There is no question that Hillary Clinton will come into the 2016 Presidential campaign (yes Virginia, she’s running) with many powerful advantages. She’s enlightened about the Presidency from her husband’s years as President, she’s famous, she’s a former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she’ll have a massive war chest of money and a huge army of political supporters. Maybe the most potent aspect of her run for President though is that she could be the first woman President in American History.
There are many legitimate arguments to make about how her alleged inevitability to be the Democrats’ candidate is overstated and ignores recent history (as late as December 2007, Hillary had 80% in the polls against all other Dems running for the nomination…including Barack Obama). For the sake of argument though, let’s say that all the popular predictions are correct, Hillary wins the Dem primary and she goes on to win the Presidency against a Rand Paul or Jeb Bush.
Could the blowback from wanting to see the first woman President of the US, result in making the first woman President a one termer? Might Hillary be the wrong person to be the first woman President?
Hillary Clinton has already revealed that her primary strategy to win the Presidency is to court moderate and even conservative Republicans at the expense of Democrats and Progressives. She openly ridiculed and criticized Obama, beat the drums for war with great enthusiasm and had nothing but pandering and pleasantries for Republicans and Republican voters, often equating Democrats and Republicans as equally to blame for issues in the nation.
Hillary ran into trouble with this strategy recently when the push back came swiftly from the Obama Administration and loud voices on the Progressive side. She responded by trying to make nice with Obama and Progressives and get back on her best behavior towards them. But how genuine is this? The initial pursuit of Republican approval was a peek into Hillary’s General Election campaign (possibly her primary campaign) and her possible Presidency. And that is what may foreshadow the drawbacks for her having a two-term Presidency if elected.
For many voters, the prospect of being able to vote in the first woman President is in itself a reason to be committed to vote for Hillary. My mother was a Hillary supporter in 2008 and it took a number of conversations to make the case with her that Obama was the better, more Progressive choice. She eventually agreed and switched to Obama (especially after Hillary’s and Bill’s racial-themed attacks on Obama) but for 2016, she has renewed excitement about being able to vote for and see in her lifetime, the first woman President.
That will be a powerful selling tool for Hillary in her campaign for the White House but if she was to win, that won’t remain such a prominent factor in a re-election run.
Seeing someone be the first at anything can be enticing. Though the Right Wing used this as part of the racial attacks on President Obama, he did not win the Presidency because people wanted to see the first black President, he won because George W. Bush had so destroyed the nation’s faith in the GOP and McCain’s running with Sarah Palin put the withered cherry on top of the Republicans’ melted sundae, the prospect of Hope and Change personified by the man who would also be the first African American President was a winning combination.
Hillary is not offering hope and change though. Her campaign so far seems to be, “I’m superior to the others so I’ll be a better President”. Less about what she’ll do than who she is. She offers an important symbolic achievement in possibly being the first woman President but going backwards to conservative economics and war-hawkish policies of years past runs counter to most women’s policy views. If she is elected in 2016 and she pursues the conservative course she’s already been promoting…could she end up the first woman President who only serves one term, an achievement and a setback for women at the same time?
Let’s try an experiment. Imagine a male candidate named Harold Clanton. He is a financially conservative Dem with deep Wall Street and corporate ties who wants to reduce regulations on them, very pro-war, he supports gay rights and women’s rights, he supports oil companies drilling and fracking more and is not very driven on combating climate change. He is very politically calculating, won’t step in on racial issues unless pressed or stand firm on any issues of principle that would be a political negative. His family has been in the White House before and oversaw a conservative push on the nation, sending jobs overseas, tightening welfare restrictions and loosening regulations on banks that led to a devastating financial crash.
The experiment here is, if one removes the aspect of Hillary’s being the first woman President from her as a candidate, as a re-election would, might she not be the most supportable and electable candidate? Thus, might electing Hillary in 2016…turn out to be voting to elect a Republican President in 2020?
Why might that be? Why wouldn’t Hillary have a good shot at re-election?
First of all, Hillary has made it pretty clear that she is not a Progressive when it comes to the economy or international affairs (war). By coming out of the box ignoring Progressives and trying to appeal to Conservatives, Hillary revealed a political calculation, that is, by pursuing Republicans, Hillary is saying to Democrats, “Why do I need to appeal to you and your issues, who else are you going to vote for?”
And this is the trap of hubris that could await a Hillary Presidency. In her pursuit of attracting conservative and Republican support and taking Democrats for granted, she could end up without enthusiastic support on either side of the political fence in a re-election and hand the White House to a Republican.
If Democrats and Progressive voters’ agendas are ignored by Hillary, they may either support a Dem challenger to her re-election which would be destructive to Dems winning the White House or simply not turnout for her re-election. And no matter how she may pander to Conservatives and Republicans, they will always prefer to vote for their own Republican candidate than Hillary Clinton.
So the election of Hillary in 2016 could turn out to be a package deal in electing a Republican President in 2020. Many Americans want to finally see a woman in the White House but it does matter who that woman is (or we might have heard every State of the Union speech end with, “You betcha!”). Maybe it’s best to be open to “firsts” but put them aside to genuinely assess candidates. With that being the case, Dem voters might be best off to look past the historical aspect of electing the first woman President and ask themselves before supporting her, “Who is Hillary really, what exactly does she really stand for and are those things representative of what I believe?”
Late to the Party….
1) I worked in 4 states for the Obama Campaign AND the idea of electing a black candidate to the WH WAS a very important current within the campaign for many reasons BUT it was not THE current and that is the most significant critique I have about the Clinton Campaign.
People were drawn to Obama for many reasons. His policy positions, his life experience, his personality, his family, his vision AND his race were the mix that drew in the crowds and created the stir that was expressed as enthusiasm and then as zeal. Fired Up. Ready to Go. Why?…..a long, long list.
2) For Hillary the enthusiasm is generated largely, is many cases almost entirely, by gender.
3) She does not feel genuine to me. I do not trust here. Her policies- well he is femaleBill in most of them, maybe a bit more right wing on interventionist policy and a bit more left wing on Wall Street. Her social policy is very dem, and largely very progressive. But, she is such a pragmatist I wonder what she would be willing to deal away.
4) One thing is correct- her people know that there really is NO GOP candidate out there that I would vote for because even if the had one I could support, he/she is part of a party I do not trust at all.
AND, they know that people like me know that Third Party Candidacy are La Manchan efforts that usually end up screwing things up (often for the very people and ideas that you support the 3rd Partier for).
SO….I am going to spend more time thinking about your 2020 argument…there are nuances there that deserve more reflection.
Ad, if indeed HC is coming out of the gate trying to appeal to conservatives, she’s already lost before she’s begun. She is the avatar of the right for everything that is wrong with America. And while Obama came along and drew that spotlight for a while, it will come back full force with an announced candidacy.
Most self-described moderates vote Democratic in the national election. I’ve estimated that almost 80% of moderates that voted in 2012 voted for Obama. Her motive could be to reassure that base of voters that she’s not going to do anything too “fringe”.
The problem with that strategy is that it also doesn’t excite anyone. If you are going to get the broad base of the National Democratic party excited, you’ve got to have a very compelling, simple message that draws clear lines of distinction between you and your opponents. General election voters don’t do nuance.
And the days of Bill poaching a third of the good old boy vote in the South is looooong gone.
I’m pleasantly surprised with some of Hillary’s published positions on topics I care about. They’re better than I expected. What concerns me about her are the same things that concerned me about her in 2008, though the people that surround her now aren’t so odious. (Stay tuned)
It may be my imagination, but I still get a slight aroma of Roger Mudd and Mitt Romney circling her camp. “Why do you want to be President Hillary”? I really am not sure what her answer would be.
Her candidacy will galvanize the right to high turnout numbers. Will it galvanize the middle? There better be something more than the “1st woman President” to draw on.
This was the same argument made in 2008 against voting for Barak Obama, that the response would be a republican president in the next election. It didn’t happen, and if Mr. Obama could be elected for a third term, I’m quite sure it would happen, as stupid and useless as the entire GOP is. The Democrats are running against a GOP that is essentially a collection of feckless morons who for some reason have access to mountainous piles of money. In its entire history, the GOP has never been more reviled by the majority of the country. No doubt a President Hillary Clinton would have a lot of slime thrown at her by the racist misogynist GOP, but, y’know what, I’d like to see it happen. Hillary has already endured much worse than whatever the GOP would throw at her this time around, and most of the female voters would rally to her support, with some obvious exceptions.
JJ, I’ll agree with you on one point. I would really love to see a general election campaign with Hillary running against whatever mouth-breather the GOP throws up.
Ad, Hill is and has always been a republican. I feel she is not much better than having Sarah Palin run the country. While she certainly has a better sense of what is required, she has always been a self-promoter. Her marriage to Bill is one of convenience and not borne out of love but a desire to get to the top. I think that seeing the first woman president, just to say we’ve done it is not enough of a reason for me to vote for her.
In 2008, my father and I got into a discussion regarding Obama’s consistent increasing primary wins and the percentage he was picking up as the primary season was in full swing. MA is always one of the last to hold a primary so for me it is usually a take an R ballot and vote for the least offensive. My dad had already voted in FL. He actually was openly weeping that he wouldn’t have the chance to vote for the first woman president of the US. As I explained to him then, she isn’t the right woman and to have a woman for the sake of saying we have a woman president is an exercise in futility. He has since passed and I maintain the same position today.
Even though the Rs think that they can rewrite history and make the President’s failures to push a progressive agenda a sign of his weakness, we all know the truth. We must make them pay at the polls this November. We can’t wait until 2016 and maybe some unknown will throw their hat in the ring and clock Hill again. I can dream, can’t I?
slm, I’m not encouraged by the prospect of a Hillary Presidency but I would be moving out of the country if there was a Palin Presidency.
As you say, it should be about electing the right person to be the first woman President, not just “a woman” to be President. And since she seems to be more about herself than any causes or principles, I don’t think she is the right person. It would be ideal that the first woman President would be someone who powerfully represented and dedicated herself to the issues most opposed and neglected by most of her male predecessors.
Hillary’s pro-war stance seems calculated to make her more like conservative men but if we wanted that, we’d support a conservative man for President. What’s needed is the antidote to conservative men exerting their will on this nation, a woman aligned with them would be as troubling as them, a woman standing up to them (like Elizabeth Warren) would be a champion for the many that could make a real difference in the WH and distinguish her historical position as the first woman President.
How disappointing if our first woman President is politically identical to most of our previous male presidents…and less Progressive than the President she followed.
Your last sentence sums it up nicely!!
Just left you a late reply to your excellent essay on Hillary and the Perils of 2020.
Loved your article AdLib, wonderful insight as usual, I rated it a 10 because it deserved it. You ask all the pertinent questions, come to the correct assumptions IMHO, and are spot on in every section of this post. Read this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100231113/the-new-york-times-takes-down-the-clinton-foundation-this-could-be-devastating-for-bill-and-hillary/
I believe the author of this piece puts a lot of what the Clinton’s are all about into perspective. I personally feel that gender should not have and should never have had anything to do with who gets elected president, just as race, or any other factor should not have anything to do with it. But, we live in the nation we live in and we, those of us who understand our past realize that many wrongs that have been committed by those in leadership in this nation are due to be dealt with. Choosing a woman for the presidency just because we have never had one is typical nonsense that we as a voting populace seem to engage in when we go to the polls. Which candidate looks the best, which candidate is the better baby kisser, which candidate would be best to have a beer with etc. Anything but, which candidate would be best for the nation during the times in which we find ourselves.
Look at the world….The global situation is a mess, our domestic situation is almost as bad. Oh yes, the global situation has always been a mess, but unlike in the past, today with technology we can almost immediately find out what is going on in any part of the world we take an interest in. Those of us who try to keep up with current events in the world, those who believe we have an understanding of the position of the U.S. in the world think about these upcoming elections. Citizens who care about this nation and the world realize we are in no position to elect someone to office to right a historical wrong.
A woman that would be right for the country in these times yes. A woman that would function in a capacity that would not only benefit this nation but the rest of the world yes. A president, woman or man who realizes how greed and corruption in this nation and the world increases every time we eliminate or tone down or ostracize other nations in order to be “the leader” “the superpower” or the last word in any conflict around the world but yet continues along the same course or promises to be even worse when it comes to counteracting this attitude/ideology is not the right person for the job. A woman or man who thinks more like a Magaret Thatcher or George W. Bush than a Franklin D. Roosevelt or Eleanor Roosevelt is not right for these times, not right for control of our government, not right to handle the issues that face us domestically or internationally.
I personally do not feel that even with all of the so-called experience and expertise Hillary Clinton has, she is the right person to take on the role of leader of the free world. I believe her time is past, I believe her role should be the role I’m sure she will not give up even if she does become president, and that role is the position she has in her family foundation….The Clinton Foundation…. she could do more for the world by improving the manner in which that organization works.
Of course this is just my opinion, and if she is nominated, I’m sure she will probably win because the republicans feel she will be easy to control in office since much of her ideology coincides with theirs and as you say, I’m sure they feel she will be easy to beat in 2020. Are we being set up for this downfall? I wonder….
Thanks so much, Monica!
I read the article you linked to, the conclusion is hard to escape, that the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family are intertwined with corporate and monied relationships to advance their goals (even if some are genuinely altruistic). How do you not bring those relationships with you into the WH?
Sad but true that many people vote for President with a “popularity contest” mentality, based on liking superficial things about candidates instead of really learning about what their views and character are (see: George W. Bush and “Someone I could have a beer with.”).
A candidate’s race or sex should be irrelevant as to why someone votes for them…though they may lend to that candidate having greater insights and wisdom than another.
You really nailed it, man or woman, our next president needs the wisdom of supporting economic justice, taking on the greed and corruption of the wealthy and corporations and resisting the military industry and their minions. A woman President would be ideal if she reflected these views but any candidate who doesn’t is indeed, the wrong candidate for our times.
Whether FDR or Eleanor, man or woman, we do need a President of determination of conscience to carry forward the accomplishments of the Obama Admin and succeed in the areas where Obama’s Admin hasn’t.
I don’t know who that may be but I am keeping my eyes and mind wide open for whoever runs in the Dem primary.
We need some one who will roar! Roar when there are lies. Roar when the fact is ignored for the emotion. Roar when your own party stops supporting you. Roar about the truth: People can handle it and want it.
There’s really much more to the problems which most here would have opinions about, but I feel that the Democratic party has let the news forum and the GOP govern information while Obama tries to determine how strong a black man can be without causing more trouble.
And Hillary? What will the GOP/news do to her? They’ve become exemplary at creating the environment they want
Hey Monica. I think the article you refer to is a bit suspect. When a writer uses expressions like…”The cynical might infer…….”, I get a bit suspicious.
The article doesn’t really list anything horrible about the Clintons and their foundation. It lacks verification for many of it’s claims. If this is all the author has on the Clintons, I would say, so what? None of this is even comparable to how the Bushes and Cheney and many others have made their fortunes. At least some good does come from the Clinton Foundation.
This is “hunt Hillary,” season in it’s nascent stage. There will be a lot more articles of this type.
I think “we the people,” have very little to say about who gets the presidential nomination. The game is rigged, and has been for a very long time. Sure, we can possibly determine who wins the general election, but who gets the nomination is actually beyond our control.
The system, on both sides is controlled by experts, very adept at deceit, manipulation and political chicanery. They are paid quite well to heavily influence the outcomes of the primaries AND the general election. They’ve got it down to a science.
All of this is yet another product of our highly capitalized political system.
Don’t like that article? How about this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2394258/Will-claims-Clinton-Foundations-financial-problems-hurt-Hillarys-2016-presidential-hopes.html
Or this:
I realize that many have given up, and are resigned to accept whatever if put forth by those who are the most greedy in this nation. Resignation has never been one of my strong points. Determination is something I deal much better with. I’m determined to reach as many people as I can. I am determined to try to let any and everyone who will listen know that they do not have to give in to the powers that be. They do not have to accept the system as it is, and they do not have to vote for someone just because the MSM tells them that person is the better candidate…I’ve learned that people can actually do their own research and come to a better conclusion than the paid talking heads on TV and elsewhere. Let’s hope more people begin to realize that what Naomi Klein is saying in her new book is true….”This Changes Everything.”
People need to get their heads out and wake up before it’s too late. 🙂
I haven’t given up, just being a realist. I certainly recognize the need for change. That’s not the hard part.
Actually making the changes we need is the hard part. Any suggestions?
I understand KT, not speaking of you personally. Suggestions? Not yet, I need to wait until we actually get into the election season, when candidates have declared they are running for the office and are making their pitch to the public. Then I’m sure I’ll have plenty of suggestions. 🙂
😎
Naomi Klein cannot, IMHO, be considered as an independent. I respect her work but yet have to agree with her…Sowwy…..:)
I totally agree, KT.I am a monthly “donor” to the Clinton’s Foundation and we all get a rather specific report about their financial and accounting reports….Which brings me back to SEVERAL goobers comparing Obama to Hitler WHEN:
“Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … (few) years. ”
– Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872
History DOES repeat itself, does it not? The same claim made over and over by the CONservatives.
Great comment,Monica…
Thank you, happy you enjoyed it. 🙂
hehehehe…I am inviting a few great minds to come and join the Planet…….;)
Excellent, hope you are successful in your endeavor. 🙂
Monica dearest: remember, Naomi Klein was a MAJOR supporter of the Chavez regime.She bought, lock, stock and barrel all the B.S Chavez pursued. My business is hospitality and as such, I ‘ve dealt with not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of Venezuelans for the past almost 9 years. No soap, no toilette paper, no corn, no NOTHING….IF you buy the very leftist bs on the media, you are wrong.Dead wrong, sorry to say…But my friends are way more to the left than I am. I am a centrist.I abhor the repubs…but do not agree from stealing Peter to give to Paul.I’ve known South America too well. Lived there for several years being the daughter of a Diplomat father.Horrified to see them now, focusing on the same techniques Kissinger imposed on them during the middle 50’s, 60 and 70’s.I still xoxo you! And the corruption is rather appalling!
On Venezuela, you have to look at Venezuela before Chavez, which was dismal and after Chavez took office which was much improved. Don’t take my word for it, there is plenty of data to prove it. Start here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/04/venezuela-hugo-chavez-election-data
BTW, I was also a supporter of the Chavez regime.
Comparing the man in the white house today with the man who wrote Dreams from my fathers, I don’t think any real progressive can maintain it while in the white house. The institution and system just don’t provide enough “wiggle room.” You’re still “commander in chief” of a big MIC, no matter how liberal.
Excellent point GC! Ideology always has to take a back seat when a candidate actually becomes president and has to face the realities of this world.
KT, I think that is precisely what happened with Obama AND the Clintons. I think the Clintons started out as liberal hippie types, but so many years in government transformed them into cogs in the machine.
Spot on!! Our system is so broken that even the most practical legislation is impossible to achieve.
Agreed, slm. Obama could suggst trimming the hedges and it would become a subversive plot to spy.
GC – I think it would have made a huge difference if Obama had a Dem Congress for more than a number of months.
I don’t agree with a number of decisions Obama has made but he has made many positive, Progressive changes to the nation including the ACA of course.
Can a President resist the militaristic forces arrayed against him? I think so but it would take a remarkable man.
The Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts is running this week and I’ve been watching it. I’ve always been fascinated by Theodore Roosevelt who, even though he was an imperialist, war mongering Republican, was also a strong Progressive on social issues. He got so much done, made so many huge changes to the nation and stood rock solid against those pressuring him to conform. In many cases it was to the nation’s long term benefit, in some case not so much but he had a strength of character and a belief in principles that was unique.
So a President could resist the system and stay true to his beliefs but he would need a spine of titanium and a deep reservoir of confidence.
ad, I watched the FDR segment last night.He ws able to accomplish amazing changes too but he had two huge advantages (in addition to Dem congress). The nation was completely shell shocked by the depression and WWII. People were truly desperate.We don’t have anything near that sort of crisis
mentality now (tho in my opinion we should because of climate change). I think Teddy had a grizzly bear personality and it’s possible that alone enabled his changes. But there were such obvious inequities for women and labor, plus industrial pollution — the country was ovrripe for change. And what followed teddy? Years of right wing leaders and stock market speculation & corruption…leading to the big crash.
Obama isnt a bully type but he’s extremely agile and clever. If he couldn’t pull off the kind of changes we all want, i certainly don’t see a gentle soul like Bernie Sanders for example pulling it off.
(i broke my left hand and it’ hard to type with cast!!!(
Short of a catastrophic change in the American mentality, i don’t see any liberal being successful with radical changes. Call me cynical
Adlib, From the sounds of it from here, Hillary might very well be the First Female Republican President, never mind 2020!
I agree, however, that if she were to run and get the nomination, that, for all of her considerable baggage, she would be better than any GOP cretin running against her.
PPO – I think the argument could be made that Hillary’s political views are consistent with the views of moderate Republicans from the 1990’s and prior. Back then, Repubs could be socially moderate while financially and militarily conservative.
She has never claimed to be Progressive and her positions aren’t reflective of that.
Should the US be veering more conservative at this point in history? When the wealthy own more and more, the 99% own less and less, does it really make sense for Dems to be promoting a 1%er whose family is entrenched in Wall Street and the corporate world?
I was pleased to be voting for a candidate in Obama, I would hate to be voting again for the lesser of two evils and I’m afraid that having a conservative Wall Street Dem vs. an extremist Wall Street Repub is what we may be faced with in 2016.
Ad…..so would I IF Elizabeth had a small chance of being the winner….Just today, we have gotten another “Stand with Hillary” mail and sincerely, I’d rather see her as the winner.I know we do not share the same ideas about her, but SHE IS our best bet.
And Nirek…perhaps another 20 years still have to come until progressives are not labeled as “commies”which brings me back to a memorable moment, when Glen Greenwald was the FIRST ONE supporting Shrub – back in 2007 or so – and condemning Obama for not being a real “progressive.
ExFan – I always question the conventional wisdom because it is so often wrong. I wonder if Hillary really is our best bet. I know that many are of that opinion but if conventional wisdom was correct in 2008, the GE would have been Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani.
There are many elements of the actual race that aren’t factored into early calculations.
First, until Hillary announces, she won’t be seriously attacked. Her standings now may be sky high but those will all come way down once the attack machine begins against her. And the Repubs have been sharpening their knives against her for some time, they may fail with their Benghazi BS but there will be a neverending assault.
Also, her pro-war, pro-Wall Street views, once known by the public will bring down her support and advantage.
And what seems clear is that she is not a great campaigner. Even in the last several months, before she’s even officially begun campaigning, she’s hurt herself politically by attacking Obama, avoiding commenting on Ferguson and stepping over Dems to court Republicans. She’s very calculating politically, as Bill was and is, that can be effective but it can also undermine a candidate.
There will also be those unhappy at her seeming coronation or appearance of entitlement to the Dem nom and Presidency.
She has many fault lines that could make her campaign fall apart. On paper, she might appear to have a lock but I think she could be far weaker and more vulnerable than she appears today.
My core concern is that in this era, a Dem being being pro-war and pro-Wall Street isn’t representative of enough Dems and Indies to ultimately win.
Yet she is a self made – both, actually – millionaire? Are they really? Or just rich?
The Clintons don’t have anything close to Romney’s wealth. I believe they are worth not more than ten million. I know that’s a boatload of money, but not close to what other candidates for president have had and still do.
EXACTLY….Calling them “billionaires” is just wrong…..
Ad, I have a strong feeling that Hillary will win the nomination, for all the reasons you’ve already stated.
I haven’t really made up my mind about her. People do change according to new knowledge and experiences. Well, at least intelligent people do. I think Hillary is simply greasing the rails with the GOP. She is well aware how the right feels about the name Clinton.
KT, she is definitely the odds on favorite to win. But she was in 2008 too. And she proves time and again that she is not a great campaigner and repeatedly says the wrong thing that hurts her.
She also is far more conservative than most Democrats and is a multimillionaire elitist which doesn’t work as well in connecting with Dems than, say, a community organizer.
If there is a strong Progressive Dem who runs in the Dem primary, I can see Hillary in the same kind of position she was in 2008.
I am also an elitist….Only to an intellectual point.I will not collect fans here, neither it is my intention…But this planet cannot support more and more overpopulation burring the smart ones by bringing more poor kids without any chance of making it. We have now more unemployed people and dislocated ones…worst than ever after the two big wars.Reason why red states are supported by blue ones. But you cannot expect the lesser ones ones to achieve a higher level of education when they do not have the means to do it. It’s not only here.It’s worldwide.XX
Ad, who do you think the strong progressive dem might be?
KT – I’m not sure right now but nature abhors a vacuum, with Hillary staking out conservative ground, there will be some Dem attracted to stepping into the Progressive ground and they will find a lot of support there.
Ad, lets push for a different woman. I think Elizabeth Warren would be a better choice. But I look forward to the debates. Why? Because Bernie Sanders is going to keep the correct (right) issues front and center. These debates are going to be interesting.
If Hillary wins the nomination I will have to vote for her over any of the GOP crop. That said I will be pleased if Elizabeth runs.
Nirek, I don’t think Warren will run in 2016 but I would be a huge supporter of hers if she was to run.
My point is that we don’t have to elect a woman as President in 2016, we need to elect a Progressive, man or woman. Focusing on the primary, I am not buying into the “conventional wisdom” that the Dem primary is just a Hillary coronation. I will be looking for a strong candidate that steps up to offer an alternative to Hillary and represents Progressive values.
Bernie is too much to the “left” and is considered by the multitude of the American populace mass, as a commie! :)I absolutely LOVE HIM….