Skip to main content

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks about Syria during an event at the White House in Washington, September 9, 2013. REUTERS
Events follow the norm until they don’t.

Democrats can continue to disregard Rand Paul at their peril, especially when he begins to sound like liberal Detroit activist Maureen Taylor. Simply put, Democrats must take heed of Paul's Time op-ed titled We Must Demilitarize the Police, in which he writes:

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

Jump below the fold for more.

In those few paragraphs, Paul is taking a chip out of the Obama coalition with a perceived acknowledgment of a racial issue that many Democrats do nothing about. At the same time, he keeps his base by framing it as an overreaching government. He is doing this with many other issues, aiming at different sections of the Obama coalition.

A few months ago I wrote two articles. The first, Is Hillary Clinton the president we need at this time?, examined some of the potential problems Clinton would face as the Democratic nominee. In that piece, I explained how she could be triangulated by a populist Republican:

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as a Democrat it would be better than any Republican getting elected. Given Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street baggage however, the triangulation used by the Clintons against the Republicans in the past may just be used against them in 2016. A populist Republican with limited Wall Street ties, with a fairly liberal social stance on marijuana, marriage equality, immigration reform, incarceration (mandatory minimums), and women’s rights is out there waiting. Anyone following the news can see that Republican in the making.
Many had assumed that I was referring to Rand Paul at that time, and it's true that I had him among many in mind. A few weeks later I wrote Don’t laugh, but Rand Paul could be our next president. Many laughed and assumed anyone who believed Rand Paul could win the presidency was naïve or simply did not understand his past utterances on civil rights, his past associations, and past faux pas. That is not the case.
Anyone who reads Daily Kos and other liberal and progressive blogs cannot be fooled by Rand Paul—he's a true Republican Libertarian with a touch of "Dixiecratocracy." The problem is that most voting Americans are not the well-informed, and most members of the traditional media are lazy or programmed to misinform by the plutocracy.

Paul does not need to blow up the Obama coalition to win—he simply needs to skim the fat. His little excursions into the liberal base can do just that. And the truth is, his base is much more committed to winning and voting than our base.  Just take a look at the recent FL-13 special election for evidence.

It would be irresponsible if liberals do not start taking concrete steps now to be inoculated on the populist flank. Taking the threat seriously will help not only in the presidential race, but in every district.

The biggest fear is that if there is a coronation of a select few, many potential candidates will remain undeveloped. Worse is the inability to recover from an unknown. The fact that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were elected presidents of the United States means it is not all that farfetched to wake up and discover that Rand Paul could be our next president.

This week I wrote a post, Hillary Clinton's Atlantic interview may be fatal to her chances for the presidency. A few readers saw the title as a hyperbole. While today it probably is a hyperbole, soon it may not be. In her interview, Clinton displayed very little nuance on Israel or terrorism. In effect, she sounded like a neocon lite. She also adopted a Republican talking point on the economy without voicing the reality of Republican policies stagnating the U.S. economy.
Many now tout the Clintons as being the wise ones in the Democratic Party. It was not so when Bill Clinton was in power. Many now assume former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are politically virtually infallible. They should recall that President Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote and that absent a strong third party candidate he may not have been president.

With all his faults President Obama won over 50% of the vote for his election and reelection. He passed a healthcare bill that has eluded presidents for nearly a century. He has changed our foreign policy from brute force to a game of chess (sometimes even good chess players make bad moves). And he has kept the country viable throughout Republican intransigency, sabotage by certain corporations, and a corrupt Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton should remember that if Al Gore had run on Bill Clinton’s record, the Supreme Court would not have had the chance to appoint George W Bush president. Running from her record with President Obama is not a winning strategy.

There are two Republicans that have begun the triangulation process. Rand Paul’s isolationist, no war, marijuana leniency, prison reform policies, and his new found love for non-white people could pay dividends in our low information society. A new Mitt Romney finding love for the 47% by supporting a living wage may make some give him a second look. It is imperative that there are other credible candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, Amy Klobuchar, or other more middle class centric candidates in the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary. Otherwise the 2016 coronation of Hillary Clinton will look just like her 2008 coronation, not in a primary but in the actual presidential race.

Staunch Democrats should want two things: a candidate who has a real possibility of winning out of the box, and a candidate who speaks to the needs of the poor and working middle class.

In a polarized nation, Republicans do not vote for Democrats and there's no point in tailoring a message to attempt to appease them. Americans want a leader they believe speaks to their economic problems and yes, their safety, via a non-interventionist international policy. They want to know their new leader will be focused on their problems. That is why they elected and re-elected President Obama. If Hillary Clinton is to win, she must not come across as she did in The Atlantic interview. Hillary Clinton can only win with the Obama coalition.

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

    •  She has but slight chance (5+ / 0-)

      of winning.  Despite honesty's universal absence, sincerity and integrity are what voters want.

      She is the wiser and better leader, but not because of unwavering idealism.  Rand Paul's outsider (read "sincere") status and seeming straightforwardness (read "integrity") may easily tip the balance to "for God's sake we must get these bribed and corrupt creeps out!"

      I aim to live in agreement with Benjamin Franklin's admonition to "Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty."

      by delonix on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:05:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh geezus yet again, here we go (4+ / 0-)

        Hillary-sucks diary No. 7,462.

        Now with extra Rand Paul!

        I don't know why I still bother to say:  This is utter bullshit on multiple levels.  Because the haters here won't be happy until 2000 repeats itself (yeah I know; like I do).

        Rand Paul.

        For God's sake.  Just please stop.

        •  You did not read what was written (11+ / 0-)

          in my post.  You read a reply to a script in your head.  

          I do not hate Hillary, nor did I denigrate her, nor imply her lacking the skill (and more).  Reply to my post, not your phantoms, please.  I am her big supporter.  I shall vote for her. I just think "tired voter" means actively seeking an "honest NON-POLITICIAN."  Ha.

          Because most such non-politicians are disastrous pawns of a skilled lobbyist, unmoving zealots, and unwaveringly faithful to Laissez-faire phantoms, we have TEA on the Right and Fascism on the Left.

          But the exhaustion with gridlock has made an opening for a perceived statesman.  I doubt that Mrs. Clinton would be seen as untainted, however "the best" she may be.

          I aim to live in agreement with Benjamin Franklin's admonition to "Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty."

          by delonix on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:09:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You don't see a problem with the idea... (9+ / 0-)

          Of the 2016 Democratic nominee being on the wrong side of public opinion when it comes to foreign policy and military intervention? Or that she seriously seems to think that by intervening into Syria early on, that we could have controlled the make-up of rebel groups in the region? I see a real big problem there.

          How is she going to respond when she's challenged with the idea of being the quintessential establishment figure during a period in which the American public largely feels that the political establishment has failed in addressing their concerns?

          Does she think she can triangulate and fence-walk her way into the Presidency?

          •  This is potentially a major problem (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, Patate, SixSixSix

            I'm fairly sure Paul won't be the nominee.  It may not matter, because the Republicans are so guaranteed to end up running someone who panders to racists, homophobes, sexists, and whining miserable billionaires.

            But running on a "we need more war in the middle east" platform is utterly insane.

            It signals a cluelessness.

            Hillary Clinton may be the last person alive to believe that some pseudo-sophisticated Sunday morning babble show that was last watched by someone in 2011, or some crank editorial in the Washington Post that nobody except her read, is relevant.

            Turnout and youth vote will drop off like crazy if she campaigns as a clueless warmonger.

            •  Agreed. Rand Paul would be an awful President... (0+ / 0-)

              As would any GOP nominee. But Rand Paul is absolutely on the right side of public opinion when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties/government overreach. People are not going to respond well to Hilary's brand of foreign policy.

        •  Not a Hillary sucks diary (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, shaharazade, Patate, MPociask, Matt Z

          Its a reality based diary that makes the case that HRC could end up being a week candidate against the likes of a Rand Paul. Diarist is right - she can't win without the Obama coalition and specifically strong AA support and turnout. Her Atlantic interview wasn't helpful in that regard.

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

          by fcvaguy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:14:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I had a conversation a few months ago with a yo... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, Matt Z

          I had a conversation a few months ago with a young man (30ish) working in a Democratic state governors office. Very informed and engaged politically. He stated to me that if Hillary was the candidate he was likely jumping to Rand Paul. Knocked me off my chair.

          •  Did he say why? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm curious to know why a "very informed and politically engaged" Democrat would support Rand Paul. I can understand why they wouldn't, or at least be reluctant, to support Clinton, but Paul? I'm curious.

            •  Maybe because llike many (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard

              young Democrat's he is sick and tired of having to vote for the lesser evil and isn't buying fear of the right wing. Rand Paul is a major racist sexist asshole but he supports or at least pays lip service to civil rights and the rule of law and doing away with the drug war. These are all stupid and evil wars and younger people don't see much difference other then variations on a theme on the Democratic side.

              Maybe it also has something to do with their getting burned by the Obama campaign which they perceive was a bait and switch.  Perhaps if the Democrat's actually implemented and fought for democratic values and rights here in der Homeland and globally they would not lose the votes of the young people and minorities.

              My granddaughter a young millennial has many friends who support Paul. She doesn't but she is thoroughly disillusioned with this administration and the Democratic party. Especially in regards to the 'endless war' civil and human rights and economic justice. She is like most of her contemporaries wired into the world at large and doesn't operate on fear of other.

              Information rather then political propaganda on the TV influences her world view and values. She really doesn't like Paul's stance on women's reproduction rights. I hear her arguing politics with her friends and it makes me sad that a young liberal has to work so hard to make a case against the likes of Rand Paul and try to feebly defend the Democratic positions which are at this point hard to  defend.      

        •  No, actually (0+ / 0-)

          it is a "Mainstream Democrats suck" diary.

          If Democrats can't put up some generic PSA type ads pointing out why Libertarians are historically handicapped dimwits, they deserve to live under Rand Paul for 8 horrific years.

          "...we live in the best most expensive third world country." "If only the NEA could figure out all they have to do is define the ignorance of the next generation as a WMD..." ---Stolen from posts on Daily Kos

          by jestbill on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:56:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The only 3 AM phone call I want Clinton answering (12+ / 0-)

      is one from her neighbor telling her that her car alarm is going off.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:19:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Best Analysis Anywhere (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patate

      Bill Clinton was a masterful President who was also an anti-Democratic policy disaster in many ways; the "Modernization Act" being the worst, but NAFTA was anti-union, and "entitlement reforms" were cynical--as if the expanding economy of the 90s had a meaningful and ready place for those who were in need of welfare.  

      The more Hillary aligns with either Bill's domestic policies or the neocons on foreign policy the more of Obama's coalition she loses; while if she goes to Obama's left then she easily consolidates and probably expands it.

  •  So what now? (44+ / 0-)

    I really don't feel like she's the best person for the job - of running, of winning, or of ruling.  So what do we do, as a site and as a community, to get a better candidate, both by practical and ideological standards, through the primary process - especially when the site leadership has told us in no uncertain terms that Hillary Will Be Our Nominee?

    I'm really glad to see a couple front page diaries "holding her feet to the fire", but unless we are willing to consider alternatives, it seems rather empty.

  •  Can someone please tell me why HRC is considere... (25+ / 0-)

    Can someone please tell me why HRC is considered a contender at all other than because she's somehow supposed to be or is due for it?

    •  Oh I don't know... (16+ / 0-)

      Because every single poll finds her trouncing every single republican candidate in a landslide?

      That usually helps make one a contender, no?

    •  HRC has The Meme going for her. The Meme, (16+ / 0-)

      ... is entirely a creation of the media, with blinders that acknowledge no other choice to it, Hillary being so well known and a political participant for sooo long. End of story.

      Any other candidate is harder to parse and sells fewer papers/air time than Hillary. Everyone else - literally - needs an introduction. Most important, we're years away from the contest. Speculation, even speculation, is premature.

      This is Hillary's to lose ... and that may be possible, even likely as she sets herself apart from the Obama crowd, many of whom want E. Warren to be the successor. That is where the buzz is starting, whether the media makes anything of it or not, and no matter what kos or Senator Warren says about it.

      2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:42:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  HRC has The Meme going for her. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, askew

        THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!  FOR HILLARY!!!

        She still shines like polished gold.

        •  Oh ... No! All that glitters is not gold. n/t (8+ / 0-)

          2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:54:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  She will also have excellent funding. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tikkun, KJB Oregon, Zack from the SFV

          Don't kid yourselves. There are a lot of wealthy people who find her much more palatable than some populist progressive. Who else is running against her? Biden? Half the potential field seems as if they have already indicated they are behind her as well.

          At this time there is no other contender. That's a problem. And don't kid yourselves about memes either. That's actually a fairly relevant point.

          •  As she stumbles, there will be contenders. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, Alhambra, Noodles

            I don't wish it on her, but her distance-yourself interview the other day was a stumble, totally unnecessary and attention-grabbing, an unforced error.

            HRC has to screw up for a credible contender to step forward, or be pushed forward. But she and we would be better off if she had someone to push against, contrasted to that media meme of No One. She, because she could articulate specific positions better and not always be compared to Obama ... and we because we need to see her compared to others than just Republicans we don't like.

            Yes, she will have funding. Less than she attracted in 2008, possibly (the bloom is off that rose), but certainly more at the Get go than other candidates. If funding above all won the day, I'd agree with you. If sheer force of support from political organizations would do it, she'd have won in 2008. But money and Clinton-positioning (calling in favors, past support, etc.), daunting as it was!, wasn't enough before. It may not be enough 7-8 years later.

            There are Democrats - professionals and voters alike - who don't enthusiastically like Hillary. They probably wouldn't vote against her nor ignore the presidential line on the ballot, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't support a candidate who's in it more for them.

            As the saying goes, The Clintons are with you when they need you.

            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:48:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed, but still the formidable candidate (0+ / 0-)

              And there is really no one on the progressive side I know positioning themselves for 2016. Perhaps it makes good political sense to wait until after the current elections? I don't know. I would think this would be a good time for someone to make noise about considering a run unless it impacts a current campaign.

              None the less, getting around a well established name who is frankly loved by some on the left who will none the less get a lion's share of funding through the campaign presents a potential obstacle to a progressive candidate. She hasn't announced yet so perhaps she's still trying to figure out how to avoid future stumbles. If she's being cagey she might be trying to see where her safe parameters are.

              We also have a standing vice president who is arguably to the left of Clinton that we expect to run. Although Biden is not likely a progressive's dream candidate, though I might prefer him to Clinton and so may others here. I really think that there will not be any sort of successful progressive candidate in 2016 unless progressives build the organization and funding for one and then find that suitable person. Which at this time, is not happening as far as I know unless you know of a liberal (and much smarter) version of the Tea Party steeping among our ranks.

              •  She's not announcing yet because ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... doing so triggers legal requirements that one doesn't voluntarily embrace, plus a string of Ah Ha! Moments where the media shifts from a gaggle of gossip and style columnists to a crowd of word-merchant Gotchas.

                Joe Biden won't run, I think for the same reason Elizabeth Warren won't; Hillary blankets the field and as long as the media is in thrall (that's not necessarily a compliment and definitely only a mixed blessing!), it doesn't make sense to declare.

                But let HC make some missteps and on stage will come the contenders.

                2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:24:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary can't win many of the Obama voters (41+ / 0-)

    Many are simply more adverse to WAR and more keyed in to foreign diplomacy compared to neoconservative hawkishness than she is.

    This should come as no surprise. This is WHY people say she is to Obama's right. She campaigned on being "tough on Iran." She has said she would nuke them if need be. She was not, if I remember, in favor of a drawback in Afghanistan either. She voted for the war in Iraq, and to add insult to injury, she voted for really deadly cluster bombs that incurred the highest number of civilian casualties in Iran as well. All of this is who she is and why some Obama supporters and voters have rejected her. Not to mention that she's wealthy beltway establishment and same old, some old, palling around with John McCain and lying about being under Bosnian sniper fire. In other words, she's a typical third-way politician. She's NOT inspiring. She is canned and her views are off-putting to Progressives and to many Democrats in general who don't favor more world wars and military intervention.

    And you are dead on that Paul plays the pied piper to the disenfranchised for this, despite his many horrific moral failings on other matters. I contend he is to be watched out for too, and I think the two are a match made in Hell in terms of electoral outcomes. At our peril is about all I can say.

    "That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?" - Elon James White on Ferguson, MO

    by mahakali overdrive on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:23:21 PM PDT

  •  My god, you've doubled down on the crazy. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, atana, Whimsical, Quantumlogic

    Not with anything new, just repetition.  I do admire that you're sticking with it, even including the Romney part.  I can at least incipiently understand the Rand Paul fascination, but the idea of a retooled Romney is like jumping a shark with a rocket ship.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:24:06 PM PDT

    •  Why Rand Paul is a joke (12+ / 0-)

      He's so two-faced that when it comes to the primary he will have to either:

      1)  Renounce the war hawks, war mongers, and proto-fascists, thereby alienating half his support

      or

      2)  Renounce the psuedo-libertarian anti-government non-interventionists, thereby alienating half his support

      Factor in the fact that evangelicals will NEVER love Rand Paul, and you have a fractured, fringe candidate in the general.

    •  whereas hrc hasn't even bothered to "retool", (11+ / 0-)

      hasn't learned a thing from her past mistakes

      but I agree, romney's not going to either
      tried/failed

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:36:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm all for turning the heat up on Clinton (7+ / 0-)

      but I agree that asserting that Romney could rebrand himself and beat her is is just stupid talk.  Romney is the opponent Hillary would most want to run against.  He could never claim the populist mantel against a female Dem candidate, especially one with a popular former president (so they tell me) at her side.  

    •  You might have to walk that Romney (8+ / 0-)

      …thing back:

      The current crop of Republican challengers just don't seem to get the conservative base excited. According to a poll released this week, the top vote getter in a hypothetical Republican primary would actually be 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.



      For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
      - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

      by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:51:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Any campaign against Rand Paul (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical

      Simply has to quote him in every market and every hour

      I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
      And who do you think the cop or drone is going to shoot with no more probable cause than a gun that he might be liscenced to carry and some money that might be change.  A white man?  White men can carry guns in target, providing a credible imminent threat to every child, women, and man in the store, but no one has the good sense to shoot them.  No, as in Ferguson it will be that black man.  Why else would a black man carry a gun if not for crime?  Why else would a black man have money?  Why else would a black many be walking in the street at night?

      On the other hand, considering any of the racist crazy buggers a joke is a mistake.  There are a lot of people in this country who believe they have given up more than enough rights to accomodate the minorities.  They are people who believe these minorities provide a credible threat.  There are progressives, even on this site how have written comments as such, who believe that because they have allowed a few blacks into the neighborhood or town that they have done all they can for race relations and are concerned what will become of their safety and jobs if the government mandates more 'equality'.

      These are the people who will vote for those like Rand Paul, and they are more than one might believe, and more widespread through the midwest and northwest.  They will embrace his message of equality, but not through government regulation, but just voluntarily being nice to each other. We see how well that works.

      She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he sees what God is doing. -Kurt Vonnegut Life is serious but we don't have to be - me

      by lowt on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:05:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree about Romney but Paul is dangerous. (7+ / 0-)

      Who spoke up first about the militarized police?  

      Remember his father was immensely popular last election, on campuses and among millennials.  Hillary in particular is vulnerable to him, as old vs new, ideas as well as candidate.

    •  If he has the right marketing.... (5+ / 0-)

      ....Rand Paul could be dangerous. I doubt Romney will make a third run for the White House and even if he did, he can't count on having competition like Gingrich, Cain, and Bachman.

    •  I think you are missing the point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, DeadHead

      People may hate Rand Paul, but the problem is that he is wounding Hillary Clinton badly politically.  He has pointed out some serious flaws in her candidacy.  So far she has alienated people who are strongly against the wars, mostly young people and women, and she has ignored African Americans with her puzzling lack of any statement on militarization of the police and Ferguson.  She needs these voters. People want politicians to stand for them on their issues.  If she cannot bring it upon herself to take positions that many of the most solid Democratic base voters have, she may lose a significant number of them, not to Rand Paul, but to them not voting.  

      A vote lost is a vote lost, whether it be to her opponent or to a third party or to not voting at all.  It is still a vote lost.  It is something HRC seems to fail to grasp.

      "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~ So.Lib.inMD UID166438

      by gulfgal98 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:00:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently… (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gulfgal98
        A vote lost is a vote lost, whether it be to her opponent or to a third party or to not voting at all.  It is still a vote lost.  It is something HRC seems to fail to grasp.
        …she's not the only one who's having difficulty understanding it, as evidenced by the many who seem to think mocking him and pointing out his flaws will make up for HRC's failure to take these populist issues away from him.




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

        by DeadHead on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:30:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary Clinton has to actually BE more liberal (31+ / 0-)

    not just pretend to be. Rand Paul is actually more liberal than Clinton on foreign policy/war, marijuana, domestic surveillance, and now the emerging police state. Those are big issues.

    Yes, Clinton is more liberal on most other issues. But she is not liberal enough on some of the issues that people care about a lot, and on those particular issues Paul is outflanking her on the left.

    Clinton's problem will continue to be that she doesn't actually believe in liberalism on some of the important issues, and even if she attempts to pretend to be more liberal, nobody will believe her. She's simply the wrong candidate. We need a genuinely more liberal candidate to beat Rand Paul.

    The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

    by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:24:57 PM PDT

    •  A lot of progressive voters I know agree. (20+ / 0-)

      She's got to have more going for her than simply being the lesser of two evils. We'll see.

      "Life is short, but long enough to get what's coming to you." --John Alton

      by Palafox on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:27:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but most American voters (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rashaverak, indres, Joshua Bloxom

        are not progressive, or at least don't think of themselves as liberal. Maybe a successful candidate has to be more liberal and progressive than they appear to be, rather than the other way around.

        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:40:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Young people are VERY liberal. And as the old die (14+ / 0-)

          and the young become more and more of the voting population, liberalism is going to become more of a prerequisite for getting elected.

          Hillary Clinton appeals primarily to the old, as she represents the stale, conservative politics of the past.

          The young either want a social democrat or a left-libertarian -- not either old stale Republicans or old stale corporatist pro-war Democrats like Hillary Clinton.

          The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

          by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:47:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary polls better.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            devtob, Whimsical

            The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

            by Davis X Machina on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:53:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then people must be horribly misinformed (12+ / 0-)

              about her positions on the issues. I wonder if all the liberals who support her realize she has a neo-conservative foreign policy and that she's very cozy with Wall Street? I suspect many liberals are supporting her entirely because of her gender, knowing little or nothing about what she actually stands for on policy.

              The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

              by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:02:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is politics... (4+ / 0-)

                ...policy and a quarter will buy you the morning paper.

                People vote party, then race, tribe, religion -- or lack of it -- narrative, the general state of the economy, and then, finally, policy.

                The notion that elections are primarily policy referenda doesn't withstand close examination.  Scholars can't find much to support such a contention, in fact there's some evidence that people make more personality-related mentions than issue mentions the more politically sophisticated (i.e. paying attention) they are.

                The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

                by Davis X Machina on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:17:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Probably true. But tribal affiliations change. (4+ / 0-)

                  A whole generation could be alienated from the Democratic Party "tribe" because of the Democratic establishment trying to cram a conservative Hillary Clinton down their young liberal throats.

                  The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

                  by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:26:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I wouldn't count on it... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AaronInSanDiego

                    ...the social democratic moment has been just around the corner my entire life, and I'm almost 60.

                    If you see a youth realignment, it'll be towards the right. Going by the Gallup numbers, the Democrats’ share of young voters peaked in 2008 at 58 percent.

                    The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

                    by Davis X Machina on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:42:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  To the right? Why? (3+ / 0-)

                      Most young people are deep in college debt, have crappy jobs and little opportunity for advancement into the norms of the middle class such as homeownership, and understand that they are being screwed by the big money establishment. They also are liberal on social issues and liberal on civil liberties issues.

                      I can't think of any logical reason why the young would decide to become conservative -- except perhaps because they also believe government is ineffective and corrupt. I think it's more likely that they will shift into political apathy because neither party represents their views.

                      I could be wrong. Why do you think they will shift to the right? I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

                      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

                      by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:49:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Political apathy... (3+ / 0-)

                        ....isn't ideologically neutral. It's also an ideology. It has implict conclusions about the state, and the role of the public -- or the simple existence of a public, baked right in.

                        When you think about it, 'No Logo' is actually a kind of brand, too.

                        The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

                        by Davis X Machina on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:08:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  True. But it's the result of learned helplessness. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Palafox, cybrestrike

                          People become politically apathetic because they learn, through experience, that their participation in the democratic process cannot meaningfully affect what government does. That is what many young people have learned as a result of passionately supporting Obama and then seeing him unable to accomplish much in office, or not even trying very hard to fight against conservative Republicans. They have seen him both stymied by Republicans and selling out to them.

                          What will many of these young people learn from this? They might learn that government cannot work to accomplish liberal goals in society. If that's the lesson they take from it, then they will become libertarian, but they may still retain their liberal values and work for those values entirely through the non-governmental sector.

                          So, in that sense, perhaps they will move to the right (if you define libertarianism as being part of the "right"). Perhaps they already are. There certainly is nowhere near as much belief now among the young in the realistic potential to solve problems in society through the government. Because they have seen that even a huge wave election for Democrats in 2008 had very little effect on political policy. So the natural response is to decide that American democracy does not reflect the will of the people, i.e. it is systemically broken, and to decide no longer to hope in the idea of an activist government to solve problems.

                          The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

                          by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:18:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Learned helplessness.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ....is just false consciousness in a tuxedo.

                            Because they have seen that even a huge wave election for Democrats in 2008 had very little effect on political policy.
                            Anyone who voted for a University of Chicago law professor expecting him to seize the commanding heights of the economy in the name of the workers, and call on us to expropriate the expropriators was a fool.

                            And anyone who understands how Congress works who expected a sungle-payer health care system, or a nationalized banking system, doesn't actually understand Congress.

                            The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

                            by Davis X Machina on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:04:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  If she keeps (0+ / 0-)

                this nasty neocon kill kill kill talk up they will figure it out quick enough. She also is going to have to talk about her neoliberal, wall street loving, deregulating, privatizing, outsourcing, 1% global economic war on ordinary people. She's not even going to tell us she feels our pain. she once said she should be running in India as the Clinton's policies raised their economic boats.

                I agree about the polling as name recognition, gender identification and the fact that the republican field consists of president worst evil  RW hardliner yet. What I don't understand is why she is all we are offered. People keep saying who do you suggest like there aren't any real actual Democrat's who could take on the Republican hardliners. How about Grayson? Merkley? are there no Democratic governors from the democratic wing of the party?

                If the Democratic party electoral machine actually put their considerable resources behind a actual populist Democratic candidate they would win hands down. Name recognition is created, look at Obama. I don't think for a minute they will as the last thing the Third Wayer's who own and run our party want is a populist liberal democratic administration or majority in congress.

                Poll after poll show's that the majority of people in this country are not RW nut jobs but instead are pretty liberal on most issues. Thing is, as we found starting in 2006, the in the bag Dems with power do not want to 'move forward' with a democratic agenda. They maybe slightly better then the lunatic of the RW but as we saw with Romney it's just a matter of degrees.  

                If the Democrat's won't fight the Republicans what good are they? It's what happens after they are elected that makes people not vote for them. they blew it big time when people showed up and resoundingly voted against the very policy and direction the Democrat's in power have implemented since 2006.  

            •  Prediction: 2016 is the year Nate Silver's (0+ / 0-)

              luck with predictions is over.  All good runs come to an end.

        •  No one I know voted for Reagan... (3+ / 0-)

          ....in '84. He carried 48 states.

          The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

          by Davis X Machina on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:49:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Progressive voters (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, elwior, Rashaverak, skye in Ore

        should, and generally do, ALWAYS vote for imperfect Democrats for president.

        Because the Supreme Court.

        A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

        by devtob on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:01:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What if we encourage Bernie Sanders... (8+ / 0-)

      to run as a (D) for Pres in 2016?

      https://www.credomobilize.com/...

      ==============

      Also, have a look at sanders.senate.gov

    •  And -- she is old and shop-worn at a point when (5+ / 0-)

      history says parties lose the White House.  A fresh face is a better bet in 2016.

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

      by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:51:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The winning demographics for a Democratic ticket (6+ / 0-)

    to win in 2016 should likely be in place unless the ticket we nominate wildly deviates from its issues.

    Which I don't think is very likely to happen.

    A lot of voters will not have read the interview in The Atlantic.  Some percentage of them have never heard of that magazine.  

    I would expect degrees of satisfaction within our coalition but no high percentage of mutinies based on our nominated ticket.

    Individually we would prefer our own first-choices for the ticket; absent our first choice, I think most of us will support the ticket against whichever disastrous ticket the GOP nominates.  

    "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

    by Remediator on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:29:24 PM PDT

  •  how does Paul sounding like a liberal (10+ / 0-)

    make him more of a threat, when makes him less likely to win the Republican primary?

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:30:23 PM PDT

  •  Paul has to win his party's nomination first (10+ / 0-)

    Speaking about minorities as though they are deserving of respect is an excellent way to get booed off that debate stage.

  •  Democrats Need To Run A Few Presidential (4+ / 0-)

    candidates against Hillary during the primary.

    These must be progressive/liberal/left candidates willing to speak up for programs supported by Democrats.  Hillary must be pulled to the left and once she wins the nomination which apparently is a shoo-in she must be put under intense heat to stay left of center.  If not she will make George W. Bush look liberal.

    Hillary is already freely showing her right of center creds with her recent comments, so she is not taking the left seriously yet.

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:33:45 PM PDT

  •  I'm still amazed (20+ / 0-)

    That Hillary thought jumping out of her Neo-Con Closet as the trumpets blared was a stroke of political genius.

    •  It seems to defy logic ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MikePhoenix, Matt Z

      My first thought was that she had to be sending that up as a trial balloon, just to test the reaction two years out from the election. My second thought was that if she didn't already know what the reaction would be, she's in trouble.

      I've been for almost any Democrat but Hillary, but the time is getting pretty short for people to coalesce around someone else, considering that most alternatives need a lot of work on name recognition. I'm about to concede she's it and go with it.

      •  Time is getting short? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        Do you remember when Dean went down and people "coalesced" around Kerry? It was the equivalent of 2016 — not now. Time is long .

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:54:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Chasing away contenders (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical

      If you read the interview in the Atlantic it's pretty clear that no one else who could run for President could give a comparable interview on foreign policy. No one else would dare.

      That interview is the reason why Elizabeth Warren will not run against HRC in 2016.

      There's going to be a number of "foreign policy" debates and Clinton will obliterate all comers in that contest. It's not even a question of specific policy or personal hawkishness; it's a question of competence.

      Rand Paul? Ha! Please proceed!

  •  what does that Obama coalition look like now (9+ / 0-)

    and what will it look like in Spring 2015 and if instead of reinforcing any connection she has with them before then, HRC continues to try to triangulate some separation between herself and PBO, she is going to be in the same place she was in 2008, with fragmentation and potential division come primary season or even the more insidious poison for the party: apathy rather than enthusiasm for GOTV efforts in Fall 2016  

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:34:13 PM PDT

  •  Was there a anti Hillary meeting this morning or (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, greenbell, devtob, Mrick, Willinois, elwior

    something? "Hey everybody, haven't been enough diaries on her this week".

    Anyway, just find someone who can win Iowa if you don't want her to be the nominee. The rest will take care of itself.

    Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:37:24 PM PDT

  •  The difference between the so-called... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dinotrac, CarolinNJ, devtob, Whimsical, bryduck

    ...Obama Coalition of 2008 and the OC of today is that in 2008 they had a candidate named Obama.  You can't really scare or motivate me with the idea of the mighty Obama Coalition in 2016, especially given how badly it performed in 2010 and will likely perform in 2014.  It sure looks like a strictly personalist coalition to me, and it's done.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:37:58 PM PDT

    •  Shorter version (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, Mrick, Whimsical

      Clinton thinks she has a better, i.e. more winning, coalition and I think she's right.  

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:42:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are wrong. Hillary can't win unless (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MikePhoenix, elwior, Matt Z

        she gets a turnout similar to the 1996 turnout. And I don't see that many minorities staying home. She keeps chasing white voters while not realizing it isn't 1996 any more.

        Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

        by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:50:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Her "better" coalition (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mrick, Matt Z

        is really the Obama coalition plus white women.

        If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

        by USA629 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:52:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Obama coalition is the Democratic path (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical, Matt Z

      to victory in a Presidential election.  Hillary will win with it, while expanding it to win over more white women.  

      Outside of white women (whom I think Hillary will do around 10% better than Obama), I expect Hillary's numbers in 2016 (by racial/gender group) to look very similar to Obama in 2012.

      The few so-called progressives who refuse to vote for D nominee should read my signature.  Also it is worth remembering that two disastrous Presidents, Nixon and GWB, were elected in large part because some selfish people on the left refused to take 80% of a loaf and not vote for the Democrat.

      If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

      by USA629 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:51:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why do I hear the odd nostalgic phrase (8+ / 0-)

    " . . . the supreme court . . . " as being the only argument that holds any credibility in 2016?

    I'm so tired of that particular bottom line.
    But I never can get around it.
    Fuck.

    A drowning man can not learn to swim. -- Chris Lonsdale

    by Rikon Snow on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:39:14 PM PDT

    •  Any of the Dem nominees will get us great (9+ / 0-)

      Supreme Court picks not just Hillary. When her supporters talk that up, they assume that she'll win the nomination in a walk. Same mistake they made in 2008.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:51:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there is a better candidate (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sweatyb, Whimsical, Matt Z

        who beats Hillary in the primary, I'd be thrilled to vote for that candidate.  I'm just saying that candidate doesn't seem to exist right now.

        If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

        by USA629 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:17:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's too early to say. I remember Hillary fans (7+ / 0-)

          bragging that she was unbeatable in 2006 right about this time. They were bragging like that until Obama beat her on Super Tuesday.

          O'Malley may be a complete bust or not even run but as of right now he is the one I am backing. Right now, it makes sense to back your dream candidate. No need to settle until after the nominee has been decided.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:30:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  no one here thinks there's a better candidate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mrick

          Which is why so much effort is put into comments and diaries tearing her down months and possibly years before it could possibly matter.

          We need a better candidate than HRC...

          Qualities should include:
          - long experience in high government office
          - high appeal among women
          - high name recognition
          - unassailable foreign policy credentials
          - must not be Hillary Clinton

          I don't really understand the need for the last part.

  •  Hillary's Big Problems? (0+ / 0-)

    Two, specifically:

    1) She's a woman.

    2) She's a Democrat (even if of the DNC triangulating inside the beltway kind.)

    This means A) she will never be taken seriously by the serious people who really run things, and B) she will never be regarded as a legitimate president if elected, no matter the popular vote, because only Republicans are serious, legitimate choices.

    Sorry, that's just the way things are. That's the message that's been pounded into us by the right wing echo machine for decades, and there ain't no third way around that.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:39:50 PM PDT

  •  h (0+ / 0-)

    If Republicans would just nominate one of the Pauls, they'd win, very easily. Lots of Democrats would vote for them simply under the thought, "Well, at least he'll probably do -something-. Democrats will support drug reform, and Republicans will simply fall in line with whatever R president they have, so he'll get one or two liberal agendas finished." This is despite the fact that either one would also ruin Social Security, health care, and education. They're so war-weary and desperate for change that many Democrats will sacrifice many dear things for -any- accomplishment, even if the end total is less than what they got out of it.

    But Republicans have become so puritan that I don't think anyone like Rand or Ron Paul can get nominated, even though there is now way Hillary could beat either one in a primary due to her status quo Wall Street style of politic.

    •  Respectfully disagree. I don't think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, Whimsical

      either of the Pauls represent a viable threat because both of them are far away on issues swing state voters hold high.

      As you say, Rand would have some difficulty getting the GOP nom, but given the GOP's recent track record, nearly anyone could emerge from that pack of fools and win nomination.  

      It could be an election where running mates matter more than they recently have.  Who would Rand choose?  Ben Carson?

      Might HClinton, if she is the nominee, then nominate Julian Castro?

      The blue team would make swift work of most Republican tickets, IMO.  

      "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

      by Remediator on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:50:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  f (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryduck

        In my view, the Republican party would vote for a sack of potatoes with a red tie over the most conservative Democrat, whereas Democrats are much more flexible. There are many conservative, libertarian, and disenfranchised Democrats who would defect and vote for one of the Pauls over a Democratic nominee who they didn't like or trust (example: Hillary, who while popular, is completely representing the establishment of current ways of politicking). I say this as a Democrat who went to university in Oklahoma, a very conservative state where many R's wanted to vote for Paul (but still supported Romney anyways as a "more realistic" candidate), and many Democrats who figured they'd rather vote for Paul than a Democrat who wouldn't win any conservative votes. I also say this as a paid canvasser for my current state's statewide political office, where many Democrats here saying they would support Paul over Hillary.

        Don't underestimate Paul's appeal to swing Democrats, which is his true strong point, because Republicans will vote for any red nominee, no matter who it is. He'd never get a nomination because he's not pure enough, but my only argument is if he did in some hypothetical situation, he'd cream Hillary, who by comparison is hawkish and doesn't care for a lot of very important institutional reforms.

  •  I Was Not Impressed With This. I Hope She Figures (11+ / 0-)

    out a different approach.    

    Will people vote for someone when they feel like they're getting a scolding from their mother?

    https://www.youtube.com/...

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:43:18 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure who exactly she's trying to appeal to (9+ / 0-)

    As I recall, anti-Obama rhetoric by her husband consolidated the Black vote in favor of the President.

    As much as I would like to see her as  the first female President, I'm not inclined to give my full support if she continues to play this BS game.

    Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by destiny1 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:44:09 PM PDT

  •  VERY Interesting... (8+ / 0-)

    Someone here finally recognizes Rand Paul just may out-populist the "real" populists.

    Bravo.

    Now that we know democratic leadership in June voted against Rep. Grayson's amendment to demilitarize "our" police forces-- assume Mr. Paul knows this as well.

    I stated here months ago all Paul has to do to indicate bold leadership is to do a couple of things like come out for national pot legalization, a penny tax on casino Wall St. electronic transactions and he will be heralded as the greatest thing since sliced bread. now throw in a NO BRAINER like demilitarization of the cops-- which Pelosi and other democrats voted against this June.

    I also stated months ago I would take HRC seriously when SHE comes out with something(s) bold-- and thus far she's not doing this. Thus far she's doing the same ol' status quo hideousness; pro MIC, etc.

    It's not "Is Hillary the President we need at this time"... it's she doesn't know how to and cannot WIN a POTUS election at this time. and since winning POTUS elections is everything here, I would think more of you would get this.

    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

    by Superpole on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:44:41 PM PDT

    •  Luckily (0+ / 0-)

      the election is not being held at this time.  Its two years from now.

      I'm all for a primary battle, but when HRC walks away with a victory, the only way she loses the election is if "progressives" don't wise up and stop depressing turnout by spreading bullshit like they have in every election I can remember.

      If "progressives" stop worrying about their purity and do what's best for the country for a change, HRC walks away with the Presidency in 2016 over any contender in the Republican clown car.

      Yes, even Rand Paul.

      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

      by Whimsical on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:33:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another Weak Load (0+ / 0-)

        You're again vastly over-estimating the "power" of bloggo world regarding voter behavior.

        If "progressives" stop worrying about their purity and do what's best for the country for a change,
        That's a good one, hah hahhh!! Am I a congressperson? Nope. It's THEIR job to make the needed changes in our nation. since ninety percent of incumbents in congress are re-elected, the notion I can quickly affect change by getting rid of deadbeat congresspeople is a joke.

        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

        by Superpole on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:37:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I'm not. (0+ / 0-)

          I have first hand experience with how "progressives" spreading bullshit depressed turnout enough to cost the Dems the house in 2010.

          Never said you could quickly affect change; but as a "progressive" - if you can't get everything you want from a candidate RIGHT NOW, youd rather he/she lose. Sums up the problem with "progressives" in a nutshell.

          That misunderstanding of the political process and human nature along with less patience and frustration tolerance than my three year old niece that's the main reason we're in the mess we're in.

          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

          by Whimsical on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:46:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary will win with the Obama coalition (7+ / 0-)

    plus some low-info white women who didn't vote for Obama.  She's unusually strong for a Democrat among white women, I think she'll get around 50% vs 42% that Obama got.

    Rand Paul is unelectable.  A good number of Republicans will vote for Clinton or not vote if Paul is the nominee.  His chances of being the nominee are low, but not none.

    If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

    by USA629 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:45:51 PM PDT

    •  Same mistake that Hillary made in 2008 (12+ / 0-)

      She took the minority and young voters for granted and Obama didn't.  In no way will Hillary be able to expand on the Obama coalition. Not with the way she is attacking the first AA president who is beloved by AAs. Not with her views on the child refugees.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:55:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She's not attacking Obama personally (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Whimsical

        I agree that she isn't the exciting charismatic candidate that Obama is by any means.  But she isn't the dud or the center-right politician everyone here seems to suggest.  She's solidly center-left, only a touch to the right of Obama.

        BTW, why do you dislike Hillary so much?  I understand preferring a different/better candidate (as I've said before I'd prefer Patrick if I thought he would be as electable), but you (among others) seem to have venom for her.

        And it will take a very very strong candidate to beat Hillary in a primary.  Obama was a once in a generation candidate, and he barely beat her in 2008.

        If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

        by USA629 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:05:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think Hillary has the character, (13+ / 0-)

          temperament or political skills to be president. Her lie that I reference in my signature would be disqualifying for any other candidate. She lies with an ease that is disturbing. She accomplished almost nothing in the Senate while taking credit for other Senators's work. She started a lot of the racist attacks that Obama has had to deal with his entire presidency. Her behavior during the primary was not presidential whether it was her lies, her trying to cheat to get MI/FL delegates counted for her, etc.

          I don't dislike her as a person. She just isn't a good choice to lead this country and it makes me angry that the media and the party is trying to shove her down our throats and not give us a choice.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:16:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You'll have a choice in the primary (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rashaverak, Whimsical
            She just isn't a good choice to lead this country and it makes me angry that the media and the party is trying to shove her down our throats and not give us a choice.
            and we'll see if there is a better candidate.  I'm not completely ruling it out, because Hillary was an overwhelming favorite in 2008 as well. Heck by late October 2007 Hillary was polling in the 50s in the Democratic primary and it appeared Obama was not ready for prime time, and his Chicago supporters were concerned about being embarrassed.  Then Obama found his voice, ran the best campaign of our lifetime, and inspired and won the votes of millions who were initially satisfied to a Hillary Presidency.

            But you'll need someone that strong in organizing and campaigning, and I don't see one.

            If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

            by USA629 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:28:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Part of Hillary's problem right now is that she (10+ / 0-)

    doesn't hold any office unlike Paul or any of the other Dem contenders. So, she doesn't really have any reason to give interviews/statements about current issues outside of selling her book which is focused on foreign policy. And foreign policy is her weak point. She is way, way to the right of the party on FP.

    She could solve that problem by campaigning for Dems for the midterms, but she seems uninterested in helping the party.

    I'd love for her to say something on Ferguson like Paul, Warren or O'Malley has.

    Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

    by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:47:12 PM PDT

  •  Hillary is making a mistake imo (4+ / 0-)

    thinking that she has to look tougher than any guy running for president. It detracts from her ability to connect with the voters imho because she cannot be genuine (even if she does want war.) She won't be able to deal with the peace lovers or with the folks who are damnably tired of the surveillance state. I've not heard her articulate one policy that makes me feel proud to have her running.

    ALL of our institutions have been hollowed out by the greed ethos. There are none left with heart intact or souls for that matter. So the zombie is all around us - me

    by glitterscale on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:49:34 PM PDT

  •  Do You Trust the Government? ... (7+ / 0-)

    87% of Americans Don't http://www.truth-out.org/...

    So whomever comes across as most trustworthy, to the average American wins. And remember the average American is not a political junkie.

    If the elections were held tomorrow, are you willing to bet a super-hawk friend of Wall St can beat someone who wants to demilitarize the police, and to save money by ending all our wars.

    •  I'd bet a Paul-Clinton race would be very close (7+ / 0-)

      and it would have low turnout because many people would dislike both candidates, and that a significant percentage of young liberals would cross over and vote for Paul and cause lasting problems for the Democratic Party as they might actually shift the GOP to the left through their involvement there in support of Paul.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:09:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I actually think there would (0+ / 0-)

        be an increase in turnout, at least on the R side. Paul would bring out a lot of non-voter libertarians, who have been waiting a looong time to vote for one of their own at the top of a ticket, and maybe just as many low-income Clinton haters who have been in relative hiding since W last ran. They wouldn't have to be ashamed to vote Republican, because they would only be voting against Clinton. Romney wasn't going to attract those voters, but anti-Clinton might.

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:30:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Rand Paul will not be (5+ / 0-)

    the GOP candidate in 2016, in part because his "skimming" efforts are anathema to the GOP primary-voter base.

    But mostly because he is a flip-flopping twit who will inevitably say something stupid when it counts, and the media will disqualify him.

    Re: the Atlantic interview, Hillary should be more careful about telling Likudnik media types what they want to hear.

    Since a vast majority of voters are opposed to getting involved in yet another war in southwest Asia.

    I expect she will be in the future.  

    A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

    by devtob on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:52:40 PM PDT

    •  I Think Media Will Howard-Dean Him Because He's (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Rashaverak, gunnarthor, devtob

      spoken against military adventures so much.

      If he gains any traction, I'm going to make an early prediction that what the media does to him will not be pretty and it won't take long.

      The military vs the libertarian position about it is all 3 rails.

      I never predict these kinds of things because that's a type of interest and following I don't do, but this is one exception I'll make. I'm going to drop a link to this comment onto a text doc on my desktop.

      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 Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:13:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We can make the classic Republican mistake of n... (6+ / 0-)

    We can make the classic Republican mistake of nominating the 'next in line' candidate. We need to make sure the field stays open and dare I say Democratic.

  •  You must… (9+ / 0-)

    …♥ Rand Paul and want a Republican President omg SCOTUS blah Hillary Hater 8% blah blah.

    ;•)

    With three front page posts about her today, I'd say she's off to a great start.

    I'm not Ready for Hawkery.




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

    by DeadHead on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

  •  Rand Paul choosing to identify as a republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob

    rather than a libertarian, is evidence -- in and of itself -- that he should never be president.

    A drowning man can not learn to swim. -- Chris Lonsdale

    by Rikon Snow on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:58:20 PM PDT

  •  Rand Paul (4+ / 0-)

    It's hard to imagine the GOP nominating someone who once more or less called Dick Cheney a war criminal, and who talks a lot about the police and civil liberties.

    OTOH, if the field is badly fractured, he could squeak by. And he will either turn out to be a brilliant candidate, or one of the worst ever.

    •  That's sort of how I feel (0+ / 0-)

      If he could navigate the GOP primary field successfully, he could be a really could general election candidate.  But I'm not sure how the GOP base will go in 2016.  We want to say they will only select extreme candidates but McCain and Romney really weren't but the primary season made them both go to the right which hurt them a lot.  If the next candidate could somehow come out of it without having to capitulate to the crazy wing, he could win a general election.  I'm just not sure it's possible.  

  •  Tough-love by Hillary’s only living peer: (6+ / 0-)

    Dear Hillary,

    I, like you, experienced Bill’s Presidency from the inside, served in Senate, and missed my own Presidency by inches.

    So I am best-equipped to compel your attention to certain good news, mixed news and bad news relating to impending candidacy decisions.

    The good news, for both of us, is that life is very good for a non-candidate who missed the Presidency by inches. As you have probably noticed, during your brief period of semi-non-candidacy after stepping down as Secretary of State, this life includes:

    (a)    lots of money and popularity, and the time to enjoy them;

    (b)    freedom to select a few public issues for part-time attention; and

    (c)    much less pressure (from enemies, friends and frenemies) than being a candidate or a President.

    Most of this will get even better (as detailed below) if you declare yourself not-a-candidate for the Presidency.

    The mixed news, for you, is that, if you run for President in 2016, your popularity, resume, connections and money will make it virtually impossible for any relatively unknown Democratic primary competitor to provide serious competition or pressure on your positioning, although you will suffer from widespread resentment (conscious and unconscious) of, and expectations unsatisfied by, your effectively uncontested ‘coronation’.

    The bad news, for you, is that I might feel a duty to run against you, and that I would have enough name recognition, experience, money and connections to get on every primary ballot and to remind every Democratic voter that:

    (a)    You were wrong and I was right on W’s Iraq invasion – and your current positions are more broadly militaristic;

    (b)    You are less critical of the surveillance-industry complex’s activities, autonomy and secrecy than of the individuals who blow the whistle on them – the opposite of my comments that "what [Snowden] revealed in the course of violating important laws included violations of the US constitution that were way more serious than the crimes he committed.;

    (c)    You are tepid and I am hotly for action against Climate Change – as Keystone XL and other tipping points loom;

    (d)    Your big contributions come from the (now transparently) ‘heads-I-win-tails-you-lose’ lords of Wall Street, while mine would come more from technology-developing risk-taking princes of Silicon Valley. Most of the country now sees Wall Street as a big problem, while many still hope that Silicon Valley can be a big part of the solution.

    A candidacy by me could attract sufficient votes to seriously pressure you on these and other issues, and might deny you the nomination, especially if a candidacy by Barbara Lee attracted many Black voters and some “ready-for-a-woman” voters.

    I don’t want to run, and you wouldn’t either if you gave sufficient consideration to your attractive alternative path, which could include:
    (a)    Not subjecting your current popularity to the erosion of another campaign and Presidency (while probably increasing your popularity through your visible turning away from ambition and pride);

    (b)    Being the person who receives, rather than makes, calls to request for money and endorsements (and probably acting as the king-maker, or queen-maker of the next Democratic nominee and next President) (for example, not only President Klobuchar but her Vice President and successor Gonzales would be eternally grateful);

    (c)    In between periods of enjoying wealthy semi-retirement, using your money and your occasional public appearances to influence public opinion and policies;

    (d)    Being invited to take, with both hands, hold of occasional discrete tasks, along the lines of “special envoy to save the country or the world from a particular problem”, rather than having all of your fingers and toes constantly stuck in the holes of numberless leaky dikes, which is the job description of the current Presidency.

    Yours Sincerely,
    (Name redacted to retain plausible deniability)
  •  At This Point, I'd Vote For Her Only.... (5+ / 0-)

    to keep another right winger off the Supreme Court & to ensure we don't lose Obamacare & SS & Medicare.

    I still don't like her vote for Iraq or the way she treated Barack Obama during the 2008 primary.  Shame on you, Barack Obama.....Shame on you.

    It still sticks in my throat.  He was always my guy even in the early days.  She's definitely NOT my girl, but if she's all we've got.....I'd vote for her.  But no door to door, no phone calls, no money & no real emotion.  

    Just a straight vote for the Democratic ticket.  

  •  THere Has to Be Somebody Else to Choose (6+ / 0-)

    and it should be abundantly clear by now that the Democratic Party doesn't put forth liberal candidates for nomination.

    So anyone with practical doubts about Clinton needs to be starting or joining an alternate campaign organization, maybe a draft organization for someone, and it needs to be NOW.

    And yes during a midterm general election season, because after New Year's the race for the nomination begins. For the 2004 we'd have been a lot better off if Howard Dean had started to take off 6-8 months earlier.

    "Now is the time" if there's to be a choice.

    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 Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:18:41 PM PDT

    •  Liberal Barack Obama was vaporware. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Choco8
      it should be abundantly clear by now that the Democratic Party doesn't put forth liberal candidates for nomination.
      Indeed.   All the progressive parts of Obama's 2008 agenda were jettisoned the moment they became inconvenient, some even sooner.   After that, it's baffling to me that any intelligent liberal would vote for a Dem based purely on verbal promises.
  •  You are completely correct. (0+ / 0-)

    Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

    by play jurist on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:24:29 PM PDT

  •  Tell me who is the perfect candidate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alhambra, Whimsical

    Obama has IMO not been a liberal/progressive president. Yes I understand the racist Republican opposition, but still I have been disappointed.
    From what I can tell this site is overwhelmingly anti Israel, and very pro Senator Warren. But she voted to support Israel in this latest conflict.

    Note that even progressive saints Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, and Bernie Sanders found nothing in this to object to.

    For the record, no U.S. military adventure has had the support of all hundred senators in decades. But, hey, this is Israel. And, more important, this is AIPAC. And cash.

    There is no candidate that will make all of the people happy all of the time. The right hated Romney but sucked it in and voted for him. And they long for a purest like Ted Cruz( may he win the primary please G-d).
    HRC had a lot of support against POB in the primaries. She lost. And her voters understood the POB was better then McCain. And voted for the president. Like it or not and I get you may not like, but that's how it works.
     You can complain for 4 maybe 8 years that HRC isn't far enough left for you. Or you can complain about the Republican in office. It may not be the choice you want. But until you can convince your perfect candidate to run. It will be the choice you have.
  •  This is the Internet... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, Patango, KJB Oregon, Whimsical

    So "libertarians" are taken seriously.  In the rest of the world, libertarians are not taken seriously because libertarianism is not a thing independent of the existing established parties.  Ron Paul was, on the Internet, someone to take seriously; in the rest of the world, he was a fringe nobody.  Rand Paul is no different.  This cat will rake in votes in the 2015 straw polls, when no one is paying attention, but will be pulling 5% in the early GOP primaries and will be out quick. Not to mention: who will be cutting checks for this guy when Scott Walker and Chris Christie are out there?  Hell, Santorum has a better shot at the nomination.

    Hillary 2016.

    •  Yes -- Ron Paul had more internet (2+ / 0-)

      charisma than he ever had out there on the stump.  

      He was never able to persuade GOP primary voters to support him in anything close to sufficient numbers.  

      It's interesting (in a way) that as crazy as Ron Paul is, he looked halfway sane in a field that included Santorum and Bachmann and the Pizza Guy.  

      Kind of a pathetic state of affairs for the modern-day Republican Party, IMO.  

      With any luck, Scott Walker will be defeated by Mary Burke for re-election in November.  That should douse his national ambitions considerably.  Also with some luck Christie's numbers will stay so low that he can't attract donors and support, effectively canceling his shot at the nomination.  

      At this point, the GOP field is relatively wide open and extremely volatile.  

      "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

      by Remediator on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:48:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In a sane world... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Remediator, Whimsical

        Mike Pence, governor of Indiana, would be the GOP frontrunner in 2016.  Guy toes the line between pro-business and ooga-booga "family values" better than anyone, his state is doing all right economically, and it occupies a central location near the states the GOP needs to win to get the  presidency (MI, OH, WI).  He would be a formidable opponent to Hillary.

        But he's nowhere to be seen.  So far it's governors with baggage (Christie, Walker), has-beens (Romney, Santorum, Huckabee) and son-of-nobody (Rand Paul).  

        On our side, Jerry Brown might be the most popular and successful governor out there, but he ain't contending for the presidency.

        Problem is, with Congress and the government in general so unpopular, no party has rising stars.  Senators who might have a chance (Elizabeth Warren or, seriously, Sherrod Brown) are wise to stay quiet in 2016.

        Which leaves Hillary.  Americans might be irrationally down on the America of 2016, but the America of the late 1990s, which her husband led, was the freaking Elysian Fields.

        •  Good point on Pence... as ambitious a (0+ / 0-)

          guy as we've seen for a long time.  

          I'd put him on the short list for GOP veep.  He's aiming for higher than that, though, so we may hear more from him as things develop.  

          It's possible that the GOP holds those crucial midwestern states -- MI, OH, WI -- but also possible that Democrats win all three.  That would be a sweet turn of events.  

          And it would give us two or three names for future presidential runs.

          "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

          by Remediator on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:43:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's sad to see.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joshua Bloxom, Whimsical, Jeremimi

    So many progressives taking down HRC as if she's suddenly a member of the GOP. Forget party solidarity during an election year that we really need to win order to prevent the catastrophe of another Republican president. This is simply hypercritical anemia inside an echo chamber designed to give the pretense of substantive realpolitik.

    If our problems with HRC is that she is too supportive of Israel and less Warrenesque in her economic policy then frankly we've lost sight of the forest for the trees.

    I don't deny that it would be better if she were more evenhanded with Israel (although, admittedly, we on the left are frequently wrong about Israel enough -- too critical and too wrong on the facts -- to make this mistake forgiveable) and it would certainly be better if she emulated Warren's Wall Street skepticism (although, again, Obama courts the money as well, and who can blame a politician for trying to fill their war chest in this atmosphere?)... but I think one must, above all, keep in mind that Clinton is far more liberal than people give her credit for and FAR more representative of our current electorate than any other Democratic candidate.

    I mean, the woman already has over 60 congressional endorsements. Almost every Democratic base voter recognize her and like her on some level. She's also got crossover appeal for moderates, independents, and even many Republicans, if only because she's not batsh!t crazy.

    Actually, I find it hilarious that some commenters are talking about finding a different candidate. I mean, seriously, who else would you vote for? Who else do you see viable in the general election? I mean it: give me a real candidate and we can hash that out, but honestly everyone knows there's no one else.

    It's only inevitable because HRC is so electable. And why she is electable is BECAUSE of her policies, politics, track record, and appeal.

    So, if ya'll wanna keep fooling yourselves that HRC is in trouble, or that the Dems should switch away from her, then you've got your heads in the sand even deeper than the GOP.

    "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

    by Zek J Evets on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:45:42 PM PDT

    •  HRC has a lot of bagage. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, stagemom

      The Right really doesn't like her, go back and re-read the news from the 1990s.

      Many in the Center will be turned-off by her pro Israel anti-Gaza stance. And many will remember what the repeal of Glass-Steagall did to their retirement savings.

      Many on the Left aren't into her Third Way politics.

      I don't think getting here elected will be easy.

      •  That's unfortunate... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Whimsical

        Because not only are you wrong on her appeal, but you also misrepresent her politics. Oh well... just reinforces my point.

        "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

        by Zek J Evets on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:13:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Truly, an ironclad rebuttel. (0+ / 0-)

          "Nuh uh!", combined with your appeal to the conventional "wisdom" that no one to HRC's left could ever win, represent the very best of the Inevitability crowd's arguments.

          •  Truly a... (0+ / 0-)

            Choice to avoid a pointless argument with a person of ignorance in favor of finding more interesting discussion elsewhere.

            But, if it makes you feel better, by all means play the fool =)

            "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

            by Zek J Evets on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:16:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  You had me with you until (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill W

    you included the silly suggestion, so easily disproven, that Clinton, "absent a strong third party candidate...may not have been president." Read the Wikipedia article on the 1992 election, or read whatever objective analysis you want. In the exit polls, Perot's voters split evenly between Bush and Clinton for their second choice. Even if you somehow still think that Perot voters siphoned more of Bush's voter than Clinton's, note that if Bush were given all of the marginally close states, Clinton still would have won the electoral college.

    porktacos has gone vegan

    by porktacos on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:30:53 PM PDT

  •  yeah (6+ / 0-)

    largely agree with this analysis. people here have their heads in the sand, flat-out declaring that rand paul can't possibly win. as if polls will be static from 2 years out until election day. as if people care about policy once they've decided that they 'like the cut of someone's jib', or what have you.

    people need to remember political history in the US. Ronald Reagan was reviled and laughed at by the Republican establishment for years, until he put together a coalition that could win. then suddenly he seemed inevitable all along. I very much fear an HRC vs. paul race in which he basically promises free fun for everyone and put murka first and all that, while she bumbles sounding wise and responsible by coming off as arrogant and unnecessarily punitive instead, trying to explain why secret trade deals are great and how everyone should feel bad for bankers and lobbyists. it's a very plausible scenario.

    Shout golden shouts!

    by itsbenj on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:42:17 PM PDT

  •  I'm starting to warm up to a Hillary nomination, (3+ / 0-)

    but not for the same reasons as Markos.   I hate the two-party system with a fiery passion, and the one thing that could bring it down would be for the two legacy parties to nominate candidates so repellent that the voters finally say "This is the final straw.  These candidates nauseate me and I refuse to vote for either."   Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney would be such a choice.  Both are loathsome creatures and they symbolize everything that is rotten about the two-party system.

  •  Then I forecast she will have a hard time. (6+ / 0-)

    The Obama coalition had a huge populacist element and people who thought (hoped) Obama was much more liberal than he really ever was.  Hillary is no populist and certainly doesn't inspire hope in me.  I see Hillary as an it's my turn career politician and in that regard somewhat like McCain.  She will have a coalition but not the Obama coalition.  I do not plan on investing the same 2000 hours on her campaign that I did for Obama in 08.  

    Having said that, give me a reasonable alternative....PLEASE.  

    A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

    by YellerDog on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:09:59 PM PDT

  •  I get the feeling a dark horse will rise. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem, stagemom

    Gov. O'Malley will be hard to beat.

  •  I would love to see Rand Paul vs Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alhambra, elwior

    battling it out for the Republican nomination.  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:03:32 PM PDT

  •  As Mike Tyson once said.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, al23, stagemom

    Mike Tyson once said that, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth... Hilary is out hawking it up and giving paid speeches for Wall Street firms when that is precisely NOT the kind of thing American voters want to see. Once she faces off against someone, and she gets challenged on issues like Wall Street, civil liberties, and the public's desire for a less interventionist foreign policy, how is she going to credibly react to those challenges? We already know she's not much of a campaigner and tends to get herself into trouble when the heat is on. Forget her high favorability ratings... That doesn't mean people want her to be President, necessarily.

    And most importantly, it does not matter a single bit whether Rand Paul or whomever would be a nightmare for the country, or worse on any of the above issues than HRC, because the media will not fact-check narratives. Once it grabs hold, they'll run like hell with it...

  •  Remember Bush's coronation? (0+ / 0-)

    There was a June 1999 poll that Bush leading Gore 60-28.
    Gore ended up winning the popular vote.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:28:10 AM PDT

  •  Race to the Left (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stagemom

    It's great that Rand Paul has taken such a progressive stance on this one select issue of policing and government power.  We should seize this opportunity to get the senate to pass sentencing reform now.

    With regard to the election, and the other big issues of economic justice, voting rights, jobs, women's health and environmental protection, the Democratic Presidential candidates should be staking out strongly progressive positions loud and clear.

    This is how we expose the empty promise of Libertarianism in America, and Rand Paul.

  •  Excellent Diary (0+ / 0-)

    Very thought provoking.
     

  •  Has Hillary Blown it? (0+ / 0-)

    Has Hillary already blown her chances to become president by making enemies out of the Obamas and their legions of followers?  I suspect so.  Let's find somebody else.  According to the latest reports, Hillary is not offering anything that her husband has not spoon fed to her, and it is all derived from his quaint presidency way back in the 1990s.  

  •  "Leading" candidate? (0+ / 0-)

    The last non-incumbent candidate who was "expected to win" 2+ years in advance and then won the nomination and the election was:  
    not in 2008 - HRC
    not in 2004 - Howard Dean
    not in 2000 - incumbent VP Gore
    not in 1996 - incumbent
    not in 1992 - All I could find from 1990 was a "wide field" and Gov. Clinton saying he'd serve out his term.
    not in 1988 - Sen. Gary Hart
    not in 1984 - Sen. Mondale.  
    not in 1980 - incumbent Pres. Carter
    not in 1976 - leading candidate was probably either Rep. Udall or Sen. Jackson.
    not in 1972 - Sen. Muskie
    not in 1968 - Pres. Johnson, who later withdrew.
    not in 1964 - incumbent
    MAYBE in 1960 - Sen. Kennedy was being mentioned as one of a wide open field, along with Senators Johnson, Humphrey, and Symington.

    Before that?  

  •  i feel sick (0+ / 0-)

    after reading all these anti hillary threads on dailykos. So she disagreed with Obama on one policy, therefore shes alienating all his voters? i feel like im reading foxnews.com

  •  That would be great instead of appealing to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patate

    the fascist white supremacist tough on crime bomb Iran crowd

    They ain't gonna vote for her anyway.

    Rand Paul sucks because states rights (war on drugs & black people is ok if it's local) & he wants to get rid of SS & Medicare. He's a fucking white supremacist ahole.

    So if people hate their parents &  grandparents they can vote for him like some if my gen voted for evil rotten Ronnie or old people gave us evil Nixon.

    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 Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:54:59 AM PDT

  •  I was always a strong Hillary supporter before ... (0+ / 0-)

    I was always a strong Hillary supporter before the primaries in 2008. I always felt like she was more progressive than Bill C. I could care less about the wealth comments, but jaw dropping, face palming comments on foreign policy/war decisions like that recent interview are just beyond WTF. I truly would rather loose an election than having to be an apologist for a warmonger.

  •  Hillary IS the candidate that can win (0+ / 0-)

    Your diary discounts that Hillary is the most popular democratic candidate by a long shot, there isn't another democrat that is exciting the base based on recent polls. 70% of dems support her as our candidate. That is a huge increase over what her poll numbers were in 2007/08. Furthermore, your assumption that Rand Paul will be the Rep nominee is based on what? With such a large group that can potentially run, Rand Paul does not stick out as a favorite in the poll numbers. When the general election is here, Hillary will kill any Rep in a debate, that is her strength. Furthermore, and once again, I might add, all of the anti-Hillary diaries completely discount the Woman's Vote. That will be a huge driving force to the polls to elect our first woman President just as African Americans were excited about electing our first AA President. Don't discount this piece of history-making. Every woman I have spoken with wants to see a progressive woman president. Hillary is our best shot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site