FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Enten writes: "Clinton's combination of a number of factors made her strength pretty much unprecedented. Clinton has, if anything, become stronger over the last 12 months."

Will Hillary run in 2016? (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Will Hillary run in 2016? (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP)


Hillary Clinton: The Most Formidable Frontrunner Ever?

By Harry J Enten, Guardian UK

10 November 13

 

All the variables that predict primary winners from polling to endorsements are working more in her favor than in 2008.

illary Clinton remains the most formidable presidential nomination frontrunner for a non-incumbent in the modern era. As I wrote about last year, Clinton's combination of a number of factors made her strength pretty much unprecedented. Clinton has, if anything, become stronger over the last 12 months.

Clinton's polling among Democrats is still incredible. The latest Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey has her at 67% of the vote among Democrats nationally. That compares to 61% in December 2012. The fact that her numbers have if anything gone up is a very good sign for her. It shows that her numbers weren't merely inflated because she held the non-partisan secretary of state position, as they were for general election electorate.

Some might want to dismiss the predictiveness of early polling. Some may want to point to Clinton or Rudy Giuliani in 2008. The problem with that point of view in my opinion is that most early front-runners didn't put up anywhere near the same numbers Clinton is doing for 2016. Clinton was about 30pt lower in 2008 than she is now. Giuliani was about 35pt lower than Clinton now.

Other candidates too were simply not close. George W Bush was stuck in the mid 20s for the 2000 Republican nomination. His father was in the low 40s for 1988. Colin Powell was in the mid 20s and mid 30s for his 1996 and 2000 no-goes respectively. Bob Dole was in the high 30s for 1996.

The only candidate anywhere close to Clinton was Al Gore for 2000. Gore had long been in the upper 40s to mid 50s. Gore went on to waltz to the nomination in the single strongest non-incumbent performance in the modern era. He won every single primary and took 76% of the primary vote.

Clinton's numbers look a lot more like an incumbent. Bush was in the low 70s for 1992. Clinton was in the low 60s to low 70s for 1996. Obama mostly was in the low to mid 60s for 2012, even when matched up against Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, Clinton's edge extends to the early caucus and primary states. You national numbers can be amazing, but if you don't win either Iowa or New Hampshire, you're likely not going anywhere. Clinton is in the mid 60s in New Hampshire and the low 70s in Iowa.

A peak under the hood should give Clinton more confidence. Her favorable rating among Democrats nationally per Quinnipiac is 90% compared to just 4% who viewed her unfavorably. That suggests that it isn't just name recognition that is catapulting Clinton at this time.

Almost all other factors that made Clinton strong when I wrote my last article remain the same. She's got the organization in place in the early states thanks to her 2008 run, while pretty much any other candidate would need to start fresh. Clinton remains incredibly well polished in public speaking, as she was in 2008. I mean she says pretty much nothing to possibly get in trouble.

Importantly, there is no sign of anyone like Barack Obama contemplating a run. Clinton's coalition of women, non-college educated whites, and Latinos was just beat out by Obama's of African-Americans, college-eduated whites, and young voters. All Clinton needs to do is take a little bit of Obama's 2008 base to ensure his nomination.

The only candidate in my mind who could catch fire, Massachusetts' Senator Liz Warren, has already declared her support for Clinton. In fact, every single female Democratic senator is behind Clinton. What a difference that is from 2008.

Much of the establishment was actually encouraging Obama to run in 2008. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid weren't backing Clinton. Claire McCaskill's endorsement of Obama in 2008 was particularly memorable. All three of them are now openly pleading for and endorsing Clinton for 2016.

That's big news because a candidate who clearly wins the "invisible primary" usually takes the nomination. Primary voters can get confused between candidates whose ideology is very similar, so they look to the party elders. It's how Mitt Romney was able to take down Newt Gingrich in 2012. Clinton will have invisible primary advantage, which she didn't have in 2008.

Overall, there are many reasons to think Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 nomination, if she were to run. There are not many reasons to think she's going to repeat her 2008 performance. Every factor that forecasts nomination winners points more strongly in her direction than it did eight years ago. Now none of this means Clinton will take the general election, though you have to get there first to have a shot.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-65 # moafu@yahoo.com 2013-11-10 08:03
Am being polite in choice of words as requested by RSN. This Clinton person was NOT available on the 3am call she claimed she would take - OR she ordered the 'stand down' on Benghazi. NOW if only the Dems can keep a lid on the truth about this person's professional and personal deviations, they will have a frontrunner.

Exposed - she won't even run.
 
 
+43 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 11:38
You're gonna have to keep getting "your" "truth" from Fox, because the rest of the world isn't buying what Fox is selling.

Sorry, but the more you say, "Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI!", the more the rest of the country hears, "Don't vote for crazy right-wingers!!!"

If you want Clinton to be re-elected, by all means, keep harping on about it, so we can see how much she scares the right.
 
 
-2 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-11-11 06:53
Sorry, Billy Bob, but all the p.r. in the world cannot stop word of mouth spreading among folks of all and no political bents, from far right to far left and everything in between, who are absolutely concerned about what this so now broken nation of ours has become - the U.S. of (greed and power) A.(ddiction), anything but democracy.

All wanting real McCoy CHANGE ain't gonna get it with support of Hillary Clinton - just more of the same fascist tie in with Zionists and AIPAC, and war, war, war, for $$$$$ into the pockets of the MITC (military, industrial, terrorism complex).

Want real McCoy CHANGE, Dems.? Consider drafting Bernie Sanders, a real McCoy walk the walker and not mere talk the talker. Bernie and a few other liberty and justice for all, including Mother Earth, dedicated pol. people servers (vs. self servers) are the answer,
 
 
-3 # skylinefirepest 2013-11-12 21:51
Sorry Moafu, if the democrats had any sliver of moral righteousness in their soul the phrase "what does it matter?" would doom this crazy woman to the trashcan of politics. But they don't and that is why your absolutely truthful comment has sixty minuses already!!
 
 
-26 # neohip 2013-11-10 08:21
A President Hillary Clinton would be the death knell for the American people.
 
 
+25 # handmjones 2013-11-10 09:26
Even more so for the Palestinian people.
 
 
+31 # ericlipps 2013-11-10 09:41
Quoting neohip:
A President Hillary Clinton would be the death knell for the American people.


Oh, please. If we survived Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the second George Bush, we can survive Hillary Clinton.
 
 
+1 # skylinefirepest 2013-11-12 21:52
Why would we want to??? Is there nobody better in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party??? Why settle for an old has been? Why settle for "what does it matter?".
 
 
+36 # geraldom 2013-11-10 10:08
Quoting neohip:
A President Hillary Clinton would be the death knell for the American people.


As much I don't like Hillary Clinton when it comes to her warmongering foreign policy agenda, the very reason I (unfortunately) supported Barack Obama in 2008, the only thing worse than Hillary for president would be a Republican president whose foreign policy and national security policy would be as bad or worse than Hillary's.
 
 
+22 # wantrealdemocracy 2013-11-10 13:00
Oh, for GOD'S sake!! Get off that 'lesser of the two evils' excrement. Evil is evil and the two major parties are tied for first place. In what way is Obomba better than either bush? More war. A worse economy. Drastic cuts in our domestic progeams while the rich prosper.

Hillary is offered as such a good candidate because of her gender. Obama was touted for his skin tone---like that has anytning to do with being a good president!! Maybe a woman with feminine sensibilities would be good, and maybe a person who cares about working people would be good---but just being a woman or having dark skin is no reason to assume the contents of a person's soul. Hillary is not concerned at all for the working people of this nation nor for the survival of our planet. Both these Dimocrats stand on the side of the 1% with pride and a sence of belonging. They value being rich and getting richer.

We need much better than that for our nation to be a good place for all the people to live. Yeah, it can be just great if you have money in the stock market (until the coming crash) but not for those people scared that they will lose their job, their home and their savings and their health. We must stop voting corporate!
 
 
+3 # Caliban 2013-11-11 20:55
Actually Bush #1 is irrelevant at this point, and under Obama there is less war (no Iraq) and a much better economy than under Bush #2. You need to catch up on the news, I think.
 
 
-4 # neohip 2013-11-10 15:08
And of course it just has to be the lesser of the two evils.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 18:28
No, it doesn't "HAVE to" be the lesser of two evils. But, as long as true liberals are unwilling to challenge Democratic frontrunners in the primaries, that's what it WILL be.
 
 
+4 # RLF 2013-11-11 05:35
As long as people are willing to vote in DINOs, will will get nothing but DINOs. Time for a candidate who is not a wealthy lesser of two evils! No more compromises!
 
 
+6 # geraldom 2013-11-11 10:36
The problem, RLF, is that human beings are animals at heart. They think and they make decisions in the moment based on fear and deception. They make decisions in the moment with the so-called lizard part of their brain.

A good example of this is the vote that took place in Washington state which voted down the labeling of foods to indicate genetically-eng ineered products, the very reason that the very wealthy and the very powerful supported the "Citizens United" decision by the Republican-cont rolled U.S. Supreme court. They knew that if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough in the public media (which requires a lot of money these days), that even people you might even consider the most reasonable and logical will fall for the BS.

Some excellent examples of extremely bad Democratic Senators that need to get their asses fired are Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer who strongly supported both John Roberts and Samuel Alito for SCOTUS justices. Dianne Feinstein strongly supports the illegal and unconstitutiona l activities of the NSA, and she's on the Senate Intelligence Committee, not to mention the fact that she has been bought and paid for by Wall Street and the multinational corporations. And yet, both Feinstein and Schumer keep on getting reelected. Why?

But, it's not just the so-called DINOs. Even the so-called liberal Democrats have voted to extend Bush's heinous unconstitutiona l bills as well as Obama's "NDAA."
 
 
+91 # smilodon1 2013-11-10 08:45
I would prefer she not run. I'm afraid she's as much a corporatist as her husband and he gave us NAFTA and GATT which increased the economic devastation we've "enjoyed" for the last almost two decades. We need a person leading our nation like Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson. If she does become the nominee, I'll vote against her opponent because ALL republicanderth als are beyond reality and would be as bad or worse than George W. Bush. We can't afford that.
 
 
+51 # Linda 2013-11-10 08:51
I agree smilodon1 ,
We really don't need to keep recycling these corporate Democrat's .
We need more liberal ones who are not tainted by greed, like those you mentioned with the exception of Kucinich who seems to have jumped ship to swim in the Faux news cesspool.I would go with Alan Grayson because Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will not run.
 
 
+46 # tedrey 2013-11-10 09:13
I beg your pardon. Kucinich is reporting his honest positions from inside the "enemy camp," without being embedded in it . . . which takes the courage that he's always shown.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 18:29
Do you think Alan Grayson will?
 
 
+56 # tedrey 2013-11-10 09:11
Clinton's not only a corporatist, but also she backs all the aggressive diplomatic and military positions that play such a large role in destroying both our economic viability and our world moral standing. We can't afford her. Kucinich or Grayson for my money. Warren and Sanders deserve cabinet positions.
 
 
+24 # WestWinds 2013-11-10 10:40
Quoting smilodon1:
I would prefer she not run. I'm afraid she's as much a corporatist as her husband and he gave us NAFTA and GATT which increased the economic devastation we've "enjoyed" for the last almost two decades. We need a person leading our nation like Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson. If she does become the nominee, I'll vote against her opponent because ALL republicanderthals are beyond reality and would be as bad or worse than George W. Bush. We can't afford that.


--- Yes, and I'll join you in voting against her. You've got this exactly correct. She's the wrong person at a very critical time.
 
 
+14 # Malcolm 2013-11-10 11:52
Good points. And i love your "republicandert hals" :)

But voting for Hillary based on the lesser of two evils is going to have the same result as it always does: and evil person in the whitehouse. We all know what Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, eh?
 
 
+20 # Artemis 2013-11-10 12:14
The Clintons are the carpetbaggers of the 21st century. Anyone who cannot see through them is blind.
Hillary Clinton is too calculating by far and cold as ice when it comes to what she wants.
I would love to see a woman president, but I warn you, Clinton is not the one and the buzz is full of holes. Do your research and then see if you want her. It is no use comparing her to worse Republicans, we want someone better, who does not belong to this old school of power play and machinations and allies who are dictators.
Push the alarm bells fast.
 
 
+33 # djnova50 2013-11-10 09:14
If Hillary was the Democrat candidate for President, I would vote third party. If only we could get money out of politics...then , it might be possible to have candidates that actually would work for the voters rather than their corporate sponsors.
 
 
+28 # cordleycoit 2013-11-10 09:15
This shows how the Democratic Party is rigged to strangle any candidate with an ounce of integrity. The accolades from the bots is so intense that the baby opposition will be drowned in the cradle by the Clintonites and their fellow grifters. It's another election of lesser weevils.
 
 
+24 # ManOnTheBeach 2013-11-10 09:29
As a Democrat and a citizen, I think it will be a tragedy if Clinton stays in the race. If she wins the presidency, she will continue economic, military and security policies that have been disastrous for the country. A more likely scenario is that she will win the nomination and then, dragged down by the disappointment with Obama and advancing a business-as-usu al program to a populace that craves change, will lose the general election, saddling us with someone on the spectrum between Rand Paul and Jeb Bush (somewhere between Tweedledum and Tweedledee). More likely still, she will stay in the race long enough to prevent the emergence of a consensus behind a younger, more progressive nominee, and the party will enter fall race in an unnecessarily weak position. It will be a sad commentary on the Democratic Party if all it can offer in 2016 is a choice between Clinton and Biden, between two aging members of an old guard whose dead hand has held reins during most of four decades of decline.
 
 
+37 # laurele 2013-11-10 09:42
As a progressive Democrat, I will never vote for Hillary, an opportunist who got herself a Senate seat by buying a big mansion in New York, a state where she never lived. She is part of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that advocates "triangulation, " which means moving away from progressive principles and becoming "Republican lite." She supported NAFTA and GATT, which cost this nation thousands of jobs. And she is a very polarizing figure. If she gets the Democratic nomination, I and many other like-minded Democrats will vote for the Green Party candidate.
 
 
+27 # WestWinds 2013-11-10 10:48
Yes, and I will vote Green right along with you. If the Democratic Party insists on being the DemoRAT Party, then my vote is better off somewhere else.

In the last election I was very torn as to whether or not to vote for Obama. I hesitated right up until the last moment, then I asked someone (a teacher) whom I trust and he told me to vote my conscience. I did. I voted Green and to this very day, I applaud my own decision and choice. Nothing changes if nothing changes!
 
 
+7 # Malcolm 2013-11-10 11:56
Right on, Laurel!

Like Westwinds, I, too voted my conscience. I had it easy, though, as there was no chance my home state would vote against Obombya. Faithful Democrats, if not at all discriminating.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 11:41
ALL good points. The challenge now, is to get someone else ready to challenge her IN THE PRIMARIES, and not just wait until the national election, to whine about only 1% voting for the other parties.

Anybody who seriously wants a liberal/progres sive in the White House needs to think about someone else to compete against her IN THE PRIMARIES.

It's the only serious chance we have. Otherwise, our choices will be Clinton or a FAR right loon who's so psychotic it would be dangerous NOT to vote for her.

We can do better.
 
 
+20 # RODNOX 2013-11-10 09:55
as many others have voiced HILLARY is anti truth--anti freedom of speach-except her own--pro corporation---p ro EMPIRE growth ---and so much more BAD i cant list it all---there is nothing good about hillary---
 
 
+23 # Saberoff 2013-11-10 09:57
As an old guy I never thought I would see a Monarchy in this country; now I wonder if I'll live long enough to see anything but....

All current comments here seem to reflect the same sentiments: No more corporate Democrats the likes of Clinton. Please!

How 'bout de Blasio? Grayson? Both Democrats, yes? Come on Alan, primary her!
 
 
-12 # Ray49 2013-11-10 09:59
I am amazed at the anti Hillary attitudes posted here. While I agree with some of the sentiment it is too early to know what she will run on. Don't you think all Dems know we need to vastly strengthen the populace economy? Also, the R's will probably make 2016 a record money year to try to get the WH back. As the author of this article states Hillary will be our most formidable candidate. We will very much need that!
 
 
+15 # WestWinds 2013-11-10 10:52
Quoting raymondobrien49@hotmail.com:
I am amazed at the anti Hillary attitudes posted here. While I agree with some of the sentiment it is too early to know what she will run on. Don't you think all Dems know we need to vastly strengthen the populace economy? Also, the R's will probably make 2016 a record money year to try to get the WH back. As the author of this article states Hillary will be our most formidable candidate. We will very much need that!


--- It doesn't matter what she will run on, it's what she will do post elected and those of us who have been paying attention have watched her drift to the Right all along. As for the author of this article deeming her our most formidable candidate: Either they are hanging out red meat for the Progressives to go bananas over, or they are trying their unlevel best to sell her as anything but what she is; another George W. Bush in a pants suit.
 
 
+6 # Malcolm 2013-11-10 11:58
"too early to know what she will run on"? You're willing to wait for whatever lies she'll dream up for her campaign? No thanks-not this man.
 
 
+1 # RODNOX 2013-11-11 12:19
doesnt matter what she runs on--or as----she is dirty to the core--republica n ideaology---war monger antics----corpo rate lackey--ism---- and incredibly 2 faced too boot.....look at her history
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2013-11-10 10:10
Firstly, it's interesting that your like/dislike counterr doesn't work. Whatever button is pushed it scores pro-Clinton.

I've never imagined voting Republican, but the country has been so devastated by Bush & Obama incompetence that were Hillary be nominated I'd vote for Christie or several other Repub potentials now that they're over they're over their circus act.

It's not what's between the legs that will get America out of the hole, it's what's between the ears. Like Obama, she failed to learn in 4 years at State. Yes, her IQ is big, but it's so egomaniacal that her job was secondary.

Photo ops were primary and what's between the legs came in second. She'll lose the election, guaranteed.

Kerry's done more than Hillary did in 4 years. Want a woman? Nominate Warren.
 
 
+7 # WestWinds 2013-11-10 10:56
Quoting Anonymot:
Firstly, it's interesting that your like/dislike counterr doesn't work. Whatever button is pushed it scores pro-Clinton.

I've never imagined voting Republican, but the country has been so devastated by Bush & Obama incompetence that were Hillary be nominated I'd vote for Christie or several other Repub potentials now that they're over they're over their circus act.

It's not what's between the legs that will get America out of the hole, it's what's between the ears. Like Obama, she failed to learn in 4 years at State. Yes, her IQ is big, but it's so egomaniacal that her job was secondary.

Photo ops were primary and what's between the legs came in second. She'll lose the election, guaranteed.

Kerry's done more than Hillary did in 4 years. Want a woman? Nominate Warren.


--- How can you be any kind of a liberal if you would rather vote Christie and you think Kerry's positions have been good ones? You must be some kind of DINO to go with this.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2013-11-10 12:01
I've had the same kind of experience many, many times. When i point it out, though, a few people here go ballistic, telling me how I "just don't understand". I do understand, unfortunately. Someone likes to influence our beliefs, like sheep going to get sheared.
 
 
-2 # Malcolm 2013-11-10 13:15
Thumbs down? Hah-I know who dissed me; you're commenting again :)
 
 
-2 # RODNOX 2013-11-11 12:23
really want to end the world ??? KERRY/CLINTON ticket----2 of the most corporate loving---war is the answer--globali st supporting---ne o-cons in DEMs clothing----law yer speak---MONSTER S ever....neither belong as an elected or appointed official anywhere....... ..
 
 
-3 # Penn 2013-11-10 10:49
Hillary LOST her last campaign to Obama because she has such high negative polling numbers among the Democrats. Add in the extremely high negatives from the rest of the voters and it will be certain a Republican wins in 2016. Run Hillary Run.
 
 
+18 # geraldom 2013-11-10 10:50
Hillary may be the strongest Democratic contender for the presidency in 2016, but many who support her refuse to recognize the fact that she would continue Obama's warmongering foreign policy of continued U.S. empire building with more U.S. troops and innocent civilians dying for the interests of the multinational corporations, that this phony war of terror would continue and be expanded under her auspices. I ask you if this is what you want, to have your children and their children constantly fighting illegal and unending wars of aggression for U.S. and multinational corporation world empire?

As far as Hillary's financial or national security policies are concerned, I fear that she has been bought and paid for by Wall Street as well as the multinational corporations, and I fear that she supports Obama's national security policy of warrantless and secret spying on American citizens as well as the right of a president to now be able to assassinate whoever he or she feels needs to be murdered, without and due process, in the name of America's self-interest.

I would very strongly suggest to those people who support Hillary that they back away and find out what they're really buying if Hillary were to win the presidency in 2016. Do you want more of the same that we have been experiencing or do you want real change, to reestablish some form of democracy in this country that no longer exists?
 
 
+19 # WestWinds 2013-11-10 10:58
I can't believe they're back still trying to sell us on Hillary. She is SO yesterday. We need to and want to turn the page, purge the government of all of these corporate people and get the country back on track again, which will never happen with a Hillary Rodham Clinton. Enough with the Hillary snow job, please!
 
 
+14 # Helen 2013-11-10 11:09
Heck, I thought Hillary's time had come and gone. Aren't we getting any smarter? Do we want the corporations to be running out country forever?
 
 
+4 # Ravencroak 2013-11-10 11:29
I will gladly vote for Hil if she promises to appoint Warren head of DOJ with orders to bring back heads from Wall Street. That would at least be amusing. Since that ain't gonna happen I'll pass on a fifth version of the triangulation strangulation.
 
 
+7 # Malcolm 2013-11-10 12:05
I'm SO pleased to see so many people on this ultra liberal website displaying the smarts to see through Hillary's Warrior Ego. Bravo to all of you!

I share others' support for Elizabeth Warren. Or Sanders. Or Kucinich. Or Nader, if he still wants the job.

I am seriously skeptical that it matters who we want, though. Or who we vote for. The game's rigged.
 
 
+1 # zee 2013-11-10 12:45
Harry~~Eat me. Election's 3 yrs away. Write a topical story~~you're in the NEWS biz. No1 wants a confirmed liar who's accepted a cheater husband for 35 yrs in our Wh Hse. Hillbillary said about Obama:“A few yrs ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Both racist pigs & I'm Dem for 2+ decades.
 
 
+12 # Texaswriter716 2013-11-10 12:45
OMG! There should be a law passed that prevents members of the same family from running for president. Haven't we had enough of the Bushes and the Clintons? Soon Chelsea will be running for president or The Shrub's nephew, Geo. P. Bush. (Seems the Bush family only can think of one name.) We really need some new intelligence and some new blood, not just a rerun of past mistakes and betrayals.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 16:12
I know. For example, every single Republican president, since 1928 has either had Nixon, or Bush on the ticket.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 18:30
Who gave me a negative for that? You can look it up. It's not hard to prove.
 
 
+1 # zee 2013-11-10 16:16
Media hailed Hillbillary as “Most Formidable Frontrunner” 5 yrs ago &were WRONG.Klobuchar ...Warren...Gil librand~~all much more honorable than bruised, obese [lacks self-discipline ] & nauseating liar. Ugh. Put ethics in Oval Office not passive robotic grifter dope & corporate asskisser who stomachs a cheating husband for 40 yrs…& got busted stealing Wh Hse furniture & art! Aaack!
 
 
-3 # jwatersphd 2013-11-10 16:30
A number of comments here are unsettling. Obama and Clinton both have major negatives but I really doubt we will find someone to run who is more progressive who can also win. This sounds like a right-wing forum except on the left - not progressive enough, etc. Having made a lot of compromises does not make Obama "evil." Take another look. We've got GLBT improvements, some decent Supreme Court choices, and at least a start on a better health care system, and we are out of Iraq and almost Afghanistan. What do you think would be happening if Romney or McCain had won instead? And Romney almost DID win. If we put up someone like Sanders, whom I think is great, there will be a Republican president in 2016. Someone mentioned Nader, of all people - don't remember the problems he caused? This is a big country, with lots of different factions and stakeholders, and, to govern it, there have to be compromises. Obama hasn't "kept his promises" to a large extent because he has tried to compromise and be inclusive. It hasn't worked, but largely because the New Right is completely out to lunch. It was still the correct instinct. Let's not turn the country over to Boehner types or Rand Paul or Romney-wannabee s because Hillary has a number of troubling features. She can probably win and if you don't think that will be better than someone like Christie, I think you ought to look again.
 
 
+2 # BKnowswhitt 2013-11-10 16:47
Ralph Nader caused no problems. Stop blaming Nader for the incompetent Gore who fucked it all up all by himself ... fuck the center left center bullshit ... and fuck Christie too a righty against wacko's who's way right of the progressive northeast .... but looks good against the wacko right win 'pee partiers' ...
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2013-11-10 17:45
"Having made a lot of compromises does not make Obama "evil."

Tell me; does extrajudicial murder not make someone "evil"?

I suppose evil is in the eye of the beholder, eh?
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 18:39
I don't always agree with you, but I agree here. "Compromise" isn't the problem with Obama. His problem is outright participation in these acts, coupled with the ability to outright lie about his culpability, after the fact. He's the ideal conservative. He acts like a conservative, and people like "Rain" are incapable of holding him accountable for his actions.

The left is being destroyed by 2 opposites who are totally unwilling to come together for the common good.

1. Situational "liberals" who are afraid to hold ANY Democrat responsible for his actions, and would rather see absolutely no progress made than even attempt to challenge the Democratic Party to actually stand up for something and listen to the people who elect it.

2. Lilly-white purists who refuse to vote, unless it's for the "perfect" candidate, who'd rather see Republicans destroy the country even faster, than to soil their perfect souls casting a vote for imperfection.

--------

These two childish extremes BOTH need to take responsibility, and we need to GROW UP and start finding other candidates NOW who will challenge Hillary Clinton IN THE PRIMARY, where it can actually make a difference.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2013-11-12 11:41
Glad we can agree on SOMETHING, Billy Bob :)

I first registered as a democrat in 1966, and have gotten so disgusted with their party politics that i've been planning to reregister as "unaffiliated", just to join millions of others to make a point against party politics.

The more I hear about Elizabeth Warren, though-especial ly the possibility that she'lll run for president, and especially since it's fairly certain that Hilary wil-I'm going to remain a Democrat, at least for the time being.

Amazingly, from what I know about Warren (and i'll need to learn a lot more to believe she won't follow the typical path our recent Dem presidents have) I could conceivably become and activist in the party for the first time since the Iraq invasion, when my local (Josephine County Oregon Democrats) REFUSED TO TAKE A STAND on imminent, Bush Party act of war. They overwhelmingly voted not to mention ONE WORD about Iraq in their official platform, because they "were afraid of losing votes" :(

Just to restore our normal disagreements, I object to your oh-so-one-way accusation that anyone who doesn't agree with your meme on how to we should vote, to the extent of calling us "childish", I find your accusations rather ironic.

Continued
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2013-11-12 11:43
Under your "My way or two wrong ways" classifications , I fall into number 2. I have not voted for a democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton. I appreciate your calling me, and others rated #2 in your evaluations "Lily-white". Would that this were true.

What's really ironic is that, in the past, you've accused me of being a conservative, maybe even a conservative REPUBLICAN, simply because i don't follow the BILLY BOB Party Line! Now, apparently I"m so damn liberal I won't vote for Hilary Clinton, the Wall Street, Big Corporation, War monger candidate. Make up your mind, young man. And try to stop calling your elders "childish"!
Y'know, I am willing to let you express your opinions on these issues without flipping out. I must say, however, that I disagree. By admitting that you're going to vote for Hilary, and also stating

"# Billy Bob 2013-11-11 19:50
Elizabeth Warren would be my 1st pick for our next President (flaws and all). Shillary wouldn't even be in my top 20."
You're showing that you're one of the reasons we're having a lot of our current problems with both Democrats AND Republicans. Too many people share your self fulfilling prophecy. As long as we keep on keeping on voting for the lesser of two evils (in this case, Hilary), we'll keep on suffering under same old same old corrupt politicians.

continued
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2013-11-12 11:43
I fear that you're representative of so many meek, fearful voters that we're likely to be stuck in this lesser of two evil rut until so many people are suffering from our current political structure that they have to bring their guns, rocks and clubs into the streets of washington.

Me? I'd rather vote for actual CHANGE. ELIZABETH WARREN might well represent that change. I can only hope.

Cheers.
 
 
-2 # sayenitnow 2013-11-11 09:50
Thank you for reminding the anti "evil Hillary?" posters that progressives will only have a willing partner in the White House if it's Dem. The Dem with the best chance winning a race against the Gop and possible third party candidate is Hillary Clinton. I think a reality check is in order here. We should know by now that compromise however ugly at times, is necessary in a democracy. Without compromise we have the status quo. Too much lose, too much too risk. The Supreme Court is at stake, Health Care is at stake, Women's health rights are at stake, Voting rights are at stake. Much more...Yeah and I'm not willing to cast a vote that throws the baby out....!
 
 
-2 # RODNOX 2013-11-11 12:41
everything you say is " at stake " here is already lost---and Hillary is just one cause of that
 
 
-2 # RODNOX 2013-11-11 12:38
unfortunetly this country has been bitch slapped so much that most have a knee jerk reaction to go right---this is how faux progressives get anywhere----sta nd back and observe---OBAMA --CENTER RIGHT CORPORITIST---y et identified as progressive/lib eral/leftist/et c. Hillary---SAME- ---everyone else who has paid to get to the top--SAME--thes e people are not dems---all but SANDERS-GRAYSON -NADER--KUCINIC H and a few others are all different stages of FASCIST RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS----
 
 
-4 # BKnowswhitt 2013-11-10 16:32
Way too early to say. I remember her losing her cool saying that only she and John McCain were qualified to run the military. In a subordinate role o.k. oh yeah she had that already ... as pres .. i think I know why Bill fucked around ... I never liked men who wanted or tried to act like a man ...
 
 
-9 # BKnowswhitt 2013-11-10 16:34
Er sorry i meant to say never liked women who tried to act like a man .. she's no where near as bright as bill .. who if he ran again i would go out and campaign for ..... he was a great communicator .. obama one of the worst communicators ... and bill left of center would be great again for this country and The Economy .....
 
 
+1 # BKnowswhitt 2013-11-10 16:51
i contradicted my self. If bill clinton could run again here's what we'd have. A guy who could stand up and explain why we needed a social safety net, who could champion health care and handle the idiot talking heads on the right, he was brilliant explaining things about anything so the average uneducated joe could understand without being condescending. This country would have a full recovery by then .. what's more likely coming down the pike is big money will cause it to be close again .. and dempuke obama will have no left legacy just cause the campaign winner next time to talk 'fiscal responsiblity' etc and get another right winger in the white house and we'll all be back to square one once again ... this is what's coming folk!!!
 
 
0 # RODNOX 2013-11-11 12:46
best look around a bit--i supported bill too--untill i saw what he was party too---helping wall street screw the world---bilderb ergs---cozy with military behind closed doors----look at all the dirt hes up too now---helping screw HAITI for one----should name him BACK DOOR WILLIE now----still slick though
 
 
+6 # RMDC 2013-11-10 16:45
Hillary may run but she will be easily defeated. There are just very few democrats left who will vote for any candidate soaked in the stench of Bill Clinton. Obama is hated largely because he is a politician cut out of Bill Clinton cloth.

Clinton's policy of triangulation -- trying to do the repbulican's work for them -- is just no longer acceptable.

A Clinton stiker barely got elected in Virginia even though he was running against a troglodyte Teabagger. Progressive Democrats won in New York and a few other places. If the democrats don't put up a true progressvie, the rebpulcans will take the election because most democrats will stay home or vote third party. The stench of Bill Clinton can no longer be endured.
 
 
+6 # m... 2013-11-10 17:19
WARREN-SANDERS 2016........... .............!
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-11-10 18:40
Sounds great. Now, do you have any ideas about candidates who actually plan to run?
 
 
+2 # m... 2013-11-10 23:15
Yes I do... but none of them are good... ;)
 
 
+3 # PlowsharesCathy 2013-11-11 06:11
I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. I want a president who will work for the interests of the United States, not someone bowing down to the Israel lobby. I believe that the people in the US government using their influence to further Israel's war crimes expansionism, are guilty of war crimes themselves and of treason.
 
 
0 # RODNOX 2013-11-11 12:52
pains me to see how few on this website gave you a positive for your comment---that little terrorist state has more to do with world strife than most can conceive......t hey may control our govt but watch closely--they are a miniture version of the US--what they do and experience---we do too---no wonder many are leaving israel----this is NOT about jews--this is about ZIONAZIs...
 
 
+4 # Dennyc 2013-11-11 10:13
Ms. Clinton revealed her inner self in a television interview with Charlie Rose when she scornfully and smugly laughed at the outcome of a possible war with Iran, the implication being we would turn them into debris laden marmalade. No thanks. We have enough monsters with their hands on the controls.
 
 
+1 # zee 2013-11-11 12:39
Media said Hill was “Most Formidable Frontrunner” in 2008~~WRONG! So just stop it & write some news. Klobuchar, Warren, Gillibrand..all more honorable than bruised, obese [lacks self-discipline ] & nauseating liar. Get ethics in Wh Hse not passive robotic grifter dope & corporate asskisser who stomachs a cheating husband for 40 yrs…& got busted stealing Wh Hse furniture & art! Aaack!
 
 
+4 # Margery 2013-11-11 13:26
Amid all the hype for Hillary can we take a moment to realize this woman is a former Monsanto lawyer? As such she is a walking disaster for Democracy. Elizabeth Warren or Wendy Davis would be much better and lets retire the Clintons finally since their methods of government has brought us to where we are today. Had the Democrats not bent over backwards for the Clinton solutions to the current problems we would have Single Payer Healthcare and the idiot TeaParty dumb guys would be a small blip in history.
 
 
0 # zee 2013-11-11 14:07
Election's on 2016! Shut up & pen a topical story~~you're in the NEWS biz. No1 wants a liar who allows a cheating husband for 35 yrs in Oval Office. Bill Hillbillary bragged about Obama: “A few yrs ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Both racist pigs need to be ignored [I'm Dem for 20+ yrs.]
 
 
0 # EmilyCragg 2013-11-11 16:22
http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flashback-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation-for-lying-unethical-behavior-conspiracy-to-violate-the-constitution/

How IN THE WORLD ANYBODY! can consider this female nepotist, this corporate corrupted wannabe AS ANY LEADER OTHER THAN DOGCATCHER, I simply cannot fathom!

EEWC
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN