Hillary would be formidible.. just some tweaking on this money deal and I think she should be OK..... Does anyone know.. who she has rumored to pick as advisors? I know Podesta is an old friend/advisor.. Lanny Davis.... what about Robbie Mook who was on the Obama team.. I think he has been mentioned as well... I think Paul Krugman would be great as her economics advisor (that's just me wishing tho.. haha) Warren Buffet and Paul Volker would be good too.... I could actually see us picking up some Repub endorsements like Christine Todd Whitman, especially if the Repubs nominate a Cruz/Paul/Perry........

I largely agree.. and like Hillary and respect her a great deal.. I voted for Bill twice and helped volunteer, (my first vote at 18 years old)... But she really needs to be careful when speaking about their money situation.. get a handle on this now .. becasue the Republicans could ride this to victory if she keeps speaking about this way.. look what happened to Romney... she is no Romney .. much much much better .. but they could do to us.. what we did to them if we are not careful.. I am encouraged she no longer has Mark Penn on the payroll and that she would be forming a new team.. but if she makes a few more gaffes like this , it could be lights out quickly.. ... IMO she is our best chance for '16........!!!

This is actually in the HRC group, which is for HRC fans to post in, not the rest of us. (Just a heads up.)

I respect and admire Senator Warren alot.. i sent money to her.. i don't think she would be as strong a candidate for us in '16 Pres.... now the future .. absolutely.. in the meantime she can build a nice progressive record in the Senate... !!! She will be much more effective there for now... IMO...

sorry...

HRC is our best choice to win in '16.. normally i would say you sometimes have to take polls with a grain of salt.. but they are shwoing that should she run, which i think she will... she would be very strong.. i don't think all of the people in those polls are all lying.... mathematically as well as policy and personality wise she would be strong.. just needs some tweaks and needs to show that she is not "inevitable" , in other words it's fine if we get some primary challengers in there.. it should not be a complete cakewalk... it is helathy for the party..... IMO

why this keeps coming up I don't know....

If her policies align with yours, vote for her. Whether or not she's a woman doesn't matter.

People are posting here to support her. In fact that's even in the SOP for this Group. So forgive me I just like to clarify all posts that are posted in this Group.

Perhaps to some women....the fact that she IS Democratic woman....that IS a good reason. Equality hasn't exactly happened yet has it?

Whether you're picking the candidate because she's a woman, or because he's a man.

Vote on policies. If you like Clinton's policies, vote for her. If you don't, vote for someone else. We'll see how the primaries turn out.

Have you ever been disenfranchised? As I said....easy for YOU to say....

If a woman wants to vote for a woman BECAUSE she is a woman....who are you to judge? I happen to have a couple Republican women friends back home...who may vote across Party lines to vote for another woman. As I said...who are you to judge?

If you have something supportive to add, we will be more than happy to hear it. Otherwise...

reverse sexism?

Vote for her because her policies align with yours. Whether she's a woman or a man doesn't matter.

Pretty easy for a White male to preach that....

Voting for someone because of their race or sex is not equality. That is why you get angry when people vote for a white man because of race and sex.

Being the first ________ elected president is going to be recorded as an accomplishment - JFK as first Catholic. Obama as first African American. And if Clinton wins in 2016, she'll go down in history similarly.

But we should be voting for the best candidate, independent of their race, gender, religion, hair color, height, weight, speaking style, favorite color, or any of the other dumb reasons to choose a candidate.

How dare you presume it is a woman you are talking to....

How dare you say that it isn't significant to have gotten a Black man to the Presidency...How dare you tell women its not as significant an achievement....

its all very easy for YOU to say...

women ARE the majority and we are the least represented group!

The article advocates voting for Clinton because she's a woman.

Why does that bother you?

"vote against the woman to prove you are not JUST voting for her because she is a woman"!

Our first female president. This nation needs her leadership.

worry about 2014. If the Republicans take the Senate in 2014 it won't much matter about 2016.

Many of us can chew gum and walk at the same time.

I ask that you be respectful when posting in this Group.

Thank you.

was one. But I stand by my comment, why don't we worry about the 2014 election before we start on 2016. Remember Hillary was a shoe-in back in 2008, how did that work out? I wish she would have won back in 2008, I think she would have been a much better choice than Obama. I always just check the latest threads and am guilty of not seeing what group a thread is posted in sometimes.

They can do that in gd.