It's Hillary's "turn"

*According to polls.

Neither would get my vote, my time or my money.

We are still more than three years away.

Barack OBama in a dress. JUST what we need.

You couldn't pay me to support her in a primary.

thats bad.

second I'll never vote for her. She's a republican. Doubt Detroit will vote for her either since Bill signed Nafta. Dumbest thing in the world made up by papa bush and signed into law for whatever reason by Bill.

why in hell is this even being discussed right now?

Anyone but Clinton, but I would vote for her if she were the nominee.

this poll is only important because it shows how badly the repubs will do, regardless of who the dem nom is. IMO

Not after her 2008 primary campaign, with its right-wing strategy and tactics.

Yes, how dare she run against a senator on the first half of his first term.

a man with 4 years. What a strumpet!

Besides, when he announced he had barely been in the Senate for 2 years.

There are many women that are qualified to be president; for instance, Tammy Baldwin would be worthy of support. And, while she was in the house for a long time, she's only been a senator for a matter of months.

Frankly I regret supporting him over her at the time. While I remain a strong supporter of the President I believe Clinton had enough experience with the Republican smear machine to know what to expect and to react accordingly. I don't think she would have compromised as much or taken nearly as much shit as he has. I think she would have done what needed to be done.

Tammy Baldwin is great. So is Elizabeth Warren and I encourage both and any other Democratic women to get in the mix in 2016. Even if they all run I expect Clinton will wipe up the floor with them but I've been wrong before and may be again. We''ll know by this time in 3 years.

There was not an iota of difference between them.

And would have handled Congress differently. Experience does matter in life.

is a long time and a lot can happen in Foreign and National Affairs. All the Republican Party has to do is start appealing to other people, instead of trying to be the White Party. I'm being frank too. Ever since they used the Southern Strategy, it has hurt them in the rest of the country. That is why many minority Americans (becoming majority) see the Republican Party as racist.


They have no other alternative but to vote for Democrats. President Obama beat Hillary Clinton, because she wasn't much different than the Republicans on some issues. Obama beat her over the head with that Iraq vote. Her husband also pushed for NAFTA, on the promise that corporations would do right by Labor Unions. He got Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans to push through his program by triangulation.

Bill Clinton also eliminated welfare programs, on the promise, business and corporations would hire and train people, including providing them decent waged jobs. That didn't happen either.

Hillary loss to Obama also because she and her supporters didn't think a Black person could win. A lot of old establishment Blacks believe that too. You know who defeated Hillary Clinton in favor of Obama. It was the Liberal Left. It wasn't the old establishment or Blue Dogs. It was Democrats disenchanted with them. That is what kept Ralph Nader out. Obama was a fresh face from the old establishment who wasn't much different from the Republicans.

The Liberal Left and young people came out in droves for Obama. Hillary hurt herself further among minorities when many of her supporters didn't think a Black person could win. He got endorsed by the biggest Liberal of all, Teddy Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy.

Hillary Clinton needs to move to the Left on Foreiign Policy. She seems to be OK on Domestic Policies and women's issues but it is her Warmongering. She ran in New York. Netanyahu loves her. Every New York politician, Democrat or Republican is Pro Israel. That is why she is a warmongerer. It was the same with her husband. The Policy needs to be Pro United States.

Obama chose her as SOS and he doubled down on the Pro Israel, Netanyahu Policy. It is the rightwing Likud Policy. The Left of what it was in Israel was neutralized after their top leader got assasinated by they extreme rightwing religious fanatics in Israel.

Likud was cheerleaders for the War in Iraq. Netanyahu is cheerleading for intervention in Syria. He is not going to attack Iran without the United States at Israel's side. Likud is using the United States and its military might to carry out what they want in the Middle East.

Just look at the actions of their bought and paid for puppets in congress. It was a New York Congressman, that introduced a Bill under George W. Bush which obligates the U.S. to go to War against Syria. That same Congressman who is a Democrat also introduced a resolution supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel over Palestinian objections. The Palestinian want East Jerusalem as their capital. And by the way he is Jewish.

Everyone of the New York Politicians voted for the Iraq War. New York has a large Jewish population. That is why Hillary Clinton is a Warmongerer.

backing Hillary. What pushed me to Obama was her supporter Geraldine Ferraro's thinly veiled racism early in the campaign. And, yes, the Kennedy endorsement also influenced my decision. And there were many aspects of the Clinton presidency that left me cold (though at least he understood the necessity of fighting back against Republican bullying). Where you lose me is when you call Clinton and by extension all New York Democrats "warmonger". On that point we're just gonna disagree. Is she a proponent of a strong, activist foreign policy? Absolutely. Does her vote on the Iraqi War Resolution make her a "warmonger"? Not in my book. It was not a good move, it was not even a smart move but it of itself doesn't label her a "warmonger" IMHO.

And I think she was brilliant as Secretary of State and would make an exceptional president should she choose to run. As always I'll make my personal decision on who to support after all the candidates have announced but she certainly starts out at the top of my list.

That's a laugh. They are both Center-Left Democrats.

How dare she let bill say "we got mugged"
how dare she say "he is nto a Muslim as far as we know?"
how dare she kill Gaddafi and then go "we came, we saw, he died."
how dare she threaten to "obliterate" Iran.
How dare she indeed.

If the "professional left" liked it when they we called retards, wait till Bill joins in defending his wife.

Now you lost it...........

and made that nice little limerick about his death.

Darn, I thought that Obama was still president or is it already 2017?

check the West Virginia primary campaign in 2008 where he compared POTUS to Jesse Jackson to blue collar white 'Reagan Democrat' voters

the day...

But the rest of us don't.

even those like Sen. McCaskill who actively opposed her in 2008. This isn't about inevitability. This is about hard-earned support across the Democatic base.

He would be good for the nomination process. But I would like to know how to get him numbers like this.

Which is something that the Left seems not to realize. They keep proposing people that won't win in a general election.

said about Obama, but how did that turn out? All it takes is another Obama to have the guts to challenge her on her weakness. Somebody on the Liberal Progressive wing just need the guts to challenge the establishment and excite those voters. If another Obama runs, I'm pretty sure it will excite another movement away from the established politicians, unless Hillary evolves from certain positions. She needs to come up with a different Policy, instead of just advocating more Wars to appease Netanyahu. The Left in Israel needs to be revitalized against Likud and Netanyahu . Did they ever bring those murderoers to justice, who killed the peace Process in Israel?

There won't be another Obama in 2016. He was a historical candidate who caught the imagination of many people. Hillary is also a historical candidate who millions of people wish to see become president. Unfortunately, they shouldn't have both ran on the same year, it split the party pretty much in half. As far as the issues went, both are Center-Left politicians.

Dean will never produce that kind of enthusiasm.

I agree - I want another Dem in 2017.

While I really like a lot of possibilities on our side, I do love me some Hillary Clinton!!!

She is at least as mature as Pres. Obama was on accepting the job.
I wouldn't for a second underestimate her speed over a learning curve.
More than that, Warren has established credentials in terms of work done.

Hillary Clinton has established credentials, but she also has an official prehistory that goes back to Bill Clinton's presidency. The Clintons don't stop politicking. I would say that the money they earn from giving speeches is an essential part of that politicking. That money comes from lobbyists and it *has* to have some substance in terms of enforcing political promises else the prices wouldn't continuously increase. I call that kind of substance "baggage". Elizabeth Warren doesn't have anything remotely akin to that kind of "baggage".

I like your post.

would win because the Republicans can't even mount a horse.

radical extremist Republicans to increase their dependency on anti depressants.

It's pointless for any poll to include Christie as a possible GOP nominee for POTUS.

He'll never get nominated unless he reverses every quasi-moderate opinion he's expressed (a la Romney) at which point he'll set himself up for the same criticisms that he has no core beliefs.

The only purpose for even listing Christie is to make a case that "see, even the most moderate candidate has no chance against Hillary". Not sure who that argument is supposed to persuade given that the Tea Party claims that it's been the GOP running "moderates" in 2008 and 2012 that cost them the elections.

What's the obsession with polls of a Hillary-Christie match-up now?

Did it ever occur to anyone at the Daily Mail that this might NOT be the roster of the opponents in 2016?

More importantly, did it ever occur to anyone at the Daily Mail that WE'VE GOT OTHER WORK TO DO IN THE MEANTIME?

thanks to creative carving of districts.

Unless things take a profound and unexpected turn.

and on that scale it seems intent to continue imploding and self destructing. It's almost comically suicidal. Sure, they'll continue to dominate the South. Demographics aren't on its side. And the policies the party has espoused have been proven over the last thirty years not to work for a vast majority of the people.

But the Democrats aren't proving themselves very adept at capitalizing on this. By pushing for a kinder and gentler version of those same policies, we're not getting anything particularly fresh or innovative making the next generation of Americans more prosperous in a competitive world. The pandering to the corporate interests and the military-intelligence complex still exists and is as strong as ever.