None of those have the fundraising power of SoS Clinton. NO money, no love in American politics, thanks to CU.

So...any names of possible pols who can actually win from a Jebbie Bush or Mitt "47%" Romney? I don't see anyone.

Warren/Sanders '16

We the People got pitchforks at the ready.

Senators Warren and Sanders will be annihilated by Wall Street and Koch money, and pitchforks don't buy advertising or pay for campaign HQs and staff.

It's a nice pipedream that any national election can be won by a candidate with no name recognition without the $$$ of Wall Street. The irony is, Citizens United is thanks to those who voted for Nader (whose campaign was backed by corporate cash and Republicans who actually supported G.W. Bush) instead of Al Gore in 2000 because "there's NO difference between the two!". Those idealistic purity votes brought the elections so close that it was easy-breezy for Bush's henchmen to steal...and then we got Roberts and Alito who, in turn, gave us Citizens United. See where I'm going with this?

Look where THAT has gotten us.

NAFTA, endless War on Drugs, unbridled Wall St. greed &
corruption, endless ME wars, unions now rare as hens teeth, etc.

I agree with many who feel that it's time for a real
populist/Leftist candidate who can appeal to a much
broader grass-roots base to tap pent-up progressive
energy & unstoppable mojo.

Ok, Ok ... sure, it's a long-shot. I'll give you that; but so
is Hillary IMHO.

She might get the nomination this time around, but it's far from certain.

But I really don't see another Barack Obama in our Party. You?

A goodly portion of the people I talked to back in '08 supported Obama because they didn't want Hillary. The handful I've spoken to haven't changed their minds about her since then, either.

against the Master Campaigner, Senator Barack Obama, in 2008. Now with his campaign team and his cabinet member, John Podesta, signing up with Ready for Hillary PAC, there's no doubt that the machine that got Senator Obama elected - twice - will work to get SoS Clinton elected president in 2016.

Why does that worry you? Don't you want a Democrat in the White House for another eight years after President Obama leaves it?

That person is not Hillary.

But you're wrong that SoS Clinton won't try to do something about income inequality in this country. In fact, you're dead wrong. She's already speaking out against income inequality and she's urging American businesses to do something about it.

According to The Hill, in a speech at the New America Foundation 2014 Conference, she addresses income inequality:

Wanting a President who understands the danger posed by income inequality doesn't mean I don't want the same thing from Congress. And if the Presidency is irrelevant to the tone set in politics, it doesn't really matter which Democrat we elect, now does it?

Or didn't you bother to read it? Your response sure was quick.

Anyway, unlike Senators Warren or Sanders, SoS Clinton has the necessary clout in Congress to see a bill through that will help "encourage" American businesses to work at closing the income inequality gap.

So, yeah, it does matter which Democrat we elect to the White House because that Democrat should be able to help us influence members in Congress to finally do right by the American worker. I believe SoS Clinton is the woman for that daunting task.

that means corporations get tax cuts and the 99% get bupkis. If you'd like to believe that HRC has more clout with Congress, that's nice, but I haven't seen a factual basis for that belief.

I suspect a Warren/Sanders might slightly narrow (but not take) the House and Senate.

It is the media.

that people just want to hand over the keys to the White House to her. Sorry, but she need to do the work like everybody else.

In her 20+ years of wielding tremendous national power?

The thread ends?

SoS Clinton has done. It's hard to discuss anything with a very closed mind, so why would anyone bother?

a simple google search would've quickly given you and Manny the accomplishments by Hillary Clinton IF you were really interested in finding it. But you're not. That's why we know you and Manny aren't interested in learning about them. NO anti-Hillary Clinton poster is. Again...the closed mind suggestion is valid here.

However, in order to kill that growing trend by Hillary Clinton opponents on DU; that Hillary Clinton has no accomplishments that would qualify her for president, I present the following link and excerpts:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves

You got PUT in your PLACE! You closed-minded, dirty bastard!




Once you get your head around how evil Ralph Nader is, THEN we'll include you in our conversation about how liberal Hillary is!

If he gets into the D nomination race, it will likely be to raise his visibility for a 3rd party run (where he could run without the constant campaigning that he neither enjoyed nor had any skill at).

As much as I like Webb on some issues, he'd be a hard sell. I personally wouldn't support him in a primary. At this point I am undecided and willing to stay there until I see a candidate I can get behind.

But which Udall are you talking about?

Tom, I hope.

would sideline Black votes.

white male vote which may offset any erosion of black votes.

Did she say it was her turn?

I recall her saying she was not inevitable...only DU and the press are saying she is inevitable--only to use this Straw woman to knock it down.

I would venture to guess that most of you who so adamantly hate her, doe not even know her record. Instead you bought into the rw destruction of her that we have been subject to for years.

I actually recall someone posting that Clinton is too republican and they will support
Jim Webb! Jim Webb is not liberal and much more conservative than Clinton.

But wasted on the haters.

Not everyone who is against her hates her. That is a broad brush that gets painted quite a bit on DU. Don't dare dissent from Hillary! I've said this before and I'll continue to say it: 1) I will continue to disagree with her on policy decisions; and 2) Those who support Hillary should tone it down (I'm not talking specifically about you, but some of her other supporters on DU).

By the way I agree with you about Webb. As a person he seems ok, but he's way too conservative for my taste.

vitriolic posts. With hundreds of recs. Such disrespect for a democrat who has worked for the public for most of her career. You are against her? Then treat her the way you just treated Webb.

If you have something to back that up otherwise, please proceed....

What I said is that I won't support her and I will continue to point out the areas I disagree with her.

I've been watching closely and trust me, the vitriolic posts go both way my friend.

... for most of her career. One year. One year fresh out of college for a nonprofit. Then she went corporate.

Her time in the Senate yielded nothing big, nothing particularly noteworthy. Except for her craven IWR vote, of course, which helped facilitate the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has ever made.

As SoS, again her term yielded nothing particularly noteworthy other than, say, pushing for war in Libya and a more muscular intervention in Syria, preaching fracking domestically, and stepping on the Commerce Dept's toes and appointing herself de facto chief lobbyist for American businesses, setting herself up as recipient of their largesse when, say, running for office.

Suffice to say, there are many, many reasons to oppose Hillary. Discussing those reasons is not treating her unfairly. People look at the facts and interpret them differently. Not understanding and respecting that damages the public discourse and is an attempt to manipulate the legitimate and important conversation that we need to be having.

...OK, if not her, who? "We must do better" Could you be more specific?

It won't likely be those who have STATED they will not run, it's possible for some Dark Horse to arise and that would be good, yet it still takes a BILLION DOLLARS to run/win these days...that's not pocket change.

NEWS FLASH: That kind of money doesn't come from $50 contributions. We can discuss how terrible that fact is, but it's still fact and every other potential candidate knows that.

Could be, wanna be, ought to be, wishes, names thrown out there, et al don't turn into candidates, winning or not, until they start raising bushels of money...let alone announce a serious candidacy.

I wasn't here in 2008, but was involved politically and so Obama came in and passed her up. So? Fine. Let someone else who has a chance of winning do that in the Primary and we'll have a horse race.

The Liberals have been sidelined for so many years, none are really in the queue and very few are household names. But letting in a R for 8 years is what my Dad used to call "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Boy did we show that uppity Clinton woman.

Perhaps we should drop the offensive words "inevitable" and "her turn" and "she's a woman" and the fact she's "Bill's wife" like it's a disqualifier.

for another eight years should SoS Clinton win the Nom). For other anti-Clinton DUers...well, who's to say they're Democrats to begin with?

Full disclosure: I'm not completely on SoS Clinton's side. I would rather have another Democrat like President Obama, but above all else, I want another Democrat in the White House for another eight years.

SCOTUS is very important to me. It's important for my rights as a woman, my rights as a voter, my rights as an ObamaCare recipient, my rights as a minority, and if we fail to get another Democrat in the White House and, instead, through infighting, get another Bush or Mitt "47%" Romney, we will lose SCOTUS for another generation, and we've already seen the catastrophic rulings by the Roberts Court...and I fear he's only warming up.

I think the message is getting lost in frustration personally.

At the same time I think the term bashing needs to be used carefully. Certainly I have differences with her policies as do others and it gets labeled as bashing. Now if I'd been on a jury for an alert on the OP I probably would have voted to hide it for a couple of different reasons.

As for a fantasy candidate, I don't think anyone is asking for one. We are asking for alternatives. The way I see it the field is locked until Clinton makes an announcement either way (and for the record I believe she will run). Once she does, I think things will begin to happen quickly.

Keep in mind that Obama didn't declare his candidacy until Feb 2007 (I began supporting him in April 2007) and he was a virtually known candidate. I'm not saying lightening will strike twice, but we really don't know what will happen.

... on his radio program was lamenting the fact that so many Hillary supporters are acting like if you aren't on board for the coronation, then you are being disloyal or being a traitor to the Clintons and to the Democratic Party.

She may be the front runner, but I really do resent the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of Hillary supporters.

We better hope that Warren decides to run or that Sanders catches on, because it will be disastrous for the Democrats if we have only one major candidate that no one will be paying attention to, while all the focus goes exclusively to the Repuglican contest.

And, let's also hope that this grim, serious, dowager image of Hillary Clinton can be massaged into something fresh and exciting ... or Democrats are going to lose in 2016.

My advice is to tone it down.

... but it's still the truth.

I'll k&r this OP. You are a brave soul.

was a sniffer test for her as to how she would be received and how she would stand up to interviews and pressures of the sort you find on a campaign trail.

She did not do well with the interviews, and the book was pretty much a bomb. The publisher lost millions of dollars and Hillary lost more of whatever credibility she had left with her nonsense 'dead broke' stone deaf tone deafness.

So I think that toe in the water scared her off and now the story of her husband associated with a convicted sexual predator sex slaver -- mustn't be much fun in the Clinton Pol camp lately.

I wonder who the Clintons will back - probably won't be Warren or Sanders as the policies and opinions of these two are polar opposites of what the Clintons are.

Interesting times ahead. I would really, really love to see Hillary in debate with a Sanders or Warren but that may not happen, after all.

If she runs and you don't want to vote for her in the primaries, then vote for someone else.

It's not that complicated.

Then, I will have no other choice (if she be the one)

to defend and support her

I don't know how. I try to keep up on politics.

I have heard Warren says she is not running at least half a dozen times. I would think if Hillary Clinton had already sewn up the nomination we would have heard it.