n/t

She should not run

Last edited Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)

The sense of entitlement is horrid. It's going to be Clinton vs Bush in 2016 which I predicted in 2008. Two wings of the same bird eager to start more wars and spy more on its own citizens. If she does win I can say for certain she will be almost no different then Bush no matter what image is peddled or speech is given. I think it's a low point for our party. I will be voting for a liberal in the primary...not a hawk.

I respect your opinion but I disagree.

Midterms? That is a common sense that the media still does not understand. I would imagine that candidates want to see what they have to work with at least especially in the environment today where Presidents have to use Executive Orders to get things done and the Senate needs to use nuclear option to pass things. I would not want to be President in these conditions.

campaign finance laws kick in which limits money you can receive for things
like speaking engagements.

Umm... hold on just one damn second... what??!

We have PRIMARIES for this!

at this point in time Hillary is the presumptive nominee. But keep in mind, she was also the presumptive nominee in '07, until the primaries.

She isn't even running yet. She can't be the nominee without winning the primary and cannot win the primary without running AND cannot run without saying that she is... which she has not done.

It's a presumption. A prediction.

One cannot assume she will be the nominee. Her track record gives NO evidence of this being likely.

I get it.

When you ignore words like presumptive, and rush to denigrate someone's prediction (and national polls), and then argue with everyone who tries to point out to you that this is a prediction, you get dealt with accordingly. No one attacked you. You're not a victim.

Also, it IS a fact she is PRESUMED to be the nominee. It is NOT a fact that she is the nominee. But it IS a fact that she is PRESUMED to get that. That doesn't entitle her to anything.

when you deny a basic one, like it or not; Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

"is actually the case."

"She isn't even running yet. She can't be the nominee without winning the primary and cannot win the primary without running AND cannot run without saying that she is... which she has not done."

Now if you want to assume that she is the nominee you need to show evidence that she is. There is no such evidence. She has NEVER been the nominee before. She ISN'T currently running. In fact she's running exactly as much as Elizabeth Warren is currently. To claim that she is the "presumptive nominee" is to assume that she will not be beaten in a primary, which evidence shows is not the case. She has been beaten.

it means most likely, frontrunner, and a heavy one at that, and it is.

And yes, there is plenty of evidence of this being likely. There's no Obama out there this time, no one of his talent or skill or charisma. Blame our bench if you don't like the reality but right now, it's hers if she wants it.

She is NOT entitled to the nomination. I'll say that again.

SHE

IS

NOT

ENTITLED TO THE NOMINATION.

She must win the primary to do so.

She has not had a history of winning nominations. In fact she has lost the only one she sought in this field. It is a specious argument to assume that she will win this time based on the fact that she was in EXACTLY the same position with regards to other potential democratic runners. AND last time she lost.

NO ONE (since you are screaming at fellow posters) has said that she's entitled to the nomination without a primary fight, but they are correct in asserting that at this point in time she is the presumptive nominee going by the current polling results. Of course anything can happen in two years.

As for the strength of her polling. She has the highest polling rates of any non-incumbent Democrat in the history of the party, even higher than Gore had in 2000. That was not the case in 2008.

to help middle-class and poor Americans.

Considering her position as the former wife of a president and her many years of experience in D.C., Hillary has been relatively inactive and certainly ineffective in promoting the financial well-being of middle-class and poor Americans.

Read Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance.

Now, credit where credit is due, Hillary has done a lot to help the economy and people of India. That's an extremely poor country that needs our help, and she did propose a program to refinance Americans' home loans after the crash in 2008.

But . . . . she was in the Senate before the crash. What did she do then? Voted for wars that cost Americans a lot of money.

I don't think Hillary should run. Her Senate record does not merit the presidency.

Here is an article from February 2008 observing that not one bill passed by Congress bore her name:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/the-curious-myth-of-hilla_b_87613.html

I think she proposed a homeowner re-financing bill after this article, but I could be wrong.

Here is Wikipedia on that topic:

As the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 reached a peak with the liquidity crisis of September 2008, Clinton proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners' Loan Corporation, to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.[99] Writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, she said that "This is a sink-or-swim moment for America. We cannot simply catch our breath. We've got to swim for the shores."[99] Regarding the proposed bailout of United States financial system, she initially pronounced the $700 billion rescue plan flawed, but said she would support it.[100] On October 1, 2008, she voted in favor of the Senate legislation, HR1424, saying that it represented the interests of the American people; it passed the Senate 74–25.[101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Hillary co-sponsored a number of bills, but she does not present ideas and lead to get them passed. She was never a governor. I just don't think she has the experience in national leadership.

If you read Elizabeth Warren's book, you will learn that she has good ideas for our country and that she is a fighter and a leader. Elizabeth Warren would make a great president. Hillary -- not so much in my opinion. I can't think of one fight that she has fought and won that is greatly benefiting Americans.

Elizabeth Warren's ideas about banking and lending reform and consumer protection are making a big difference in all our lives. She will make much greater differences if we give her the chance to be president. She is not sucked into the D.C. corruption just yet.

...and thinks Hillary should.

No objection if you want a progressive alternative, but maybe you should look for someone who's actually interested.

In recent speeches and in her book, Elizabeth Warren discusses passing a Glass-Steagall bill for this century. Repealing Glass-Steagall was one of Clinton's colossal mistakes.

I think Elizabeth Warren will run if she feels she has the support she would need. I support her if she runs.

Hillary looks like she is going to run, but she may not. And people do run and then drop out.

Elizabeth Warren has a far more appealing personality and far less negative baggage than Hillary.

...and when she doesn't run as she said she wouldn't, they'll be the first people to complain that "The Establishment" wouldn't give them a choice.

I have no problem is she DOES choose to run, but I still think Hillary is the best candidate...just like Elizabeth Warren does now.

A lot of people think that Hillary is the presumed candidate.

A lot of people thought that in 2008. They were wrong.

A lot of water is going to go under the bridge between now and 2015 when candidates need to announce.

Hillary is certainly exploring the possibility. So is Bernie Sanders.

And I hope that Elizabeth Warren is considering it too.

I hope that if you are a Hillary supporter, you will read Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance and reconsider.

Hillary is too close to Wall Street. She would have a hard time recommending or using the presidential bully pulpit to fight for more fairness in our economy.

Elizabeth Warren even as a senator is taking the lead in fighting for economic opportunity for all Americans. Hillary???? She was lousy when it came to the War Iraq, but good on health care and on women's issues. She did not use her time in the Senate to lead strongly on economic issues. Lots of vague talk. Served on Walmart's board.

But Bill's signing away of the Glass-Steagall protections for banking eliminate Hillary as a candidate for me. If we had kept Glass-Steagall, the downturn in 2008 would have been much milder. We wouldn't still be paying for it. (Think of the derivatives that are still out there.)

I want someone who will stand up for economic fairness. And that is not Hillary Clinton.

If you want to wait and see, then wait and see!!

When news descends into conjecture, it should be called out every time.

is not a conjecture -- it is a fact.

It is presumed by most people who are running or thinking of running or are thinking of the 2016 election. The presumption may or may not come true -- perhaps some dark horse candidate will defeat her, but that is then and not NOW.

It is "presumed" that California will have a drought this year. Will you say that "there is plenty of water in the reservoirs and until it is all gone, there is no drought?"

It is a nature of the beast to analyze and express scenarios and there is nothing inaccurate about Hillary being the presumptive nominee as a snapshot at this point in time.

Either you accept that or I'll also have to say "cool story, bro"

Hillary Rodham Clinton is running in 2016. Her track record gives significant speculation for a media fueled run in the Belmont. Barbara Bush will abandoned Hillary in a hot second if her son runs.

Not to discount the media, my family is deeply involved, we want someone who stands against the tide, not someone who goes with the flow.

Hillary Rodham Clinton CAME HERE to be the President of the United States of America.
Hillary Rodham Clinton CAME HERE to be the President of the United States of America.
Hillary Rodham Clinton CAME HERE to be the President of the United States of America.
Hillary Rodham Clinton CAME HERE to be the President of the United States of America.
Hillary Rodham Clinton *CAME HERE* to be the President of the United States of America.

She's not going home with Secretary of State.
She's not going home until she gets that President position. No less.
She has never EVER stopped running. NEVER EVER STOPPED RUNNING.
Barack & her made a DEAL in 2008: He gets his 2 terms, she follows & gets her 2 terms.

She has not formally announced yet. That's all.
She doesn't have to. Everybody knows that she's running.
Everybody sees that she's running.
She is practicing her Presidential outfits as we speak as you saw on that Diane Sawyer interview clip.
Because just HOW does a female President dress?
Can't wear suits & ties. Well you can but you know...nah.

She won't announce until after the 2014 elections but her machine is already being put in place & she's about to be The JUGGERNAUT when she makes that 2016 run.
All contenders will be RUN OVER. Clear the field because it's gonna be a stampede.
Nuclear explosion. It's Vegeta's Final Flash. That's the picture for 2016.

Clinton? Who cares? I'm sick of hearing about her as if she's the ONLY f-ing possible candidate the Left can have. She's bush in a dress as far as I'm concerned.

(DonViejo this isn't an attack on you. Just really, seriously, disgustipated over all Clinton all the time)

I didn't take it as an attack on me but, appreciate you clarifying your comment. I just post news articles I think will be of interest (pro or con) to DU'ers.

I'm just feeling like I'm being Clintoned to death.

Have a good one!

Good one!

We can pontificate and aspire for Elizabeth Warren but at some point we should look at reality in the eye otherwise we become like tea partiers who firmly believe that Ted Cruz is electable.

There are no candidates yet. To say she is the only who could win is disingenuous conjecture.

Weldon P. Wienerschnitzel or Orville Reddenbacher or Chuck E. Cheese will also carry Ohio and Florida. In light of this new development, Hillary is no longer the presumptive nominee.

For one thing it depends on whom the Republicans nominate. If they nominate a Tea Party nutcase then probably any credible Democrat could win those states.

Hillary doesn't belong to the left, she belongs to the 1% The left couldn't possibly be of less significance to her.

She might win, but I don't think she will represent the people.

Shit + Shit = Shit²

We will lose the White House.

There are so many that have had enough of Clinton's.

And she's a woman...America will not elect a woman, in the foreseeable future.

Heck, all things being equal,I'd prefer voting for a woman...just not this woman.

in the foreseeable future? America is more than ready to elect a woman president. It doesn't necessarily have to be Clinton but we are ready for a woman.

she will lose the White House because she will. Way too many negatives. However, I do believe a woman can win and that woman is Elizabeth Warren. (Shameful plug.)

So let's keep our eyes on the 2014 prizes.

We need to get rid of the House of Monkeys and put progressives in place.

Pleeze, Hillary, be our candidate. Pleeze?

It wouldn't make any impact though. Her ambition consumes all.

while sanders is not officially a dem he would register as dem if he decides to get in the race . so you don't think he is a good one ?

Neither Warren nor Sanders has said they are running, even if Sanders has said he might consider it.

The 2008 election was the longest in US history. We don't need two years of our candidate being bashed by the Right. Keep them guessing.

Shouldn't that be 'announcement'?

What if not only the House but the Senate too went majority Repuglican? Wouldn't matter much who's president. Plus, we have a corporately stack Supreme Court. (Hello Citizens United) In order to stop obstruction, we have to end this obstruction. Hillary's too smart to make any commitment this early.

We'll only be hurt by it because no one else has decided to run and the fact that even if they did they wouldn't have the time or money to win.

She has ever reason to consider herself as the front runner and perhaps the best best for beating the republicans. Given those factors the longer she waits the less time the republicans have to hammer away at her. So if she is the nominee then waiting only helps the dems.

If she isn't the nominee then chances are the person who wins will be able to define themselves to the nation while the Republicans are holding their fire waiting for Clinton to get into the race.

I won't vote for her ever. She is the worst possible candidate our party could nominate.

We have suffered enough from those people.