (0+ / 0-)

                have a litmus test for him in 2012? I agree he is a somewhat moderate Dem.

                New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:44:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What makes you think they didn't? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cybrestrike

                  You weren't even on this site, then.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:15:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  DKos has a great search engine. (0+ / 0-)

                    You should try it. Once Romney was nominated, and especially when the tape was leaked, everyone fell in line. Go look it up. The search box is in the top right of the page.

                    New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                    by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:25:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wow! DailyKos has a site search? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cybrestrike

                      I didn't know that.

                      Dude, please.

                      I know how to search this site better than you do.

                      The problem I often find myself having with many of your comments is that you presume way too much about those with whom you're interacting.

                      I'm almost embarrassed for you sometimes.

                      I was here in 2012. I don't need you telling me how it went down. Especially when you describe it like "everyone fell in line."




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:42:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Go back and read the diaries after Mitts 47% (0+ / 0-)

                        It's there.

                        Don't be embarrassed for me, you should feel embarrassed that you were part of the site as it left reality. But I'm here now. It will all be okay.

                        New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                        by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:59:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes. Thank God you arrived... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          cybrestrike

                          ...to tell us how we left reality, after you just got using the fact we all fell in line then as a reason for why we should do it now, or at least give up any resistance because we eventually will.

                          I don't know how we managed without you and a couple of other very confident and rather arrogant newbies I've seen around lately telling us how it was, and it's gonna be in the future, around here.




                          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                          by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:35:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I wasn't a member of this site then either, yet (0+ / 0-)

                    this site was my go-to site throughout the 2007 and 2008 primary and general election campaigns.  Every day, first thing I'd do when waking up in the morning was go to this site, then MyDD.  Both sites were/are open to the public, you didn't need to be members to read them (except hidden comments).

                    •  I understand the idea behind lurking. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cybrestrike

                      I did so for several months prior to registering myself.

                      So yes, being "here" isn't the same thing as being a member here.

                      You're one of those "extra-longtime lurkers" who only suddenly became inspired to register and comment for whatever reason it was that motivated you to finally do so.

                      If the circumstances were similar in AlexDrew's case, I'm sure he would've said so by now.

                      From what I've seen, he hasn't, and this thread isn't my first interaction with him, by the way.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:27:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Then we deserve the government that we get. (8+ / 0-)

        So, let's say that Hillary wins. And then what? Nobody seems to know the correct answer to that question.

        "The Republicans will be sooo pissed off" is the wrong answer right off the bat.

        I can't wait for the primaries. I hope an actual liberal that I can put my time, money, and shoe leather runs. Because if it's Clinton, she gets none of that from me.

        The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

        by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:05:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your call, but many others may cast (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bonsai66, Lysis, AlexDrew, JamieG from Md

          the scenario in different terms.  

          I personally don't believe HClinton is going to have any difficulty rounding up shoe leather volunteers.  

          "Then what" is the same question History asks of any president.  And presidents have been known to confound expectations both for better and for worse.  

          We'll have to see what happens.  

          "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

          by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:42:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's going to be Elizabeth Warren, so get those (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike, karma13612

          nice comfortable shoes ready.
             You won't be alone though. Support for her will run deep, and it'll be very enthusiastic.

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:37:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and it will come from every quarter of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            the country.

            and from lots of demographics.

            when people hear her speak, or find out what she has done, they are enthusiastic about her.

            As I have been saying, this is the time to drive dialogue about all the potential candidates that are hidden across the country.

            As a political blog, we are in a good position to have lots of conversations about all the various Democratic stars out there.

            As more people visit this site and find out who we are discussing, they will google and research these candidates and expand their knowledge of them.

            We can drive this. We do not have to settle for the inevitable.

            I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

            by karma13612 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:35:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  More likely Schweitzer. (0+ / 0-)

            Warren's not running, she's already signed a letter endorsing HRC.

            Besides that, she struggles to win MA, let alone USA.  

            Lastly, MA has a horrible track record when it comes to nominees from that state winning the general election in recent memory (Dukakis, Kerry, Romney); because it's one of the least representative states of the country.  What makes you think Warren would fare any better than Dukakis, Kerry, Romney?  MA is not the state to look to if you want to nominate candidates that will actually WIN the WH in the general election.

            •  Schweitzer, from MT rather than MA has a better (0+ / 0-)

              chance at winning USA than Warren does.  MT isn't more representative of the USA than MA is, but a Democrat from MT can win purple states more easily than a Democrat from from MA can.

        •  Who? (0+ / 0-)
          I hope an actual liberal that I can put my time, money, and shoe leather runs.
          Tick Tock.

          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

          by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:10:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We don't know yet. (0+ / 0-)

            No one has officially announced. But you can be sure that once a candidate that I like is out there, I'll break open my new pair of Chuck Taylors and get to knocking on doors and speaking to my neighbors.

            If it's HRC...the shoes stay in the box. Down ticket's a different story. Corrine Brown, Bill Nelson, and Alan Grayson always get my support.

            The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

            by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:16:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The fact that you can't name anyone is telling. (0+ / 0-)

              HRC or bust.

              New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

              by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:45:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly! It's very, VERY telling... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike

                It betrays the fact that.....

                No one has announced yet!

                You win a cookie.




                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:19:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But HRC is organizing in 50 states. (0+ / 0-)

                  The BHO campaign brass is working for her. Who else is doing that? It is that early planning that Plouffe and Co. did that won the nomination in 2008. HRC never saw it coming.

                  Google "Ready for Hillary".

                  New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                  by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:28:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, why are you so busy... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cybrestrike

                    Trying to sell everyone who isn't yet sold on her, then?

                    It's rather bizarre.




                    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                    by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:45:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because the courts matter. (0+ / 0-)

                      And its rather bizarre that in this supposed realty based community that so many are holding on to Sen. Warren. And in case you didn't notice, many here are not just opposing her, they are tearing her down.

                      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                      by AlexDrew on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:56:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Would you like to know why.. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cybrestrike

                        ...some are "holding on to Senator Warren?"

                        Because the Courts aren't the only things that matter.

                        Important, but not the only things.

                        That's why the title of the office is "President of the United States" and not "Filler Of Potential Court Vacancies of the United States."




                        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                        by DeadHead on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:43:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  Who? I ask the same thing upthread, (8+ / 0-)

      I ask the same thing every time 2016 is mentioned. You need a name, an actual person, not an abstract idea. Warren does not want to run.  Martin O'Malley? Who else? It takes boatloads of money, a network, and a committed candidate. I see no one on the Democratic side even stirring; it's the emptiest Democratic field I can remember and I've been voting since 1972. And for the record I'm not particularly endorsing Hillary, I'm saying if she wants the nomination it's hers.

      the woman who is easily irritated

      by chicago minx on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:23:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, your mind is (0+ / 0-)

      so closed because apparently you can read the minds of others?  Or you have a time machine and have traveled to the future.

      Are you serious?

      If you are you know nothing about human beings, nothing at all.

      “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

      by Jjc2006 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:46:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We know what the Clintons are all about. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Johnny Q, aliasalias

        We've had 20+ years to know who they are, what they stand for, and what policies that they support.

        I'm completely serious. I know what their policies are.

        Any fantasy of a left-leaning HRC presidency is just that...fantasy. She is most definitely not a progressive.

        The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

        by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:59:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Show me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      freakofsociety, fou, Tony Situ

      evidence that the President ''stands in contention to possibly be the first billionaire ex-president of the US''.

      So, is this because he will be an ex-president in 3 years...that makes him ''in contention to be the first billionaire ex-president''?

      Show me where he has gone for personal wealth in his life.
      He could be a billionaire right now if he had gone from the president of Harvard Law Review immediately into corporate law....but no, he did not do that.  No, he went back to Chicago, and worked in the streets.

      I know, that was all part of his master plan to become a billionaire....everybody that does community organizing ends up as billionaires, right?

      This kind of cynicism is ugly and destructive.
      It leads to me saying that Bernie Sanders is clearly into it for the money also...just like Liz Warren. Only Glenn Greenwald is altruistic enough to be a worthy President....right.

      •  This should be a top comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlexDrew

        Seriously. Sick and tired of seeing the sentiment on this site that Obama only cares about the 1%. It's simply not true.

        Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

        by freakofsociety on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:20:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  His presidency served the needs of the 1%. (7+ / 0-)

          It makes not one whit of difference who Obama "cares" about.

          Just a man by his acts.

        •  We've seen what his presidency's been about. (7+ / 0-)

          It's been about the 1%. Propping them up and keeping them out of court and away from justice when they torched the economy, wrecked millions of lives, and got away with it--all while making even more money in the process.

          I mean, hell--look at his cabinet picks from back in 2008. His Grand Bargain proposals. Dumping the PO behind the scenes. His reversal from his original stance on Net Neutrality. His speech to the Hamilton Project.

          The evidence has always been out there.

          The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

          by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:05:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah you can just keep arguing that. (0+ / 0-)

            Despite how many times it's disproven. The Koch brothers donated money against him. Spent so much time arguing about this  that I'm done, because no matter what I say people will keep saying it and they don't want to be convinced otherwise.

            Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

            by freakofsociety on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:47:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nothing in the comment to which you replied... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike

              Is inaccurate.

              Your denial is no one's problem but your own.

              Indeed, your time is probably better spent trying to come to terms with the reality you have thus far refused to accept, rather than trying to convince people to accept your particular version of history.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sun May 25, 2014 at 03:21:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  So you (0+ / 0-)

            are absolutely positive that crimes were committed by the heads of the big banks....why even bother with trials...you have them convicted already.

            Proving criminality by the ''bankers''  is dictated by evidence...no evidence, no indictments.

            I sense some folks do not care about evidence ...just want someone to be held responsible...fine, but being mad does not constitute evidence of crime.

            So, in 2008, with the financial system on the verge of collapse around the world....the President should have gambled and hired someone at treasury that had no understanding of these complicated transactions, just for optics?  

            That would have been a huge gamble with billions of peoples lives around the globe.....he could not risk undermining confidence.

  •  I don't really buy the premise (13+ / 0-)

    Electing Obama hasn't ripped open anyone's eyes to the reality of racism.  Those of us who have seen the racism all along can see the racism towards Obama.  For the "mainstream" they've used Obama's presidency as supposed evidence that we're "post-racial."  The wingnuts have used all the usual dog-whistles a la Reagan and the "mainstream" rolls their eyes at us for hysterics when we point them out.  

    What will happen during the Clinton campaign is that pointing out their dog-whistle sexism will result in the "mainstream" rolling their eyes that we blame everything on sexism.  

    I'm not saying this is an argument against electing Hillary.  I just don't think you've described what has really been happening or the way things will go.  

    And all that being said, I don't think we really need to be making arguments for or against her election at this point anyway.  It's hard to tell if there's going to be anything like an actual nomination campaign.  She may be the de facto Democratic nominee and, if so, of course we'd support her over the GOPer.  If someone shows up to run against her in the primaries, we'll have a very different conversation here.  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:37:59 AM PDT

  •  That's looking at the bright side. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, TJ, triv33, orestes1963

    You make a valid point about exposing the misogyny of the GOP. It's worth considering whether that would lead to big progressive pick-ups in 2016.

    If not, though, I doubt there'd be anything left of the middle class after eight more years of neoliberal economic policies and "free trade" agreements.

    Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

    by expatjourno on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:52:01 AM PDT

    •  Hillary opposed CAFTA and criticized NAFTA (3+ / 0-)

      That she's for free trade agreements is patently false.

      She voted against CAFTA in 2005, called for a "time-out" on all free trade agreements in 2007, called for a prosecutor specifically focused on violations of existing trade agreements, and heavily criticized the shortcomings of NAFTA:

      "Well, I had said that for many years, that NAFTA and the way it’s been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers. In fact, I did a study in New York looking at the impact of NAFTA on business people, workers and farmers who couldn’t get their products into Canada despite NAFTA. So, clearly we have to have a broad reform in how we approach trade. NAFTA’s a piece of it, but it’s not the only piece of it. I believe in smart trade. Pro-American trade. Trade that has labor and environmental standards, that’s not a race to the bottom but tries to lift up not only American workers but also workers around the world. It’s important that we enforce the agreements we have. That’s why I’ve called for a trade prosecutor, to make sure that we do enforce them. The Bush administration haven’t been enforcing the trade agreements at all."

      Link

  •  I've always believed that no one hates women more (8+ / 0-)

    than a Republican woman. Much of the nastiness we are going to witness is going to come from Republican women.  They want to put Hillary in her place.

    If Hillary does run for 2016 every woman in the world will see exactly what the right thinks of women in general, it might even open the eyes of women on the right who are aiding and abetting the war on women.
    They'll never admit it, but they do it consciously. They don't need their eyes opened.  They'll find an excuse to hate Hillary and they'll stick with it, but deep down it's not Hillary that bothers them--it's the idea that she's a woman.

    Most of the racism we see directed against Obama is emanating out of men's mouths, but Republican women are every bit as racist. There's no reason to suspect they're not every bit as sexist as well.

    •  Yes and yes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dartagnan, Matt Z

      See: Karen Handel, Ann Coulter, Elisabeth Hasslebeck, Sarah Palin, etc.

      The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

      by cybrestrike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:10:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, I haven't become a centrist overnight (23+ / 0-)

      Same here. I'm an old fart. I was arrested for protesting the Vietnam war in 1970, and I've only become more progressive through the years. But I've also become more a realist.

      Before the Clintons came along a Republican sat in the oval office 20 of the 24 years 1968-1992, and won 3 of the biggest landslide elections ever - Nixon '72, and Reagan '80 & '84. Since 1992 we've won the popular vote in 5 of 6 elections. I like the post-Clinton era much better than the pre-Clinton era.

      I support Hillary for 2016 for every reason LaFem listed, plus one: Hillary will clean their clocks, she'll win a landslide that only a Center-Left candidate can win. While that alone will be satisfying to this old man, more importantly a landslide will bring back a near 60 Dem majority in the Senate and win back the House. Then Progressives in Congress can get shit done, and the corporatist, defense hawk, beholding to Wall Street, and whatever else you want to call her, President Hillary Clinton will sign it into law.

      This progressive is Ready for Hillary.

      David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

      by Dave in AZ on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:26:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Got Your Back Dave. Thanks for Your dedication. (5+ / 0-)

        The Landslide effect is an important one.

        We on the far left of the Party would be better off spending our energies on getting true Progressives to run in the down ticket, state and local races in 2016 - if we do that we can eventually undo the RW gerrymandering in 2020 and lay the base for running a truly Progressive candidate in 2024.

        We should have started this in 2002 - but we have been too busy sniping at each other under the Big Tent (me included I am ashamed to say) to truly Unite and get things done where it matters - at the local and State levels for now.

        • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." Thomas Paine
        • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King

        by Tommymac on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:21:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  THIS progressive is ready for Elizabeth! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, karma13612

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:22:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, the Phyliss Schaflys are still (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dartagnan, fou

      out there determined to protect their right to be protected by men.  Bless their simple minded mean hearts.

      Proud to be a Democrat

      by Lying eyes on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whether I vote for her depends on 2 things (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, jgilhousen, elwior

    Is there someone else better to vote for?  

    And does that person stand a chance of winning?

    I could live with Hillary as president.  We've all seen a lot worse.  She would be one hell of a lot better than any Republican.

    I'd like to see what she plans to do, of course.  She has not really articulated a platform - and although I can appreciate that strategically, she would not want to publish it so soon, it would be nice to know what she plans.

    However, I wish there were a little more depth on the D side of things.  Hillary is not as young as she used to be, and although we can dismiss Rove's ravings with respect to brain damage and 30 days in the hospital, she has had a few health issues.  Even if her health were 100%, I would still want more depth on our side.

    I agree that we have seen racism in full bloom, but has the situation in the US gotten any better?  The war on women has been intense, too.  We only seem to be making some progress wrt homophobia.

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:20:09 AM PDT

  •  Now I'm ready to vote Hillary. (17+ / 0-)

    In the 2008 primaries, she just wasn't there yet for me. When I heard her speak, I didn't necessarily hear someone with the discretion and judicious nature that I wanted to hear. I heard ambition and smarts, but not always the orientation toward statespersonship.

    Obama was young and inexperienced, but a trajectory toward public-mindedness seemed to be more a part of his personality.

    But now that Hillary has worked at the cabinet level and beyond the public orbit of her husband's activity, I feel like she sounds different—like an elder statesperson with public interests in mind.

    There are positions that she and I will very likely differ on, and in general this is bound up with a kind of left-centrism that is probably to -centrist for me in many ways, but I'll now be happy to vote for her, based on the way she's carried herself and sounded recently.

    And it's high time we had a woman president.

    -9.63, 0.00
    "Liberty" is deaf, dumb, and useless without life itself.

    by nobody at all on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:29:49 AM PDT

  •  I'll take a pass. (9+ / 0-)

    Clinton's way too neoliberal.  She'll spend her tenure trying to make deals with the Repubs and chasing them to the right, just like Obama.  

    •  If you take a pass we get Bush Act III, or (4+ / 0-)

      a President Ted Cruz, or a President Rand Paul.

      I'm all for a Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and/or a populist Brian Schweitzer running for President and pushing the conversation to the left in the Dem primaries. And a Jill Stein in the general doing the same thing. But none of them will ever be President.

      If you think Hillary will "spend her tenure trying to make deals with the Repubs", you really don't know Hillary. In the Senate Benghazi hearings I didn't see Hillary trying to make many deals with the Repubs.

      David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

      by Dave in AZ on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:49:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It is way too early to be selling ourselves on (4+ / 0-)

    the idea of one specific person for Democratic nomination.

    Although this diary is really well written, and brings up some good points, the premise that we must already be resigned to the 'best person' is too soon.

    I follow several Elizabeth Warren facebook pages and there is increasing interest in this spitfire Mass Senator. And more comments about Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown.

    With increasing public awareness of these great individuals, I believe we could offer more than just HRC to the public for their primary nomination options. And the cool thing is that these people are walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

    Quite the contrary, right now is the time to be letting the voters in this country hear more about these lesser known potentials. Within their actual jobs, they are making news and taking stands on important issues for the middle class in this country.

    Hillary is not in active office and is making pretty speeches. But, what are her positions on middle class American issues? The reason you don't hear about her positions on the issues that are important to the 99% is because her positions aren't popular with them.

    It's obvious who I am inclined to support from my sig. But, hopefully I have given a good enuf explanation as to why.

    I didn't want Hillary in 2008 after I learned more about her, and found Obama to be more in tune with the needs of American middle class. Granted, he has disappointed me a bit but the alternative was John McCain and Sarah Palin. We know that would not have gone well at all.

    I feel that some of the disappointment over Obama has actually translated into more people standing up saying enuf is enuf. The Republicans are acting so badly that people are finally saying they want something other than the Repugs, and someone who is more willing to say no to their stupid crazy crap. Obama's hands might be tied but he could have taken more of a stand on some issues.

    If in the primary I have an option to vote for someone other than Hillary, I will for sure. Unless they are the equalivalent of Sarah Palin or Ron Paul. Ugh.

    But, in the general, so that there is no misunderstanding, I will vote for Hillary because I too, understand the importance of Supreme Court appointments.

    Oh yes, one last thing. The suggestion of a HRC/EW or EW/HRC ticket is completely counterproductive. They are polar opposites and would not work, in my opinion. It would be like saying -1/+1 and that equates to 0.

    I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

    by karma13612 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:34:37 AM PDT

  •  We can't afford 8 years of neoliberalism (8+ / 0-)

    Sorry, hope she loses, and loses big. This disease needs to be cured and removed.

    The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

    by Jazzenterprises on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:35:58 AM PDT

    •  From the viewpoint of the GOP, (3+ / 0-)

      Benghazi must become the media reference point that serves to subvert HClinton's path to the nomination.  

      Note that rather than improve the electability -- not to mention sense of public service -- of their own potential candidates, their efforts are directed at subverting Hillary Clinton.  

      Progressive Democrats had a large field of candidates in the last two or three primary cycles, including several very progressive candidates.  In the general election in 2008 and 2012, progressive in very large percentages supported Barack Obama.  

      Clearly you would not care for an HClinton candidacy, but IMO, it's quite probable that it's going to happen anyway.  

      Many Democrats, of all stripes and zip codes, support her.

      "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

      by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:49:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Supporting Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz then? (8+ / 0-)

      Wow. Just wow.

      No way no how.  I'll sweep the street behind Hillary's procession if that is what it takes to keep the WH out of the Rights bloody little hands.

      • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." Thomas Paine
      • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King

      by Tommymac on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:24:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Diary (5+ / 0-)
    If Hillary does run for 2016 every woman in the world will see exactly what the right thinks of women in general, it might even open the eyes of women on the right who are aiding and abetting the war on women.
    LaFeminista , I always enjoy your commentary , so please excuse me while I present a different perspective

    Another thing America presents to the world is a very greedy capitalistic system that exploits woman thru slave labor , Hillary will not be addressing that issue , imo we need a democratic president who will take on wall st about this issue , keep and create good paying jobs in America for women , and advocate for women's workers rights across the world  

    The veneer of a women democrat being attacked by republicans dose not address the depths of real change that can really help women in America , and world wide

    Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

    by Patango on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:38:37 AM PDT

  •  An interesting take (3+ / 0-)

    I get it :)

    Personally I like my homophobia, sexism and racism out in the open where I can see it, rather than hidden by some soft focus idealism of a society that does not exist.

    "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

    by lunachickie on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:42:02 AM PDT

  •  I like my Repubs to have an (R) by their names. (12+ / 0-)

    I really hate this trend of Democrats using identity politics as a tool to improve their plausibility in the Good Cop/Bad Cop game.   You take away a handful of social wedge issues, Hillary Clinton is a plutocratic Republican, same as Barack Obama.   I'm not buying into this silly "lightning rod" theory to justify electing a female 3rd-way conservadem.

  •  Get your point, but I will wait and see. (16+ / 0-)

    Her foreign policy/militaristic tendencies are what troubles me.

    And, no doubt, she'd be just another in a long line of big business Dems stretching back to her husband (and to some extent, Jimmy Carter).

    I am hoping for an alternative.

    "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 Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:48:34 AM PDT

  •  As long as we get a decent Dem Congress that (9+ / 0-)

    keeps her from veering right and she continues the Obama Administration trajectory of shifting taxation to the rich, boosting renewables, and improving the healthcare system I'm ok with it.

    Hillary Clinton seems like someone who can evolve and change for the better even at an advanced age, so she just might turn out to be a better President than some here think.

    And it would definitely be cool to have a female president, in my book.

    Tipped and recced.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:50:42 AM PDT

  •  Because she will make the GOP look bad (7+ / 0-)

    It's really as simple as that.  Hillary Clinton's mere presence at the top of the ticket will make them behave badly. Simply the prospect of her presence at the top of the ticket is making them behave embarrassingly badly, which is good for us.  I can't think of anything more calculated to make them froth at the mouth in a way that costs them votes and support in the long run than nominating Hillary.  She's got the whole package.

    1.  Woman
    2.  Married to the guy they impeached
    3.  Certain features of her resume get them so mad they do stupid things (e.g. being First Lady twice before ever holding elected office)
    4.  One of the very few politicians that gets away with being wonky without the trad media spewing crap about "sighing" or some other mindless drivel
    5.  Enjoys going for their jugular
    6.  Shows them up by having once been a moderate Republican (and perhaps still being one, only now they have to be Democrats because the GOP is so batshit)
    7.  Has overwhelming support from both the Dem base and independents, unusual in recent candidates.
    8.  Nobody expects a great speech out of her and she still fires them up
    9.  Her policy self-confidence is back in full (thanks, ACA); this is a key improvement on 2008
    10.  Misogyny is well on the way to becoming a partisan issue, rather than a universal barrier in politics (See also #1 and #6)
    11.  There's only one thing that enrages the TP more than a "RINO", and that's an ex-"RINO".  See also Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman.

  •  We vote for more than just the POTUS, (9+ / 0-)

    and the kind of administration that HRC would be likely to put in place just terrifies me. It would be a Wall Street free-for-all.

    HRC could say a lot of things between now and 2016 that would make me vote for her, but as of right now I do not trust her loyalties at all.

    We need to encourage a robust primary process. HRC needs to be directly and aggressively challenged on her positions.

     If we let this "inevitable" and "sure thing to beat the GOP" nonsense drive the discussion we might just end up discouraging challengers and being stuck with a set of policies that we don't like one bit. And by the time we figure this out it will be too late, and that might have been the plan all along.

  •  Because it isn't already out in the open? (4+ / 0-)

    Of all the reasons to support Hillary in 2016, this isn't one of them IMO. Some will support her because they actually like and respect her and her (often cryptic) policy stances and political skills and leadership. Others, like me, will support her if and when she wins the nomination, not before.

    My political choices are proactive, not reactive.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:04:31 AM PDT

  •  "world will see what the right thinks of women" (7+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton is the right.  Is she going to find out what she thinks of herself?

  •  Well that is a nice.... (5+ / 0-)

    ...diary and all just as long as you don't equate lack of support for Hillary for sexism.

    You brush aside your differences of policy positions with the she is better than the crazy argument but you should allow for those who won't or can't without it being sexism.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:15:27 AM PDT

  •  I would find your argument a lot more (0+ / 0-)

    compelling LaF, if you could persuade your Senator to run that primary challenge against Hillary that he seems to be leaning towards.

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:19:49 AM PDT

  •  You want a neoliberal imperialist? (11+ / 0-)

    I don't know why people want that.  It would seem like people would have had enough of that.  
    Clinton is actually worse than the republicans because of the Wall Street/Financial oligarchy ties and the MIC/Imperialism ties.  She's the whole package.  
    But if that's what people want, hey, it's a democracy isn't it?

    "Fragmented and confused, we have no plan to combat any of this, but are looking to be saved by the very architects of our ruination."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:21:28 AM PDT

    •  Pick an alternative and give us (3+ / 0-)

      his/her best odds at primary nomination and general election win.

      Then volunteer for that person's campaign if you wish.

      But yes, it is a democracy.  ("A republic, if you can keep it.")  

      Folks vote in the primaries.  As things stand now, a majority of Democrats appear ready to support Hillary Clinton as their nominee.  

      The woman or man who gets the most of those primary votes wins nomination.  You are welcome to try to persuade those Democratic primary voters that Hillary Clinton is "actually worse than the Republicans," but I think they'll laugh in your face.  

      "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

      by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:29:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The one with the most points wins. Ok, I got it. (5+ / 0-)

        I think a lot more democrats know what I mean than you think.  
        Clinton isn't Obama.  We know exactly what we're getting.

        "Fragmented and confused, we have no plan to combat any of this, but are looking to be saved by the very architects of our ruination."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:34:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those voters likely have their (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lysis

          reasons.  Not fair to speak for all of them against the outcome.  

          I'm suggesting that for many Democratic voters of all stripes, Hillary Clinton, whether they like her or not, is not "worse than the Republicans."  

          By a long shot.  

          "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

          by Remediator on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:37:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "worse than Republicans" seems to overstate . . . (0+ / 0-)

      the case to an extreme.  Otherwise I agree.

  •  take what's out in the open x100 and you have (0+ / 0-)

    what's happening on radio. not only the volume but the degree of hate and lies

    most of it isn't out in the open and that's been a serious problem - not only does most of it never get any reaction - such as the limbaugh/fluke event - there's a lot of rationalization and excuse making and PC labeling to  enable more of it.

    texans for wendy need  to be monitoring and reacting to the right wing radio, maybe by recording and computerized transcribing as i describe in this recent diary:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:26:08 AM PDT

  •  May I suggest that candidates who are not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites

    white and male are carrying a lot more on their backs than most people care to think about. Obama will walk out that White House door leaving it open for other minority candidates because he did lean Centrist. Nobody in their right mind will be able to say "See what happens when you elect those kind of people".

    If we did have a true Progressive female candidate who got elected and then failed in all of her policies because of obstructionism and the myriad other things that can go wrong, then you would hear "See what happens when you elect a woman".

    Yes I do enjoy making life more complicated. Because it is.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:28:11 AM PDT

  •  That's a misconception ... (3+ / 0-)
    Personally I like my homophobia, sexism and racism out in the open where I can see it, rather than hidden by some soft focus idealism of a society that does not exist. I like my right wingnuts frothing at the mouth rather than pretending to be compassionate conservatives. Only when the hatred is out in the open for all to see can it be dealt with.
    I think if one looks around in the world and in the past, sexism and racism and other extremisms being out in the open and happily and loudly promoted has never lead to the result that it will be "dealt" with appropriately (meaning you hope there would be such a backlash that those figures will not get to powerful positions). That's a mistake to believe, imo.

    I would never vote for H. Clinton for the reasons you give. Never. If I had to vote for her, I rather don't vote at all, or I would vote for her for other reasons. I pretty much think you thrive on emotions that would be better ignored or not fed into. The fact that the hate speech against H. Clinton by Republicans is your motivation just makes you a convenient tool for manipulation by said Republicans.

    Frankly, I want a break and a new beginning and throw all those who had directly to do with the political forces in the nineties and the first decade of the 21rst century.

    We know a hell of a lot, but we understand very little.- We are simply dramatically stupid - Manfred Max-Neef - I agree with him.

    by mimi on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:33:10 AM PDT

  •  my running nightmare these days and nights (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Choco8, Rithmck, chuckvw, Patango

    isn't much about sexism.

  •  The dirty jokes have been repeated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, Lysis

    since 1992. Bill's penchant for getting his horn sucked has been truly inspirational.

    Poor old Vince Foster has been murdered a million times over.

    But as a grandmother, as a guest on "The View" and elsewhere, Hillary is settling into a post-menopausal plateau, a much happier public persona.

    She smiles easily.

    The GOPers are too busy selling lies to smile much. All but Jeb Bush. Thing is, he's been out of the game for a long time. His wife Columba is Mexican-American, otherwise similar to Mrs. Kerry in public appearances.

    If the GOPers don't nominate Jeb Bush, it'll be another anti-democracy troglodyte. In that situation it'll be Hillary in a walk-over.

    "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

    by waterstreet2013 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:46:04 AM PDT

  •  my experience tells me it will also show a divide (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, freakofsociety, jgilhousen, jessical

    on the left, for the same reasons.  the question then becomes: is it worth enduring the latter to display the former?

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:49:01 AM PDT

  •  I was against Hillary in 2008 (14+ / 0-)

    which is why I switched my support from Edwards (shudder) to Obama after South Carolina. And it was the Iraq war vote that was my primary concern about her.

    As far as 2016 goes... right now, the only path to victory I see for the Democrats is for Hillary Clinton to be our nominee. It's clear Obama is going to throw his support behind her, which means she'll have the nomination virtually sewn up from the start (and yes, it is going to be very different than the phony "fait accomplit" that the media declared in 2008). If 2016 were a year that Democrats would be feeling very confident about their chances, they might risk a lesser-known candidate, but the signs indicate to me that 2016 is going to be more akin to 2008 for the Republicans: considerable public fatigue at the existing Democratic administration. For whatever reason, Hillary seems to be immune to the forces that have dragged down Obama and other Democrats' poll numbers.

    If Hillary runs, I think she'll win and win BIG. As in, possibly breaking 400 electoral votes, depending on the GOP nominee. Whatever we entrenched progressives may think of her, the widespread view among voters seems to be that she represents stability, fiscal responsibility and foreign policy toughness. Like it or not, that's what the majority of Independents want. And if she does win big, I would hope she'd have a nice coattail effect wherein she sweeps the Democrats back into control of both houses of Congress. She might even help us win back a slew of state houses and governorships.

    And having a Democratic president and Senate is going to be reaaaaaally important considering the anticipated SCOTUS retirements that are likely going to come up. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Scalia are all fast approaching retirement. Yes, it makes a massive difference which party is making nominations. Do I want more Roberts and Alitos, or more Kagans and Sotomayors?

    What's the alternative for the Democrats? Well, if not Hillary, the obvious second most likely nominee is Biden, if he decides to run. But I don't think Biden could win in November. He's a gaffe-machine, and we've already seen that the GOP plans to make age an issue, and he's older than Hillary. Plus on the issues, is he substantially different from Hillary? He backed NAFTA, voted for the Iraq War authorization, voted for the PATRIOT ACT. I'd have to think any progressive who thinks Biden is somehow preferable to Clinton based on policy doesn't know what the man believes or supports!

    Then we're left with the no-name Democrats who would be at a distinct disadvantage to Republicans in 2016 just based on media attention to date: the "old" white dudes like Cuomo (worse that Hillary in almost every respect for progressives, IMO), O'Malley (snooze), Schweitzer (doubt he'd run, and if he did, he'd go about as far as Richardson did in 2008)...

    I can't see any way the Democrats win without Hillary as the nominee, frankly. Is she my ideal candidate? Not at all. But I'm also a pragmatist, and I realize the Presidency is not now (if it ever has been) something that someone who is perfectly progressive, ethical, peaceful and wise could ever win. Presidents tend to represent the zeitgeist of the country, and until we have a national change in attitudes about a lot of things, we're not going to see a President who embodies all of our ideals.

    •  Don't agree with the 400 EVs. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JamieG from Md

      But agree with pretty much everything else you said.

      BTW: I know he's viewed as a corporatist here, but don't write Warner off. I think he'll get serious consideration as a veep and if Hillary doesn't run could easily go toe-to-toe with somebody like Paul.

      •  400 EV's is a lot... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave in AZ, Tony Situ, JamieG from Md

        Assuming she keeps the Obama 2012 states, she'd start at 332.

        What can she pick up from there?

        Obama '08 States

        NC - 15 electoral votes
        IN - 11

        Potential:  +26

        Clinton '96/'92 States

        AR - 6
        MO - 10
        LA - 8
        WV - 5
        KY - 8
        TN - 11

        Potential: +48

        Clinton '96 Only/ '92 Only

        AZ (96) - 11
        MT (92) - 3
        GA (92) - 16

        Potential: +30

        Landslide Election/Demographic Shift Serendipity...

        SC - 9
        TX - 38

        Potential: +47

        So we have a potential range of 332 to 483, with reality likely closer to the former.  The Clinton elections were so long ago that realistically, I think her best shot at getting those ones back for us are in AR, MO, and maybe, maybe, WV and KY.

        I could see 403 if demographic shifts and high turnout bring NC, GA, and AZ into the fold as well.

        But yeah, we'd be playing offense like nobody's business with her at the top of the ticket.

      •  I hope she doesn't pick Warner for VP (0+ / 0-)

        There really isn't a reason for her to do so. He's a blue dog. And she doesn't need him to win Virginia.

        Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

        by JamieG from Md on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:12:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't follow your logic (4+ / 0-)

      When people think Democrat, they think Clintons.  A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Democratic Party.  If Americans are willing to have 400 electoral votes cast for a Democrat, almost any Democrat could win if the popularity of the party is that strong.  

      What folks aren't getting a grip on is that by 2016 American may be sick of the Democratic Party and that will work even more strongly against Hillary.  She can't run as a populist or an independent or against Washington.   She IS Washington. Whatever she says be it war with Iran or cuts in entitlements Americans are going to read Democratic Party.

      So while she could win big she could also lose big.  

      •  Cuts in entitlements??? (4+ / 0-)

        That would go against every vote she's ever cast and every position she's ever taken.

        •  Well then why does she hang around with the (5+ / 0-)

          DLC, Third Way, Simpson Bowles, Mark Warner types?  

          I know you've posted before some of her centrist spin on this from several years back but I need to know if she's on board with the Grand Bargain bullshit.  Because if she is the all powerful super woman so many believe she is she just might have the power to reform the middle class right out of their Social Security COLA or means test their Medicare.  

          I'm not asking her position on defending the snail darter or whatever endangered fish or fowl is dear to the hearts of those who protect the earth.  I want to know precisely where she stands on issues like Social Security and Medicare.  If for no other reason than it is a clue to the boundaries of this neo-liberal embrace of the financial industry at the expense of the American middle class.  I want to hear her speak as thoughtfully and clearly as Elizabeth Warren on these economic issues BEFORE she gets my support.

          Make no mistake about it, her position on these economic issues will be the position of the Democratic Party if she is elected.  She will want a legacy and she will need the party on board for that legacy to drive it through Congress.  We need to know if her legacy is going to be a Grand Centrist Sell-out of the middle class or if she means to make it an FDR type New Deal for a progressive future.  

          All of you out there so darn sure she is the chosen one, it sure would help if any one of you could actually speak to where she is on economic issues today.  

          I know where Elizabeth Warren stands and I know she is not running.  I don't know where Hillary stands and I know she is running.  Seems darn backwards to me.

          •  If you spent half the time googling (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cpresley, JamieG from Md

            That you spend writing these lengthy diatribes that insist she's both (a) a declared presidential candidate that (b) refuses to say where she stands on the issues, you'd realize very quickly that you're wrong on both counts.

            There is a heck of a lot more about where Hillary Clinton stands on issues than Elizabeth Warren.  Try actually watching one of Clinton's recent speeches.  Or researching her platform in 2008. Or reading transcripts of her speeches and policy advocacy as Secretary of State.

            You're continuously arguing against a Hillary Clinton that doesn't exist.  You're free to vote based on your lack of/misinformation, but I see no reason why anyone else should take you seriously when you describe a woman that you can't be bothered to actually learn anything about.

      •  I disagree with your assertion. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Remediator, catwho, JamieG from Md
        When people think Democrat, they think Clintons.
        I don't see any evidence that the fate of the Clintons is tied to that of Democrats in general. On the contrary, I think the Clintons are that rare breed of political figures who can transcend their party label. How else do you explain why Hillary is currently much more popular than Obama and the Democrats in general? Why does her polling outpace that of "generic Democrat" by about 10 points?

        Because Hillary has a reputation with Independents that has nothing to do with her party ID.

        Why is Hillary competitive in states that Democrats have been losing for decades, while Gore, Kerry and Obama lost them by 20 points or more?

        •  I think early poll are mainly name recognition (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike, Johnny Q, Portlaw, Patango

          Former first ladies poll high in popularly regardless of party.  Bur if what you're saying is true, that doesn't make me feel any better about her because the last thing I want is a candidate running to the right of the entire party which is far too right for me as it is.  

          What I fear most about Hillary is that she just might be powerful and competent enough to do the Grand Bargain that Obama couldn't do.  She can do that by pulling the whole party to the right or by going over the head of the party and governing to the right of it like Cuomo making deals with Republicans.  

          •  That would be inconsistent with her beliefs. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JamieG from Md

            She's held and advocated for center left positions for her entire career.  Her biggest advantage over Obama is that she would never negotiate with herself.

            •  What like war with Iraq? (6+ / 0-)

              That's where she lost me.  That's what confirmed to me that her move to New York indicated she was more expedient than principled.  I haven't trusted her since.  I am not saying at this point that I won't vote for her but she's got to convince that she cares as much about my interests as she does for her own self-interest.   Because we just had the latest send off last week sending the MN NG back to Iraq again where we don't have any troops so there you go.  I'm not trusting much of what I'm told these days.  

          •  I wouldn't attribute it to her being more powerful (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell

            and competent necessarily, but I do agree that some version of a "grand bargain" is more likely to happen with her as president, because the republicans in congress and even the media are more likely to actually cooperate with her on it. The republican establishment, e.g. McCain, are very cozy with her.

            Unlike Obama, who they painted as the antichrist and therefore simply could not make any kind of deal with, even when he offered them everything they wanted.

            With Hillary, they would be more willing to make a deal I think. As to whether she will want to do that... I don't know. I tend to think yes.

            But as you have pointed out, we don't really know yet what she would decide to do for her legacy and major achievements as president. If she even has any big ideas beyond just being the president, I don't know what they are.

          •  Attributing Hillary's popularity to being (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cpresley, Radiowalla, JamieG from Md

            a former first lady (over 14 years ago) is just plain silly. She has maintained a very public profile since then as a United States Senator and the U.S. Secretary of State. If you're suggesting that voters being polled aren't cognizant of that and are just thinking of her as the former First Lady, you're really just trying to invent any excuse you can for her popularity.

            It's not just name recognition, either: her actual approval rating is quite high. If her approval numbers were mediocre but she still enjoyed a polling advantage, I might buy that. But she is actually popular.

            Whatever your fears are about Clinton as president is besides the point of my post and sidestepping the issue at hand: Hillary Clinton is going to be the best and perhaps only realistic chance for the Democrats to retain the White House in 2016. Is she my ideal candidate? Not by far. But we're talking about a position that has NEVER been won by an ideal.

            It amazes me that so many progressives seem to think that the way to move our society is to get a progressive President elected who will drag the rest of the country forwards. That is not how it works, though. Great leaders are, overwhelmingly, a product of their society, not the creators of it. It's going to take a shift in the views of the electorate to get someone like Warren into the White House at some point in the future. It's not going to work the other way around.

            •  Fine so go vote for American Idol then and (6+ / 0-)

              maybe she'll do Dancing with the Stars and take a crack at the Bachelor and appoint Kim Kardashian Secretary of Education.  I don't care.  

              I don't care how popular she is with anyone else.  I don't care if she wins every electoral vote, she isn't getting my vote if she runs as a neo-liberal.  

              She can clear that up. I don't expect she will.

              Ronald Reagan was popular too.  I didn't vote for him either.

  •  It's way past time for a woman president in this (7+ / 0-)

    Country, but of course that doesn't mean just any woman. I, too, would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat, but Hillary has far more name recognition. And yes, it will be ugly, what the Repugs sling at her. They're already doing it, that's how scared they are of Hillary Clinton.

    "Let's stay together"--Rev. Al Green and President Obama

    by collardgreens on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:14:37 AM PDT

  •  You make many thought provoking points, La (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3rock, JamieG from Md

    Feminista. Perhaps your analysis will turn out to be another case where our hard won ability to incorporate diverse perspectives working together as a team for similar goals gives us an advantage over tthe Republican's homogenius approach.

    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

    by HoundDog on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:16:36 AM PDT

  •  Joe Lieberman (post-op transsexual) for 2016 Prez! (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q
    Hidden by:
    Radiowalla, BFSkinner

    Why not?   She would get the women's vote, the LGBT vote, and bring Republican sexism and homophobia out in the open.    That's like Hillary, only better!   Joe Lieberman is truly just a sex-change operation away from being a great president.

    It is our duty to focus all our energy on giving President Lieberman the most progressive congress possible so she can govern from the left.

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

    Besides, Dems have to keep breaking down barriers to nuke the "old white male" lock on the political system.

  •  Thank you LaFem! (6+ / 0-)

    First to thank you for your reasoned argument. It matters. And second to say that the sexist arguments against Hillary are not confined to the right wing.

    No one knows what is in Hillary's heart when it comes to how she would govern as President. We know she is an ambitious, aggressively driven politician who will say what needs be said to gain her goal. There are at minimum 538 + 2 others in Washington who are exactly the same.

    She is judged as a potential President by the Bill metric. "Well, the Big Dog did this, Hillary will do the same", when in truth we don't know. That argument in itself is sexist, have you heard someone say that Joe Biden will follow the behaviour patterns of Jill.

    We all have to judge Hillary if she runs, will she be the President we want or not? But, let's do it on her actions and what she says, not on Bill. Also, let's allow for her evolution on issues if there is any, I'm close to her age and my ideas about things are not set in stone.

    Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

    by high uintas on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:35:44 AM PDT

  •  Clinton/Warren16 or Warren/Clinton16...both would (0+ / 0-)

    probably work for me, ahem, not in the employer/employee sense, and it would be at equal pay if it were, but in the metaphysical, political sense. I would still like to see alternatives, however. But if either of those is the ticket, then I'm all-in.

    That Gillibrand firebrand could make things interesting too, even if she is a New Yorker (cough) Go Sox!!..?? (cough) last place sorta hurts!

    But lets not kid ourselves, the racist underbelly was not only ripped open on the right, but also right here on DKos, home to plenty of lunatic orangenecks.

    Just be prepared to listen to o'necks telling you that the only reason you support Hillary is because you are a woman. To wit, just a few weeks ago I swung by to read a few threads and was greeted by yet another o'neck condescending attack on an unfair-skinned brother defending Hillary's potential candidacy. He was derided for being from Philly, you know, a place full of unthinking Obama supporters. The "oh well you're black so of course you support Hillary" didn't seem to be working for them, so they resorted to the you're from Philly nonsensical attack.

    Seeing the same racist lunatics on the far left, I left disgusted yet again.

    One of these days I might get around to dissecting the anatomy of that online lynching led by that famously sick doctor from Dallas. That shit must be in the DNA down there, because it was textbook.

    “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." - Jesus

    by Jose Bidenio on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:35:48 AM PDT

    •  the two on the same ticket will cancel each (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patango

      other out.

      They seem to have very different ideologies and I think they would keep people from voting for the ticket.

      Just from this one diary, I can see that those who prefer Hillary will rarely even mention Warren.

      And Warren supporters are making it pretty clear they don't really care for Hillary.

      Seems like that ticket would cause  people a lot of conflict in the voting booth!

      Just my opinion.

      I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

      by karma13612 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 07:56:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My only criticism of this diary. (11+ / 0-)

    And it kinda makes me want to write my own.

    I love Hillary Clinton. I think she's a fantastic Democratic leader and icon. I admire and appreciate all the work that she's done on behalf of women and children in every single opportunity she's ever been given to do so.

    I love her strength. I love her tenacity.  I love her solidarity. I love her sense of humor and ability to deflect character assassinations with a flip of whatever hairstyle she's rocking that day.

    I don't need to hold my nose to vote for her.  I will work my fingers to the bone in support of her.

    But thank you for making a positive argument toward those who are able to be convinced but not currently in favor of this woman I support so strongly!

  •  2020 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, Radiowalla, JamieG from Md

      will be the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, Women's Right To VOTE.
       I'm 63. I've never seen the repukes more afraid in my life. They are going to fight Hillary from now until 2016 with absolutely everything they have and then some.
       I'm up for the fight myself.
       I like Hillary. She's my gen., faults and all.
       Here's what I know, if Hillary had been elected, the longwars would have ended one or two years into her Presidency because Anti War Protests the size of pre Iraq, Afganistan war protests would have happened and she would have listened or else.
       I want to get back to or else! MY GENERATION stopping the slaughter of younger gens.

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:38:56 AM PDT

    •  I'm tired of we can't rock the boat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla

         when the boat needs ROCKIN!
          Ooo, Ooo are you inferring? FUCK YOU! I'm tired of that hide behind! Tired of THAT insinuation!

      March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

      by 3rock on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:48:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary has coatails a mile long. (6+ / 0-)

    She makes inroads into the south and west like no other Democratic candidate can.

    People who vote for Hillary are likely to vote Democratic down line. That is worth a lot IMHO

    Let's all rub down in bacon grease and play Twister

    by Brahman Colorado on Sat May 24, 2014 at 08:49:31 AM PDT

  •  You might be on to something (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, kj in missouri, 6412093

    8-10 years ago, someone said to me to not worry about all those crazy right wingers because they're all old and they're just not going to live much longer.

    Not true because their virulence spread to younger generations.

    Logic means nothing to them because they have none. Religion (which has always been somewhat tenuous anyway) is now nearly totally coopted by those fruitcakes who've convinced their children and grandchildren and neighbors that it's all in the Bible, that it's all signs of the Apocalypse, that they're all saved. Etc.

    It's only been by the beginning stages of outing their underbelly that any shift has even begun. The general public now realizes how greedy, shameless, bigoted and self-serving they are---but they still have many true believers, many more than a lot of people on DKos realize.

    They're a threat not just to the country, but to our survival as people, and all in the name of $$$.

    Hillary makes them go completely batshit crazy, even more than Obama.

    So it might work.

    The problem is, it might very well be too late at that point.

  •  I was wondering what Clinton's position was on (6+ / 0-)

    climate change and found this:

    Clinton calls for mass movement to solve climate change!  It apparently isn't the government's problem!

    She calls for a mass movement by young people.  Isn't this a recurring theme?  Hasn't Obama often called for movements by the people to get things done?  That almost seems like an attempt to shift blame.  The politicians seem to be saying it's the people's fault and the government isn't going to do a damn thing about it, so you better start writing letters and having protests.

    Gosh, what happened the last time we had a protest?  The government actively suppressed Occupy WallStreet.  Talk to Cecily McMillan who was just sentenced to 3 months in jail.

    •  Inspiring young people to carry on the work (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093, catwho, 3rock

      is what activists are supposed to do ;-) Boomers will be dead eventually. Get your movement on.

      There is climate change money to be made, so cook stoves it is!  Using power and wealth to fix big problems is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Action follows words:

      2010, announce

      2011, African nations

      2012, China

      Clinton launched the Global Alliance, a public-private partnership, two years ago. The stated goal is to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women and combat climate change by bringing "clean and efficient cooking solutions" to families around the world. The total U.S. commitment to the cookstove project so far is $105 million.

      China's participation will help the Global Alliance meet its goal of having 100 million homes adopt clean and efficient stoves and fuels by 2020.

      In China, an estimated 80 percent of households rely on solid fuels such as wood or dung to burn the fires that heat their food. The World Health Organization estimates that burning those solid fuels accounts for more than 540,000 premature deaths in China each year and various chronic and acute illnesses.

      Keep going. Every bit helps.
    •  It worked for gay marriage (0+ / 0-)

      Youth were "inspired" on the issue from ourselves and encouraged by the elders.  

      Now we are winning that issue, and we'll be ready for mass approval or a constitutional amendment in another decade or two.

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:39:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well said! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cazcee

    Those on the left who really want a more liberal candidate are delusional in thinking that someone from the far left would win in an environment like this.  It's the center that wins when the right wing goes with the 'crazy'.

  •  I have reservations with your rationale (3+ / 0-)

    Shining light on these awful prejudices doesn't "reveal" their horror to everyone.  In the last 20 years, bringing the cretins out of the woodwork has, instead, validated their philosophies as a legitimate alternative worldview for a lot of people.  It's mainstreamed them and inspired people to join up.  Frankly, I liked it better when John Birchers were considered the lunatic fringe and were not invited to spew their hatred all over the country.  They're electing damned maniacs now.  We used to be headed in the right direction, anyway...Now, not so much.

    That said, I will vote for Hillary if she's nominated.  The Rs are a complete abomination at this point.

    "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

    by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:30:22 AM PDT

  •  The corporate oligarchy (Koch bros et al) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3rock

    "think" tanks, lead the band when it comes to devising divisive tactics. (skin shades, gender, sex, the poor, religion, patriotic fervor, Muslims, Bullghazi, guns & god, are all used to divide and conquer).  That the Republican party and much of corporate media walk hand in hand from this same source is documented and visible as identical talking points erupt in all these quarters at the same time.

    "When wealth rules, democracy dies." Me

    by leema on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:46:10 AM PDT

  •  If HRC were a HOoPer, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lysis, JamieG from Md

    Most would simply say that it's "her turn."

    Dems have many more compelling reasons to support her, among which are her core Democratic principles.

    In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, We cannot tolerate their obstruction.

    by mojave mike on Sat May 24, 2014 at 09:47:04 AM PDT

  •  Excellent piece, LF. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, tardis10, 3rock

    Here in Eire Frances Fitzgerald has been named the new Minister for Justice and Equality. Five other women hold the top jobs in the country including the Acting Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief State Solicitor, the Attorney-General and Chief Justice.

  •  to be honest (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, 3rock, JamieG from Md

    I'm not sure any democrat besides Hillary has a chance of winning. Despite all reason, it feels to me like the national mood is shifting ever so slightly against democrats.

    We need Hillary because I think she's our strongest chance at victory, and because I fear the Senate will eventually go republican at some point, if not 2014 then 2018 (and if Hillary doesn't run for sure 2016).

    We are in a critical time right now, all of the forward progress is in danger, and from my pov, Hillary is the best, possibly only, chance of keeping things on track.

    •  doesn't say much for our party, does it? nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, karma13612
      •  all it says to me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3rock

        is that Americans don't like one party in the WH for too long, and thus it's pretty rare for one party to win three elections in a row.

        Hillary is a chance to break that pattern during a time when there aren't a ton of sure-fire winners on our current bench. I don't think that says anything particular about our party.

        •  One would hope that we could (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike

          come up with someone better. So, it doesn't say much about our party and it's bench.

          •  depends on who you are (0+ / 0-)

            a strong progressive the likes that would satisfy you is unlikely to get elected in a general election in the current reality.

            It would be great if that weren't true, but IMO it is. It's a marathon, and we need to keep pushing forward, and we don't do that out of power. Better a Hillary than a Jeb, and right now, from my pov, there are few options that are electable out there than Hillary. If you can find one that is, and is more progressive, I'm open to it.  But we don't appear to have one waiting in the wings and the public is about 10 years away or so from embracing such a candidate.

            To me we need the youth in their 20s today to get into their 30s, start voting more reliably, and we have a chance for a long-lasting change. But right now, our best voting block doesn't vote enough.

  •  Thanks LaFem nt (4+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:39:49 AM PDT

  •  No Hillary, no more wars, fight big banks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Choco8, chuckvw, cybrestrike, Portlaw

    I would vote for Hillary if she started to oppose war and wanted to reform big banking.

    Until then, she is well to the right of being a centrist.

    Progressive, Independent, Unitarian, Vermonter.

    by Opinionated Ed on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:45:51 AM PDT

  •  Great diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, eyo, 3rock, Remediator

    Really excellent points. :)

    Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

    by freakofsociety on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:58:35 AM PDT

  •  The only reason to support Hillary is if you (16+ / 0-)

    think the Democratic Party hasn't veered far enough to the right.

    I keep hearing wealthy people and trust fund babies tell me how very pragmatic it is to support the far right of our party, or claim that it's really about women's rights.

    It's about nothing but their wallets.

    Ever.

    It's not realism.  It's contempt for poor and working people.  

    The only appropriate response from poor and working people is contempt in return.

    What can I say, you earned it.

    “Poor people have access to American courts in the same sense that Christians thrown to lions had access to the Coliseum.” — Earl Johnson Jr., retired justice,California State Court of Appeal

    by JesseCW on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:19:48 AM PDT

    •  It baffles me that she's called "centrist" and not (7+ / 0-)

      just straight up conservative.  I would say the same about Barack Obama.  They're not even moderate conservatives by 2008 standards.   If they look moderate now it's only because the political center has taken a giant step rightward since 2008, thanks to the Democratic Party's hard right turn.  Only on a few social issues has there been leftward movement, and the party only moved left on those issues when shifting polling data indicated it was in the party's own selfish interest to move left.

      •  Oh please. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jdsnebraska

        Both BHO and HRC are against DOMA, against DADT, against voter suppression, for green energy, for stimulus, for improving health care, for multilateralism, for appointing progressives to the SCOTUS, etc, etc, etc.

        You think they are to the right of "2008 moderate conservatives"?  If you truly think that, then it's YOU whose perspective is grossly out of whack.  Just as out of whack as those right wingers that think BHO is a communist who wants to enact Sharia law.

        •  Short memory? Here's just a few BHO policies: (0+ / 0-)

          1)  The President is entitled to issue secret trial-free death sentences for American citizens.

          2) Open repudiation of habeas corpus.

          3)  The President is entitled to bomb any country of his choosing and neither Congress nor the United Nations has any power to tell him no.

           - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          All three of these policies are to the right of what was considered the lunatic right-wing fringe in 2008.  If Obama had openly advocated any one of these policies in 2008 people would have looked at him like he'd lost his mind.   Maybe you're too young to remember what was considered batshit crazy in 2008, or maybe you've willed yourself to forget.

  •  Nominating Hillary would be bad for two reasons (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, Portlaw, karma13612

    1) The vile, nasty sexism which would become the Republican Party's de facto message if Hillary were to become the Democratic Party's standard bearer would be given credibility by the mainstream media, which is something I certainly don't want.

    2) Hillary being the party's standard bearer would probably divide the Democratic Party badly between the pro-Hillary establishment and progressives who are opposed to Hillary from the left on many issues (mostly foreign policy and economic policy).

  •  The glass ceiling (8+ / 0-)

    for warmongering, free trading, wall street millionaires was smashed long ago. I don't care how the right wing would react to her - or to any other non rethug candidate. The rethugs will reliably do what they do. You're pitching a reality tv show, not meaningful change.

    I want a government again: peace, jobs, schools, health care, roads and bridges. That ain't Clinton. We have 1.5 years to do better.

    Today's Democratic Party... Surrender to the void...

    It always seems impossible until its done. -Nelson Mandela

    by chuckvw on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:32:05 AM PDT

  •  Interesting diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, 3rock

    with a compelling theory.  We'll soon see if the anti-woman vitriol reaches the levels the diary predicts.  Hillary will certainly be nominated and win.

    Matter of fact, I think I'll only give money to women D candidates this year.  I'm already giving to Grimes and Davis, might as well double down. Who are some other good ones? Hagen?

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:44:55 AM PDT

    •  Hagen could use the money, I know. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093, eyo, 3rock

      I have donated to Nunn and Wendy Davis and Grimes so far.  

      We need to keep the Republicans from gaining six seats so we must protect all the vulnerable Democrats.  

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:51:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks radiowalla (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radiowalla, eyo, 3rock

        Nunn is a good one too. I'm going to give to Sandra Fluke also, I think, for the Ca Lege.

        “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

        by 6412093 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 01:34:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank You for donating to Sandra (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          6412093

            The Democrat entrenched here in So. Ca. can't get past "their" what would be better for the Democratic Party bias. She's a novelty and a woman, don't you know. The primary is 2 weeks away. Every bit helps. If she makes the "many" (Ca. open primary) she'll win the general.  

          March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

          by 3rock on Sat May 24, 2014 at 04:52:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the info, 3rock. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3rock

            “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

            by 6412093 on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:25:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're Welcome (0+ / 0-)

                A very accomplished termed out State Senator, VERY LIBERAL Women's advocate, Shelia Kuehl is running for County Supervisor, so the hope is that will pull Sandra into the top two. Like I say though, open primary with another woman running, other good people type candidates...

              March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

              by 3rock on Sun May 25, 2014 at 07:18:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Ready for the filth? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, eyo, 3rock

    Hell, we swim in it daily.

    Good point about a Hillary campaign. Let the ugliness reveal itself in full, no masks. The bastards need to go down and hard. I'm sick of their shit.

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Sat May 24, 2014 at 11:56:07 AM PDT

  •  I'm ready for the filth. (0+ / 0-)

    It's the prospect of the four to eight years of governance thereafter which give me some pause.

  •  I figure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10

    it hardly matters who individually.  The system will see to it that we get an economic neoliberal and a foreign policy neoconservative/"humanitarian interventionist" (a distinction without a difference, humanitarian these days apparently includes burning down buildings filled with unarmed people).  So might as well be the devil we know than the devil we don't.

    Pay no attention to the upward redistribution of wealth!

    by ActivistGuy on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:27:51 PM PDT

  •  Dream Team anti-propaganda primary: (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton
    Bernie Sanders
    Brian Schweitzer (former Governor of Montana)
    Kathleen Sebelius
    Al Gore

  •  40%+ primary votes for Sanders wd push HRC Left (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eyo, chuckvw, Clues
    as a campaigner, and

    ---if Democrats win Senate and House and add a few more Progressives in these bodies---

    as a President.

    Even better would be Elizabeth Warren (or even Barbara Lee) playing this role, and enabling primary voters to demonstrate their policy preferences without being obscured by their preference for the overdue nomination of a woman.
  •  mercy, more neoliberalism which is just what (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, cybrestrike, Choco8

    the 1% want and will get.
    She is a war hawk neoliberal and anyone thinking she will change after election is just too dense to engage with.

    Clinton's spying on every member of the UN (which was/is illegal) , getting (DNA when possible) , getting personal passwords, bank records and everything else possible show exactly who she is, a BIG part of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party.

    She is a prime example of what is wrong with not only the Dem Party but with the grassroots when supposedly left wing people support her.

    I ain't voting for her. Period. Screw the 'good cop bad cop' routine from Team Blue as the majority of people get stomped on like they have in the past six years.

    without the ants the rainforest dies

    by aliasalias on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:29:48 PM PDT

    •  It's a win win for the 1% (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, cybrestrike, Choco8

      The Democrats lost their nerve and most of their principles in 1992.

      It always seems impossible until its done. -Nelson Mandela

      by chuckvw on Sat May 24, 2014 at 02:54:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats lost their nerve & principles in 1992? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kascade Kat, Tony Situ

        Well, prior to 1992 A Republican President sat in the oval office 20 out of 24 years 1968-1992, and won three of the biggest landslides ever in '72, '80 & '84.

        Since we "lost our nerve and most of our principles" in '92 we've won the popular vote 5 out of 6 Presidential elections. And we got healthcare. I got healthcare - I'm on a ACA insurance plan with great coverage for under $40/mo. We have gays serving openly and proudly in our military. We have a federal government that treats same sex marriages the same as any other marriage. We have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

        No, we didn't lose our nerve or principles in 1992. We lost our predisposition to nominate poor candidates like George McGovern, Walter Mondale & Michale Dukakis who were easy for the Rethugs to portray as weak and out of touch.

        David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

        by Dave in AZ on Sat May 24, 2014 at 03:29:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The right peddles in filth... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3rock

    Playing by the Marquis de Queensbury rules would only guarantee defeat - clearly we need the street-fighters that are the Clinton's this time 'round.

    "We are but a moment's sunlight fading in the grass" The Youngbloods

    by karlpk on Sat May 24, 2014 at 03:09:15 PM PDT

  •  Erg (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3rock

    I feel like I have very little choice about her being the nominee at this stage.  Rah!  Rah!  But this is a more positive take on inevitability than I can humanly manage.  I'm sure that the crazy will show and that will have some benefit.  But the whole affair is existentially terrifying from here.  I Every four years we get to have a contest to see if the country will be run by authoritarians with homicidally cruel goals. It's hard to get excited about the transformative potential with my sphincters clenched this tightly, but then I don't like rollercoasters either.    

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Sat May 24, 2014 at 03:46:22 PM PDT

  •  Fine. So we get to see sexism revealed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karma13612

    and challenged.

    Meanwhile, we'll all be sinking into poverty, subjected to police abuse, stripped of our constitutional rights. While the water is irrevocably polluted and the world burns. And Hillary ain't gonna do anything to stop any of that, because her big-money friends don't want her to.

    Watching HIllary engage in a WWE-style fight against sexism while single mothers work three jobs and still end up raising their kids in a shelter doesn't help me much. And it sure as hell doesn't help them.

    It's kind of like the Lloyd Blankfein version of gay rights:  two men can get married, but unless they're rich they may end up living in matching refrigerator boxes.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 24, 2014 at 05:15:52 PM PDT

  •  while I recommended your diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mighty Ike, Wildthumb

    I don't necessarily want Hillary, although as of now I fully expect her to be our next President, and very much believe that she would so swamp any Republican that she would carry both Houses of Congress with her rather easily.

    "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive and go do it, because what the world needs is more people who have come alive." - Howard Thurman

    by teacherken on Sat May 24, 2014 at 06:40:23 PM PDT

  •  I want Hillary and Warren. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb, 6412093

    I think they would be a great combo if Hillary would allow Warren to help mold fiscal policy.

    But mostly because I think the Republican old boy sexist party would finally choke itself to death on its own poison.

    The campaign would be absolutely brutal but win or lose, and I really think they would win as long as the spineless Dims party supported them full bore, - I really think the Republican party would so over react as to become so offensive and mean spirited that even most Republicans would be repulsed.

  •  2016 might be the first presidential election (0+ / 0-)

    I skip.  I'm not advocating that. Just reporting it with sadness.  

    I've thought about it quite a bit.  Everybody here is quite welcome to spend the next two years convincing me that there's a big enough difference between the two parties' candidates that I can't afford to stay home, but please don't hate me for not leaving when I'm not convinced.  I'm a client, not a vendor.

    I remember Markos's question, "Then why are you here?"  And I finally figured the answer to that.  I'm just waiting.  Something may upset the apple cart at some point.  That's all I can do.  Wait for a stray apple to roll my way.  

    •  Let me try: (0+ / 0-)

      The current president has appointed two rock-solid progressives to the SCOTUS.  They've consistently come down on the progressive side on SCOTUS rulings.  There's every reason to believe that HRC would also appoint rock-solid progressives.

      Looking at the ages of the members of the SCOTUS, the next president will have multiple opportunities to appoint SCOTUS justices.  And looking at the ages of the conservatives on the court, there will likely be multiple opportunities to replace conservatives on the SCOTUS.

      That means that a President HRC will have the opportunity to totally shift the balance on the SCOTUS.  Whereas a President Cruz or Paul would have the chance to continue and entrench the conservative majority on the SCOTUS for generations.

      I could come up with myriad other reasons to vote for HRC over Cruz or Paul or Jeb or whomever rather than not vote, but the issue I just talked about should be enough.  If it's not, then I seriously doubt you can be convinced no matter what other reasons are brought to the table, no matter how many people do it, no matter which people do it, no matter how many times they do it.  If what I just talked about is not enough to convince you, then you are inconvincible.

      •  Here's an alternative view then. (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe we have to lose.  Maybe it will take four years in the wilderness to finally give the Democratic Party a chance to reshape itself into something that is no longer the tool of the Clinton/Pete Peterson Democratic plutocracy.  I don't want to sling a lot of big words around like that - that always makes me nervous, personally.  But the Democratic Party is so messed up that it's not sufficiently different, and if four years out of party gives us the chance to start changing that, then that might be a good thing.

        Also I'm looking forward to dread to the debates if it turns out to be Paul versus Hillary, and the subject of domestic spying comes up, or the subject of attacking countries whose names start with IRA- to teach them a lesson.  Maybe something will shake loose in that debate.  Or maybe we'll see the Democratic Party come out of the closet as the party of warmongers and secret police.  What are we supposed to make of things if that happens?  "But she'll appoint people to SCOTUS!"  Yes, judges who support domestic spying and idiotic wars, I suspect.

  •  if only Hillary were of color... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb

    it would be the perfect storm for the GOP. At any rate, I don't suspect the racism will end once BO leaves office. It will be interesting to see what new depths of misogyny will be plumbed once Hilz is elected (or Warren, yeah, I'll take Warren).

  •  Obama DID do an appalling thing... (0+ / 0-)

    ...he continued Bush's high stakes testing and public education privatization policies and after promising change to millions of students, families and educators this is appalling!

    Is Hillary going to give us some more of that same ole, same ole market driven education reform and privatization of public schools like Obama and other corporate Dems?

    Or will children and families who attend public schools get something else?

    Educational experience based on non-consensual behaviorism is authoritarian mind control.

    by semioticjim on Sat May 24, 2014 at 10:50:19 PM PDT

  •  I do NOT want Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    I think she is in bed with the corporations, just like Schumer. I think she is a hawk. I also think sheis 1000 times better than anyone the republicans will put up, so of course, I'll campaign for her, donate and vote for her. The first time. Just like Obama, if she is elected and disappoints me, I'll still vote for her the second time around, but not campaign, or give any $$$.

    But no one is inevitable..I remember that 6 years ago on this site, many thought she was inevitable. Until Obama outplayed her.( I wish Obama outplayed the Republicans as aggressively as he did Hillary.)

    If Hillary decides to not run, I think the Clinrons are going to support Gillibrand. She is a mini-Hillary, but worse. Still, better than a Republican.

    My real fear is that most of the prognosticators here and elsewhere are wrong. That Hillary will run- and lose.

    Republicans: They care about you until you are born.

    by adigal on Sun May 25, 2014 at 05:22:55 AM PDT

  •  It's about economics. Throwing another neolib (0+ / 0-)

    democrat into the WH isn't going win over the youth.  A populist democrat would make the Republicans freak out just as much, but also could help save the nation, not sink it further.

    Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

    by The Dead Man on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:49:38 PM PDT

Mike S, Pat K California, fly, claude, Ottoe, Alumbrados, JWC, Sylv, fcvaguy, Chi, Radiowalla, Brainwrap, teacherken, TrueBlueMajority, karlpk, Mnemosyne, dsb, brn2bwild, Bob Friend, Matilda, expatjourno, opinionated, raines, TracieLynn, nyceve, KMc, Decided Voter, splashy, high uintas, Brit, Texknight, Getreal1246, psnyder, Rithmck, Subversive, virginislandsguy, Lawrence, westyny, kj in missouri, bsegel, JayBat, zerelda, Curt Matlock, randallt, bristlecone77, vacantlook, murrayewv, Skennet Boch, freakofsociety, mjd in florida, Lying eyes, democracy inaction, farmbo, Blue Jean, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, owlbear1, SaraBeth, Pam from Calif, Wufacta, BayAreaKen, Steve in Urbana, sunbro, Tunk, Ginny in CO, Pluto, kathny, Asinus Asinum Fricat, bently, Jim P, MadGeorgiaDem, Audio Guy, sideboth, poco, Nance, vigilant meerkat, Themistoclea, dopper0189, HoundDog, cookseytalbott, fou, The Hindsight Times, JVolvo, middleagedhousewife, MBNYC, onionjim, bumbi, CA Nana, blueoregon, sea note, cpresley, tegrat, clinging to hope, john07801, Lysis, LSophia, Dartagnan, ColoTim, puakev, FishOutofWater, HeartlandLiberal, Matt Z, Dave in Northridge, shesaid, certainot, deepeco, sfbob, Unbozo, Bridge Master, gchaucer2, Chico David RN, leonard145b, Brahman Colorado, zorp, rmonroe, mconvente, GAS, cruz, MikePhoenix, 6412093, Youffraita, NewDealer, bythesea, brooklynbadboy, skohayes, CDH in Brooklyn, Morgan Sandlin, tofumagoo, smartdemmg, left my heart, pademocrat, KrazyKitten, sewaneepat, JamieG from Md, Diogenes2008, Leftleaner, earicicle, Remediator, Robert Sandy, Bonsai66, glitterlust, uno beagle, Exquisite, ArthurPoet, Tortmaster, Livvy5, Tommymac, Nannyberry, collardgreens, vtgal, Lefty Ladig, cassandraX, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, commonmass, trustno1, Captain Marty, serendipityisabitch, gramofsam1, Susan Grigsby, catwho, kjoftherock, mookins, cazcee, Lost and Found, NM Ray, renzo capetti, batchick, samanthab, pixxer, anonevent, DerAmi, nawlinscate, nickrud, BlueFranco, kenwards, ericlewis0, cocinero, science nerd, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, ZedMont, ParkingMeter, newusername, TheHalfrican, indubitably, theKgirls, Onomastic, annieli, kerflooey, MidwestTreeHugger, I love OCD, Bob Duck, Jazzenterprises, sabo33, stone clearing, implicate order, Reston history guy, swale44, La Gitane, molunkusmol, Haf2Read, thomask, dle2GA, muddy boots, sofa turf, bywaterbob, enhydra lutris, Joe Jackson, ratcityreprobate, joanbrooker, Chitown Kev, DEMonrat ankle biter, Laurel in CA, mikeVA, quill, sprogga, joelgp, i saw an old tree today, ridemybike, James Allen, anodnhajo, isabelle hayes, TheLizardKing, Chrislove, ahumbleopinion, LefseBlue, Eric Nelson, WolframAndHart, The Lone Apple, tb92, AnnieR, a2nite, JGibson, Dave in AZ, Mr Robert, reginahny, MartyM, Galtisalie, OllieGarkey, Denver11, rat racer, PowWowPollock, jeannew, freshwater dan, Windowpane, barleystraw, Hammerhand, allensl, jusjtim35, TheMeansAreTheEnd, countwebb, The grouch, Linda1961, kickthecan, eyo, 3rock, GwenM, Jon Sitzman, bob152, GreenMother, k9kiki, Treats, runfastandwin, jplanner, duhban, TimG831, Chas 981, eagleray, pierre9045, gnothis, paulex, AlexDrew, AJayne, liberaldad2, Mostserene1, cowdab

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site