So, which dem would you like to see running for President in 2016

I am hoping that there won't be an issue in 2012 so I see Obama serving a 2nd term.

I'm thinking Joe Biden will be too old to run - he will have passed his baton on to his son Beau Biden Jr.

I think Hillary was serious when she said she was done running for president but I could be wrong.

But who would you think would make a strong Democratic Candidate in 2016?

:woohoo:

It is so nice to have an articulate President!
I could get used to that.

He's clearly ambitious, he's progressive, and he won't be too old (I think he'll be about 60).

He has an awfully good name for it too.

If I had to guess, we won't get our first glimpse at the 2016 nominee for President until at least 2012.

I think Obama's definitely done away with the idea that Senators can't become Presidents, so we'll see more of them.

:D

I mean, he's not even one quarter of the way through his first term and you are already planning his successor?

HOWEVER, as my post said I'm asking about who would be running in 2016 after Obama has finished his 2 terms as president. Since presidents have term limits it's not that I'm ready to replace Obama but wondering who my be the next shining star of our party that will run for president.

She'll be 68, but for a woman that's not all that old. Women live longer. She'd have to resign as SecState after the 2014 elections, but she'd be the front runner. I would hope that she would get a pre-primary endorsement from Obama; she has earned the nomination if she wants it, given her record of experience and strong support for the ticket in 2008.

How'd that sense of entitlement work out for her before?

Not likely democrats will forget the victim card/race baiting campaign she ran last time.

history as a disgraceful thing that was said about the first woman to have a serious shot at the nomination. Hillary pursued the nomination like everyone else, took part in all the debates and did all the retail campaigning that the other candidates did. The only basis for your statement is that you said it, your side won and you believe that history is written by the winners.

You claim that she engaged in race baiting is historically inaccurate, as evidenced by the fact that the Party honored her historic candidacy at the Convention. And you speak--as Hillary haters often do--as if you are speaking the majority position of the American people. To listen to people like you talk, one would thing Obama had some kind of landslide over her. In fact, she took half the vote and would have won even more had their been primaries in every state, rather then some caucuses (check out South Dakota vs. North Dakota, or Washington and Texas where they held both). The point is that people who voted for Hillary rejected your claim, as did many who voted against her, simply because they like Obama. So your accusation is both incorrect and a minority position.

Supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign for president was the proudest experience of my life. And you can thank Hillary for persuading me--along with millions of others--to vote for Obama.

Steve

It's so sad that in the DU world, only Hillary supporters have to put the primary in the past. Personally, I was more of an Obama supporter because of Hillary's vote for the war. I, however, also like her and I am very proud of what she has achieved.

The idea that she felt entitled is nonsense. Some bitter Hillary haters can't move on. Thankfully Obama is better than that which is why he and Hillary are working together to better our country.

I saw what I saw, so did millions of others. It'd say 'google it' but I don't think you're interested in facing up to it. Clinton ran a terrible incompetent scorched earth campaign --- much like a republican. You are entitled to your own opinion of what happened but not to your own facts.

Admitting you needed the green light from Clinton before you'd vote for the democratic president nominee says a lot about you --- not a compliment. You're just going to have to live with knowing plenty of people will make it a point to oppose her in the primary if she chooses to run again.

First of all, of course millions of people will oppose her if she runs again....that's how elections work. If you're suggesting that Hillary is a long-shot, due to events of 08, I would disagree. She has strong poll numbers, especially among Democrats. She won half the vote in 08 and many Obama supporters appreciate her campaign efforts for Obama in the GE. (For the record, I don't necessarily think she wants to run again). But your preferred narrative of Hillary Clinton--that her legacy is in shambles--is not supported by recent polling, which is the best she has ever gotten in her career.

I disagree that Hillary ran a scorched Earth campaign, or that she ran like a Republican. I watched the race, heard the accusations, compared her actions to those of other candidates (Hart, Mondale, Gore, Bradley and even Obama) and concluded that the evaluation was not one that I concurred with. Your use of the phrase "You are entitled to your own opinion of what happened but not to your own facts" is telling. The fact that you believe it is applicable here says a lot about that anti-Clinton wing of the party. It is a fact that Lyndon Johnson won the 1964 election. It is a fact that Reagan left office with the national debt having doubled. You cannot legitimately use that phrase to say "It is a fact that someone was a good or bad president," or "it is a fact that someone ran a disgraceful campaign." You can say "it is a fact that Hillary ran the 3 AM phone ad" and then challenge me to defend it.

You, and people like you, seem to think that you own all truth and history. You sound like a Republican talking about Ronald Reagan. Well, speaking for myself, I don't care what the airport is named, I never liked the guy. I don't care if Obama won, I am so proud to have supported Hillary's magnificent campaign. And the Democratic Convention officially ratified that sentiment.

I didn't need the green light from Clinton to vote for Obama. I needed to be persuaded that he was not the next Richard Nixon.

Steve

Obama barely made it, so don't act as if he won the primaries by a landslide.

Hillary won most primaries from March - June and by wide margins (except for IN). He ended with a pledged delegate advantage of 127, mostly garnered through caucuses.

x(

Clinton tried floating this idea of an imaginary third type of delegates called 'caucus delegates' when she started to lose ground to Obama. So please explain - how are delegates earned through a caucus any less valuable than those from a primary? Bonus points if you can stick to the rules of the primary and not use any of Clinton's magical metric-changing talking points.

A quick refresher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgsM3LYlcCs

They disenfranchise people and shouldn't even be a determinant in choosing a nominee. I have disliked caucuses for years, regardless of who was running for office.

has not yet started - so she could not have done anything to "earn" that one. I think it is far too early to even think of who will be the candidate in 2016. We have no idea what Biden's role or health will be at that point.

There are likely people that we do not yet see as potential Presidents who may become obvious contenders by then. From the small amount I have seen of Amy Klobichar, she is good. (I like Whitehouse, but didn't like the grandstanding on the torture hearing - where he actually left the hearing early to catch a plane to NYC - likely to be on KO (I appologize if he had a better reason to be there.)

As to HRC, I doubt she would want to run in 2016 - per Bill Clinton, her errors on speaking about sniper fire 4 times was because of exhaustion. A campaign is tough on anyone, but I really don't think the Clintons could do it 7 years from now.

All Democrats gave strong support to the ticket - many stronger than HRC. The fact is that 7 years is long enough, I am willing to predict that no 2008, 2004 or 2000 candidate will run. (Gore and Kerry both have stronger experience than Clinton - Gore is younger and Kerry likely to easily be as healthy. Kerry's support in 2008 was stronger.)

If she does decide to run, my guess is she will choose not to serve as Secretary of State during the second term.

End of discussion.

so I can vote for them.

sorry, you can figure out why by looking at my sig

not to support her. But there are many reasons for that.

she could still prove herself a worthy candidate if she excels as Secretary of State. To do that, however, Hillary needs to stop playing it so safe and start asserting herself more on the world stage. So long as she does that, without causing an international incident, she should be fine for a run in 2016 and would certainly have a decent shot at the nomination. And if Obama continues to demonstrate his impressive leadership skills and superior political acumen through what will likely be a two-term presidency, I don't see how ANY Democrat can lose in 2016.

no thanks

..and doesn't pick someone for VP who would be disasterous if something should happen to her (a la a Palin), who cares?

IMHO, anyway. :)

That said, I agree with others who have said that 2016 is still too far away to tell. I mean, who in 2000 would even THINK of a President Barack Obama? Someone completely new and unheard of at this point could emerge by then. So I guess time will tell..

I'll sic Dick Cheney on you and btw, he wants to go hunting.

so maybe I will go with the one that taxes me less and hates me the same.

If not, the GOP doesn't really tax you less.

in 2008. The country is moving forward and younger politicians will have grown up in times when things are far more open.

I would also see where Obama actually goes on these issues. It is interesting that the state of MA is suing the federal government on DOMA and Senator Kerry supports that action. The AG doing that has been mentioned as a possible future candidate for Senate. Some Senators who voted for DOMA are now against it - there is movement.

(I think Gillibrand's action of joining with Kennedy on DADT is interesting as it looks like she could be someone being groomed by Schumer and others as a potential candidate in the future. It shows that for someone contemplating that in the far future, being on the side of gay rights is likely the political choice, as well as the right choice.)

I'm hoping for a woman... Its time.

"Someone who's not owned by corporate America or The Family."

For starters If Biden Is In good health I suspect he will run.Dole was older than he will when he ran against Clinton.

Hillary may make another run

beyond that I think we could see the following run

Mark Warner
Tim Kaine
Evan Bayh
Claire Mckasill(she has been voting a lot with Obama)

I would like to see Barbara Boxer make a go myself.

for elected office. Whitehouse likely is one of the potential candidates, but time will tell how he grows in stature.

He talks like a true liberal.

:rofl:

they're about the same age aren't they

:hide:

to someone who could WIN!.

Hillary Clinton? No thanks I want Dennis.

The poster was likely referring to someone who could win....DK is NEVER going to be the POTUS.

when that isn't what the OP says at all. It says what Democrat would you like to see run for president. I said I would like to see Dennis Kucinich run you assume the post is saying something else entirely. Read the post again.

Show how the Party is expanding into the GOP's "Flyover Country"

he didn't say no

Obama didn't want the Clinton baggage, and Clinton didn't want to hitch her star to an unknown quantity. The compromise was obvious: Clinton takes State for the first term, long enough to pile up foreign policy creds. Biden takes VP for first term, then begs off after 40 years of service, etc. If 2012 looks good, Clinton agrees to Obama/Clinton ticket, which sets her up with incumbency for 2016.

Clinton will be the VP nominee for 2012, and the Prez nominee for 2016. You can bank that.

I also see no proof that HRC is being favored over Biden - in fact, Biden seems more prominent.

You might want to consider that the administration waited 5 months to put her on a Sunday talk show. In addition, the President has been the one who has made all the big foreign policy statements, with Biden, Gates and Jones also making key statements. Biden was the one who spoke to Nato and is working with the Iraqis - as well as being prominent on domestic issues. Biden is far more prominent. Unless Biden's health fails - and he looks hearty and happy to me, I seriously do not see him stepping down for Hillary. In fact, if there were a reason to replace Biden, Hillary might not be the choice. (Not to mention, the VP is NOT an incumbent in a Presidential race, though they have a good claim to it.)

As to foreign policy, it is clear Obama is making it - and HRC has on at least Syria and Iran not been in favor os the policy taken. It also looks like the plum ambassadorships did not go to Clinton allies. (The UK ambassador is a Chicago man and Obama supporter, with a Nantucket vacation home who introduced Obama to his friend and neighbor, John Kerry.) The nominee for Italy is Kerry's best friend, David Thorne. The nominee for Denmark is Daschle's former wife. The ambassador to France was a fund raiser for Kerry and Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002936.html

Clinton is making a mistake loudly complaining about the WH vetting process: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/clinton-chafes-at-white-h_n_230699.html

Biden hasn't ruled out running and it is his to lose.

her husband's appointees were rejected when problems were not caught be the vetting? This also is a very disloyal answer. I heard a much better one when they were speaking of - I think the labor department - which was that for all routine operations, the large bureaucracy was functioning appropriately. That it is important to get the right people to lead, but the agencies don't come to a standstill without a leader.

If the perception of Obama not likely leaked or (as in your link) open dissension, it seems that Clinton is unhappy enough that she doesn't care. I am more disturbed by the Syria comments, where she or an aide of hers are clearly not only disputing the President's decision but calling it a mistake and speaking of it hampering work against terrorism. There were earlier stories that it was likely that an ambassador would be appointed - and it is in keeping with Obama's stated preference to speak to your enemies.

As to Biden, it is clear that Media allied to the Republicans (and likely some aligned to Clinton) have attempted to destroy Biden's image. He does often misspeak, but not all that much more often then HRC. Yet there are no stories on Clinton as gaffe prone. However, all you have to do is look at the assignments he has been given and it is clear that Obama respects what he can do.

Biden certainly misspeaks less often than Hillary. At least he didn't threaten to "obliterate" 70 million men, women, and children. That was sick.

In which world? Oh yeah, I forgot I was at DU........

:rofl:

The reality is this - in 2016 Biden will be older than what McCain was when he ran in 2008. However, being from Delaware, you can see that Biden is grooming his son to have the same political future. I could see a Biden running for president and possibly winning it too, but I don't think it's Joe. Beau Biden has been building a strong resume and might be that Biden that wins the White House.

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

It's part of what my mother calls the Clinton big shoes.

Words and promises are cheap and our politicians will say and promise anything to get elected the same as all the others.

That is going by what we know now, since I'm sure there will be new Democratic figures in the next 8 years.

I'll take any one of them.

I kid about the term limits thing. Even if we did I doubt Obama would want 3+ terms.

And I know Kucinich really doesn't stand a very serious chance in 2016, so please don't start lecturing me. :P

Obama dynasty baby!

Given the fact that Obama was barely a blimp on the radar screen until his speech at the 2004 convention, we could be very surprised who ends up being in the field of people running. If you go back 5 years ago today and tell someone Barack Obama would run for President and win, most people would laugh at you or say "Barack who?"

Truth be told, though, my second choice answer would be "almost anyone but Hillary."

You know the one, right?

Oh, its not me...

Sorry.

She is just the greatest!

in Ghana....

or else B. Hussein Obama for a 3rd term.....

markO8)

;)

I'm tired of this half-assed reform.

ed. to add that I realize that this is an impossible dream. The hard right will never wake up.

Mark Warner (VA Senator and ex-Gov) -a little too conservative for my taste but I still think he'd be an excellent candidate and President
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Either of the Udall brothers would be very good choices as well

But I'd make the very obvious point -would you have picked Barack Obama at this time in July 2001? There are quite a few cycles of senate, gubernational and House elections to go and there may be a whole new range of potentially excllent presidential choices whom he we haven't heard of

that's my gut feeling, anyway.

Let's see how we do from here to 2012 before we even think of 2016.

Obviously, I think Hillary would be the best candidate. Who else would have her kind of experience? 8 years in the WH, 8 years in the Senate and X years as SOS.

Of course the usual leftie crowd will trash her, but that's par for the course.

:eyes:

I'm not sure who it would be, but perhaps there is someone who fits that... if not, I'd really like to have a woman President (Democrat) after Obama serves his two terms.

Mostly because I think he's a bit of a bad-ass.