She in the end has to prove herself to you and I hope she does.

The same can be said of the other candidates. If they want people to vote for them they have to prove they can beat Hillary and the gop.

Except you not being eloquent enough. I think there are many good arguements for Hillary. I also think a strong primary tends to make all candidates better- and I think the left does tend to get kinda shut out of the process and it's good for those voices to be heard.

I doubt Warren runs but I think Sanders will run.

He is a good man.

but based on reason. What is more, he conveys the sense of dispassionate, level-headed decision-making when he speaks.

Sanders is on the left, but not an emotional, nutty leftists (pardon me to those who are very far to the left, but Sanders gives the impression when he speaks of being just steady and sensible, not ideologically driven).

Sanders gives the impression that he cares about people and is not greedy. We shall see how the general public takes to that. I like him very much and will vote for him if he is our candidate.

I think that Warren has a lot of passion on economic issues that our country desperately needs -- just to get us back in balance, just to restore opportunity and hope to people in the middle and lower class economically.

Both good candidates.

I hope they both or one of them challenge(s) Hillary. That's the only way we will find out where Hillary comes down on a lot of issues. Where she REALLy comes down on issues, how effectively she can argue and support her points of view on the issues. I'm doubtful that she is really effective in this way. Not like Warren or Sanders.

But she polls high because people recognize her name and like Bill as a person.

Their positions.

No, they have to stand for the American people, something Hillary doesn't seem interested in doing.

is delusional. Those of us who might support Hillary do not believe she is inevitable. No one has to convince anyone on DU of anything. Only the actual candidate can do that. As far as I can tell, Elizabeth Warren has said she is not running. If she changes her mind, good for her, the more the merrier. I would only suggest that she be more vetted. Everyone has skeletons and there is no hiding them during a primary. Most of us who support Hillary also lover Bernie Sanders, even more so than Warren. However, please name me one self professed socialist that has ever won a presidential election.

it's the avuncular Jewish guy with the working poor's interests at heart!

because those things, by definition, are socialism.

Absolutely untrue! Wander through some of the threads and you can pick out a dozen or more instances where this is the stated in just the last week.

Obama is no where near being a socialist and yet they tried to paint him as one. They have cried wolf and the more they do it the less evil the word socialist will become. Thank goodness.

Her ancestry? She has dealt with that.

Sex? What a joke.

Her Republican affiliation. She is dealing and has dealt with that.

Her lack of experience in foreign affairs. We shall see where she stands on those issues. I'm most interested in her stance on fairness and opportunity in our economy -- on how to deal with the disparity in wealth that is closing opportunities for middle and working class people.

I hope her campaign people don't think that she can just run on "inevitability" again.

Unfortunately early indications are, that they do.

I do believe Hillary to be a strong candidate.

What specifically can she claim as a significant win for the 99%?

And when she tries to imitate Elizabeth Warren she looks confused and sounds like a tourist trying to remember how to ask for directions in Urdu.

She's stuck with inevitability.

In asking what she can claim as a win for the 99%, you're asking what ideology will be at the forefront of her campaign. I answer: None. She'll articulate policy positions as necessary, but, unlike a Sanders or a Warren, she won't make that the engine of her campaign.

I remember reading a description of George H. W. Bush in 1988 as "the all-résumé candidate." Clinton's pitch will look a lot like his. Here's a candidate who's served in Congress (the House, the Senate), has headed an important federal agency (the CIA, the State Department), and has played a major role in a prior administration (as Vice President, as an unusually involved First Lady). The candidate will have the support of much of the party establishment, partly because they're comfortable with this candidate and partly because they want to win and believe that s/he would have a better chance in November than would someone who does a better job of firing up the party's base but who, it is feared, might alienate centrist voters.

Remember Clinton's 2008 campaign ad: "NARRATOR: Tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3:00 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. Who (sic) do you want answering the phone?" She'll go the same route in 2016, but with several years at State to strengthen her case.

As for the "inevitability" thing, that certainly won't be a part of her public campaign. Voters wouldn't like being told that the nomination is all locked up. She'll employ the usual dodges -- the day before a primary in which the polls have her up by 25 points, she'll say, "I've been really honored by the support I've received here, and I'm filled with gratitude toward the amazing volunteers who've made it possible. We're not taking anything for granted, though. We're going to keep fighting for every vote right up until the polls close." The inevitability pitch will be reserved for surrogates who are twisting the arms of prospective big-money donors. "You want to support the winner, don't you?"

What I'd like to see from her is concrete, even brave positions on important issues (issues beyond "what Bible verse is your favorite", that is) --- preferably positions and statements that don't sound like they've been poll-tested and beltway conventional wisdom'd- into the ground.

Chuckie Schumer wants to get rid of the Democratic Primary and annoint Hillary as the nominee.

I @#$& you not.

There will be a primary.

sigh.

No primary, super delegates deciding, would be a disaster.

The silver lining: in the past week especially Hillary Clinton support has dropped from inevitable on DU to questionable, which is in my opinion where ever politician's support should always remain.

The party's candidate will be selected through the primaries and nominating process. There will opportunities for arguments to be made and votes to be cast.

To my knowledge no one has ever suggested, even flippantly, that we should just "skip the whole thing". Some, including myself, have said that Hillary would be a formidable candidate, both within the Party and nationally. Consistent and reliable polling backs that up, although polls change.

There are undeniably some people on the left and at DU who are pledged to never support Hillary Clinton, electorally or otherwise. I've participated in quite a few unsatisfying back-and-forths here on DU with some of them already, and we're still two years out.

I've sometimes voted for independents (Justice Party, Green Party) and I might do so again, but if I think that my vote will in any way go toward helping put a Republican in the White House, I'll vote for Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat without hesitation.

the main election (Chuck Schumer is one for example), See:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html

term. Hillary is not inevitable. She is not a strong campaigner. If she were, she would have won in 2008.

Ask Florida how it worked out for them? The party DID stop a primary, along with Charlie, "I will never debate her". The senate leader??????? Who was in the race before him?

People are tired of the arrogance. And I'm tired of dems working for Wall Street instead of 'main street'.

as well as cab drivers, factory workers, etc.

Wall Street is not the big job creator it once was. A lot of the most successful companies are privately owned and not publicly owned. There stocks are not sold on Wall Street. Wall Street is a bit of a fraud in my opinion. If investing on Wall Street really made little people rich as a rule, then we would not have pension funds going into the red because pension funds invest on Walll Street in general.

But do take care, as NOBODY wants a Republican president in twenty-five months, especially those of us who count on America actually NOT imploding!

We cannot afford a Republican President. I'm still wondering how we're gonna make it through the next two years of a Republican House and Senate. Hopefully we can also take the Senate back in 2016. (House'd be nice too, but more of a longshot)

I want the best Democratic Candidate in 2016.

President Ted Cruz, announcing the launch of "Operation Enduring Tarsands," March 22, 2017.

Please be EXTRA careful.

That's the sheer Machiavellian in me. If she's the party nominee, I'm most certainly going to vote for her. And I've made that case here before.

HOWEVER... I am hoping that what we're seeing in the past few days and/or weeks is a national gut check. Maybe we're seeing a critical mass starting to be approached - where enough of us and our fellow Americans have just finally had a belly-full. I've been wondering if we've reached the "okay - seriously. Enough is ENOUGH!" The Fed-fucking-UP point. I kinda hope we have. Hesitant to get too excited about it, but I think I'm noticing something. It's the police brutality/Ferguson/"I Can't Breathe" protests that won't stop. It's the uproar about torture. It's the accelerating Elizabeth Warren movement as though a latter-day Joan of Arc, making a VERY loud, VERY public, and VERY attention-getting case for the little guy, the Main Street guy, middle class families. As we've seen NO ONE else do with such vigor and so articulate. Telling truths. And naming names. She's caught fire. As all these other things are coming to massive public attention. Occupy was only the beginning.

And I believe Hillary Clinton is way too smart not to notice. I am HOPING that it pushes her leftward. Hoping To God. IF FOR NO OTHER REASON that she recognizes what might well be turning into a national sea change, the end of an era, WAY more than a trend - a new mood flowering and solidifying across the land. I hope she does. I hope she decides to go with the tide. I was on the phone with a friend today who speculated that Hillary has already blown it, because she hasn't said peep about a LOT of things coming to a head at the moment - toward which she should be showing leadership. Whether she decides to run or NOT. Where is she on torture? Where is she on holding those responsible accountable for their actions? Where is she on Michael Brown's case? On Eric Garner's case? Where is she on grand juries - she should be issuing position statements or comments on these things, especially with her lawyer background. Where is she on police brutality, police militarization? Where is she on Wall Street and how Dodd-Frank has just had a big hole shot in it? Where is she on too-big-to-fail? I'm troubled by that.

I admire her brains like nobody's business, and I think if anybody's in a strong position actually to break that last glass ceiling, it's she. Nobody else has the resume or the gravitas or the experience. And she was the first person really to try seriously to fix America's health care system. But she needs to weigh in. She needs to come out of seclusion and say something. And take a stand. And let us see what kind of national leader she really is especially in tense times like these. I HOPE she starts taking the left more seriously. It's the most progressive Senator other than Bernie Sanders who's actually out there, vigorously pushing this new populism, and showing that leadership. She's also demonstrating a need that hasn't been filled in a LOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNG time - and filling it! We have a champion on this increasingly urgent and relevant cause, and it ain't Hillary. At least not yet, or so far. And I'm wondering if it will be. If it could be. If she's to be our nominee and the first woman President, I think she's gonna have to. And I suspect she knows that, even if she doesn't or won't admit it. The time to be Wall Street's friend appears to be OVER. And I think she's going to have to get with that very seriously, or her aspirations just might become hamstrung.

The thing is - Bottom Line: WE HAVE TO KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE. That is IT. That is the End-All-and-Be-All for 2016. We have to go with our best shot. I'm watching and waiting - because it's going to be telling how much momentum Elizabeth Warren gains. If she turns into a speeding freight train, that might just change the calculus. Or if her prominence and the prominence of her issues force Hillary to evolve.

If someone else makes a better case to get the nomination then so be it. I supported hillary in 08 but obama won fair and square. i wasn't angry he ran a better campaign

that's my bumper sticker.

and I don't much care for Hillary, don't hate her like many people here do, but I did not vote for her last time either. Warren, I spent yesterday on the phone and I'm liking her a bit more, but she has not spoken about many important areas of policy and in spite of what others might think, her being part of the Nixon through Reagan Republican movement and Party does require quite of a few different explanations and a clearly visible new direction. She did something recently I very much liked and which is very much the sort of thing people with her history need to be doing to make amends.
So. I say that to say this: I like Warren better than I like her supporters. Same for Clinton. I like candidates that are ready for the fight of their lives. A candidate whose supporters freak out when the candidate is asked valid questions do not help their candidate. The Warren people who attempt to minimize Republican horrors, who actually ask of AIDS was really that bad, they make me very hesitant to vote for her. I also do not at all care for the casual double standards employed.
To ding one candidate for being a 'Goldwater Girl' when she was too young to vote would be fine with me, you bet, I was a Democratic child. But to ding that person for that while waving away 25 or 30 years of full grown, full blown adult Republican loyalty is hypocritical. It just is.
And people who employ double standards create a world of double standards, rules for thee but not for me, I have impunity and you have no protection, I have rights and you do not. It is not a small matter. It is a rhetorical choice that reflects the ethics of those who use it.
I do not think for a moment that Warren would bring up Goldwater to Hillary because Warren voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Hillary never voted for Goldwater. But her supporters don't mind doing that. And it is shitty.
If I'd never met a Warren supporter I'd like Warren much, much more. Talking to DC yesterday, I like her more. But 'was AIDS really that bad' is not helping. The dinging the other for a flaw she has to a far greater degree is not helping. One of the reasons AIDS was ignored was that Republicans use a double standard. The people who were dying were not up to the standards they apply to straights and whites. You do the math.