Find one you like and who is willing and start promoting that candidate. Just being against Hillary Clinton isn't going to work. A positive effort for an alternative could work, but it can't wait for long. If there's a willing candidate that meets your criteria, it's time right now to start working toward that goal.

I can't identify such a candidate, though, at this point. Time's passing quickly.

Following DU, tradition, this thread will now fill up with both Clinton and O'Malley bashing.

over the next 18 months, of course. I don't know much about him, to tell you the truth. If he emerges as a serious candidate, I'll do the necessary research. If he has supporters on DU, they can provide the positive information, if they want.

It may not be easy to find someone willing to challenge Clinton, though. Potential candidates are going to look at her current polling numbers and think hard before putting themselves in the race. Finding contributors, too, will be an issue, and even a presidential primary campaign is an expensive proposition.

It's going to be an uphill road.

Each candidate after announcing, could tour the country taking about how they would govern. Voters in each state could vote for who they think represents them the best.

Picking a candidate, two years in advance, based on which candidate doesn't piss off colossally malcontented web-citizens isn't the best system. As I've said many times before, it is far better to build your preferred Democratic candidate up than to try and tear down every other candidate.

Those who oppose a particular candidate need to pick a candidate to support and work like hell for that candidate. That technique will be far more successful than simply declaring non-support for some other candidate. Wasn't that how President Obama won his nomination in 2008? I seem to remember something about people supporting him heavily.

That doesn't seem to be the current trend, though. It's puzzling. Right now, the candidates or potential candidates getting that kind of support include one who says she won't run. And Elizabeth Warren is going to have to deal with her years as a Reagan Republican, too. Right not, that's not much of a part of the discussion, but it will be if she decides to run, which I don't expect.

Bernie Sanders, I think, is considering running mainly to put forward a more progressive agenda more than anything else. I doubt that he thinks there is any possibility of being the nominee. I certainly doubt it.

If they really thought she was a terrible candidate they would sit back, relax, and watch her crash and burn.

It's time to find someone to support, because simply tearing down a candidate isn't a winning strategy.

relax and watch her crash and burn, again, and for the last time.

She does not have a history of performing well in anything. She has 3 feet stuck in her mouth at any given time.

Will you sit back and relax if she wins the primary (if she runs)? You're not going to support her if she gets the nod?

And as to your statement that she's never performed well in anything is blatantly false. She won over New York state to become a Senator when many people thought she'd fail. She even actually won over some of the redder parts of the state. And she was really a fantastic Secretary of State who probably worked harder than any previous SoS. She was instrumental in getting Bill Clinton elected as President of the US. She literally changed the face of being a First Lady, allowing and showing that First Ladies could do more than redecorate the White House and pick china patterns.

Oh, and she scares the bejesus out of Republicans.

Love or hate Hillary as a candidate don't make blanket statements about her abilities to do anything well.

There have been no official announcements for 2016, the primaries are way way in the future, so I am not going to pay much attention to the General yet, lots more coming before that. So accusations of something or other are a weak, flailing response to genuine criticism of Hillary and her record for those who think Hillary and her husband are far too much like the Republicans in their policies, and probably in their personal views as well.

The Clintons do not scare the bejesus out of Republicans. They are scaring the bejesus out of Democrats though. The Clintons are very, very friendly with the worst of that GOP lot. You do remember that Hillary said, during the primaries, that John McCain would make a better president than Barack Obama would, now hows that for scaring Republicans. Oh, and Bill is chummy yummy huggy close to the Bushes. And that Scaife (sp?) guy, think he is dead now, he was one of the nastier ones toward the Clintons during their WH stay, well, Hillary got all huggy, smuggy with him during the primaries too. So no, that does not fly any more, the Clintons are more friendly to the Republicans and vice versa. They are together osmosing into another party, I think folks call it the Third Way - where big money rules and the useless eaters droolz.

I now just look at it as an interesting phenomenon and reflection of our society/culture. Yes, I think she's a bad campaigner. Your comment is illogical. People comment on things all the time, hon, for all kinds of reasons other than "fear". That inferior nonsense that people toss out about how "you must be afraid", is so lame. I see people using that when they want to curtail a discussion- not because they actually believe such crap.

In fact, 18 months out in the 2008 election, the media was swearing that it was going to be a Clinton/Giuliani race. #2 in the Democratic polls was Al Gore, followed by John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and others. Barack Obama didn't even make the top 10 list among Democratic contenders, Gallup had such a small response to his name that they consistently lumped him into their "Other" category with less than 1% of respondents supporting him.

Polls and name recognition don't mean a whole lot this far out. Barack Obama proved that an effective campaign can transform someone from a virtual unknown to a top party candidate in only a year or so.

I remember it well. He built a grassroots support network and emerged with a strong support system. Hence my post that started this thread. Right now is when people need to get busy building support for a candidate if they hope to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I got scolded for that, just upthread. I don't understand why. What I'm saying is absolutely true.

him. Name recognition is half the battle, and that takes some time.

Attractive, articulate and in a band!



(I know his looks shouldn't be the focus, but we ARE talking about our corporate media, here. Dems could play the game well with him.)

They would win again too if legal to run.

experience in 2008.

"I'm going to give you the same answer I have given you many times," Warren told the newspaper. "There is no wiggle room. I am not running for president. No means no."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/elizabeth-warren-president_n_5610078.html

Definitive. No 'I am not planning to run.'

She also signed a letter from female Senators encouraging Hillary to run.

"I don't think so" is so far from "I am not running" - especially at this point.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/1023/Did-Elizabeth-Warren-just-hint-she-might-run-for-president-in-2016-video

She is asked the question in just about every interview. Almost every time she says no. If I was her, I would get tired of saying 'no.'

Nice try though.

On October 24th Elizabeth was campaigning with Hillary for (the pathetic candidate, stupid MA Democratic Party should have not nominated her a second time for a statewide office) Martha Coakley.

But I digress...

From the AP. Not a political blog quoting People Magazine out of context:

'Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a liberal favorite who this week did rule out challenging Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination if Clinton decides to run.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren_n_6044232.html

If there was anything to this, the media would be hounding her night and day.

Not just some political blog (see below) and there was no quote in the AP where Warren said she's ruling out challenging Clinton..only a comment from the writer. I'll take my direct quote, thanks.

And, thanks for making it clear that you're scared of her.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Warren+%22I+don%27t+think+so%22&num=100&rlz=1C1GIGM_enUS552US552&espv=2&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A10%2F24%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F24%2F2014&tbm=

But Hillary is going to run, and Elizabeth is not.

She would have a Lot of explaining to do if she decided to challenge Hillary. She has praised her repeatedly and there's that letter she signed encouraging Hillary to run. And for every quote taken out of context, Elizabeth has said 'no' ten times.

Obama said he wouldn't run for President in 2008 during his Senatorial campaign. Then barely would take the bait after that. Yep, he was running.

And speaking of 2008, based on the bloodying we are already witnessing here, would Elizabeth want to see this same fight within the party again?

Nope. Hillary/Warren is far more likely than Warren vs Clinton.

But hey, maybe Hillary won't run?

If not, and if Elizabeth does... The Warren Senatorial campaign has my credit card number on file.

I've never given Hillary a dime.

It happens all the time in politics. And, when they do people almost always accept it and move on.

What happened with Obama is irrelevant.

Good to hear that you like Warren.

[link:

since her days back here in Arkansas in terms of her presence, her delivery style, those superficial things that are, rightly or wrongly, crucial to a politician.

She comes across as stiff, and frankly not very genuine (the last genuine moment I remember from her was her improptu interruption of a press conference in the Arkansas capitol being given by Bill's 1990 gubernatorial primary opponent Tom McRae, where McRae was criticizing Bill and she came up from behind him and literally took over the microphones away from McRae to defend her husband). To paraphrase the old joke that used to be used about her husband back here, she still hasn't learned how to "fake that sincerity thing."

She may or may not make a good or even great president, if she chooses to run. There's no question she's very accomplished. But in terms of her personability, she's lacking.

When she should obviously be saying, "We".

It drives me up the wall.

She is my last choice as of today.

There will be plenty of campaigning and debates so that we can judge how gaffe-prone she is. If she is as bad as you say there is no way she will win the nomination. I trust that the primary voters will make the right choice.

she'll win. She has the money and organization. You really don't favor employing logic, do you, nye?

Remember, Obama didn't even announce he was running until 2007.

Only as a democratic presidential nominee.

I intend to fully support the Democratic nominee.

I pretty much like all Democrats. I do not like republicans.

I am not really that aware of your posts but the ones I see are all critical of Democrats. Am I wrong?

I see very, very little attacking of the other side from this poster. Perhaps they could post a couple of OPs they've done attacking Rand Paul as vigorously as HRC. Any help?

I have yet to see you start threads attacking Rand Paul.

Does that mean you're a supporter of his?

Perhaps I missed them. Any help?

again.


While I love Sanders and Warren, if they run they will also have to prove they can win.

show-stoppers for me.

to win anyone's vote. Actually, I'm not being entirely fair to her in this round, b/c she hasn't formally announced yet. It's all the pro-Hillary buzz around her that is a total turn-off at this point. We need a vigorous debate between tackers like Hillary and less-reformist minded politicans like Sanders (who has yet to change his party reg to Dem so I'm a bit premature). A vigorous debate like that (including the vitally important question of how to implement one's policy prescriptions given the nihilist Congress currently
in place) would be a good thing for our democracy and would further marginalize the Republicans as the discredited whackjobs they are.

If Hillary wins fair and square, fair enough and time for the party to unify behind her. But this business of talking about her as if she's already been nominated when she hasn't even formally announced yet is really off-putting.

she should get it without a fight.

The matchup I see in the future is Hillary for us, and Rand for the Republicans. In that match up, I see Rand winning. This is of course operating on the assumption that Rand runs a good campaign, and manages to avoid doing anything extremely stupid. Little gaffes are going to happen, and will be ignored generally speaking by the voters.

Right now, Rand is out there giving speeches and telling people his views on various populist policy questions. Hillary is giving fluff speeches. I always recognize courage, and Rand is showing a great deal of courage. He's given speeches that were well received in both Berkeley and Detroit. Neither location is a bastion of Conservative Strengths.

This tells me that Rand's polling shows the approach will work. While he may not have the name recognition nor favorables, he knows his issues do have both favorables, and recognition. So by getting out there and attaching himself to these policies, he's going to make some inroads with traditional Democratic party voters.

Worse, by getting out there early, he puts the Democrats into the sad position of being a "Me Too" candidate on the issues. The campaign will go like this. Rand says. "I'm in favor of individual privacy, and if elected I will restore the Constitutional right to privacy and insure that the surveillance of the NSA is abolished."

Hillary sees that this policy is well received, announces. "me too".

Demilitarization of the Police, same thing. Or worse, Hillary takes on the position of being tough on crime and a big supporter of Law Enforcement, which alienates another fraction of the population that normally votes for us.

A fraction here, a fraction there, and Rand is in real contention. We could try to counter with "You're a racist pig who is supported by the KKK." Rand points to bi-partisan efforts he's made with Cory Booker. Try to paint him as anti-healthcare, and he's a Doctor who performs free eye surgery on patients with no insurance and who travels internationally with eye clinics to help poor in other countries see.

Like I said, most of the traditional attacks will fall flat. Rand is the most dangerous of the potential Republican Candidates. A populist driven agenda, and the courage to visit the redoubts of his opponents. When the campaign gets going, and people learn about Rand from the news, and hear his policies, we are going to have to either go way right to try and make up the losses, or extreme left to avoid the doom of the "me too" campaign.

She's also a Democrat and way more closely identified to most positions here than Cruz, Paul, Bush, Romney, etc. etc., so why bash her?

Is it too much to ask that you PROMOTE your Democratic candidate, and save your bashing for the Repugniks?

....will do because she's a woman?

I want a real, fire breathing Progressive: Man. woman or other in between!!!

With her intellect and charisma, it would be a pleasure seeing her have to try to earn votes.

Instead, she's going to coast into office on a platform of not being a Republican.

Seems to me an awful lot of posters on this website are campaigning to divide the Democratic Party. The real reason we lost this most recent election were the veryclear divisions within the party. Grimes ran a very good campaign for Kentucky. She knows her state very well. The big problem was the White House refused to help her out and stabbed her in the back with all the complaining about her refusing to say she voted for Obama. The White House has helped the GOP destroy a number of Democratic candidates who could be viewed as not properly adoring of Obama. This same garbage is what happened to us in 1980 and we got stuck with Reagan instead of Carter. If the party had pulled together to back Carter he would have beaten Reagan. We know there are factions of the party who hate the Clintons for their own reasons just like the Kennedy's hated Carter and were happy to see him defeated.

HRC is a tireless campaigner and she is still extremely popular in the Midwest. The GOP are constantly trying to demean her and many of the posters here look and sound like GOP operatives. Pelosi and Reid are not on Clinton's side and that makes me like her even more.

One thing to consider is that HRC had some Wall Street backing until February of 2008. At that time, things were looking shaky on Wall Street, but astute people knew there were bad things yet to come. All of a sudden the Wall Streeters made a massive switch to Obama. Tweety got a tingle up his leg for Obama, Obermann said HRC needed to be taken behind the woodshed and not come back, a not so veiled death threat. MSNBC, still owned by GE, went all in for Obama at that point. HRC still won most of the primaries, but lost the caucuses where there were many complaints about shenanigans behind the scenes. Pelosi with her ties went for Obama and the Florida primary was not allowed to be counted at all late in the season.

Obama had a lot of seasoned Chicagoans to work his campaign and they pulled it out, but they had to make a lot of deals that have come back to hurt the Democratic Party brand.

There are lots of accusations on this board that HRC is too cozy with Wall Street, their backstabbing will not be forgotten. That is why the Wall Street owned Chrystal Ball has been campaigning against HRC since 2012. As it turns out Obama was far cozier with Wall Street and has steadfastly refused to put any of those crooks in jail for the massive illegality they practiced. Wall Street is in a frenzy to stop an HRC candidacy this time.

If Howard Dean backs Hillary Clinton, then that is as good a recommendation as there is. I am very sad to see so many good Democrats falling for the GOP dirty tricks all over again. They will keep doing this until we stop falling for it.

I tried to make that very point back during the primaries, that having less experience and less familiarity were real weaknesses but apparently voting for the first black president had such a draw that it blinded many voters to an objective appraisal of the situation. Of course she had a similar (though not nearly as strong) draw for those who wanted to vote for the first female president. But (and as I like to say, "I have a big 'but'&quot she has experience and familiarity. This among other things makes her a great candidate. As I've said before cali, even though we may disagree I find your analysis very sharp and I take your warning seriously but in terms of winning, she's the best I see.

I can recall some of Biden's though. That tells me they weren't all that bad.

I don't think she was more experienced than Obama necessarily. Or that she has learned nothing in the past 8 years.

She isn't even running yet. And we don't know who else will pop up to run, too.