eom

It always comes off as needy and insincere.

I've been saying all along that she's going to win the nomination and the general election. The folks who get most of their their political news from People magazine have been fully persuaded by Hillary that she's one of them. Wait until the grandbaby stuff pours out, that fifty-five percent will be the low point.

There's only one way that this doesn't happen, and that's if she's shamed out of running. Time is growing short, I expect the announcement the day after the midterm election, or at least the filing of exploratory committee paperwork.

Many has had the same struggle. At the time Clinton left the presidency they lad a large debt. Yes they have had several breaks in paying off the debt, book deals and both are in demand in the speaking circle. She has fought for civil rights, women's rights and human rights. This couple has been down, knows struggled but still helps others.

We need a president for all Americans, not just for those who work on Wall Street and in the management of big business.

The Clinton myth is powerful, but we need a president that really cares more about the fates of ordinary Americans than his or her own career and place in history.

... Not!

I think many people would think more of Hill & Bill if they would just fade into the background and become full-time adoring grandparents, and I'm one of those people. I would have allot more respect for them, anyway. Yes, if she is the Democratic candidate nominated by the Party, I will vote for her. But I won't be voting for her in the Primary (unless she is unchallenged by the time the Primary rolls around to me.)

That would be the RW and the extreme Left. The vast majority of Democrats have no issue with her running for president.

Less attention has been paid to the LW Clinton haters, and believe me they are out there. They have been since 1992, and the self-righteous Jerry Brown campaign that year.

don't want her to run, when the opposite is true.

We need Elizabeth Warren. Hillary will talk a lot about social injustice, etc., but she will not advocate for the policies that need to be taken to heal our nation.

Please read post #35 here. Do you seriously think that Hillary Clinton will appoint an Attorney General who will deal with these kinds of injustices -- injustices that benefit her friends and the friends of Bill?

That's just one problem I have with her candidacy.

Me too.

doing self-aggrandizement with token projects to keep the public thinking she is actually doing something.

... how dare you insinuate I hate the Clinton's! What I HATE is the DLC who have chosen every Democratic candidate SINCE and including Bill Clinton. As for the 1992 election, I loved Bill and voted for him! I didn't know at the time what was getting ready to happen (the shift to the right of the Democratic Party,) or that the wool had been pulled over my eyes. I was not one of the ones who wanted Jerry Brown. But hey, don't knock Jerry Brown. He sure is doing a fine time out there in CA, now isn't he?

She made comments that were clumsy, and of course snipped out of context by sniveling little reporters, but in the end it's her policies that matter most. Who has the better policies for working people? Hillary or Scott Walker? Hillary or Chris Christie? Hillary or Rand Paul? Hillary or Ted Cruz? I think you all know the answer to that.

In the end, her background and finances are all secondary to those questions.

Remember, Nixon and Reagan grew up poor. How were their policies for the working class?

TR, FDR and JFK all grew up wealthy. How were their policies for the working classes?

who is actually middle-class.
Why does that seem impossible? It shouldn't be.

Mitt Romney?

or exactly how the question was asked.

This is a stupid non-controversy drummed up by the same people who do it to the president on a daily basis.

In the end, America will not elect her...she's a Clinton and she is a woman. America will not put a woman in the White House.

after most Republican voters were condemning him.

Since then, I disregard about 30% to the right of every allegedly nonpartisan poll. Therefore, I think this is more like 7% think she cannot relate.

Thing is, there is a middle ground, which poll questions never seem to envision (because pollsters could care less about reality, IMO).

It's possible that she--or any random person--is indeed someone who cannot really relate to poor people, but is still willing to do the right thing politically by them.

As for being broke, though, maybe the Clintons should clear that up by disclosing the name of the homeless shelter into which they moved from the White House? When you owe law firms $12 million and not a one of those law firms files an involuntary bankruptcy on you, you just might not really have been broke.

When you cite, as an example of how broke you were, scrambling for mortgages on houses (plural)--and banks gave you those mortgages, you just might not really have been broke.

When you were buying a town house in D.C. and a mansion in Chappequa, two of the highest real estate value areas in the country, you just might not really have been broke.

And, if you are not out of touch, maybe you and your husband both should stop trying to convince everyone you were really broke. Hillary changed her tune--sort of--by saying the few words she said "inartfully" don't take away her record. However Bill was back to insisting, on MTP, they had really been broke. Enough!

still do the bidding of Wall Street and Big Business. Elizabeth Warren, with less chance to get elected, would be much better for our country because she has made a career out of fighting the abuses of Wall Street and Big Business. Because she is able to raise money from regular Americans she doesn't have to owe big donors like the rest of Democrats and Republicans.

Hillary, has worked hard and done a lot of good for this country, but she has rubbed elbows with all of the Plutocrats for years and will take their money to run. That is her and Bill's history and it is not going to change.

I doubt Elizabeth Warren would appoint corporate Democrats to the Supreme Court as Obama has done. I, for one, am tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils." If Hillary is the nominee I will vote for her, but be disappointed all the same, the Republicans are just nuts!

Warren has earned street cred with the populace like no candidate I can remember, but then I'm only 65 years old.

As a Presidential candidate she will draw votes from across the spectrum, including from voters who have been taught to hate Hillary Clinton since 1988. I believe that she not only gives us our best chance to hold the Oval Office in 2016, but that her policies will have a positive impact on our nation like no other candidate I've seen.

Yes, she used to be a Republican. So was I at one time. And yes, there's still a few holes in her resume, but those don't bother me nearly as much as the filled-in parts of some other resumes.

Bottom line: The values she's espoused, and the genuine and earnest concern she's shown for the People, trump any other potential candidate that I've heard of.

I just believe that she does not have the name recognition with the low information voters. This is why I say Hillary would have the better chance. When you start reading tea leaves and look at Hillary's negatives.... it gets away from me as an arm chair prognosticator.

She understands the problems of rich people and people in power, but I have no idea if she understands the problems of average citizens. I have seen no proof.

Timing of this poll is curious.

GOP vs Bill Clinton---who is smarter?

Bloomfield Hills, MI and South Beach, Florida.

and similar secret democracy destroying trade deals.