General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWanna make Rush Limbaugh crazier than he already is?
Clinton-Warren 2016
or
Clinton-Michelle Obama 2016!!
madokie
(51,076 posts)They'll become so unhinged that anyone with half a brain cell will be able to see what assholes, who only care about themselves, they are.
The future as it stands today does not bode well for the repuklicons in the near future.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)krawhitham
(4,645 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Diclotican
(5,095 posts)madokie
At the age of 69/70 I believe Clinton need rest, not the fight of being the US president - sure she would have been a great US president - but I suspect the toll of the woman could be more than she can handle.. After all, at age 70, you tend to want to rest your body and calm down, maybe play little with the grand children and so one, not try to steer a Government... Even kings and queens who is grown up in that world, tend to calm down a little, and let the crown princes and princesses take some of the duty from them..
But Warren on the other hand, would be a force to reckon with if she ever decide to try to get elected as the next US president.. After all she IS a politician who I think would make for a great President.. And after all - US need progressive presidents for a long time if they would have any hope on fix the problems the last couple of republican presidents made possible.. And the natural next step after Obama would be a woman in the White House (as president of course).. That would REALLY get the republicans nuts..
In 2007/08, my first pick would have been Clinton - not Obama, as I believed it would had been nice to have woman in the white house - but as is was, I think Obama was a great pick for the presidency in 2008, and still are a great pick.. I have grown to admire the man in his ways of acting.. He is an impressive man to say at least - And also HUMAN in a way I doubt any other from the other side would be able to even mimic if they tried...
But, that is just my oponion on it..
Diclotican
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Reagan took office in his early 70's. But I also note your compassion due to the phases of a person's life and interest. I agree, Hillary may not have any interest in being POTUS then.
We'll see who is likely to emerge after the 2014 elections, which will partly determine how much successful Obama's agenda will be in his last two years in office.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)freshwest
That is true - when most people goes on the late 60s, they tend to want to level out - and to calm down a little.. We have just to hope that people like Warren and Hillary can be as great as they can be - as long as they want, or have the health to serve their country in a way they think is right...
Reagan was a old man when he got elected - and he was as other have explained better, maybe not the best president - at least not in his first term.. In his last term he at least encountered a counterpart more human than before - and the cold war ended in a way no one imagined when Reagan got into office in 1981..
I think the democratic party have many great figures who will emerge from the shadows as the Obama administration is starting to get things going - specially if the 2014 election goes as we can always hope for... I just hope, that the democratic party doesn't flunk it this time around - and work on the progress they made in this election to build a base that can survive both the 2014, and 2016 election..
Diclotican
madokie
(51,076 posts)I don't see either of these wonderful women as being old
My being 64 yo probably has something to do with that
All I know is I want a woman as my next President. A Democratic woman that is.
One thing about it is the Democratic Party has a big field of good people to pick from where as the republiCON party doesn't.
Jennifer Granholm and Tammy Duckworth maybe
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)madokie
It could .. But then again, at age 69, you tend ot want to just settle down a little I guess, being a great grandmother and so one..
But I do know, the democratic party have a lot of decent womans, who would be great president, outside of Hillary Clinton.. They might not be that known as many others - but they are still there, and I hope the democratic party take its time, now to make possible for them to be known on a larger scale than before... It is maybe time to let a woman into the White house too - as they made it possible for a black man to get into the white house - something that I would way surprised my a little in 2008.. Even though I do hoped a democrat could win - and he did
The Republican Party I think will disintegrate into a civil war, and not able to muster any candidate's for a long time... At least not until 2016... The next 4 years would be bloody and hard for the republicans - they have to find out who is to blame for the miserable election - and it is just starting now... Just wait, the next couple of weeks and mounts will be hard for the republicans, and the in fight between the different fractions would be interesting to look at - even if we just is looking at the upper levels of it all..
Diclotican
madokie
(51,076 posts)their shared hatred for our President will be the reason for that. Before Obama I really thought that we as a nation had turned the corner on race relations but no way do I think that now. From what I see it is mostly people in my age group that are the worst offenders too. Its really sad
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)madokie
The hate they have for your president is harsh - and indeed something I hope the government indeed take a care for it, all up to the president, so the danger for him, his family, and for the public at large is not in danger..
I also believed that USA had, for some reason managed to turn the corner when it come to race and relations for it - but as you put it - I also don't think it.. Even with all the progress the world have made, to make it more acceptable for everyone to seek a position for them selfs - that be as a janitor - or as Obama managed to do it - as the United States President. I have to admit, I never believed that to happened, even in this age - but I was wrong - and I think it was great that US managed to elect a black man as their president..
But it is a anger now, because he got elected that I have never seen before, they really hate the President.. Not just a dislike for him, but a real, anger that I fear could be something more than just some words on a message board..
I don't believe most old people is "evil", but they are kind of set in their views, and it is difficult for many, to change their views after grown up in a world where the office of the presidency was always a white man. Old habits die hard - and I suspect older people tend to have more difficult to turn to other ways... Not that younger people is any better - as many who have grown up in environment where they aren't allowed to think for them self tend to get out in the world, having the same "values" as their parents - even though the world outside is very different from what they have learned home...
United States have a lot of challenges on their hand the next 4 years.. One of them being many who is angry, hatefully and arrogant about the world - and also really pissed off by the fact that the US president is a black man. That hate is also something many is using to want to break up the US all toghter - to make sure that a black man newer Will be elected to rule the white man again.. They have been rather vocal after Obama got elected - and their hatred is pure poison to the ones who might think it is "something" into it..
Diclotican
Walk away
(9,494 posts)win, and groom he or she to take over in 4 years. Then she could do great things for the world, set us up for eight more years of a Democratic presidency and she could retire before she is seventy. That's the way I would play it if it was a perfect world!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Only other president we elected that old was Raygun, and he had Alzheimer's most of his tenure.
I like Hilary, but i won't vote for her in a primary at this point.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)Give Hilary a chance to rest, get her a personal trainer and dietician (That diplomatic life is guaranteed to screw your health.), and she'll be a tiger in 2016.
Hilary at half speed is twice what the Repubs could field then.
And she's got one helluvan advisor right in-house.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)able to handle a job as demanding as President of the United States in one's 70's.
Reagan not only had Alzheimer's, but he was famous for his short workday and his penchant for taking naps.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)deurbano
(2,895 posts)A heartbeat away from the presidency... and it doesn't appear his age had been an impediment in that role. Also... HRC's mother lived to be 92. (Not sure Clinton wants the job, just that age wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility.)
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)Hillary Rodham Clinton, Born October 26, 1947, Chicago Illinois
Link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+born&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a
Ter
(4,281 posts)I'm sorry, but you have to be realistic, 24 years of one party rule is pure fantasy.
kooljerk666
(776 posts)Bill helped the dems more as a campaign aid than he did as Prez.
NAFTA, Glass-Steagal & welfare reform are enuff reasons for me to write off the whole family for ever.
Hillary has done a great job as Sec of State, but the 3 reasons above & alliance with DNC/New Dems is enough for me to write them & their ilk off.
I would love to see Elizabeth Warren win in 2016. I would really love Jenifer Granholm but she was born in Canada of Canadian Parents so that is a no go.
I would love to have women running the country, look at the job they are doing in Iceland.
They arrested the criminal banker men, told IMF to suck it & their economy is growing at 8% best in the WORLD!!!
Hopefully we see a "Democratic Socialist Womens Party" develop. Men can help but shut up when they are told to.
BTW i am a white, 51 yo man.
TlalocW
(15,386 posts)She'll be eligible in 2016.
TlalocW
kooljerk666
(776 posts)I love this woman, Marianne Williamson!! she was on The War Room w/ Jennifer Granholm thursday night.
http://archive.org/details/CURRENT_20121109_050000_The_War_Room_With_Jennifer_Granholm#start/2310/end/2340
goto 38 minutes in for the interview, I was crying pretty hard by the end, I loved both of these women.
http://sistergiant.com/sistergiant/on-spirituality-and-politics/
And Chelsea, I know nothing about her & have nothing good or bad to say but her parents were too involved with the DLC & all other things for the rich bastards.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Now Warren / Grayson 2016? That I could get behind!
TlalocW
(15,386 posts)They'll be 35 in 2016 as well.
TlalocW
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Besides, I wouldn't believe it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)new blood, new technology for campaigning and getting out the vote.
it's a different era now.
SeattleVet
(5,477 posts)Is he still around? I thought he was going to go to Costa Rica.
JanT
(229 posts)i would look at that and consider it if i felt it would be right for the country. but not sure michelle would want to stay in politics after the long trek that she has taken. she is 1st a mother and not sure she would give up that job. but interesting discussion point.
progressoid
(49,992 posts)jimlup
(7,968 posts)Let's put a Hispanic Texan on the ticket and for the blueness of TX in 2016!
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)right now I just wanna savor the next four years.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)from ever voting for another Clinton or another Bush. Just won't do it.
Elizabeth Warren, totally go for that, and virtually any other Dem female, just not a Clinton.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)I do not for see anyone else that is viable for 2016. And I was actually torn between Clinton and Obama in 2008, I am sure a lot of people felt the same way I did.
Your sarcasm is noted, but it lacks potency.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)How much can happen in that time?
As long as I've been on DU I keep on getting crazy when 20 minutes after all the polls close in one election, people here are predicting who will be the next nominee four years down the road.
If you have the stamina, go look at what everyone was predicting in 2001. And in November of 2004, and in November of 2008.
Look back at even earlier elections. I like to point out that in 1991, after the first Gulf War, all the major Democrats decided it wasn't worth running for President, that it was not remotely possible that a Dem could win in '92. Remind me about the second George HW Bush term.
Please save all of your energy that you are currently expending on hyperventilating about 2016, and work on the problems we have in front of us right now.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Shame it was spoilt at the end with the 'hyperventilating' snark, though.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)for a decade now. The incessant OH MY GOD WHO IS GOING TO RUN FOUR YEARS FROM NOW hysteria after each election.
It's not snark. It's weariness at the ignorance contained in this crap.
Let's consolidate our gains from this election before we hyperventilate -- and I'm choosing that word deliberately -- over the next election.
Really.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)Its not hysteria, it is nothing more than questioning the possibility and I do not find that to be 'ignorant' much like your attempt at a condescending statement.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)about who will be the nominee four or more years down the road never comes across as merely questioning the possibility. It invariably comes across as if that's much more important than working on the problems and issues that face us right now.
And as I keep on pointing out, our best guesses are never correct.
Hillary was a shoo-in in 2008.
Who even dreamed that Elizabeth Warren would run for the Senate?
The speculations are treated with a seriousness they don't deserve. That's not snark. That's reality.
krawhitham
(4,645 posts)Joe will run and get it, he has paid his dues. When was the last time a VP of 8 years did not win their party's nomination?
If the next 4 years go good he will win the general too, but to get the young to vote you will need a younger candidate. Joe can get the white vote more than Obama did if the country recovers in these 4 years and that will offset the lower turnout by the young voters.
It will be hard to get the union vote behind Clinton because of her time at Walmart, I'll vote for her if I have too but I will vote for someone else in the primary.
Cuomo will also make a run in 2016 if for some reason Joe does not run, but Joe has all but said he will run, he stated this would not be the last time he voted for himself
Kyad06
(127 posts)Two tough Dems
Kyad06
(127 posts)Since they know each other well and both are intelligent human beings even if I disagree with Christie 90% of the time
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)Liberal In Red State
(442 posts)TroubleMan
(4,859 posts)Please not Hillary - far too conservative.
ancianita
(36,110 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Blue Texas coming soon.
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)ancianita
(36,110 posts)Gidney N Cloyd
(19,842 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)we're much better off putting old folks on the Court. One huge problem with Justice Clarence Thomas is that he will wind up being on the court for at least 40 years.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,842 posts)Unless we change the rules for appointment we need to take as full advantage of them as the other side does.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)ancianita
(36,110 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)like Barack and Bill are trying to retain power through their wives to the average voter. Hillary I think has earned it through her service but Michelle hasn't ever been elected to anything plus her kids are still young.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)We always have two men on the ticket and people don't see anything wrong with it.
I'm considering beginning a campaign to have men do without the vote for as long as we women did without it. 1788-1920, let's see, that's 132 years. Just imagine 132 years of only women office holders.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)And for the record I'd vote for Hillary and hope she runs in 2016.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)with having two men on the ticket all but two times in our history. Two women would be a nice change. And no one should say it can't or shouldn't be done.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)be a plus.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I agree that 2 former first ladies is not a very good idea.
There's a lack of critical thinking on the part of those who go, "Oh! Wouldn't it be nice if Michele Obama runs for President? How about Chelsea Clinton? Caroline Kennedy?"
I have two names to suggest: Lurleen Wallace and Evita Peron. For those of you who don't immediately recognize those names, I'll pause while you Google them.
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
Okay, have you looked them up? Now do you understand why it's a lot better that people who are already involved in electoral politics run for office, rather than the wives or daughters of those people?
This is connected to why so-called business leaders, like Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Linda McMahon, Herman Cain, Ross Perot, and probably several others I cannot name right now, why those people make terrible candidates, and in the rare circumstances when they win an election they make terrible politicians. The only example I can actually think of who won an election is Mitt Romney, who was an awful Governor of Massachusetts. In his case, because he never actually ran a business, he had no understanding whatsoever for the need to provide infrastructure. He also thought that running and winning were sufficient, and didn't seem to understand what was actually involved in governing a state.
The business world is utterly different from the public political sphere. In recent years it has become fashionable to pretend they are interchangeable. I think that's a result of the business school model. In business school you're taught that if you can run one business you can run any other. It's my experience, as a low level employee, that it's simply not true. Each business is different, perhaps unique. Some skill sets are transferable, but not all. You would not hire an electrician to work on your plumbing. But it's considered perfectly fine that a person who ran an airline could now run an automobile manufacturing company. No wonder so many companies are is such dire straits.
To get back to the original point of this post. Just because a person has been in close proximity to a job, does not mean that person can do it. I was married for 25 years to a computer programmer. I could not program anything to save my life. Being married to a President, being the daughter or son-in-law of one, does NOT make one capable of being President.
I will say, that in Hillary Clinton's defense, she did run for office on her own, and from what I can tell, was a pretty decent Senator.
But, she is seriously too old for 2016, has said she has no interest in running again, and it's time for new blood.
Ter
(4,281 posts)Just like if Obama had picked a black VP in 2008, he would have lost. And when (if?) we ever have an openly gay presidential nominee, he/she can't pick a gay VP.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)is that whoever is the nominee in 2016 it will be someone we are not even aware of right now. Which is the way it almost always works for Democrats.
In 1988 practically no one outside on Arkansas had even heard of Bill Clinton. In 1991, after the first Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush was seen as so strong that all of the best Democrats quietly pulled out of considering running.
In 2004 Barack Obama was mostly a blip on the radar screen, and the common wisdom was that he needed more time in national office. At the beginning of 2008 the conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton was of course going to be the nominee.
One of the many strengths of the Democratic Party has been its willingness to accept new blood, to embrace change. As good as Hillary Clinton has been as Secretary of State, it's time for her to move on.
And suggesting that Michele Obama or Chelsea Clinton would run is beyond silly. What has either woman shown to indicate they'd be interested? Remember a few years ago when Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg announced she wanted the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton? What a disaster that was. All kinds of people here gushed over the possibility until it became glaringly evident that she was totally, completely, thoroughly unqualified.
If we collectively think that electing a woman president four years from now is a good idea (I agree here) then there are a bunch of other Democratic women who have possibilities. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas, currently Secretary of Health and Human Service. Now that she's been in Obama's cabinet for four years she has a much lower national profile than before. And she's now 64, so I would also consider her too old in 2016.
My prediction, such as it is, is that there is someone out there we've barely heard of at this point, who will be our nominee in 2016.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)Island Blue
(5,819 posts)A Clinton, no.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Although I did not like Bill Clinton in the white house because he was a middle way weassly wheeler dealer, nafta, deregulation, ect...
Hillary might not be too bad except she is getting older and the ties to the "old" way of doing things with Bill are there.
I would still support a
Clinton/Dean ticket
Or my favorite
Dean/Warren
You should take a look at Howard Dean he has been a constant in his philosophy and beliefs and doesnt flip flop or mince words...
Although his exuberance did get used against him and the media swift boated him with his YEEHAW.
He would make a great president I think, and with Warren as vp we would see some serious shit change in this country for the better.
Just my two cents.
ancianita
(36,110 posts)Gidney N Cloyd
(19,842 posts)Jackilope
(819 posts)Not sure who for VP ... but Warren is my first pick.
Rex
(65,616 posts)they would have to get him down off the ceiling fan with a broom! I SAY WE DO IT!
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Some people suggested that Rush had a crush on Hillary.
As for who to support for 2016, I agree with the 'wait and see' crowd! This is the era of breaking precedents, so Hillary is possible; although, I don't think she's a shoo-in.
Wait and see!
Wait and see!
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)...she's more progressive by a long shot, is just as smart, has no baggage, is fresh and new but famous, and is a fighter who will take it to them.
Two women on the ticket would be a mistake--the country just isn't ready. Sad but true.
judesedit
(4,440 posts)and can get the job done. Yet, are empathetic enough to see the plight of the less fortunate. I am there if they are.
judesedit
(4,440 posts)Anthony McCarthy
(507 posts)As long as we're dreaming of how to drive Limbaugh nuts.
HEY, WE'VE GOT TO GET THROUGH 2014 BEFORE WE GET TO 2016.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Turborama
(22,109 posts)Just for shits 'n giggles isn't a good enough reason, though.
Wounded Bear
(58,673 posts)but I could get behind a quality female candidate.
There are several obvious ones out there including Hillary, and I'm sure many more we haven't seen yet.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)michigandem58
(1,044 posts)I'd support her, of course. Michelle Obama is an intriguing possibility.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)That much bitterness on top of the drugs and sex gluttony toll on his body might just finish him off in a few years.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)she will run.
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)with Maya Angelou as supreme court justice!