Especially the not wealthy part.

Needed some good news. It's been too quiet with "Hillary the Inevitable" assumed.

her until the point it's her vs. Republican dip shit? Bernie is the only one that has expressed interest in running and supports Publicly Funded Federal, State, and Local Elections, the only way to actually fix our problems. Hillary will be further to the right than Obama on fiscal issues, not something I want.

Still, Clinton’s backers are carefully monitoring the donor courtship by all her prospective rivals. Even Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’ open exploration of a long-shot run for the Democratic nomination reportedly is causing anxiety in Hillaryland. Sanders, who spent the weekend in Iowa and is headed to New Hampshire on Friday, has made inroads with wealthy liberals for whom campaign finance reform is a top issue and has signaled to them that he is all but certainly going to run, according to multiple sources.

Longtime Sanders backer Cohen, of Ben and Jerry’s fame, stopped short of endorsing a Sanders presidential bid because he said he didn’t want to jeopardize the nonpartisan status of a nonprofit he’s financing to the tune of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” called Stamp Stampede. It’s working to rally support for campaign finance reforms ahead of both party’s 2016 presidential primaries.

But, Cohen said, “there are major donors that would support Bernie” for president because of his support for campaign finance reform, which has not been among Clinton’s core causes. “And if it ends up hurting the Democrats’ chances, so be it, because the most important thing is to get money out of politics,” said Cohen.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-donors-2016-elections-111622_Page2.html#ixzz3FNJN98lm

issues of our day, this is what they should support. They should also support ANYONE who takes up this cause, otherwise it will be the same stuff, different day if Hillary gets the nomination.

The GOP is just begging for her to run, because they know she will lose.

It was enough to sink her ambitions in 2008 and she's been piling it higher and deeper since then - particularly with her Wall Street/Big Banking bffs.

sure is interesting how the bigger bitch and moan money in politics crowd line up, isn't it.
The McCain-Feingold Act, which was so tweaked and tampered with with various versions has become moot with Citizens United. The SCOTUS always seems to side with big money and secret big money making most of campaign financing and spending a joke. Its already beginning as donors place their bets.

politics' system we live under.

So, here's what those who 'bitch and moan' are thinking. To get the money OUT of politics we have to get people INTO politics first who will do that. But it's a vicious cycle, we CAN'T get them IN without money, yet. So, since there ARE wealthy donors willing to get behind those who ARE against the money in politics, to give THEM a chance, over the DLCers who WANT to keep the money in politics, they and we are willing to help get them in the door, where they can begin the process of dismantling the current corrupt system kept in place by Warmongers, crooked Bankers and other entities who want to be able to purchase the government for themselves, as they have been doing for quite some time.

Call it the 'hair of the dog'. It is the pragmatic thing to do just to get through the door.

It's like, eg, having a friend who works at an exclusive club for the wealthy only. You want to get in to talk to them but you can't, you don't have a key. So you ask your friend to use his/her key, to let you in. Once in, you can then do what you came to do.

No comparison at all with continuing to support the Wall St/MIC candidates, none whatsoever. They would never, in a million years, support Sanders or anyone like him. These donors would, that's the difference.

if she wins the primary.

Definitely won't vote for her in the primary. Frankly I don't see her garnering much enthusiastic support. Not sure how well she'd fare.

ETA: That said I really don't give a crap what a bunch of wealthy donors want. They're all out of touch with the people.

Regarding the vote for Hillary well..I'd eat a crap sandwich with a gun to my head. Without the gun, well...not so much!

Bravo

Glad you're here!

I'm going to vote for whoever has the best chance to keep the White House in Democratic hands.

Because no way am I going to desert or support a third party candidate or anybody who ends up giving the GOP the chance to appoint more Supreme Court justices. The red-team-nominated ones have been HORRIFIC, as we've seen. If it's Hillary, so be it. And overall - with the mushy middle in this country - it may have to be her. Whoever has the best chance to keep the White House in Democratic hands. Even if it's a less-than-perfect Dem, it's still a Dem and a BOATLOAD better than the "best" republi-CON.

We're ONE vote away from losing a woman's right to choose, and everyone else's right to vote.

Have been lurking here for a few years and decided to take the leap

something that the other didn't do. Maybe we shouldn't have higher expectations for her.

It seems that you missed the point of the quote. Why isn't she, running or not, speaking out about the problems of the day? And if you think it's cute to pretend that she isn't running, oh my.

Are you not from this country? No one's running yet. It's has nothing to do with HRC doing something different from the other (possible) candidates. You couldn't sign up to be put on the roster if you wanted to. But I did enjoy the laff.

discussion? You tried to be cute and say that HRC isn't a formal candidate yet. So what? The fact that she hasn't announced, and that's all we are talking about is the announcement, has absolutely nothing to do with her vision for America. I will repeat, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A CANDIDATE TO HAVE A VISION FOR AMERICA.

"Don't you understand our language or culture?" Yes, I do. I understand that HRC is in the pocket of Wall F'n Street. Why you would support that is the mystery. Do you want to see the wealth gap widen? Or do you really believe that HRC will do something to fix the problem?

You have tried to deflect the discussion by using the old and worn-out method of accusing me of deflection! Let's review:
1) I took a direct quote (a single point) that I focused in on - "Can't even say if she's running." - which let's face it it is a really pitiful attempt at an insult;
2) I then used a cute and gentle way of reminding the poster that the aspersion is in fact empty;
3) You then shifted the discussion to attacking me as well as the slur, "maybe we shouldn't have higher expectations for her". If you don't have any valid points to make I suppose you have to resort to insults and introduce as many additional (unfounded) points as you can;
4) I'm really getting tied of explaining these basic matters to you. Thanks for the laffs.

HRC isn't the only one that hasn't committed. As if that means anything, and it doesn't. But talk about distraction, the OP is about HRC's qualifications to be president and you pick one quote to try to disparage. And I assumed you didn't like the whole OP but maybe I was wrong. Maybe you like all the OP except for the one statement.

H. Clinton is running for president and everyone knows it. Her supporters, knowing that they have Wall Street behind her, want her to keep a low profile as she is the heir apparent, until the last minute so she won't expose herself as a Wall Street supporter and foreign policy hawk. Your attempts at deflection fell flat.

And as for this: "Thanks for the laffs. " again, cute but no substance.

The values espoused by those named alternatives to Hillary and her 3rd way are traditionally core Democratic party values.

Democratic candidates explicitly saying, "I believe x, because I'm a Democrat and that's what we stand for." Our candidates used to do that. A lot. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey, etc. But it's been a long time since I've heard that line strongly and consistently from our standard-bearers. What I really dread with a Hillary run -- aside from the inevitable corporatism and hawkishness -- is that it will be another dreary effort to "rise above party." And, as a lifelong Democrat, I've had quite enough of that lately.

And exerted a lot of influence and pressure on the Democratic Party, back then.

afraid to run on actual ideas – ideas supported by the majority of Americans. That’s one of the things that’s great about listening to Sanders, he isn’t afraid of loudly proclaiming that this country needs strong progressive policy.

I could not possibly agree with your post more.

I keep seeing this today and wonder who is pushing it. This guy worked for Reagan and was a republican for G-d's sake.

Bernie or Elizabeth would be an improvement over Hillary - but Jim Webb is not.

and is running to try to draw votes away from Bernie and Warren. I could be wrong, but I was not at all impressed.

First class/private jet travel, presidential suite accommodations at luxury hotels, A List celebrity guests & their little dogs, too (google how Clinton Foundation paid for first class travel for Ashley Judd and her dog), staged photo ops for all attendees.

and committed to back Hillary. Is that the the Clintons' intent?

I think that if they are doing good things with their Foundation, Hillary should concentrate on that and forget about running for president.

It looks bad to be collecting money for a campaign and for a charity of the importance of the Clinton Foundation at the same time. It's just not appropriate.

If the Clinton Foundation were some small non-profit with a low-key fund-raising campaign, that would be OK. But that is not the case.

This looks off-key, grabby. Sorry, but it does not have a good feel.

Hopefully Sanders or Warren will would help bring the narrative to the left. That doesn't mean that if Clinton's elected that she'll govern from the left, but anything which helps bring the party to left is a good thing, in my opinion. Wouldn't mind seeing Sherrod Brown throw his hat into the ring either, even if just tapped as VP. His name recognition isn't country wide, but he's a true liberal. Not to mention that it seems just like Bernie, he hasn't capitalized on the free money floating around inside the beltway. His wife is formidable in her own right.

Elizabeth Warren has or the sense of wisdom, experience and utter sincerity that Bernie Sanders has. Bernie Sanders knows where he stands on almost every issue and yet is a good listener. Bernie Sanders is a practiced campaigner and can talk with ease in just about any situation to just about anyone. The result of the town hall meetings he is used to in Vermont, I suppose.

Elizabeth Warren brings freshness and enthusiasm that no other candidate has or could have.

I like Sherrod Brown, but to be honest, his voice is a problem for him.

"Somebody with a great plan for America would not be toying with the decision to run."

Completely STUPID anti-Hillary argument.

It's 2014 for God's sake. The mid terms haven't even happened yet!

It would be political suicide to announce now.

are these people political virgins or something?
do they not know that announcements come when announcements come? that an announcement is big deal. do they think candidates blab that to the first person who asks?
anyone who would do so is too stupid to be dog catcher.

If Hillary really had a clear vision of what she wanted to change in America, DU would be talking about it because she would be taking about it.

And this is part (ONLY PART) of what is wrong with the idea of a Hillary candidacy.

Hillary's potential candidacy is about Hillary.

It is not about the change that she believes very deeply, so deeply to the point she cannot stop from talking about it, that we need in America.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't stop talking about the changes she sees that America needs. Bernie Sanders is on the radio nearly every week and talking to people every chance he gets about very specific changes like changes to our federal campaign finance and wages and all the other things he talks about. Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders speak of the changes we need with deep conviction, eloquence, humility and you can feel their emotions and their spirits are intent on accomplishing the changes they see we need.

Not so with Hillary. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are driven by their desires to boost the middle class. They are bursting with enthusiasm for the task.

Hillary --- what is she going to do? Change student loan law? Unsign the Telecommunications Bill that her husband signed? Reinstate welfare for those hard times when we have high unemployment? She talks vaguely about welfare reform, but what would she do about it? Would she reinstate food stamp money? Would she put Wall Street magnates in jail if their companies violate the law? Would she lower interest on student loans? Campaign for more money for higher education? Try to find ways to cut the cost of federal law enforcement and prisons?

What does Hillary stand for? And does she really believe in changing America? What causes will she fight for? Does she really care at all? So far in my view she does not begin to measure up in terms of dedication and depth to the likes of Elizabeth Warren who spent years doing careful research into the economic challenges to the middle class or to the likes of Bernie Sanders who attracts many conservative voters with his common sense determination and dedication to helping middle class Americans.

I see Hillary as a candidate with a head start because of name recognition but also a big problem because of NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act and a number of other bills and programs and of course personal problems, all baggage from Bill Clinton's presidency.

I do not think Hillary would make nearly as good a candidate as either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Hillary is past her political prime. They are all about the same age, but Hillary cannot muster the enthusiasm and cannot communicate the courage and faith that Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders do.

.... "because I deserve this."

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/759670/

They're no friends of Democrats--never have been.

desperation.

One doesn't have to declare their candidacy to express their vision for America. The real problem is that HRC doesn't want to tell us that her vision for America is the same as Goldman-Sachs.

Since the "stupid" card has been played, I counter with, it's stupid to think that HRC will stand with the 99% and fight Wall Street.

I may be voting for a third party, I have threatened before but this time I will have to do it, the democratic party bosses seem to have gone over to wallstreet and the other monied interests completely. Since 2007 I have heard big populist talk but no action, and ya can't blame it all on the republicans.

My life is getting too short, for the sake of my grandchildren I will now always vote for the best candidate.

How else can the best person win unless you vote for them? No more party before Country. With the exception of Carter I have settled for "electable" for 30 years and all I've gotten for it is a downward slide.

"Sanger wants Rand Paul to win."

let's hope they starve that particular beast, no?

I like both Elizabeth Warren (time for a woman and a very, very strong personality to boost her campaign) and Bernie Sanders (experience and understands every issue, very fatherly).

If they both run, I will have a tough time choosing between them. If neither of them runs, it would be sad, very sad for our country.

We don't have a lot of income, but we send very small amounts to both candidates. If they both ran, it would be hard to pick which to vote for, but it would bring new issues into our debates and the American public would hear a refreshing point of view for the first time since 1972

There are those out there who have money but are liberal.

Anti-war
Although wealthy don't like wall Street influence In politics
believe climate change Is real and we need to combat it
Believe people working aren't making enough

It's Intresting they like Biden more than Clintons.

Assuming Elizabeth Warren doesn't run and Biden doesn't run to avoid battle with Clintons they may support

O'Malley,Webb,or even Bernie Sanders.Who is technically a Independent even though he votes more like a Liberal Democrat than
some who call themselves Democrats.

all the same, if they want my pennies, where do I send the bloody check?

They're so good at the FUD thing!

There has been candidates who tried before and there will be plenty afterwards. We sure do not need a run like the GOP had in 2012.