Skip to main content

Perhaps you may have noticed a rather curious number of diaries recently in support of a Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential run. While I appreciate the right to express one's opinion here (within the bounds of acceptability on this privately-owned site, course), I really have to question the purpose of such diaries, considering we haven't even technically finished counting all the votes from the last election that returned our president back to the Oval Office.

Now, the primary wars that were waged here back in 2008 were before my time. Though that makes me a newbie, it also makes me rather untainted by the results of these pie fights. As I understand it, they were nasty. Some people were left bitter and had difficulty accepting an Obama nomination. Others accepted it, however slowly, moved on, and put their efforts into supporting the nominee who won the primary.

Given my lack of prior experience here in 2008, I can't help but wonder if some of these diaries in support of Hillary might be motivated by some long-simmering feelings that now, no sooner than the "obstacle" of ensuring our Democratic president's second term has been overcome, waste no time in being resurrected. If this is an inaccurate reading, I apologize.

My intent is not to disparage anyone, nor to instigate a pie fight. It's simply to remind us, with mild frustration, of a couple things that seem to make a Hillary 2016 candidacy a rather moot point, at least at this stage:

  • Hillary Clinton is not running in 2016. Until she starts dropping hints that she's reconsidering, maybe we should instead remember...
  • We just elected Barack Obama to a second term. The ballots are still warm.

For the record, I am not anti-Hillary. If she changes her mind and runs, that's fine with me. I'll evaluate the candidates competing with her for the nomination, and make my decision as to whom I will support when the time comes.

In the mean time, I respectfully offer this for your consideration:

To assume Hillary is a foregone conclusion three weeks after re-electing Obama distracts us from the issues we face heading into the second term of our current Democratic President.  

4:34 PM PT: Hey thanks for the "trolling" tag added to my diary. Perhaps the individual would care to explain to me what makes this so troll-ish, as I'm not normally in the habit of writing such diaries.

5:03 PM PT: Well, someone removed the "trolling" tag. It wasn't me. I wasn't trying to upset anyone. I apologize if I did. Apparently this is a really touchy subject. I now know better.

Poll

Hillary 2016 is...

67%180 votes
23%61 votes
9%24 votes

| 265 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree that 2016 talk is still premature (7+ / 0-)

    However if we still get Hillary 2016 diaries, I am mighty tempted to write a Schweitzer 2016 diary(I would also support a Joe Biden run in 2016) since Brian Schweitzer is a candidate that would help expand the map to Western states like Montana and Arizona.

    •  I'm all for supporting her, if (18+ / 0-)

      That's how it ends-up.

      I just think it does our current president a disservice by so quickly focusing on a topic that completely skips over the four years ahead of us.

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:09:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she's the Democratic Nominee (14+ / 0-)

        then it's not likely to be a tough decision for me on election day. A reasonably sane, intelligent candidate or whatever big ball of whacked out crazy the GOP offers up... I'll take the not crazy one, thanks.

        But I disagree with your interpretation of folks enthusiasm, and I think it would be a disservice to Obama and his legacy if we weren't looking ahead to who can best maintain and build upon his accomplishments. This was never about Hillary or Obama or any one person. It's about the millions of Americans who are desperately trying to push this country forward, and rip the hands of the GOP from the levers of power. Whether you're a moderate or a liberal Democrat, we're all trying to go in the same direction right now.

        It's for this reason that our primary fights are so epic. This is the only chance for us settle our political differences, because come the fall of 2016 we're all going to have no choice but to vote for whoever has the D next to their name.

        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

        by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:28:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair enough (7+ / 0-)

          I didn't mean to imply we shouldn't be thinking about it at all, I'm just uncertain regarding the length of a "grace period" before doing so.

          -
          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:37:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was anti-Hillary '08, pro-BO; now: Hillary 2016! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead

            I strongly opposed Hillary in 2008, and strongly supported then-Senator Obama. In fact, I had a diary on the Rec list to that effect. (In part, I didn't like the dynastic aspect that US politics was becoming -- Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. In part, I felt Hillary had not yet proven herself to be head of the US and 'free world'. In part, I really didn't like who she had running her campaign -- the top corporate spin-meister from Burson-Marsteller. In part, I didn't think she could win, too much leftover hype against her, then. )

            Four years later? An entirely different story. I am 100% pro-Hillary for 2016. (My only concern is that she not hold a grudge against those of us who opposed her in 2008! I hope she's risen way above that, now.) She has done an amazing job as Secretary of State, she was a team-player, and she is a deeply-admired woman.

            •  I wasn't pro-Hillary '08 nor I am pro Hillary '16 (0+ / 0-)

              Either Hillary or Obama was my first choice in '08.  And I've heard many say she would have made a better President than Obama, but how do they know that? Hillary is not heir apparent in my book. I will have to see who the other candidates are before I throw my support behind anyone.

        •  Is it really time to look ahead yet though? (0+ / 0-)

          In 2-3 years, I would agree with your argument, but right now, I think our efforts are better served supporting the current president, who is still technically in his first term, and holding his and Congressional Democrats' feet to the fire to support progressive policies. We can also be effective at helping to take back the House and hold the Senate in 2014. I think all of those things serve the president and the progressive movement better at this point than focusing on who his successor will be.

      •  President Obama (9+ / 0-)

        is now a lame duck.

        I have to laugh at people that say Hillary isn't running because she said she wasn't when asked.   Do any of you follow politics?

        The clearest indication to me that she is going to run was Bill's involvement with this election.

        As they say, we'll see.

      •  Permanent Democratic Majority (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        llywrch, ellefarr, wdrath

        It began in 2008 but no one here wants to see a Republican president win the 2016 election.  For many people, the Supreme Court the biggest issue in any election and we'd like to rest assured that the far right grip is finally loosened.  I will vote for any Democrat in 2016.  If it happens to be one who is hugely popular right now, that's all the better.  It's not an oblique slight to the President I admire and for whom I voted twice and volunteered.  

    •  Not even remotely premature. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      Team Hillary has been waiting for this since the 2008 DNC. I'm surprised there hasn't been more Hillary 2016 stuff given that they've had to wait this long. What would be fascinating to me would be if Elizabeth Warren jumped in. She'd pose the greatest threat to Hillary, IMO.

      She's adored by the left, and she could possibly siphon away some of Hillary's support with middle aged white women. People forget that even when Obama had won over every other demographic in his primary fight with Clinton, older white women remained steadfastly loyal to Hillary Clinton. That was enough to keep Hillary within inches of Obama right till the end.

      She'll be very tough to beat. I'd prefer Joe Biden, and I don't think his age should be a problem as he appears to still be in very good health. There is alot to be said for experience, after all. But it's all speculation right now. Except for Hillary, she's absolutely running, and she's a prohibitive favorite in my view.

      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

      by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:17:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This? (19+ / 0-)
        older white women remained steadfastly loyal to Hillary Clinton.
        Yeah, like all the black folks voted for Obama, and all the other white women voted for Palin.

        Come on. THIS "older white woman" in Iowa voted at caucus for Obama and was proud to support him in the general election.

        The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway. ~ Mother Teresa

        by Melanie in IA on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:21:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary certainly beat (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cuseology, Smoh, ffour, Sharon Wraight, JesseCW

          Obama among older voter, especially older women.

          And not by a little.

          If "not this again" means no more facts, well, you're right then.

          I'm not urging a discussion mind you, but if we are going to discuss things, let's try to avoid "what I believe" is what every one believes thing.

          My 2 cents.

          •  "Facts" of the form (8+ / 0-)

            "Older white women remained steadfastly loyal to Hilary" and "Hilary beat Obama among older voters...and not by a little" are not very meaningful until you put in some actual numbers. Melanie in IA's point is that all these patterns are statistical. When you treat them as if they are universal you are giving a seriously distorted picture. "Older white women" are not all the same. That is a fact.

          •  You're right. (6+ / 0-)

            And I was reading in an implication of voting for Clinton because we are older white women. And I was reading in an implication of black people voting for Obama because they are black. Which gives women and black people as little credit as McCain gave us in picking Palin.

            The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway. ~ Mother Teresa

            by Melanie in IA on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:50:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well (8+ / 0-)

              I can't speak for the commenter, but I doubt he meant that there was racial voting.

              For example, he could have noted Hillary won among Latinos over Obama as well.

              I don't think he was thinking anything nefarious was going on.

              Funny thing is there is not a dime's worth of difference on policy between Obama and Clinton.

              •  No, there's not. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Armando

                I actually did think that Obama might push through a sort of single payer system as opposed to the mandate. But that's because I had no clue about the US health care system. It wouldn't have mattered either way.

                That's why I would vote for whoever wins in 2016, because that person will do pretty much the same to help improve my life and the lives of other Americans about the same. This is more about who will be the best candidate than anything else.

                You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:13:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And no... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Melanie in IA

                I wasn't trying to start a racially tinged flame war. Certain groups of women voted for Hillary for their own reasons. Not all women, just certain groups.

                You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:14:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, I don't think you were. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eric Stratton, SherriG

                  I haven't had a great day for comments and apologize for reading in. I should have asked you what you meant.

                  The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway. ~ Mother Teresa

                  by Melanie in IA on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:55:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was simply pointing out (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Melanie in IA

                    that Hillary supporters are all man-hating feminazis. I kid. I think the reason female baby boomers love Hillary Clinton so much is that they can identify with her story and the unique challenges she has faced. That's a very powerful draw in politics. I think she had the support of LGBT voters as well, due to goodwill she built up with the gay community during the 90's.

                    But anyway... it's all good, the internet can be a nasty place at times. I've learned to not let it get to me. I used to get good and worked up about this stuff back in the day, but life is just way too short to get mad about what some random jackass posts online.

                    The world can be a cold, cruel place. But the world wide web will try to get you to watch videos of girls eating poop. Never forget that.

                    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                    by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 08:45:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  There's not *now*. (0+ / 0-)

                There was then.

                Remember when it was "Out of Iraq in 16 months" vrs "Residual forces forever"?

                A Public Option and no mandate versus a mandate and no public option?

                "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

                by JesseCW on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:04:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Worth pointing out (0+ / 0-)

              Many Clinton supporters are going to be much older in 2016 than in 2008.

              The question is could she landslide with younger women voters who might not even remember Bill Clinton's presidency?  Of course they've seen her as a highly visible and effective SoS over the past 4 years. So there's that.

          •  And I am an older white woman who (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Just Bob, Sharon Wraight, SherriG

            never considered voting for Hilary.  And yet I understand your point and see nothing nefarious in it.

            Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

            by Smoh on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:28:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  And yeah (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooserock, ffour, Sharon Wraight

          Black folks did vote for Obama.

        •  I am an older white woman (7+ / 0-)

          who never for a second considered Hillary. I leapt straight from the John Edwards campaign to Obama's. I was online within 60 seconds of learning that Edwards withdrew, emailing a friend involved with the Obama campaign, asking for contacts.

          Jon Husted is a dick.

          by anastasia p on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:26:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ditto here - except my caucus was in Kansas, and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SherriG

          it was a wild and exhilarating night. My daughter-in-law stood outside in a swirling snowstorm for 40 minutes waiting for the line to move into the building so she could make her voice heard for Obama. That 2008 campaign was magic and remembering some of the events usually brings tears to my eyes.

          The world is not interested in the storms you encountered, but did you bring in the ship.

          by Hanging Up My Tusks on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 07:46:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am also an older white woman (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PorridgeGun

          and I volunteered and voted for Obama in '08.

          And I voted again in 2012 for Obama.

          Although Hillary was certainly popular, and still is, I would prefer we keep offering up fresh talent for 2014 mid-terms and 2016 Presidential.

          I think having the Clinton brand brought back again, for anything but candidate stumping would be a mistake. But, again, that is my opinion only.

          Hillary has done an incredible job as SoS, and I do hope that she enjoys her down time. She has proven she can do wonderful things, even outside the Oval office. Lets hope she keeps that up.

          I nominate Susan Rice for Secretary of State!

          by karma13612 on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 07:59:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Prohibitive favorite? Not necessarily. (0+ / 0-)

        Are you perhaps forgetting Raul Grijalva? I see him defeating John Kyl in the 2014 Arizona Senate race, and then making a run for the Presidency in 2016.

        You read it here first.

        A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

        by slatsg on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:56:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ???? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg

          Kyl will be retired come January.   The next Arizona Senate race is in 2016.

          Grijalva would make an interesting candidate in 2016, but Grijalva has a better shot at beating McCain in the general election in 2016 or winning an open seat if McCain retires.

          •  It was snark ... And not even good snark. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pistolSO, SherriG

            I agree with Deadhead ... in a way. I mean speculation is entertaining and all, but it is as likely as not that the nomination will go to someone who is not on the radar. Consider the last three Democrats who were elected President

            A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

            by slatsg on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:14:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  There is no prohibitive favorite this far out (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wwjjd, askew

          And it's always dangerous to declare "prohibitive favorites." Remember that in late 2007, just before the primaries started (three years earlier than now) Hillary and Rudy were considered well beyond the prohibitive favorites. They were considered the absolute certain choices.

          "Oops," to quote someone who was also the "prohibitive favorite," for about two minutes.

          Jon Husted is a dick.

          by anastasia p on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:28:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No one name Raul has ever (0+ / 0-)

          been president. Not even vice president. Ever! You still think he's got such a good chance?

      •  I like Sherrod Brown for a nominee... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Munchkn

        and we would know he could win Ohio!

      •  She's fucking tired. And she (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead, PorridgeGun, SherriG, KayCeSF, askew

        isn't looking like she's even trying to hide it. Maybe she gets a second wind, maybe not. But I doubt she does it. Why? Because even if she feels she has the energy, she now has seen glimpses of what being too old and tired feels like. And she's not going to want to embark on a 10 year journey (including the initially campaigning) in the toughest seat in the world. And I don't think she should be our first choice for that same reason (and because she STILL thinks her Iraq vote was the right one).

    •  Biden will be 74 in 2016 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Stratton, Quicklund, llywrch

      and therefore 82 at the end of his theoretical second term.

      This is not an endorsement of Hillary but a statement that Biden is too old for this.  (Five years older than Hillary.)

      "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

      by Spider Stumbled on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:25:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  fair warning: any Schweitzer 2016 diaries (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO, Eric Stratton, mightymouse

      will be relentlessly attacked by those of us who know that coal is the enemy of the human race.  His "clean coal" BS is transparently wrong.

      He's a great guy otherwise, and I'm all for expanding the map, but he's a non-starter for climate hawks and environmentalists.

      Congress can't redo the laws of physics. Do the math. @RL_Miller

      by RLMiller on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:54:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Understood. I don't like "clean coal" talk (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RLMiller, evangeline135

        either but there are a lot of Democrats who mention it.  Obama does.   I am not sure if Hillary Rodham Clinton did during 2008.  

        Not sure if you'll hear a viable 2016 candidate who is totally anti-coal.

      •  Enemy of the human race? (0+ / 0-)

        If you don't think "clean coal" is good policy, that's fine; argue that position. But it's counterproductive to rule someone out completely or make grandiose statements about any one particular hobby-horse issue. Leave that to the Tea Party.

        •  Climate change is real. Magic marriage destroying (0+ / 0-)

          gay laser beams aren't.

          "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

          by JesseCW on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:07:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Schweitzer has expanded wind energy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pistolSO

            in Montana, which means he's done more to combat climate change than most Democratic politicians. Coal isn't going to go away any time soon.

            •  If it's not going away anytime soon, why don't (0+ / 0-)

              we invest in it heavily and make sure we use as much of it as possible?

              It's damaging our biosphere and within a few decades will cause widespread starvation and make hundreds of millions of people refugees.  Supporting efforts to further commit us to its use is an attack on Humanity.

              Stating it bluntly does not make one "like a teabagger".  

              It's real.

              Species survival ought to be a hobby horse no one is embarrassed to ride.

              "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

              by JesseCW on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:41:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Because getting Montana's electoral (0+ / 0-)

      votes is a key to victory?

      •  Well, anything closer to a 50-state strategy is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ellefarr

        better than a 29 state strategy.   MT may have only 3 EVs but it is a purple state and could be gotten in 2016 if the Democratic nominee builds up enough ground game.

        I could see Arizona or Georgia being worthwhile to try to get too in the 2016 Presidential(and NC would be highly sought after in 2016.   Romney only barely won there)

        •  In that case, Mississippi too? (0+ / 0-)

          It was pretty close as well (in the same range as Arizona and Georgia). I know this could be snark, but it helps to show the number ranged relatively close to Arizona's and Georgia's.

    •  I wish we would focus instead (13+ / 0-)

      on what opportunities and challenges have opened up as a result of the immediate past election and what issues we need to focus on pushing our elected officials about NOW. I worry that focusing endlessly on an election four years in the future, when a lot of things could have changed, detracts from focusing on what we need to do within those four years to help assure that any Democrat is electable in 2016, and that we don't backslide.

      I also wish we would look at 2014, which here in Ohio looms a lot larger than 2016. We have a whole group of dreadful statewides to evict: Governor John Kasich, Secretary of Voter Suppression Jon Husted, Auditor Teabaggin' Dave Yost, Attorney General Mikey "I Once Pretended to Be a Moderate But I Sold My Soul to the Tea Party" DeWhiny, and of course, Josh "The Empty Suit" Mandel, who otherwise might be making his presidential run directly from the Ohio treasurer's office in an unprecedented leap of ambition only he could make.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:25:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I love Shcweitzer for 2016!! (0+ / 0-)

      What I'd love even better....

      Schweitzer/Warren 2016!!!

    •  DeadHead, as I recall,... (0+ / 0-)

      the first two diaries was an Anti-Hillary 2016 diary. I'm actually shocked that you  (DeadHead) chose to mention only the ones in support (for which I my current count is at one).

      Consider that troll-tag a warning shot across the bow (i.e., whoever did must have thought you deliberately came down on one side of this when you mentioned only diaries "in support" of Hillary).

      Sometimes you must think about how your statements will be read by others (i.e., use your skills for nuance and intuition to discern these things).

  •  Joe Biden all day. (13+ / 2-)

    Obama saved us from the Clinton Juggernaut in 2008 and I pray that Biden will do the same in 2016. Anyone who says he's too old is an ageist bigot. Anyone who supports Hillary is a fascist.

    In other words, no... I don't think it's too early to start back up with this shit again. It's right on time. And if you missed the fireworks from the 2008 primary fight, oh baby are you in for some fun times.

    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

    by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:08:59 PM PST

  •  We don't need another Reagan. (12+ / 0-)

    We don't need another leader slipping into dementia while their staff covers for them.  Seriously, Hillary will be 69 and Joe will be 74.  Stop it.  There is plenty of leadership talent coming up.

    Economic Left/Right: -7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
    Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

    by jvance on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:16:01 PM PST

    •  The older I get (11+ / 0-)

      the more I find the idea of a president whose term will go past 75 unacceptable.  So, no Biden, and some serious hesitation on Hillary Clinton (77 by the time 2 terms are up).

      Sure, some folks over 75 are great, with it, and otherwise completely up to the job.  But many are not...and we can't predict whether someone is gonna develop alzeimers or dementia 8 years out.

      Age related dementia is just to damn common among those over 75 for me to be comfortable voting for someone with a fixed term, and is damn hard to get out of their job.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:29:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes But Isn't There a Family Component? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Empty Vessel

        It's just about unknown in my family other than one individual who had a very serious heart attack some years earlier; probably causing brain damage that became more obvious with age.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:55:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Partly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sophie Amrain, Just Bob, JesseCW

          But not completely.  There are a ton of variables, and not all of them are worked out.

          There's also a question of how old folks got.  In my family, the previous generation all died of heart attacks in their early 60s.  So no dementia to worry about.  Now, my parents and their siblings are getting into the 80s, and dementia is starting to show up.

          "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

          by Empty Vessel on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:09:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jvance, Quicklund, blueoasis

      A geriatric politburo in the 1980's helped to doom the USSR.  And one of the reasons Obama defeated McCain by a larger vote than he did Romney, was that McCain was 72, 76 now, and he was putting a whack job within a heart beat of the presidency.

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:32:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gillibrand. Schweitzer. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chemborg

      Castro in 12 years after he's been senator for a few years.

      "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

      by xsonogall on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:39:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The best approach is to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, DeadHead, mahakali overdrive

    ignore those diaries.

    "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:18:29 PM PST

    •  I'm trying, and I will continue to try (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      But I just felt the need to give my perspective on the issue.

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:28:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No offense, but it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead

        looks like you're stirring the pot to me.  It's not clear how this diary helps, nor why there's anything wrong with people getting excited about the prospect of a Clinton run in 2016.  I thought we'd put all the Clinton/Obama rivalry behind us.  This just stirs that back up.  I'm neither a detractor nor fervent supporter of Clinton-- I was an Obama supporter from well before he announced in 2008 --but I came within a hair's breath of HRing this diary for trolling.

        •  I'm starting to agree (0+ / 0-)

          This wasn't my intent. I don't see how my expressing an opinion counter to these diaries should be construed as stirring the pot any more than the diaries to which I refer could be.

          -
          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:00:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Howard Dean in 2016 (7+ / 0-)

    His candidacy in '04 was the seedbed for practically everything good and invigorating that's happened to the Democratic Party over the past decade.

    Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

    by Fatherflot on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:19:03 PM PST

    •  Although I love Howard Dean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Stratton

      We all know how badly the media will be trying to destroy him, and we all remember what they did to him in '04.

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:27:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's also remember how much (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sophie Amrain, MrAnon, askew

        success the press had in destroying Dean. He was remarkably easy to take down. Don't get me wrong, Howard Dean is a terrific guy who would've made a great POTUS, I'm sure. I love how genuine the guy is, for reals.

        But in politics, perception is everything. And the press had no trouble portraying Dean as an angry and unhinged. I know that's not fair, but that's political reality. Running for president is extremely difficult and it requires a very specific skill set. Dean doesn't have all of those skills.

        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

        by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:36:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dean is a backend type guy IMHO (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Stratton

          nothing wrong with that, but just not "president" material.

          I always see him as an extremely successful CoS. He would rock that position.

          •  Dean got screwed. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sophie Amrain

            But that's what happens in politics, especially at that level. Anyone who can be whacked that easily needs to find another job. I always thought he could head up HHS, or maybe run for Senate. He'd be a sure thing in VT and it would drive FoxNews crazy.

            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

            by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:54:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Dean Learned Tons About Public Communication After (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Stratton, SherriG

          that run. If he'd have given interviews in 03-04 of the caliber of his last several years' appearances he'd have been a lot more competitive.

          I would bet though that he doesn't want that job.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:59:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dems have such a deep bench... (0+ / 0-)

            he doesn't have to go through that again. So there is no misunderstanding, I always liked the guy. But I don't think he would've fared any better than Kerry. '04 was a lousy cycle, Terrorism was the #1 issue and the GOP had a huge edge on Terrorism back then.

            You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

            by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:19:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree with this POV. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock

      Dean was the beneficiary of a movement that had enough of the GOP's bullshit, not the other way around. With or without Dean, people were going to organize against the Authoritarian Right. With or without Obama, we'd have been tough to beat in 2008. No matter who gets the nomination in 2016, that person will be there because people want the far right out of power, for good.

      For me, I guess it started with MoveOn. But of course if MoveOn had never happened, it would have been something else. People got sick of their bullshit, and someone was gonna lead them in fighting back.

      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

      by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:40:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep Dean Was an Issue Candidate Hoping to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Stratton

        put health care on the table. The "meetupsphere" turned him into a nomination contender, as I remember it, and I was watching mostly from the outside.

        By late spring and summer the fact that he wasn't drawing more meatspace support and party allies suggested to me though that he was not going to make it.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:02:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can we please look at the midterms first? Really. (15+ / 0-)

    I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves. -John Wayne (-9.00,-8.86)

    by Jonathan Hoag on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:26:19 PM PST

    •  Yes, we can. /nt (4+ / 0-)

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:42:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, please! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, mightymouse, Jonathan Hoag

      We need to start immediately here in Ohio identifying candidates. We cannot drop the ball like we did last time, dithering about the Secretary of State race and then coming up with an anti-choice radical who drove women volunteers out of the entire campaign for the cycle. I think it should be clear now that this is NOT an issue where we can be a "big tent," to include people who defy our basic beliefs. (The candidate also demagogued gay marriage to get elected to the legislature, and the big poobahs in the LGBT community — who put a lot of money and muscle behind their endorsements — were not happy either).

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:33:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good on ya', mate! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead

        I'm not sure the counting is done yet, but the OH-16 looks good. Renacci won by 16k-ish. And Ohio will be a state with some fight in it for 2014.

        I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves. -John Wayne (-9.00,-8.86)

        by Jonathan Hoag on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 07:56:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i'll wait to see who obama's organization gets (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    behind. that's most likely who i will support in the primaries.

  •  Warren/(Michelle) Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, DeadHead

    thats the ticket I am hoping for honestly/

    But yeah, 2016 is a long time away.

  •  In defense of Hillary fans (9+ / 0-)

    this may be more than just a leftover high from the election, but rather a sign of pent-up frustration.

    What I hear form many women, and I think the sentiment will grow, is that it is "our turn."  Women are an important part of the coalition that President Obama has formed and it's not irrational for them to expect a position at the top.  Whether it's Hillary Clinton or Kirsten Gilibrand or Debbie Stabenow or Elizabeth Warren or another of the many capable women in our coalition remains to be seen as the political process works its way out.  I wouldn't quash the enthusiasm.  As Barack has said, we can do two things at a time.

    Like the diarist, for me, it's always about the agenda, but this hunger for a woman to carry the next banner, I think, is more real than ephemeral.

    Always grateful to wake up alive.

    by Subo03 on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:33:25 PM PST

  •  Yes, it is premature, but it's also (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Stratton, JosephK74

    a sign of confidence and exhilaration and looking forward to the next big challenge.

    Everyone knows it's premature and silly, but it's also fun.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:45:33 PM PST

  •  I bet that at this point in time Hillary would (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, mahakali overdrive

    get nauseous at the thought of '16.  Let's let her finish of her time as one of our country's finest Secretaries of State, allow her to have some much needed and well earned down time, and then let her decide what she wants to do next.

    •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

      Let's not put the cart before the horse, was what I was driving at in the diary.

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 03:55:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She's out as SoS in two months. (0+ / 0-)

      This is obviously due to the fact that it's tradition that SoS doesn't get involved in elections. She's going to run, there is no way she doesn't. This was all planned out in the negotiations between her team and Obama's team in the summer of 2008.

      She agreed to support Obama, and in return Obama agreed to give her a spot in the cabinet and promised not to pick a woman for VP. Hillary 2008 was planned before Bill Clinton left office. Hillary 2016 was up and running once Obama secured the nomination. Hillary Clinton is nothing if not determined, to say nothing of how smart and tenacious she is.

      She doesn't do "down time", and she has always known what she wants. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  

      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

      by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:01:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yuck (0+ / 0-)

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:46:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or maybe I'm wrong, or maybe she changes her mind. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          But it generally takes years of planning to run a successful presidential campaign. It would be too soon for Hillary to acknowledge that she's running, IMO, so her denial of interest in doing so is meaningless to me. She wouldn't say she wanted to right now under any circumstances.

          From what I know of how badly she wanted it in '08 it's hard to imagine she's lost interest now. But who knows? Anything can happen between now and then.

          You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

          by Eric Stratton on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 09:36:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The HRC talk is just fandom speaking (5+ / 0-)

    i don't think the people who are making these noises have looked over the Democratic Party bench, cast an eye on the probably world of 2016, and concluded that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. I suspect they are just acting out of habit. I don't take it seriously because, as you point out, she is not running. And I don't think it's distracting because it will die out as does the post-election buzz.

    I do admit to a NYT-ish funddy-duddy reaction to hearing SoS Clinton referred to as 'Hillary' all the time. I know she has marketed herself this way. But she and 'Rachel' and 'Keith', et al, they are not our acquaintances. It's just ... hey! Yeah you! Get off my lawn!

  •  If she ran and won, and completed (0+ / 0-)

    two terms, she'd be in her eighties before her library was even built. I'm of the view that the job of being president in this day and age requires the energy of someone who is less than about 65, through all years of service. I like lots of things about Sec. Clinton, and I don't like some things about her, but to me her age practically disqualifies her.

    •  Her library? (0+ / 0-)

      Ha.

      Reagan was older and of course, McCain.

      Biden of course.

      •  Reagan lost it during his tenure, reportedly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        his case does not make a great argument.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:47:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan wasn't older I believe. (0+ / 0-)

        He was the same age that she will be. And he was too old in my opinion. As was McCain, and I feel the same way about Biden. Biden already is old, and we're supposed to want him to be president 12 years from now? I just am of the opinion that with 300 million people in this country that the benefit of the additional experience is outweighed by the limitations all people in their 70s have. I want younger presidents (like Obama, Kennedy, T. Roosevelt, etc). People in their 50s and 60s are fine. Certainly no more Reagans.

        •  Reagan had been... (0+ / 0-)

          69 years old for the greater part of eight (8) months and days shy of nine (9) months. Reagan turned 70 years old on February 11, 1981--about two (2) weeks after inauguration day.

          Hillary will be 68 for the majority of her campaigning (should she run) and 69 years old on October 26, 2016. She would have been 69 years old for only seven (7) days on November 1, 2016 (Election Day)--the first Tuesday of November.

          I think if she does run--I'll be saying to detractors, "Relax. We're making history, baby!"

  •  I am about to write a (5+ / 0-)

    "Re-elect Hillary 20" diary.  I'll keep you posted.

    :)

  •  the purpose seems pretty clear to me... (4+ / 0-)

    ...to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. There's nothing wrong nor unusual about that. We have a lot of people on this site promoting the candidacies of a lot of different people, from potential presidents to potential senators, Congressmembers, governors, state legislators, even more local positions.

    So...it seems to me there's nothing unusual, wrong, untoward nor premature about pro-Hillary diaries.

    In fact, as someone who considers themselves to be a possible supporter of hers in 2016 (like others, though, have not decided as of yet), it bothers me not in the least for folks to push their strongly held viewpoints.

    As far as it being "too early" to even discuss such things. That rule doesn't seem to apply to anything else on this site, so why should it apply to that? There's a lot of speculation here about a lot of things, including expected demographic shifts that have not yet occurred, potential political realignments that have not yet been realized, etc., etc.

    So...my suggestion to those who don't like the pro-Hillary diaries is to...not open nor read them (most of them have Hillary's name in the headline, so that's not hard to do)...much like this partiular kossack disregards certain diaries with headlines that are of less interest to me.

    •  It isn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath

      about not liking them, or even necessarily that they should stop, I just don't have the prior experience here to give me the perspective, and that was part of my reason for writing.

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 04:45:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  okay, but... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Check077

        ..the following comments sure sounded critical of those who choose to post diaries about a Hillary candidacy:

        “Perhaps you may have noticed a rather curious number of diaries recently in support of a Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential run. While I appreciate the right to express one's opinion here (within the bounds of acceptability on this privately-owned site, course), I really have to question the purpose of such diaries, considering we haven't even technically finished counting all the votes from the last election that returned our president back to the Oval Office/”

        And..   “to assume Hillary is a foregone conclusion three weeks after re-electing Obama distracts us from the issues we face heading into the second term of our current Democratic President”

        Who is assuming that Hillary is a foregone conclusion?

        Questioning the purpose of those diaries doesn't exactly sound...neutral about them being posted.

        In addition...am not sure that discussing potential future candidates for office is necessarily distracting us from anything. Certainly, we're able to address multiple issues...and discussing who we think may or may not be relevant potential Democratic candidates in the next presidential election...seems...apropos to a Democratic political website such as this.

        And
        So...am not understanding what the issue is for you regarding these diaries.

        Your comments and your diary are equally relevant, of course...

        •  I didn't just pull this out of the air (0+ / 0-)

          I've seen several of them. The most recent, being posted today, finally moved me to write about it.

          Expressing an opinion about something people are doing is inherently critical. I'm not the first to engage in this behavior, and I won't be the last.

          I don't see how I was obligated to remain neutral while doing so. If I sent mixed signals in this regard between my diary and my comments, I apologize.

          People can write about whatever they want. Have at it. Discuss whoever you want, but diaries that say "Hillary will make a great president after she's elected in 2016, and will be there for us because she knows how important the SCOTUS is," as a diary the other day said in so many words, is a bit presumptive...

          In my opinion.

          -
          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 06:54:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you're not required to remain neutral... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead

            ...however...your above comment implied that you weren't trying to be critical...so was just pointing out that...well...yes...there seem to be some mixed messges coming from your diary and comments...be well...

            •  I understand (0+ / 0-)

              This was the first diary I've written that's managed to elicit such a flurry of somewhat passionate commentary.

              I may very well have gotten my wires crossed at some point.

              Take care.

              -
              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
              ~ Jerry Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 08:53:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes...getting used to posting on this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                type of website...requires some "getting used to."

                Over time, have learned to be a little more picking/cautious about some of the words used (there's a tendency for the discussion to get carried away by semantics rather than the true meaning intended (which can be more tricky to convey/ascertain online than in person).

  •  I removed the "Troll" tag (4+ / 0-)

    I agree with the diarist: this is not a trolling diary. It's setting out one POV -- that we should wait a while before discussing who should run in 2016 -- & inviting discussion.

    The one reason I have for disagreeing with the diarist is that it is helpful to think about the next step: a number of big names who could be front-runners for 2016 are, to be blunt, pushing 70 & might want to retire rather than to run for election to a very demanding job. If Obama wants to help the Democrats to win in 2016, he may want to help one or two to gain some national attention, thus avoiding a divisive primary fight.

    But I think DeadHead & I can disagree about that. There's a lot of things we both want to see Obama accomplish in the next four years, & his second term hasn't even started.

    •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Free Jazz at High Noon

      I actually appreciate the discussion going on in the comments.

      I wasn't trying to upset anyone.

      I wish the person who added the tag in the first place would have been as considerate as you were by stating the reason.

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:11:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think Hillary wants to run again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    She doesn't seem to have the enthusiasm for it.

    The one Democratic candidate who seems like he is clearly gearing up to run in 2016 so far is Martin O'Malley. Oh yeah, and Biden. It could be an all-Irish Dem primary:)

  •  Hillary would be a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, Bush Bites

    terrific candidate. I think she'd win it all. It's way too early to predict the atmosphere, but if things keep going as they are now and the economy improves and the middle east stabilizes, I expect the winner of the Democratic primary to win in 2016.

    I'd support Ms. Clinton happily...of course, there's the Governor of Maryland (shhh) and maybe Sherrod Brown and...and...and...insert names here. The Dems will have a deep bench

  •  She's a major force within the party.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....her supporters have a right to speculate on and, even, promote her candidacy.

    Show us your tax returns !!!!!!

    by Bush Bites on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 06:22:26 PM PST

    •  Indeed they do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight

      And I'd like to think I have a similar right to post a reasonably respectful diary wondering why it's commencing so soon after the election.

      I have my answer. No big deal.

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 07:17:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teachme2night

    1. Did she want to be president before? (Yes)
    2. Is there any reason to think she has changed her mind about that? (No)
    3. Does she think she can win? (Yes)

    Of course she's running.

  •  If a blog focusing on electoral victories and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    nothing else talks about the next election, that's normal for that blog.  Nothing else matters so why not talk about the next election, progressives won't matter til then anyway.

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 09:32:25 PM PST

  •  are we done/now? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    consider these terms: ocean rise, weather re-patterning, storm pathology, drout famine, acceptance of nature

    by renzo capetti on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 10:39:41 PM PST

  •  It's more about who is ready for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    a woman president in 2016, and HRC just happens to be the most popular Dem candidate today.

    Much will have to play out over the next couple years - but if the GOP keeps up their anti-woman tact (and I believe they will) ... it will make the difference.

    But there is entirely too much down ballot work to focus on in the meantime.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 11:54:49 PM PST

    •  Really, I would love nothing more (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN

      Than to finally get a woman in the Oval Office. Long overdue.

      I have no problem with that woman being Hillary. I just thought it was a bit early to be talking about it, but I guess I was wrong.

      Besides, it's not really for me to say either way, I guess.

      -
      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:13:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Two things about Hillary 2016 that bother me. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew

    One is that I can't forget the awfulness of the campaign she ran in 2008. In particular, trying to change the rules in Michigan and Florida after they had both "voted" was deplorable; if nothing else, it violated the principle of equitable estoppel of which Mrs. Clinton, as an attorney, should have been well aware. It was the height of cynicism and I still have trouble getting past it.

    The other is that, if she wins, she will be the second-oldest person ever to assume the office.

    •  Well, the Michigan and Florida thing can (0+ / 0-)

      ....be explained in protecting the right to vote. Good luck with that if you're using that as a detractor to Hillary's campaign.

      Also, good luck with using age against Hillary due to the fact she did not win the last nomination for which she even received more votes than the nominee. You know what? Good luck with that...

      •  First of all, there is no "right to vote" in (0+ / 0-)

        a primary. Second, any genuine concern about the "right to vote" should have been addressed before the primaries, not after people in Florida and Michigan had already voted -- or refrained from voting -- under, and in reliance upon, the rules that the DNC had made with respect to those states. Changing the rules after other people have already acted in reliance upon the established rules is contrary to the principles of good faith and fair dealing. It's called equitable estoppel, and in some contexts you can be sued for it. Counting the results in MI and FL as if the people there had voted under one set of rules, when they had in fact voted under completely different circumstances, would have been manifestly unfair to absolutely everyone except Hillary.

        That Hillary "received more votes than the nominee" is a dubious claim; she may have received more votes in primaries, but that doesn't account for caucuses, where individual votes are not counted (or at least are not counted the same way). This is an old, meaningless talking point. The DNC has rules under which delegates are apportioned and a candidate is nominated, rules that were established, agreed upon, and well-known to all candidates and campaigns far in advance of the primaries, and under those rules, Obama won fair and square. I can't believe I'm having this conversation again.

        Moreover, I'm not "using age against" her; pointing out a fact is not the same as "using [that fact] against" someone. I expect that kind of paranoia at FoxNation or RedState, not here.

        I am so not fighting these battles again. Your response certainly doesn't make me feel better about seeing Hillary run in 2016, if this is what I'm going to have to deal with should I happen to prefer a different candidate.

    •  I can't get over her lie that she was under (0+ / 0-)

      sniper fire while in Bosnia. She repeated that lie over and over again until Sinbad came out and said she was full of shit. It takes someone with serious mental issues to go around making up stories like that. I don't want someone like that in the Oval Office. She is completely untrustworthy.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:17:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too old. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew

    IMHO, both H. Clinton and Joe Biden are past the age at which they should take on the Presidency. The Democrats need to move up some younger leaders.

    Look at history: William H. Harrison died almost immediately after his inauguration.
    Dwight Eisenhower - Heart attack and stroke while in office.
    Ronald Reagan - Alzheimers in office.

    Hillary and Joe are great people and have been of immeasurable service to the country, but it would be unwise to elect someone who starts a first Presidential term at age 70.

  •  I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

    These diaries about 2016, whether they are about Hillary or any other candidate, are way premature. The president just got re-elected...can he at least be sworn in for his second term before the talk turns to who is going to replace him?

    Obviously, as you said, people have the right to speak their minds, but I feel that the progressive netroots can be most effective by focusing on pushing for progressive policy in the current administration and by supporting progressive candidates for 2013 and 2014 and helping Democrats take back the House and hold the Senate in 2014.

    This site has also been great as a community, sharing each other's joys and struggles. Primaries are always divisive because people who are usually politically united splinter off into candidate factions during the primaries. While this is inevitable in 2015, I don't see why it needs to start now.

    This is not my site and it's up to Kos what to allow, but it seems to me there should be a limit on diaries promoting any candidates for 2016, especially those that seem like they are fighting the 2008 primaries all over again.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site